Sony Sued Over "Other OS" Option

[D_987]

I still don't get why people would want to install another OS. Again, you can always just buy a computer for that stuff.

Oh well. People surprise me sometimes.

Yeah, but computers take up more space, and are just as expensive. Imagine spending $600 on a PS3, and having no money left over for a computer, and having no room at your college desk because the PS3 is on the computer shelf.

That's positivity the worst excuse for such a complaint I've ever heard. You'd have to be an idiot to take along a PS3 and not a Laptop/computer to college in the first place. What's more - the PS3 can be placed on the floor, or better yet; not taken...

This whole thing is absolutely pathetic - and the lawsuit will fail. Why people would want to use Linux on a PS3 based on how abysmal the internet in general works on a PS3 is beyond me (apart from pirating games of course - the reason I assume Sony took it out in the first place).

 

[Flour]

the problem is that if you read the eula at the back of the manual sony reserves the right to change ANYTHING about how the ps3 operates at any time and without prior notice. if they continue to advertise the other os option after the fact then someone would have a lawsuit for false advertising, but as it stands there is no potential lawsuit.

of course there will be in the eu since they sue EVERY company every time anyone takes a shit but otherwise sony is within their rights.

In Europe the EULA is not a legal document.

 

[Kanima423]

Eh I never used it to begin with. It sounded a little weird to me ... I always figured that desktop in the corner worked well enough on its own ...

 

[Therumancer]

I have to agree here, Sony should have found ways to address the security issues (if they were being honest to begin with) and maintained this feature as it was a big selling point for some people.

What's more considering that content purchused from PSN requires one to be online, in practice they are also holding whatever you might have bought from them hostage as well. That means your PSOne Classics, Games, etc... all will cease to function if you can't connect. So basically by not complying your also losing all that money you potentially invested as well.

Honestly I think Sony needs to grow up, I'm already miffed about the fact that they don't have backwards compadibility on the new model PS-3s and such. Now they want to actively remove features?

I hope this paticular suit succeeds on principle, because I think it's anything but frivilous. I used Sony's default OS, but thought the abillity to change it was kind of cool. I can't really jump on the bandwagon having never bothered to exploit it though.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

I can only hope this makes it to a higher court that will rule EULAs aren't enforceable. Chances of that happening are close to 0 but a man can dream.

 

[v3n0mat3]

I always thought that the Install other OS function was rather stupid. In that the console could be more easily hacked. So, why Sony didn't rectify this situation earlier is beyond me. It's a HUGE security risk, and should never have been implemented in the first place, in my opinion.

 

[Orekoya]

the problem is that if you read the eula at the back of the manual sony reserves the right to change ANYTHING about how the ps3 operates at any time and without prior notice. if they continue to advertise the other os option after the fact then someone would have a lawsuit for false advertising, but as it stands there is no potential lawsuit.

of course there will be in the eu since they sue EVERY company every time anyone takes a shit but otherwise sony is within their rights.

I'm sorry, but in the UK this move essentially makes the PS3 unfit for purpose. At the time of buying the PS3 it advertised the ability to have a second OS, if they remove that then they are breaking the buyers statutory rights, not taking into account European law which would also be broken.

You accept an EULA, yes, but when you buy a product you are making a contract there too, one which stipulates that the product will act as intended and as advertised. When they took away the other OS option the PS3 no longer worked as advertised and that contract is effectively being broken.

Thanks tk1989 for saving me from writing out a response to this. I guess I could include with that some links for those who might be confused on the semantics of how Sony is breaking the law, so here you go:
http://www.business.gov/business-law/advertising-law/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act
http://www.asa.org.uk/

 

[Digikid]

I seriously hope that this lawsuit makes Sony smarten up.

To the lawsuit people.....GO GET THEM! THEY DESERVE EVERY PENNY TO BE TAKEN FROM THEM! WOOHOO!!!!!!!

 

[Megacherv]

The PS3 isn't advertised as that anymore though, is it? The Slim hasn't been able to do that at all, and they gave adequate notice

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Well, I saw it coming, but I don't think there's much that can be done. The Amazon refund was more of a refund for services that weren't offered, but Sony is still entitled to modifying their console as they need to in order to protect the console as they see fit. That the PS3 has only been successfully reported hacked once is still pretty damn astounding, and it seems Sony aims to keep it so.

 

[Danpascooch]

You know, it's easy to say they should just suck it up, and get over it, but I don't judge lawsuits on whether the act is severe enough to justify one, as most people think that pretty much nothing is severe enough to justify a lawsuit, and lawsuits help keep companies in check, by forcing them to be somewhat ethical for fear of a lawsuit if they mistreat customers. That's why I think a few lawsuits here and there is actually a good thing, it reminds companies that there are rules they need to follow.

So I judge lawsuits on whether or not I think they're legally justified, and I think this one is.

 

[Danpascooch]

Well, I saw it coming, but I don't think there's much that can be done. The Amazon refund was more of a refund for services that weren't offered, but Sony is still entitled to modifying their console as they need to in order to protect the console as they see fit. That the PS3 has only been successfully reported hacked once is still pretty damn astounding, and it seems Sony aims to keep it so.

This isn't true, they aren't entitled to modify their console however they see fit, because things like advertisements, and EULA's are double edged swords, through advertisements or contracts, Sony is promising in a legally binding way to provide the stipulations of the advertisement or contract and if they breach that contract by taking away a promised service, they are subject to legal penalties.

 

[Danpascooch]

The PS3 isn't advertised as that anymore though, is it? The Slim hasn't been able to do that at all, and they gave adequate notice

I'm not sure if it is, but that doesn't matter, because the people who purchased their PS3's BEFORE they stopped advertising that feature, can't use the feature anymore.

 

[Danpascooch]

I always thought that the Install other OS function was rather stupid. In that the console could be more easily hacked. So, why Sony didn't rectify this situation earlier is beyond me. It's a HUGE security risk, and should never have been implemented in the first place, in my opinion.

Whether it should have been implemented, or whether it was useful is irrelevant legally, you know that right?

 

[Pendragon9]

I still don't get why people would want to install another OS. Again, you can always just buy a computer for that stuff.

Oh well. People surprise me sometimes.

They don't, but they wanna be ABLE to do it...
It's the ability to sue for it thats important, thinking that SONY will settle with huge loads of money, just to avoid bad publicity... which they probably will.

Also, Sony won't probably allow that feature back into the PS3, because that would make it wide open for hackers to soft-mod it and play "copies".

Exactly. I don't know why people are complaining. It's either this or horrible DRM implemented in games.

What is Sony supposed to do? If someone really hacked the PS3, you guys wouldn't get online anyway as this hacker would likely DDOS the PSN store and PSN in general. Not to mention steal your accounts.

It's a sad lose/lose situation where someone will want to sue no matter what. To all you guys supporting the guys suing Sony, why don't you sue the hacker? They're responsible.

 

[Danpascooch]

Pretty sure it says in the legal bumf that they have the right to change the way the machine operates as they see fit, so as much as it sucks, can't really do jack s**t about it.

Not true, because even if the EULA says they can change anything, they still can't indulge in false advertising, which is what they are doing to anyone who bought a PS3 before this feature was removed.

That clause in the EULA is not some magical "nothing we do is illegal" button

 

[Danpascooch]

What is with people suing all the time. Sue if you plug it in and it bursts into flames killing your family but not for shit like this. Seriously wtf is wrong with people?

Why is this such a bad thing to you? It is bothering the people who had the feature taken away from them, and lawsuits like this keep companies ethical to an agree, as they won't blatantly screw over customers for fear of legal ramifications, I think this is a good thing.\

If nobody ever tried to correct injustices, nothing would ever be fixed.

 

[Danpascooch]

I still don't get why people would want to install another OS. Again, you can always just buy a computer for that stuff.

Oh well. People surprise me sometimes.

They don't, but they wanna be ABLE to do it...
It's the ability to sue for it thats important, thinking that SONY will settle with huge loads of money, just to avoid bad publicity... which they probably will.

Also, Sony won't probably allow that feature back into the PS3, because that would make it wide open for hackers to soft-mod it and play "copies".

Exactly. I don't know why people are complaining. It's either this or horrible DRM implemented in games.

What is Sony supposed to do? If someone really hacked the PS3, you guys wouldn't get online anyway as this hacker would likely DDOS the PSN store and PSN in general. Not to mention steal your accounts.

It's a sad lose/lose situation where someone will want to sue no matter what. To all you guys supporting the guys suing Sony, why don't you sue the hacker? They're responsible.

They can't sue the hacker, that wouldn't make any sense.

Sony is taking away the feature, so they are suing Sony, whether you personally thought the OS feature was useful is irrelevant, because the people suing obviously used it.

If it was a security hole, Sony never should have included it from the start, but they can't just take it away now.