Lik-Sang Is Out Of Business

AKAImBatman writes "Thanks to Sony's heavy handed tactics, popular game importer Lik-Sang is closing its doors. All Lik-Sang customers are having their orders cancelled and refunded. Any attempt to place a new order redirects your web browser to the news of Lik-Sang's demise." From the announcement: "'Today is Sony Europe victory about PSP, tomorrow is Sony Europe's ongoing pressure about PlayStation 3. With this precedent set, next week could already be the stage for complaints from Sony America about the same thing, or from other console manufacturers about other consoles to other regions, or even from any publisher about any specific software title to any country they don't see fit. It's the beginning of the end... of the World as we know it', stated Pascal Clarysse, formerly known as the Marketing Manager of Lik-Sang.com. 'Blame it on Sony. That's the latest dark spot in their shameful track record as gaming industry leader. The Empire finally won, a few dominating retailers from the UK probably will rejoice the news, but everybody else in the gaming world lost something today.'" Many thanks to Sony for ruining it for the rest of us. I hope that your business model makes up for the customer goodwill you're lighting on fire today. Update: 10/24 21:34 GMT by Z : Eurogamer has Sony's response to Lik-Sang's accusations.

BOYCOTT SONY!

[AKAImBatman (238306)]

To add to my submission, I think we should outright BOYCOTT Sony. As consumers, we've put up with rootkits, massive price increases, being treated like criminals when we're customers, faulty products, and just about every other mistreatment imaginable. Well, I think it's ENOUGH. I draw the line at shutting down a perfectly legal and useful business.

If you're not already Boycotting Sony for their misdeeds, then I call upon you to stop purchasing ALL Sony products. Yes, that means no PSP, PS3, or PS2 stuff. (The PS2 and PSP games can be purchased used without majorly impacting a boycott, but it's better if anything Sony sits on the shelf.) More importantly, though, we have to hit Sony where it hurts! Which means no more Sony movies [sonypictures.com], music [sonymusic.com], and television [sonypictures.com].

That means that we can't watch, purchase, or rent popular movies like:

• James Bond: Casino Royale
  
• Open Season
  
• Monster House
  
• Spiderman 3
  
• Stranger Than Fiction
  
• The Da Vinci Code
  
• Zoom
  

It also means that we need to stop watching popular television shows like:

• The King of Queens
  
• JEOPARDY!
  
• Wheel of Fortune
  
• Ripley's Believe It or Not!
  
• Dragon Tales
  
• The Boondocks
  

Understandably, some of these are very entertaining pictures/shows that I (and I'm sure many others) would enjoy seeing. Unfortunately, a complete boycott means that every Sony product line must fail. So I ask you all, politely and humbly, will you boycott Sony? There is no excuse for their behavior, and I cannot in good conscience allow my dollars to support that behavior. If you feel the same way, then I would ask you to LOUDLY proclaim that you are joining the boycott.

Thank you.

P.S. If anyone has Sony contact info, please post it. A flood of angry but well-worded letters will help Sony pay attention to our displeasure.

P.P.S. Read the Lik-Sang announcement for yourself! Apparently, Sony Europe's execs are big customers of Lik-Sang!

/End Soapbox

AND YET YOU HAVEN'T CANCELLED YOUR PS3 PREORDER...

[by Anonymous Coward]

Love,

Kieth (Manager EB Games #47564)

Boycotts don't work

[Robmonster (158873)]

Boycotts are often called for but they just don't work.

Even though this move against Lik-Sang is outrageous, it turns out that people just don't care enough to deprive themselves of entertainment.

What's the alternative?

[Kadin2048 (468275)]

Boycotts don't work because consumers don't like giving stuff up.

In this case, you could always just pirate it instead of buying. Still gives them mindshare, but no profits. Seem to me that's the only way you'd ever accomplish a Sony boycott.

Consumers are sheep; unless provided an equally-attractive alternative, they'll never really give anything they enjoy up, no matter how repugnant its production might be.

Re:What's the alternative?

[iainl (136759)]

Good idea - could you give me a torrent link where I could download a PS3?

Re:What's the alternative?

[Jerf (17166)]

Consumers are sheep;

People who call other people "sheep" because they don't share your priorities are arrogant assholes.

"People" have no reason to know Lik-Sang is being shut down, and no reason to care. Seriously, why should they? What priority should Lik-Sang displace? How well things are at work? Should I take time off from spending time with my family or any number of other things in my life to Take Action(TM) about a small company that I've only barely heard of?

You can't care about everything. Shall I call you a sheep because you don't devote 10 hours a week to the plight of African diamond miners? Or because you didn't shout out to Breast Cancer awareness in your post?

Any given human can only worry about so many things at a time. Many, many, many of them are way more important than whether Sony is shutting down Lik-Sang. It may be an interesting story and maybe some people should work on it, but calling people "sheep" because they can't keep up with every sin, both real and perceived, of every corporation they deal with is just arrogant.

I guarantee you you don't even meet your own standard for "non-sheepness", if you took the time to articulate it. (Of course, most people who toss around the word "sheep" seem to simply know they aren't a sheep.) The reason I can guarantee this is that, for example, to explain this situation to my wife who probably isn't even aware that games are imported because they are never released here, let alone who Lik-Sang is, would take several minutes. In order to worry about all the things of a similar magnitude in life that occur would take way more than 100% of your life. We are not sheep for not spending more than 100% of our time worrying about your particular choice of sins in the world.

Re:What's the alternative?

[giorgiofr (887762)]

Wait a second there... you are partially right, but you went too far (just like he did). It's true that you can't care about everything; but being a sheep is not about not "keeping up with every sin, both real and perceived, of every corporation they deal with": it is about knowing about a problem but not bothering to THINK about it and DECIDE whether it's necessary to act. You're not a sheep if you don't know the details of this Sony case or don't care about Sony at all. You are, on the other hand, a sheep if you know that company XYZ is doing something you dislike but you just go with the flow and meh your way through the problem (neologism! you heard it here first, folks). You are a sheep if you think your political system is broken but don't take the time to at least think about such problem and try to devise a solution; and at the end of the day you vote for your usual party while muttering that everybody sucks anyway.
Come on, you know the sheep. Judging by your post you are not one, but you see them around you. You know who they are and why some people call them so.
Oh and finally. I might not meet my own standards for non-sheepness but at least I can look at myself and assess my sheep level, fully aware of the possibility of there being a problem with it. This does not stop me from seeing other people's sheepness, and in fact it makes it easier.

Re:What's the alternative?

[-Neko- (67564)]

I am sure Nike really miss the few hundred dollars you'd spend on them, compared to the many billions they make off everyone else.

At the end of the day, you can't effectively boycott a company which takes in so much cash per week as Nike, Sony or so on. You may win morally and feel nice inside but they will never see any impact on their bottom line. They probably own a bunch of brands you buy anyway, you just don't know it. It's pretty hard to do when these companies are so big and have so many assets and sub-brands.

However, doing it to the PS3 might be easy; you can make Sony Computer Entertainment look up from their beanbag chairs, by making the Wii the top selling console this Christmas. Or the XBox360. It won't take much. Or do things like buy a DS instead of a PSP - but, well, everyone is doing that ANYWAY. Your choice.

That would be easy to do given their problems with production we so hear rumors about. It only takes a hiccup over that holiday buying period for them to take notice. After years of domination of the console market, why not just show that over 2 or 3 weeks, you can knock them off the CHARTS (not lose them money or mindshare..) and stop them being so smug? Then they get the moral message of it.

You can buy a PS3 after Christmas if you are not still too disgusted with them.

Depriving them of money or mindshare isn't the answer, making a recordable, long-lived statement is, and I think having them lose the holiday season top-seller contest is a prime target.

Re:What's the alternative?

[Em Adespoton (792954)]

I had someone explain to me once why an American Sony boycott wouldn't work: Sony already makes most of their money in Asia. If the *Japanese* boycotted Sony en masse, you'd see the company making some changes. The US market for Sony comes after the Asian and European markets -- it's a dumping market, really; just like US products get dumped in other parts of the world.

Re:Are you a walking billboard?

[bynary (827120)]

In most cases, the old adage "you get what you pay for" holds true.

I completely disagree with you on this point. The best pair of running shoes I ever purchased was $15 at Shopko. My track coach gave everyone a list of criteria to meet for an approved pair of shoes. He personally checked each pair and used the pair I bought as the example of a good running shoe.

What are sunglasses for? Shielding your eyes from the sun. A pair of $5 glasses with a high SPF rating does just as good of a job blocking out UV as a $200 pair of designer sunglasses. Ray Bans and Oakleys don't have some magical properties that make them better at blocking out UV. They just might look cooler and be made from more expensive materials (even then it's probably the difference between $1.00 of platinum and $0.05 of aluminum).

...I resent advertising for them.

This I agree with wholeheartedly. I buy most of my clothing from the discount rack at Old Navy (because their clothes just happen to be designed for people with my body type). I don't buy anything from them full price. However, I own nothing that actually broadcasts "Old Navy". Just like you, I don't feel like being a walking billboard for any company.

Re:Are you a walking billboard?

[DNS-and-BIND (461968)]

Let me tell you a story about cheap sunglasses. I was exporting a container of them from China to America. I asked the Chinese factory guy if they had UV protection. Well, there was some problem translating this, so we go back and forth for a while. Finally, the Chinese factory guy gets it, and his face lights up and he says, "Yes! We have sticker!"

True story.

Re:Are you a walking billboard?

[nuintari (47926)]

Or how about sunglasses? Yes, Oakleys and Ray Bans are overpriced, but they actually are much better sunglasses than the kind on the spinning rack at the local drug store.

I wear presctiption sunglasses, which cost a small fortune, stand up to anything, and have to be comfortable because I can't see shit without them. Let me assure you, Oakleys and Ray-Bans are _not_ a high quality product. Better than the spinny rack? Yes. But that doesn't mean they aren't junk.

Re:Are you a walking billboard?

[fossa (212602)]

"A good pair of running shoes is going to set you back at least $100, no matter what. If you buy anything cheaper, you're simply risking injury."

It is simply untrue to claim that inexpensive running shoes come with the risk of injury. Sorry to drift off-topic, but this is an oft repeated falsehood that I once believed myself, and I'd like to share what I've since learned. Review literature on the subject concludes that the only reliable predictors for injury are experience level, training load, and history of previous injury. In particular, a sudden increase in training load often results in injury, and one might speculate that beginners are more prone to this error.

There is no evidence that cushioning or motion control technologies have done anything to reduce the incidence of injury over the years. Indeed, some groups, including westerners on concrete, run in bare feet, without obviously higher injury rates than those wearing "good" running shoes, though peer-reviewed studies are scarce. The biomechanics of running and running injuries are simply not well understood. As such it's difficult to claim that any particular design can reduce injury rates.

Re:Are you a walking billboard?

[0xdeadbeef (28836)]

Funny that, I've been told by some rather serious runners to avoid expensive shoes, because they're gimmicks.

But you miss the point entirely. The purpose of the branding is to illustrate your disposible income as a measure of status. The less sophisticated the audience, the more obvious the branding. That's is why the logos on clothing for high-schoolers is far more prominent than the clothing for adults. When you buy Oakleys, or Air Jordans, or whatever today's fad is, you are quite literally paying for the right to display how much money you have to lose.

Re:Are you a walking billboard?

[DNS-and-BIND (461968)]

I work in China, manufacturing garments (management...DUH! People have accused me of being a factory worker...who speaks native level English...and posts on Slashdot...anyway). It does indeed cost quite a bit more to manufacture a quality shoe. You are correct that the factory cost and the retail price are quite a bit different. However, you forget to factor in such factors as research & development (yes running shoes require R&D), the cost of advertising, shipping, and so on. When you buy a brand name, you're not just buying leather and laces, you're also buying the brand...by displaying its logo, you are enhancing your status among your peers. This is why brand name merchandise is so much more profitable than other types. I could show you a shoe equal to the one that you have, at half the price, and you wouldn't buy it because you'd think that there's something wrong with it because the price is too low. Seen it happen a million times, and I've lost contracts because my prices weren't high enough.

Re:They are everyone.

[Some_Llama (763766)]

"Most people do not care about ethical dilemmas if taking the 'high road' costs more than a few dollars extra."

That's easy to say, but try working a low wage job and supporting a family, it's not that people don't care about these issues, it's that they can't afford to care.

I have a wife and 3 children.

I'd rather not shop at walmart, but I can't afford to spend 100 dollars more per month by going "the high road".

I'd rather animals are treated humanely and then killed humanely for their meat, but I can't afford 5 dollars a pound for hamburger or 7 dollars a pound for chicken.

Maybe what we need to do is rally around higher pay standards for the middle and lower classes, then we CAN make decisions that are the morally correct ones...

Re:Boycotts don't work

[Red Flayer (890720)]

Boycotts are often called for but they just don't work.

Wrong -- insufficiently complete boycotts don't work. Boycotts are very effective provided that:

1. Enough people participate to make the cost of ignoring the boycott greater than the cost savings or revenue increase associated with whatever actions prompted the boycott.

2. The company that is being boycotted sees the boycott as being a long-term issue.

The following factors increase the likelihood of a boycott working against Sony:

1. Sony depends on volume sales for profitability. Their non-unit costs are significant (advertising, marketing, admin costs, etc) which means that they need to sell a lot of units of each product to make a profit.
2. Sony is aware of the bad rep they are accumulating. Should that rep cross over into the mainstream, it could _really_ hurt their bottom line. Companies with already-weak public images are more vulnerable to boycotts.

There are some factors that help Sony withstand a boycott:

1. Most of their products are non-commodity goods. One cannot simply substitute movie X from Sony with movie Y from Columbia/Tristar in the market. This is true of any of their IP-derived products (music, games, etc), so consumers are less likely to go without the Sony product. This is especially true with the game industry, as the field of competitors is very small.
2. Sony is an extremely large company with deep pockets. It's quite possible that they can weather any smaller boycott of a few years duration (and given the short-term memory of at least the American consumer, even a few years is more than enough).
3. Sony is a global corporation, and the larger the scale of a boycott, the harder it is to pull off.

I'm sure I've missed a lot of factors, but it is a fallacy to believe that boycotts don't work. Any company that ignores their customer base for too long will inevitably lose market share (unless, of course, there are market inequities (like monopoly status for IP distribution)) to their competitors.

My point is that a boycott WILL help (if only only a small scale), as long as it's a vocal boycott that hits the press. What's needed is a Sony insider to write a scathing tell-all book that makes the non-fiction best-seller list :).

Re:Boycotts don't work

[quantum bit (225091)]

As someone who has worked on many of them over the last 5-6 years, I can tell you that the Vaio (at least the laptop line) was never a great product.

Re:BOYCOTT SONY!

[_xeno_ (155264)]

It also means you can't buy any music by "Weird Al" Yankovic. His label, Volcano [wikipedia.org], is a subsidiary of Sony BMG. I'm sad to say I didn't realize this until after I got "Straight Outta Lynwood" home and noticed that, below the sticker that read "this CD does not conform to CD Audio specifications and may not play in all CD players" there was a Sony BMG logo.

So if you want to boycott Sony, you also have to boycott "Weird Al," something Slashdot may not enjoy doing [slashdot.org].

Re:BOYCOTT SONY!

[AKAImBatman (238306)]

So if you want to boycott Sony, you also have to boycott "Weird Al," something Slashdot may not enjoy doing.

I think we all need to send a polite letter to Mr. Yankovic that we cannot purchase his music because of his distributor. With any luck, that will add a semi-important figure to the cause.

Re:BOYCOTT SONY!

[Wilson_6500 (896824)]

Sometimes I think it just would make more sense to pirate Al's music, then just mail him a check. Let him take care of distributing it.

Re:BOYCOTT SONY!

[Dare nMc (468959)]

It also means you can't buy any music by "Weird Al" Yankovic.

Does that also mean no Apple, Dell, HP, or Toshiba Laptops which use sony manufactured batteries?

Re: "Does not conform to CD Audio...."

[twistedsymphony (956982)]

No it's says that because it's a "Dual-Disc" release meaning it's a double sided "flipper" disc with one side Audio CD and the other side DVD (either DVD Audio or DVD Video). these discs change the location of the audio layer from a depth of 1.2mm to .6 mm which means some players will have trouble reading it... hence the warning.

Re:

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

As consumers, we've put up with rootkits, massive price increases, being treated like criminals when we're customers, faulty products, and just about every other mistreatment imaginable.

Not to mention acting like criminals themselves by lying about the their exploding batteries [cnn.com]. Most recently, they pulled batteries from their VAIO notebooks after trying to pin the blame on Dell, Toshiba, HP, etc. They had to admit that it was their own fault. Sorta. But then they said "Well, it could happen if the user bu

Re:BOYCOTT SONY!

[xtracto (837672)]

Ah yeah, exactly the same Sony that I started boycotting when the rootkit fiasco was unveiled, I followed that quite close and even made a list of the affected discs [slashdot.org].
Unfortunately I had just bought some sony brand earplugs (I like them because they are in-ear but not as expensive as the shure E3c [or something like that]). After some time I had to buy replacement for the replaceable buds but sony wanted to rape me with £10 for I believe 2 pairs.

I held my boycott and bought some from a chinnese guy on Ebay, just for £5 for something like 6 pairs black and white :).

I just bought a DVD player, and I chose a Phillips (I believe Sony electronics are pretty overpriced, not as Bose of course but they are still overpriced).

I have explained my girlfriend about Sony practices and at least she will think again before buying Sony (although she still wants that iPod... even if there are other better mp3 players I have not been able to convince her).

I dont buy movies, I rent them via lovefilm and I seldom go to the cinemas, just when some nice "independent" film is screened.

I will buy a Wii, because mmm because I am not attracted to the othe 2 systems. Oh, and for all of you who believe that the PS3 will be incrdible expensive, just the other time I was showing my girlfriend the differences in prices (in the wikipedia), the price of the ps3 for Mexico is: MXN$7,999 ($640 US) MXN$9,499 ($760 US). Can you believe that shit? $760 US. I think that the market in Mexico for it is what, 2 persons? (well, lets say Fox children and the new president children). Of course you still have to buy the $99 US for the games... that is INSANE.

Yeah, I agree with the Sonny boycott. I hope more and more people realize that corporations are consuming their rights and start fighting the only way they can to stop them (no, political movements and any other kind of government related tactics wont work as corporations already spoon feed politicians, no I am not paranoid enough, I am from and lived in a country where corrupt government is blatant and the rich are the ones that control the goverment with the Mordida).

Sony hasn't wanted our business for years

[Russ Nelson (33911)]

Sony hasn't wanted our business for years. Look at all the restrictions they put on their products: the weird file formats, the proprietary "Memory Stick", the DRM on their media products, the rootkit, and ..... Mission Impossible 3.

WTF!?!?!

[trdrstv (986999)]

Sony's sues someone out fo business for selling their official products?

Why they hate the grey market.

[Kadin2048 (468275)]

They were bypassing Sony's "official" channels and hurting their ability to price discriminate.

The 'grey market' is an equalizer; it's a basically unified marketplace that defies the attempts of the monopolists to charge different prices for the same thing in different places, by taking advantage of the cheap global transportation that we're blessed with today.

This is why it's so hated.

Re:Why they hate the grey market.

[czarangelus (805501)]

I notice that corporations want all the benefits of globalization (ie: cheap labor) with none of the deteraments (cheap imported products.)

DAMNIT TO FUCKING HELL!!!!

[mrchaotica (681592)]

Sorry, I had to say it. That is all.

Re:correct

[Hijacked Public (999535)]

Photography has had a grey market for years and manufacturers have more or less resigned themselves to its existence. They take specific steps to protect their business arrangements, Canon USA will not provide warranty service for a non-Canon USA imported item, but they generally do not pressure retailers.

So camera manufacturers have figured out how to live with it, I'd like to see why Sony has gotten the idea that it is better to sue it out of existence.

Don't understand

[pubjames (468013)]

I really don't understand how Sony can do this kind of thing. Isn't this the kind of thing the World Trade Organisation is supposed to prevent? I thought that there was supposed to be essentially "free trade" between countries in the WTO. Or is it only free trade that benefits corporations that's allowed, not that which benefits us lowly consumers...

Re:Don't understand

[rkcallaghan (858110)]

pubjames wrote:

Or is it only free trade that benefits corporations that's allowed, not that which benefits us lowly consumers...

See, you do understand.

~Rebecca

Way to go Sony.

[dpaluszek (974028)]

You are only hurting your business, and complementing your competition.

Just like the above posters, I will not recommend nor buy anything from Sony. They are a hack company, and I'm done with them.

Sad day for gamers everywhere

[TheBiGW (982686)]

This is a sad day for gamers everywhere. Lik-sang were one of the finest gaming websites anywhere in the world. Lets hope the founders setup another website similar to lik-sang very shortly.

I wonder if play-asia.com are worried?

I bloody hope Play-Asia aren't next...

[Channard (693317)]

.. since I really don't give a monkeys about the PSP, but it's where I've had a bunch of region-free 360 games [play-asia.com] from for half the UK shelf price. Microsoft have shown no sign of legal action against them yet, but given that Play Asia also sell Sony stuff, I'm a little worried.

This isn't the first time Lik-Sang have run into trouble. They changed hands a year or two ago when they were being sued for selling mod-chips. I thought they'd at least be safe now, but no. Perhaps Sony should have funnelled the money they spent on the lawsuit into making their SoundStage software half-decent and producing an MP3 player that doesn't use their shitty ATRAC format.

Well, crap.

[Rob T Firefly (844560)]

I may not have been the biggest Lik-Sang customer ever, in fact apart from a few relatively small purchases I mainly used their site for window-shopping, drooling over all the stuff I couldn't afford yet but wanted to save up for. They were often the only way to avoid the cesspits of eBay for certain things, and they always went above and beyond in terms of customer service for me.

Sure, they were a Hong Kong import/export warehouse who wrote websites in broken English, but they really seemed to care about making people happy more than the rest of them that just want to shift merchandise. They had news. They had reviews. They had style.

I feel like I've just lost the modern Internet version of the classic little mom-and-pop shop that always had the coolest stuff.

clarification please

[free space (13714)]

I read the linked articles and I can't get it..is this a copyright infringement lawsuit or an equipment safety one?

Sony keeps talking about voltage levels and such but the suit is always labelled as "intellectual property". Which is it?

Also, in the case it's IP, doesn't the doctrine of first sale allow anyone to resell the copyrighted stuff any way he or she wishes?

Just A Prelude Perhaps

[blueZhift (652272)]

Too bad for Lik-Sang. They sold a lot of cool stuff and was definitely near the top of the list if you wanted to import consoles or games. While one can understand Sony's behaviour from a certain point of view, it still seems really odd to go after a company that actively promotes their products. If Sony is in such bad shape, that the perceived losses due to Lik-Sang's activities are significant to them, then I wonder if the end of Lik-Sang is a prelude to the end of Sony if the PS3 transition goes poorly. Just how close to the edge of failure is Sony? Will Korean archrival Samsung come in and buy what's left if Sony totally tanks? Yeah, that Samsung part is total wild outta the a** speculation, but it is widely known that Sony is not in the best of shape.

Fishy?

[muel (132794)]

Nothing in this news report explains exactly why Lik-Sang is closing. It makes mention of action against the reselling of PSPs, but it sells plenty of Nintendo hardware and other systems' software...IANAL, but I don't see any precedents set in the most recent ruling that affect software (nor do I see Nintendo legal action brewing on the horizon). Is this a case of Sony being aggressive behind the public's back and ordering Lik-Sang to shut its doors without saying why to avoid future action? Is Lik-Sang using this opportunity to dump the business and divert potentially angry customers at a red herring? This story is dying for more research and explanation.

Re:Fishy?

[Jasin Natael (14968)]

How about, "The kind of world that would harm us for doing something harmless, that helps people get what they want and are willing to pay for, is no world that we want to do business in. And the chance of us losing our savings and the shirt off our back in the next lawsuit are a bit too scary for us to sleep well at night." Just conjecture, but it's how I might feel in their situation...

Double standards and stupid

[Tellarin (444097)]

Sony suing Lik-Sang is one of the most stupid things I've seen a company do.

And besides that, it is also a obvious example of double standards. Even Sony directors were huge clients of Lik-Sang.

For example (as stated in the note):
- Ray Maguire (Managing Director, Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd)
- Alan Duncan (UK Marketing Director, Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd)
- Chris Sorrell (Creative Director, Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd)
- Rob Parkin (Development Director, Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Limited)

I'll be avoiding Sony stuff after this...

Does anyone remember the old Sony?

[William_Lee (834197)]

The one that used to actually make great TVs, decent quality, feature rich consumer electronics devices, revolutionized and revived console gaming with the PSX, after revolutionizing portable music with the walkman?!

Didn't think so!

Ever since Sony acquired large media properties, the old Sony has been slowly dismantled piece by piece, as one horrible business decision after another is foisted on the consumer by the influence of the media divisions. If Sony wasn't so concerned about defending their media units (dvds,cds,film,etc.), we wouldn't have had things like the root kit fiasco, crippled MP3 players, and $600 gaming systems. We also might have a company that focuses on what they did best, delivering consumer electronics to a willing market.

This is just the latest in a string of strong arm tactics from a company that has lost its roots and its way. Apparently, hitting them in the wallet is the only chance of getting them to change. Maybe if the PS3 flops, they will be forced to reexamine their structure and strategy.

I'm all for the calls of BOYCOTT! I wasn't going to buy an overpriced PS3 anyways, but I'm not going to be buying other Sony products either.

Lik-Sang was a great, quirky outfit. They'll be sorely missed!

Re:Does anyone remember the old Sony?

[antifoidulus (807088)]

Actually a few days ago the Japanese minister of trade, Akira Amarai, publicly expressed similar concerns [theglobeandmail.com]. He is worried about Sony's long term competitiveness as well as the effect that the poor reputation of the Sony brand has had on all Japanese electronics in general.

Sony's Response

[miller60 (554835)]

Sony has provide a statement to GamesIndustry.biz [gamesindustry.biz] in which it proves it can be a sore winner by bashing Lik-Sang:

"Lik-Sang did not contest this case (i.e. they did not turn up and therefore incurred no legal costs). We have been awarded substantial costs against Lik-Sang which have not been paid," the statement claims. "We would therefore strongly deny that our actions have had anything to do with this website closing (we assume the legal entity is still trading), and would suggest that this release is sour grapes on behalf of Lik-Sang which is aimed to belittle Sony Computer Entertainment and the British judicial system that found against them."

The mention of "substantial costs" suggests the size of the judgment may have been what caused Lik-Sang to close its doors.

A boycott is inefficient, use YOUTUBE

[Archfeld (6757)]

and fight them with satire humor and MASS PUBLICITY. Someone talented needs to make a funny video that will get 10 million hits from google. THAT will hit Sony where it hurts, in the AD CAMPAIGN. They make money by default, give everyone somthing to laugh at them for and they will make another brand the COOL one and SONY will feel it. Not only would a VIRAL video hit them here in the US, but world wide exposure. The thing the CORPS fear the MOST IN THE WORLD IS INFORMATION. It is how they control us, using their game against them is the MOST EFFECTIVE TOOL.

Re:Would it be too harsh...

[trdrstv (986999)]

I would think that's too harsh. Then again Sony uses their own batteries, so sooner or later their business will go up in flames anyway.

Re:your all on crack

[pandrijeczko (588093)]

One second...

Would you like to just temporarily remove those Sony salesman's genitals from your mouth and repeat what you just said? I couldn't understand you the first time...

Re:Just what did they do anyway?

[Registered Coward v2 (447531)]

What did they do anyway that was so illegal or wrong?

I don't know about EU law, but US law makes it illegal to import trademarked items (even if they are real) for resale without the trademark owner's (written) permission 0 if the owner is a US citizen or corporation. In effect, corporations with US operations can limit the gray market importation of their products if they have a US subsidiary. There are personal use exemptions - i.e. I can buy a Rolex in Switzerland and bring it to the US; since Congress amended the law to allow for personal use exemptions after they discovered that people were buying things overseas for their own us only to be faced with customs seizure when they got back.

In effect, it protects the US company's ability to exclusively market their goods - whether or not that is a good thing is a different story. Of course, the US sub is glad to sell as much of its product to tourists or whomever and let the other region's distributes worry about their lost sales.

Of course, companies can limit the profitability of the gray market by minimizing price differences around the world, although currency fluctuations will always open up arbitrage opportunities; and selling products widely instead of limiting some to specific regions. They also try to limit it by not offering world wide warranties; or, in the case of some car manufacturers, requiring you to agree to not export the vehicle within a certain amount of time after purchase.

Re:Huh?

[Alsee (515537)]

why would a UK court support that position?

Actually that is still an open question of weather the courts would uphold or throw out Sony's charges against Lik Sang were the case to be actually litigated.

A large company does not need actually enforcable legal claims in order to litigate a small company (or individual) into bankruptcy. Especially when they start filing lawsuits in fucking foreign courts. Lik Sang is a small Hong Kong company with no presense in the UK, and suddenly they find someone stuffing in they face a notice ok UK court proceedings against them.

One option is to simply ignoring the foreign court which has no juridiction against them, but that would mean the litigating party (Sony) would win any and all court motions by un-opposed default, no matter how bogus those court motions were, and the attacked company would eternally face the propect that that foreign monstrosity of bogus default rulings would come crashing down on them somehow some day. The eternal headache of an entire foreign legal system trying every method to strike at their business deallings and to get at Lik Sang iself, to enforce the unopposed default rulings against them.

Another option when you get that notice of foreign court action against you, is to rush out and locate and pay for some lawyer in that country, and to rush to supply that lawyer with the facts and other information of the case, and have him do his research and work to figure out the proper legal strategy and response to the case, and to manage to get that appropriate response filed with the court within the deadline listed on the court papers. Meeting that court deadline is really rough under those circumstances. And then of course you have to pay a legal team to actually fight out that legal battle for however long. And when you *do* take this option, going into that foreign court to argue the case usually involves an implict legal acknowledgement that you *accept* that that court has jurisdiction over you. You generally cannot both argue that the case against you is bogus *and* argue that the court you are in has no authority over you in the first place. By accepting the court's jurisdiction you are placing your head on the chopping block for that random foriegn nation's entire legal system... and you have been running your business perfectly legally under your LOCAL laws and god-knows how many ways you can get screwed because that random foriegn legal system is different.

And then of court there's the real killer... you go ahead and prepare to fight the good fight in the UK court room.... and before the judge ever rules on anything... you find yourself served with simultaneous court filings in the US and in Austrailia and in France and in Germany and every other country where Sony has lawyers already on in retainer. At which point it's all over. It doesn't matter if your business is 100% legal and if you would win each and every court case. A tiny company like Lik Sang cannot possibly afford the cost of a score or more of lawyers fighting multiple simultaneous court battles in various countries across the globe for years on end.

Oh, and lets not forget that Sony has been bleeding Lik Sang for YEARS with a series of LEGALLY BOGUS international lawsuits. For example here [theregister.co.uk] is a lawsuit over mod chips where Lik Sang was forced to give up the court fight and paid Sony an undislosed extortion payment to survive.... yet here [slashdot.org] is an ultimate Australian ruling on the issue showing that the mod chips (and Lik Sang's business) was perfectly legal in Australia and proving that Lik Sang was bled legal costs fighting a case where Lik Sang was in the right and paid Sony settlement $$$ to escape for a court battle where Lik Sang was in the right.

Lik Sang's business annoys Sony. It doesn't matter if Sony has any valid legal claim or not, Sony is big enough that the