PS3 "Other OS" Removal Case Thrown Out by Judge

[Kapol]

Yea, screw the PS4. I'm not going to be buying it after all this BS.

Heh... hope you don't expect better EULAs from other console manufacturers because they're all pretty much the same.

I don't really, but Sony seems to be the leading company for cutting out features and just generally trying to screw over their customers. I have no doubt Microsoft or really any company would gladly do the same thing if they thought they could get away with it. But that's why you show the company they can't by not purchasing any more products in protest. Of course, the reality is that'd never work because there are still many more who don't care and will still gladly buy anything they put out.

 

[Pearwood]

"... unfortunately those emotions have no impact on the legal scope of things". That says it all really. This should never have gone to court, it's the kind of thing that should have been dealt with by going to Sony directly with petitions or whatever. You can't sort everything out in court, Sony had no legal obligation to keep Other OS going. Whether or not they had an obligation to their fanbase is something they obviously disagree with and I don't think dragging them to court over it will change their mind.

 

[I_am_acting]

since several of you seem unable to use google to do some basic legal research...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step-Saver_Data_Systems,_Inc._v._Wyse_Technology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_Corp._v._Quaid_Software_Ltd.


EULAs can be invalidated if a court finds them to violate existing laws, be they things like the DMCA or consumer rights laws. Unfortunately this judge doesn't seem to understand this

 

[Something Amyss]

Actually, that would be intentional disablement of functionality.

Don't worry, by the time the PS4 comes out, Apple will have made a successful lawsuit which will justify this, allowing Sony to do it with court approval.

Why Apple? These days, it's almost always them.

It's shit like this, Sony...

Does this apply to Europe too or would that be a separate legal case?

Last I checked, California doesn't have the right to decide international concerns.

 

[Something Amyss]

since several of you seem unable to use google to do some basic legal research...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step-Saver_Data_Systems,_Inc._v._Wyse_Technology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_Corp._v._Quaid_Software_Ltd.


EULAs can be invalidated if a court finds them to violate existing laws, be they things like the DMCA or consumer rights laws. Unfortunately this judge doesn't seem to understand this

There's a reason corporations want these suits happening in California.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

Fuck this, it's time to take it street side! These gaming companies just know they can screw us and then laugh at us when we attempt to be concerned. This is the final straw for me with Sony. Fuck Sony, Fuck the PS3, I'm boycotting their shit. Anyone else who is tired of being told what you can do with your EXPENSIVE ass product you BOUGHT. So I'm through giving Sony my money just so they can turn around and tell me I'm only leasing their software. This is BS. I guarantee if this was Apple or Microsoft, or any other company people loved to hate on, people would be shitting themselves into hysterics by now.

WE need to make it a united FRONT. Start some kind of REAL movement. Where the hell is Anonymous when it comes to shit like THIS?! Oh I guess they are off STILL trying to take down that Fox News broadcast they were supposed to do two months ago.

I liked running Linux because it allowed me to simply CUSTOMIZE my PS3 the way that made it more FUN and ENJOYABLE for ME. Not with Sony's uber limited wallpaper options, can't change the fucking font color or size, running every goddamn feature at start up, networking issues they've STILL not resolved with the onboard wifi... just a bevy of little things, plus being able to run more video and audio format types than Sony wanted me to (specifically ones that aren't BETTER than sony's).... I'm so infuriated. We need to storm game stores, take all the PS3's and Games toss them in a pile and light that shit up like old women did to Two Live Crew albums. ONLY then will Sony listen. Only then will they LEARN. Because they will BURY you if you go at them straight up because they have money. money is their power. But you hit them IN that money, you take their power.

Come on gaming community. Man the fuck up. Let's take them down... Take them down to Chinatown!

 

[KingofallCosmos]

EULA. It's almost an onomatopoeia, isn't it?

F'n disgusting.

 

[Chaos Marine]

This is why I'm a PC gamer. So much freedom.

 

[Michus]

This is exactly analogous to purchasing a microwave which, two years later, was firmware updated to remove the defrost function.

Judge is stupid, Sony is evil, news at eleven.

 

[Something Amyss]

And people still keep on buying. I really believe that even if a new EULA was to come out with the next firmware updates, that said you had to eat poo to keep using PSN, most consumers would eat the poo...

You're not going far enough. You KNOW there would be a bunch of threads on this site and others saying "I don't mind eating shit, I don't know why people are whining about it."

 

[OldNewNewOld]

So let me get this straight, that judge just stated that nobody actually owns a PS3, we all just bought a license to use it.

Says so right in the End User Licencing Agreement. Hell, the name should have been a give away.

It all depends on the country.
Maybe it's so in the USA, but in my country the End User Licencing Agreement has no legal power since you have to buy the product to be able to read it.

As far as I have noticed, the USA has one of the most fucked up legal systems in the world. Even the ancient Rome had a better legal system than the USA. :-X

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

So let me get this straight, that judge just stated that nobody actually owns a PS3, we all just bought a license to use it. I fear this decision is going to lead to worse things in the future.

In case you haven't noticed Eulas have been around for 30 years and they all pretty much say that you don't own it but merely a license to use it. The judge is simply restating the law as is hasn't been for the last 30 years or so.

They may have been around that long, but they've only been accepted for about 20 years -- and even then, only in the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit court of appeals, and only because there was a ruling in the late 80's that completely ignored both existing case law and, you know, the actual law, which they've been following ever since. I'm sure that the fact that the 9th circuit holds court in San Francisco, within shouting distance of Silicon Valley, has absolutely nothing to do with that. Anyway, the guy who said that if the case had been tried anywhere else in the country, this would not have flown was right; this is patently illegal, it's just that the judges in California have a blind spot when it comes to consumer rights, almost as big as the one the Supreme Court has in regards to dress code based gender discrimination. (No, your honor, the law does not say anything about it not being discrimination if it's "equally burdensome." Do I need to staple a copy of Title IX to your desk, so you have to look at it while we discuss this?)

 

[ZeZZZZevy]

...read the EULA. It's boring and full of legal jargon, but it is in fact important

Problem: Most EULA's have clauses in them that state that by merely glancing at the EULA you are accepting it. Even if you only read one letter the clause says that you accept the entirety of the agreement.

That really doesn't sound like it would stand up in court at all. But personally I'd rather be informed that I'm being screwed over rather than be surprised by it one day.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

...read the EULA. It's boring and full of legal jargon, but it is in fact important

Problem: Most EULA's have clauses in them that state that by merely glancing at the EULA you are accepting it. Even if you only read one letter the clause says that you accept the entirety of the agreement.

That really doesn't sound like it would stand up in court at all. But personally I'd rather be informed that I'm being screwed over rather than be surprised by it one day.

That's just it: they don't stand up under any reasonable legal scrutiny, even in the US. The problem is that they all have clauses in them that say any cases[footnote]assuming cases are even possible, as opposed to mediation[/footnote] will be heard in a specific state -- and that state is always somewhere in the 9th circuit's jurisdiction. The 9th circuit, which is liberal to a fault on absolutely every other issue, likes to back up EULAs, apparently for no other reason than Sillicon Valley is in their backyard. The supreme court has been consistently refusing to hear any cases on the matter, so right now the case law is a mess, with a different idea of what the law says in every district in the country.

 

[Albino Boo]

[
They may have been around that long, but they've only been accepted for about 20 years -- and even then, only in the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit court of appeals, and only because there was a ruling in the late 80's that completely ignored both existing case law and, you know, the actual law, which they've been following ever since. I'm sure that the fact that the 9th circuit holds court in San Francisco, within shouting distance of Silicon Valley, has absolutely nothing to do with that. Anyway, the guy who said that if the case had been tried anywhere else in the country, this would not have flown was right; this is patently illegal, it's just that the judges in California have a blind spot when it comes to consumer rights, almost as big as the one the Supreme Court has in regards to dress code based gender discrimination. (No, your honor, the law does not say anything about it not being discrimination if it's "equally burdensome." Do I need to staple a copy of Title IX to your desk, so you have to look at it while we discuss this?)

Ah yes the usual fashionable nonsense about evil corporations doing down poeple rights. Small but important point, you are factually incorrect both the 7th and 8th circuits have upheld eulas in the past and so has the Federal court of appeals. So do I need to staple check your facts to your forehead before you go mindlessly repeating other peoples opinions. Does it not occur to you that after 20 years (your figure after all) that they are still extant in the most litigious country in the world means they are pretty much a done deal?