PS3 "Other OS" Removal Case Thrown Out by Judge

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
PS3 "Other OS" Removal Case Thrown Out by Judge



A judge dismissed all counts except one of the class-action suit protesting the Other OS removal.

Many people bought the PlayStation 3 believing they had the ability to use it however they wished. The option to install a different operating system on the computer - known as the "Other OS" option - enabled users to put Linux or some other open source OS on their PS 3 and basically have a cheap but powerful CPU and GPU combo. Even the U.S. military realized that in March 2010 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/105767-U-S-Air-Force-Finishes-PS3-Supercomputer-of-Epic-Proportions], Sony permanently removed the "Other OS" feature from all PS3s with a firmware update needed to access the PlayStation Network. California resident Anthony Ventura filed a class-action lawsuit stating that the removal was an "intentional disablement of the valuable functionalities originally advertised as available." Today, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg dismissed all but one of Ventura's claims.

Judge Seeborg upheld Sony's right to enforce the End User License Agreement or EULA all customers agreed to upon purchasing the PlayStation 3. "These contracts specifically provide PS3 purchasers with a license, not an ownership interest, in the software and in the use of the PSN, and provide that SCEA has the right to disable or alter software features or terminate or limit access to the PSN, including by issuing firmware updates," Sony said in its motion to dismiss the suit.

But the sticking point seems to be the access to the PlayStation Network, and other features. Judge Seebold made it clear that customers who bought the PS3 with the Other OS option enabled could still use the console as is, they just wouldn't be able to access Sony's network as well as play new games or Blu-Rays.

"All of the counts are based on plaintiffs' fundamental contention that it was wrongful for Sony to disable the Other OS feature, or, more precisely, [to force PS3 owners to decide between] permitting the Other OS feature to be disabled or forgoing their access to the PSN and any other benefits available through installing," wrote Seebold in the dismissal. "The flaw in plaintiffs' [argument] is that they are claiming rights not only with respect to the features of the PS3 product, but also to have ongoing access to an internet service offered by Sony, the PSN."

The plaintiffs maintain that firmware update 3.21 doesn't just forbid access to the PSN, but that the main functions of the console are no longer viable. To wit, if you didn't update, you could no longer play new games, play games online, play new Blu-Rays, or even play some older Blu-Rays. So choosing not to update and keep the "Other OS" option alive means that no new purchases are possible and the usefulness of the product is seriously restricted.

At least the judge wasn't completely heartless. "The dismay and frustration at least some PS3 owners likely experienced when Sony made the decision to limit access to the PSN service to those who were willing to disable the Other OS feature on their machines was no doubt genuine and understandable," he said, but unfortunately those emotions have no impact on the legal scope of things.

"As a matter of providing customer satisfaction and building loyalty, it may have been questionable. As a legal matter, however, plaintiffs have failed to allege facts or to articulate a theory on which Sony may be held liable."

Sorry, people. It looks like console manufacturers can change their products' capabilities after you purchase them with no penalty whatsoever.

Source: Gamasutra [http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/39088/Judge_Dismisses_PlayStation_3_Other_OS_Removal_Class_Action_Suit.php]

Permalink
 

Macgyvercas

Spice & Wolf Restored!
Feb 19, 2009
6,103
0
0
So what Sony. We buy a "license"? Last I checked, my PS3 doesn't come with a due date for return. I'm not renting this thing, damnit!
 

Phishfood

New member
Jul 21, 2009
743
0
0
I kind of feel for sony with the whole piracy issue the Other OS feature had, but I mean come on. This is like Honda coming to my house and telling me I have to choose between the back seats and being able to go above 30mph. Its bullshit.
 

FogHornG36

New member
Jan 29, 2011
649
0
0
Sorry guys, if sony wants, they can just brick your ps3 when the ps4 comes out so you have no choice but to get a new one
 

Iglock

New member
Mar 23, 2009
50
0
0
It's shit like this, Sony...

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

RhombusHatesYou

Surreal Estate Agent
Mar 21, 2010
7,595
1,910
118
Between There and There.
Country
The Wide, Brown One.
Greg Tito said:
Sorry, people. It looks like console manufacturers can change their products capabilities after you purchase them with no penalty whatsoever.
Of course, going by the judges decision, that isn't what they did - they just forced consumers to choose which set of capabilities they wished to continue with... being a dick move but not illegal.
 

ZeZZZZevy

New member
Apr 3, 2011
618
0
0
Well this is poor customer service (as the judge remarked) but it's legal because they warned you of it in the EULA. Not sure if you can read the EULA online (probably but I haven't ever checked), but it might be something you want to start doing if you're using a console for such extra purposes.

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

Blackpapa

New member
May 26, 2010
299
0
0
FogHornG36 said:
Sorry guys, if sony wants, they can just brick your ps3 when the ps4 comes out so you have no choice but to get a new one
Hah, yes. They can legally screw you over. Make no mistake, if the revenue from pulling such a stunt would outweigh PR damage they would do so.

It's just that bricking hardware remotely isn't widely accepted yet. They're waiting for other players on the market to do this first so Sony doesn't get that much flak.

Remember how 8 years ago having always-online DRM in a single-player game was kind of like Saddam Husein getting a Nobel Peace Prize?

It just has to catch on, that's all.
 

ecoho

New member
Jun 16, 2010
2,093
0
0
this is why you file this shit anywere but cali. i swear if hed filed this in Texas or hell Colorado sony would be in for some deep shit.
 

FoolKiller

New member
Feb 8, 2008
2,409
0
0
Fuck... this judge is not going to be very popular... and he's a moron.

Taking away access to the PSN for continued use is fine as the PSN is Sony owned, but when you are forced to give up one original feature for another where you payed for both features is just plain wrong. If you could still play disc based games that would be fine, but what this judge did was set a very dangerous precedent.

He basically said that Sony (and by extension Microsoft) can do anything they like and we have no power over it.

captcha: issued snaker

Okay... thanks. I've been issued a weapon to kill Solid Snake!? :s
 

Albino Boo

New member
Jun 14, 2010
4,667
0
0
Obvious decision is obvious, its not like large multinational corporations don't have legal departments who write Eulas for living. Sorry, but not liking something doesn't mean you can sue, you actually have to legal grounds. No Judge is going to over turn the entire bases of the software industry because you think Sony are being mean
 

RhombusHatesYou

Surreal Estate Agent
Mar 21, 2010
7,595
1,910
118
Between There and There.
Country
The Wide, Brown One.
ecoho said:
this is why you file this shit anywere but cali. i swear if hed filed this in Texas or hell Colorado sony would be in for some deep shit.
If the EULA specifies that all legal action has to go via California state judiciary then he had no choice.

Yes, EULAs can do that in any country where they're accepted as binding legal documents (as any binding legal document can do the same).
 

FoolKiller

New member
Feb 8, 2008
2,409
0
0
RhombusHatesYou said:
Greg Tito said:
Sorry, people. It looks like console manufacturers can change their products capabilities after you purchase them with no penalty whatsoever.
Of course, going by the judges decision, that isn't what they did - they just forced consumers to choose which set of capabilities they wished to continue with... being a dick move but not illegal.
Which is where the judge is incorrect. By not taking away the other OS, backwards compatibility and so on they have also hindered its other original advertised function, which is play PS3 games.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
14,415
3,393
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
ecoho said:
this is why you file this shit anywere but cali. i swear if hed filed this in Texas or hell Colorado sony would be in for some deep shit.
Unlikely, more and more judges seem to be willing to accept those end user liscense agreements and a real contract, its bullshit.
 

ecoho

New member
Jun 16, 2010
2,093
0
0
FoolKiller said:
RhombusHatesYou said:
Greg Tito said:
Sorry, people. It looks like console manufacturers can change their products capabilities after you purchase them with no penalty whatsoever.
Of course, going by the judges decision, that isn't what they did - they just forced consumers to choose which set of capabilities they wished to continue with... being a dick move but not illegal.
Which is where the judge is incorrect. By not taking away the other OS, backwards compatibility and so on they have also hindered its other original advertised function, which is play PS3 games.
im sorry but i beleave a few states require that if you file in that state thats were they MUST be tried. you just need to know how to work the system:)(oh and dont file class action file civil and yeah they fucked:)
 

NinjaTigerXIII

New member
Apr 21, 2010
239
0
0
Obviously my statement was flawed, sorry for not being knowledgeable about everything. But then again this is the internet where people come to show their superiority over others. Back to the OP, still kinda sucks this ended up this way.