PS3: Sony Class Action Lawsuit

I

inotocracy

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
5,625
Seems as though people are upset about the other OS option being removed (surprise) and are doing a class action:

http://www.thinq.co.uk/news/2010/4/29/sony-being-sued-over-other-os-removal/

Court document:

http://ia331218.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.cand.226894/gov.uscourts.cand.226894.1.0.pdf

While generally I don't really care for class action lawsuits, just because it only makes the lawyers richer and doesn't do much for the affected people, but I'd get in on this just because its a serious dick move on Sony's part (but thats classic Sony).
 
fudge 'em they obviously did not read the eula before they installed the update or when they first bought the console where it implicity states that Sony can change features at any time.
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
fudge 'em they obviously did not read the eula before they installed the update or when they first bought the console where it implicity states that Sony can change features at any time.
Click to expand...

+1,

They agreed to the eula, there just wasting their time. This has to be one of those attorney's that you don't pay unless they collect for you.
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
fudge 'em they obviously did not read the eula before they installed the update or when they first bought the console where it implicity states that Sony can change features at any time.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:


Maybe you should read up on reasonable agreement laws? Oh wait, don't bother. You aren't a lawyer, judge, or defendant so what's your stake in the situation besides looking like a dumbass?

Here's some things you you "implicitly" support with your asinine stance:

For example, by installing software, you might give up the right to sue the company that made it if it didn’t work. Or by subscribing to an online music service, you might give up your right to loan the songs you buy to a friend. When you install a game like World of Warcraft, you agree to install spyware on your computer. When you sign your credit-card slip at Best Buy or Fry’s, you waive all kinds of rights you get under consumer protection law.
Click to expand...
 
^ if you do not like the terms then you should not have kept the ps3, by keeping it and using it, you have no leg to stand on.

okthanksbye

PS instead of getting mad at Sony, you should be upset at the person trying to hack the PS3 that forced Sony to take this measure......lol common sense does u has it?
 
Umm, how about we drop this stupid lawsuit and instead start one about....oh gee I dunno, how about a $500 piece of equipment that overheats and stops working?
 
This is so bogus. It was a stupid feature in the first place! I bet half the people whining and trying to get some of their money back never even knew this feature existed. I hate when people do stuff like that.
 
out of all the PS3 sold, how many do you think actually used this feature? I'd say like less than 1%
 
Creepingdeath1977 said:
+1,

They agreed to the eula, there just wasting their time. This has to be one of those attorney's that you don't pay unless they collect for you.
Click to expand...

A valid statement, except that the EULA didn't include anything about them being able to remove features you paid for until they added it to the new PSN EULA just last week.

Oops.
 
was the OtherOS option ever actually even advertised via tv commercials, radio commercials, or some other form of advertising Sony purchased?

I'm asking this seriously.

If it was never advertised, in an actual advertisement (not sure if a press conference would count), then I don't see Sony losing this.
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
PS instead of getting mad at Sony, you should be upset at the person trying to hack the PS3 that forced Sony to take this measure......lol common sense does u has it?
Click to expand...

Huh? I'm confused by your logic. Sony felt a possible threat and hamfisted a solution onto innocent parties. Are you saying that Sears (company) should be allowed to remove the broiler rack (stupid feature that few people use, but was advertised as being on the system) from everyone's stove (system) because some hacker figured out how to cook crack with it(potential crime that others can reproduce)?

PS instead of getting mad at the Sears, you should be upset at the person trying to cook crack that forced the gov't to take this measure......lol common sense does u has it?
 
I see what your saying but we're talking software, which is constantly being updated, adding features and also removing. Sony can do whatever they want to on the software side unless it effects playing games or watching a bluray.

It's advertised as Bluray/game machine having Linux on the machine does not effect those 2 aspects in anyway.
 
So what is actually forcing these otheros users to perform a system update? Were there even any system updates that benefited the otheros feature?
 
hmm the only expensive device I have that over heats and quits working doesnt have Sony on the front. zso having that as a thread wouldn't beaaccurate
 
Creepingdeath1977 said:
I see what your saying but we're talking software, which is constantly being updated, adding features and also removing. Sony can do whatever they want to on the software side unless it effects playing games or watching a bluray.

It's advertised as Bluray/game machine having Linux on the machine does not effect those 2 aspects in anyway.
Click to expand...

Look at it another way:

It wasn't advertised as an internet browsing appliance (by your definition) -- does that mean they can take the browser away?

It wasn't advertised as a DVD player -- does that mean they can take DVD capabilities away?

It wasn't advertised as a CD Player -- does that mean they can take that away?

There are lots of little features that make up the PS3 that not everyone uses every day. But there are people out there that bought it for that specific feature(s). Taking one of them might not impact you much, becuase thats not why you bought it. And I would expect that many people here (you know, hanging out in a gaming forum) didn't buy it to install linux on it.

Take away any of the above features and you've got yourself many pissed off customers. This is no different. I don't use the Other OS feature, but I still feel a little screwed becuase they took it away. Mainly becuase someday I might want to dump linux on it and use it as a low end machine, but realistilcy, that would probably not happen. But it was a feature that I bought the machine with, and they took it away.

What happens why they find some hack in the backwards compatibility implementation of my 60gb -- are they just going to disable it? I paid some extra money to make sure I got a 60gb -- I'd be very pissed.
 
jgoewert said:
Huh? I'm confused by your logic. Sony felt a possible threat and hamfisted a solution onto innocent parties. Are you saying that Sears (company) should be allowed to remove the broiler rack (stupid feature that few people use, but was advertised as being on the system) from everyone's stove (system) because some hacker figured out how to cook crack with it(potential crime that others can reproduce)?

PS instead of getting mad at the Sears, you should be upset at the person trying to cook crack that forced the gov't to take this measure......lol common sense does u has it?
Click to expand...

lol you totally missed the point......User tries to hack SP3 with OS that is installed on PS3, Sony removed ability to install OS so system could be hacked........
 
Heh.

So if they release an update to limit how much hard drive space you can use or only use approved harddrives suddenly because "They feel like it" you're going to be cool with that?

Good for him and standing up against a corporation that offered you somethign and then took it away. It doesn't matter if YOU never used it or only 1% did. That 1% bought it because of it.
 
Netrat33 said:
Heh.

So if they release an update to limit how much hard drive space you can use or only use approved harddrives suddenly because "They feel like it" you're going to be cool with that?

Good for him and standing up against a corporation that offered you somethign and then took it away. It doesn't matter if YOU never used it or only 1% did. That 1% bought it because of it.
Click to expand...

True but they didn't remove it for the hell of it, it was the hack as simple as that.;)

I honestly don't think it's a big deal, it will never go far in the court system. If it did does that means everybody that played Halo 2 on live are going to sue MS for stopping support for original Xbox games being LIVE enabled?
 
Have any of you guys actually used a PS3?

When they rolled out the update that removed the "Other OS" option there were all sorts of warnings saying things like "Do not install this update if you want to continue using the Other OS feature". Solution, don't install any more updates. Sony doesn't force this update on anybody.

Sony never promised that they would update all PS3's forever. I'm no lawyer but I imagine that you could only win a suit like this if Sony's marketing/EULA claimed that they would never stop supporting any features. The last time I looked at a PS3 console/game box there's all sorts of fine print like "features subject to change. Online features will not be supported indefinitely. blah blah blah"

@Demon10000
Incidentally, it was advertised as a DVD and CD player, the logo's are all over the back of my PS3's box.
 
Mozex said:
Have any of you guys actually used a PS3?

When they rolled out the update that removed the "Other OS" option there were all sorts of warnings saying things like "Do not install this update if you want to continue using the Other OS feature". Solution, don't install any more updates. Sony doesn't force this update on anybody.

Sony never promised that they would update all PS3's forever. I'm no lawyer but I imagine that you could only win a suit like this if Sony's marketing/EULA claimed that they would never stop supporting any features. The last time I looked at a PS3 console/game box there's all sorts of fine print like "features subject to change. Online features will not be supported indefinitely. blah blah blah"

@Demon10000
Incidentally, it was advertised as a DVD and CD player, the logo's are all over the back of my PS3's box.
Click to expand...

do you have one of the fat models?
Does the box state anything about being able to install Linux, or any other form of advertisement from the OtherOS feature?

Did Sony advertise the Linux capability, or the OtherOS feature, in any of it's tv ads, radio ads, or magazine/paper-media ads?
I'm honestly curious, because I don't remember seeing it advertised anywhere, except for reviews and the like.

Since nobody has answered that question yet.
 
Mozex said:
Have any of you guys actually used a PS3?

When they rolled out the update that removed the "Other OS" option there were all sorts of warnings saying things like "Do not install this update if you want to continue using the Other OS feature". Solution, don't install any more updates. Sony doesn't force this update on anybody.

Sony never promised that they would update all PS3's forever. I'm no lawyer but I imagine that you could only win a suit like this if Sony's marketing/EULA claimed that they would never stop supporting any features. The last time I looked at a PS3 console/game box there's all sorts of fine print like "features subject to change. Online features will not be supported indefinitely. blah blah blah"

@Demon10000
Incidentally, it was advertised as a DVD and CD player, the logo's are all over the back of my PS3's box.
Click to expand...

I have a slim and and it does exactly what it says it does......how come no on brought suit up against Nintendo for dropping features on the ds?
 
j-sta said:
do you have one of the fat models?
Does the box state anything about being able to install Linux, or any other form of advertisement from the OtherOS feature?

Did Sony advertise the Linux capability, or the OtherOS feature, in any of it's tv ads, radio ads, or magazine/paper-media ads?
I'm honestly curious, because I don't remember seeing it advertised anywhere, except for reviews and the like.

Since nobody has answered that question yet.
Click to expand...

Yes I do have a fat model (60gig). The BOX does not state it supports an alternative OS (I'm looking at it right now).

Under compatible software/media it lists:
Code: 
PS3 format software with region...*1
PS2 format software with ...
PS format software with ...
Audio CDs, CD-R/-RW, Super Audio CDs*2*3
DVD-Video with ...
DVD-R/-RW, DVD+R/+RW*1*3
BDs containing video content with ...
BD-ROM, BD-R, BD-RE*3*4*5
I'm omitting the asterixes, it's all the usual "1080p not supported with without HDMI" stuff that shouldn't be a surprise to anybody.
 
I pulled out my launch 60gb box just to also check and yep, it doesn't advertise anywhere. It also states "Design and specifications subject to change without notice". I'm fairly certain Sony got some legal advice before pulling that update. The feature while it was there was simply a bonus. Its like saying Sony put out an update that made the PS3 run cooler, so I'll sue them because I just lost my heater!
If they were forced to keep that feature, who knows how far the hacking will go, perhaps eventually enough to jeopardize software sales due to the ability to play back ups/off hard drive, so in a way it was a business decision. It did make a few people who use the feature pissed off, then there are other people who are out to just get Sony for this even if they don't use the feature. The rest will just move on with the new update.
 
is sony pulled playstation home would there be a lawsuit?..........didnt think so, move on and quit moaning like a pussy
 
Mozex said:
Yes I do have a fat model (60gig). The BOX does not state it supports an alternative OS (I'm looking at it right now).
Click to expand...

rflcptr said:
My MGS4 bundle box made no mention of installing another OS.
Click to expand...

AeonF1 said:
I pulled out my launch 60gb box just to also check and yep, it doesn't advertise anywhere. It also states "Design and specifications subject to change without notice". I'm fairly certain Sony got some legal advice before pulling that update. The feature while it was there was simply a bonus. Its like saying Sony put out an update that made the PS3 run cooler, so I'll sue them because I just lost my heater!
If they were forced to keep that feature, who knows how far the hacking will go, perhaps eventually enough to jeopardize software sales due to the ability to play back ups/off hard drive, so in a way it was a business decision. It did make a few people who use the feature pissed off, then there are other people who are out to just get Sony for this even if they don't use the feature. The rest will just move on with the new update.
Click to expand...

that's what I figured.

and I don't believe there has been any advertisements via tv commercials, radio commercials, or ads in magazines that stated the OtherOS.

in which case, if it was not advertised, I doubt Sony will lose.
sure they have a support page for using OtherOS, but that's not an advertisement; it's a support page.
Although I am surprised it hasn't been updated to state the loss of that option with the latest firmware.
 
Who cares if it doesn't get advertised? It's part of the device -- plain and simple. If you don't use it, then don't worry about it.

If I buy a car with a rear view defroster, it's most likely not "advertised". It's probably not even on the little sheet stuck to the window. But if I bring my car in for an oil change and they take out the rear view defroster -- they better put it back.


They really just need to offer a bunch of credits to their store in compensation for "damages" to people who were actually using the feature (I'm not one of them). Some people do use it as a workstation, and these are the people that are suffering damages.
 
Demon10000 said:
Look at it another way:

It wasn't advertised as an internet browsing appliance (by your definition) -- does that mean they can take the browser away?

It wasn't advertised as a DVD player -- does that mean they can take DVD capabilities away?

It wasn't advertised as a CD Player -- does that mean they can take that away?

There are lots of little features that make up the PS3 that not everyone uses every day. But there are people out there that bought it for that specific feature(s). Taking one of them might not impact you much, becuase thats not why you bought it. And I would expect that many people here (you know, hanging out in a gaming forum) didn't buy it to install linux on it.

Take away any of the above features and you've got yourself many pissed off customers. This is no different. I don't use the Other OS feature, but I still feel a little screwed becuase they took it away. Mainly becuase someday I might want to dump linux on it and use it as a low end machine, but realistilcy, that would probably not happen. But it was a feature that I bought the machine with, and they took it away.

What happens why they find some hack in the backwards compatibility implementation of my 60gb -- are they just going to disable it? I paid some extra money to make sure I got a 60gb -- I'd be very pissed.
Click to expand...

It was advertised as a multimedia device, which also stated it can play both your bluray AND DVD movies. It was also advertised to play all your music, whether CD or digitally downloaded, as well.

So yes, it was advertised to play DVDs and CDs.

But no, it was never advertised as a Linux device.
 
Demon10000 said:
Who cares if it doesn't get advertised? It's part of the device -- plain and simple. If you don't use it, then don't worry about it.

If I buy a car with a rear view defroster, it's most likely not "advertised". It's probably not even on the little sheet stuck to the window. But if I bring my car in for an oil change and they take out the rear view defroster -- they better put it back.


They really just need to offer a bunch of credits to their store in compensation for "damages" to people who were actually using the feature (I'm not one of them). Some people do use it as a workstation, and these are the people that are suffering damages.
Click to expand...

pulls out sticker from 2002 car and it clearly states rear defroster as stanfard equipment :p
 
Demon10000 said:
Who cares if it doesn't get advertised? It's part of the device -- plain and simple. If you don't use it, then don't worry about it.

If I buy a car with a rear view defroster, it's most likely not "advertised". It's probably not even on the little sheet stuck to the window. But if I bring my car in for an oil change and they take out the rear view defroster -- they better put it back.


They really just need to offer a bunch of credits to their store in compensation for "damages" to people who were actually using the feature (I'm not one of them). Some people do use it as a workstation, and these are the people that are suffering damages.
Click to expand...

Your analogy doesn't work at all.

If you were to drive up to that service station and in fine print it says "rear defrost will be removed during oil change", it's your choice to get the oil changed there or not.

It's also your choice to upgrade your PS3 with Sony’s update. Where it clearly states that the other OS feature will be removed if update is installed. No one is doing anything to your system without you knowing and no one is forcing you to update.
 
Baker said:
Your analogy doesn't work at all.

If you were to drive up to that service station and in fine print it says "rear defrost will be removed during oil change", it's your choice to get the oil changed there or not.

It's also your choice to upgrade your PS3 with Sony’s update. Where it clearly states that the other OS feature will be removed if update is installed. No one is doing anything to your system without you knowing and no one is forcing you to update.
Click to expand...

That still doesn't make it right on Sony's behalf, because now you are forced between keeping your other OS and being shit out of luck for ever updating your system again, or lose your OS to be able to update.

In the case of the oil change analogy... you could just go to get your oil changed elsewhere... or do it yourself. There's no other option here for the PS3, you chose one path or the other, and if the Other OS function is valuable to you, you lose either way.
 
Viper87227 said:
That still doesn't make it right on Sony's behalf, because now you are forced between keeping your other OS and being shit out of luck for ever updating your system again, or lose your OS to be able to update.

In the case of the oil change analogy... you could just go to get your oil changed elsewhere... or do it yourself. There's no other option here for the PS3, you chose one path or the other, and if the Other OS function is valuable to you, you lose either way.
Click to expand...

they removed an UNadvertised feature for security reasons.

Morally wrong? eh... maybe, maybe not. Depends on whether you ask a whiner or not.

Legally wrong? Since OtherOS was never advertised, nope.
 
Baker said:
Your analogy doesn't work at all.

If you were to drive up to that service station and in fine print it says "rear defrost will be removed during oil change", it's your choice to get the oil changed there or not.

Than analogy doesn't work unless there's ANOTHER place you can go to get the PS3 update... and we know you can't go anywhere else.

It's also your choice to upgrade your PS3 with Sony’s update. Where it clearly states that the other OS feature will be removed if update is installed. No one is doing anything to your system without you knowing and no one is forcing you to update.
Click to expand...

Yeah but if you didn't update then you wouldn't be able to access Blu Ray media, or the PSN among other things. So in the point of the analogy, if you take your car to get a oil change but they say that you will lose your rear view defroster and you decide not to get the oil change there... then they'll take your wheels off and your ability to drive with anyone.

Update: Lose OtherOS feature
DON'T Update: Keep OtherOS, but lose PSN Access and Blu Ray functionality (which are highly advertised features)

The fact of the matter is, we all know none of us regularly used the OtherOS feature anyway... but the fact is it was nice to have in case we did use it (which I did a couple times). It wasn't right to punish all of us for one loud mouth fuck's rants about "hacking" stuff... That would be like making the PS3 unable to play DVDs because somebody is cracking and copying DVDs. Not everyone does it! Granted, it wasn't a feature I regularly used and I did the update anyway because it wasn't worth losing PSN access and Blu Ray functionality if I didn't, but it's bullshit to punish everybody who uses the PS3 for legitimate reasons and has no desires to hack it or play copied content.
 
The update is "voluntary," but if you don't take it, you won't be able to connect to the PlayStation Network, play any games online, play any games or Blu-ray movies that "require" the new firmware, play any files kept on a media server, or download any future updates.

We've gotten used to a world in which firmware upgrades can radically alter the hardware we purchase—and this is often seen as a good thing. This lawsuit shows the danger in making changes to existing hardware, especially when features are being removed rather than added. According to the lawsuit, this removal of advertised features violates California's Unfair Competition Law, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and other laws.

In short, PS3 owners "have not obtained the benefit of their bargain from Sony and the essential purpose of the PS3 sales contract has been frustrated."

One obvious rejoinder here might be that this was always a niche feature, that its removal is no big deal, and that the core functionality of the device is not affected. But the lawsuit paints another picture, using quotes from Sony executives over last four years.

For instance, there is a 2007 line from Sony's Phil Harrison: "One of the most powerful things about the PS3 is the 'Install Other OS' option." Sony engineer Geoffrey Levand wrote to a PS3 mailing list in August 2009, "Please be assured that SCE is committed to continue to support for previously sold models that have the 'Install Other OS' feature and that this feature will not be disabled in future firmware releases."

Ars Technica even figures into the case. Our own Ben Kuchera interviewed Sony's John Koller in 2009, and when Ben asked him about the removal of the "Other OS" functionality from the new Slim PS3, Koller responded, "If anyone wants to use previous models and change the OS, they can do so."

"jjufon" via highdef forum
Click to expand...


This guy from another forum tells you...they did advertise the function. And you lose SEVERAL other functions of the PS3 with not updating. So for you people saying that they aren't forcing you too, they pretty much are. You can't even game online anymore! Wtf does gaming online have to do with me not wanting to take the "OtherOS" feature off my ps3?


I really haven't got into any of the arguements...but I wanted to clear this all up.

They did mention the "OtherOS" option when selling the systems.
They take away MANY features of the PS3 when you don't update. Especially the New games that I can't play because the PS3 REQUIRES an update...


Anyways, I still haven't updated any of my PS3's because I do not support this feature and SONY is making me look into the hacking world to try and see if I can bypass it.

Also, I can't get to the PSN store which is where I use to buy ALOT of games and movies. But I am not doing either because I don't want to remove this feature and am no longer allowed into the PSN store because of it. Oh well...I like Sony and all, but don't agree with this decision. I do use the OtherOS feature every once in awhile for random things.

So thanks sony for making me look into the hacking world and to learn how to hack you. :p
 
j-sta said:
they removed an UNadvertised feature for security reasons.

Morally wrong? eh... maybe, maybe not. Depends on whether you ask a whiner or not.

Legally wrong? Since OtherOS was never advertised, nope.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why it being advertised matters? It's still a function of the unit that was removed.

What if Microsoft pushed a windows update that removed the shut down button? They don't advertise a shut down button being included in windows. Obviously that would be a bit more drastic, but the concept is the same.

For the record... i've got a PS3 slim, but had I had an older model, I would have NEVER touched the Other OS option. So, it doesn't affect me in the slightest, but I still think it was wrong for those that did use it.
 
Viper87227 said:
I don't understand why it being advertised matters? It's still a function of the unit that was removed.

What if Microsoft pushed a windows update that removed the shut down button? They don't advertise a shut down button being included in windows. Obviously that would be a bit more drastic, but the concept is the same.

For the record... i've got a PS3 slim, but had I had an older model, I would have NEVER touched the Other OS option. So, it doesn't affect me in the slightest, but I still think it was wrong for those that did use it.
Click to expand...

Maybe if 99.9% of the population didn't use the shutdown button yeah, but since almost everyone does, not a valid comparison.
 
zamardii said:
Yeah but if you didn't update then you wouldn't be able to access Blu Ray media, or the PSN among other things. So in the point of the analogy, if you take your car to get a oil change but they say that you will lose your rear view defroster and you decide not to get the oil change there... then they'll take your wheels off and your ability to drive with anyone.

Update: Lose OtherOS feature
DON'T Update: Keep OtherOS, but lose PSN Access and Blu Ray functionality (which are highly advertised features)

The fact of the matter is, we all know none of us regularly used the OtherOS feature anyway... but the fact is it was nice to have in case we did use it (which I did a couple times). It wasn't right to punish all of us for one loud mouth fuck's rants about "hacking" stuff... That would be like making the PS3 unable to play DVDs because somebody is cracking and copying DVDs. Not everyone does it! Granted, it wasn't a feature I regularly used and I did the update anyway because it wasn't worth losing PSN access and Blu Ray functionality if I didn't, but it's bullshit to punish everybody who uses the PS3 for legitimate reasons and has no desires to hack it or play copied content.
Click to expand...

PSN is a service, just like Live. Microsoft advertised XBOX with the 'feature' of Live. Microsoft no longer supports XBOX with Live. If you want to continue using SONY's PSN Online SERVICE, you must update. Otherwise don't, keep your Other OS feature, just don't plan on using Sony's service. Why is this so hard to understand?
 
Baker said:
PSN is a service, just like Live. Microsoft advertised XBOX with the 'feature' of Live. Microsoft no longer supports XBOX with Live. If you want to continue using SONY's PSN Online SERVICE, you must update. Otherwise don't, keep your Other OS feature, just don't plan on using Sony's service. Why is this so hard to understand?
Click to expand...

Again....please tell me what happens when a new game comes out and says I have to update in order to play that game...even single player?

:confused:

Again we have no ps3 unless we update.

You can still play all the games on Xbox without updating your console to whatever they want it to be. So apples and oranges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top