Top
320°

Sony Sued Over Linux Removal, Case Documents Surface

It was reported earlier in the month that gamers were looking to sue Sony for the removal of the PS3 function to add your own 'OS' to your PS3. This removal caused an uproar in the gaming community and gamers sought to use the power of the legal system to get even with Sony. That day has finally come. As of yesterday, a lawsuit was filed against Sony on this very issue and gamers are looking to sue Sony over the removal of the Linux and 'OS' feature.

Read Full Story >>
examiner.com
The story is too old to be commented.
2704d ago Replies(25)
playstation_clan2704d ago

You updated it, too bad buddy, case closed. Bring out the next case,

2704d ago
solidjun52704d ago

Hey Cylon, I guess you're the one who's mentally challenged.

Rhythmattic2703d ago

Cylon,

As your Avatar, Name and General posts suggest, you live in a world of Fiction.

Christopher2703d ago (Edited 2703d ago )

From a legal technical standpoint, Sony is fully within their right.

At the point of sale, Sony offered you a device that you could perform various actions, but the majority of them requiring a PSN account that had its own ToS. That is listed on the box and documents you get when opening the PS3 case. So, the level of capability you are able to achieve with the item is based on your desire to comply with the ToS for PSN, which has two clauses on Sony's ability to add or remove features as they see necessary, both recently amended for more specificity of the type of updates allowed.

I can see why people are confused with the concept that just because it said so on the box, I should get it, but you're very wrong in this case. You have to read the fine print at all times.

Microsoft did the same thing with the Office 2007 lawsuit and removed the XML document feature from their software and took the software down from shelves until it could be updated to not include the XML feature.

Microsoft also did the same thing when they banned third-party memory devices. There exists a similar contract for third-parties in which they are allowed to create devices for the 360, but this included verbiage that cited Microsoft's ability to ban the use of any third-party device they find harmful to the Xbox experience.

The end result is that Sony is within their right and provided the necessary legal notices as to how they can manage the features on the device you purchased. Look at any electronic device you purchase today that includes software and you will see similar text in place to protect the company. Apple iPhones, Windows OS, Amazon Kindle, MMORPGs, and practically anything you can think of that involves software that's updated via the Internet.

I think the only thing that may come out of this is that Sony will make available a separate patch that can be loaded onto a USB flash drive of the firmware version prior to the one that removed OtherOS. This would be a way to allow for those who updated, even after reading two very obvious messages that informed them that if they updated it would remove the OtherOS feature during the update, to roll their system back to a point where they can have OtherOS and all the other features available at that time other than PSN online services.

Shadowstar2703d ago

"They updated, they should have known!" I keep seeing this. Why?

I haven't updated. After reading through the new ToS, I haven't gone to a Sony PS3 site. Am I allowed to complain that I won't be able to play new games in a month or two?

I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. I don't want to give up games that I paid to be able to play on the system, and I don't want to give up the Other OS feature for which I paid. Sony is forcing me to choose... What's worse is that I don't see how Other OS, an advertised feature not essential to the gaming experience, is any different than BluRay, another advertised feature not essential to the gaming experience-- if they can remove one, why not another?

I'm probably going to give up eventually and just lose the functionality, but I'll be upset about it. They can add things all day, but asking me to give up something I paid for... no, sir, I don't like it.

Christopher2703d ago

It's spelled out in very large words, twice, that if you do this update you will lose the OtherOS feature when you go to perform this update. It also details what you won't have access to if you don't perform the update.

You'd have to really not care about what is being installed on your machine to not take notice of the information they threw in your face with the update.

gapecanpie2703d ago

I am glad Sony is being sued for removing the other OS feature and I hope Sony lose the case.

Sony has done nothing but piss me off this gen and I will not be buying a PS4 or whatever they will call it.

tinybigman2703d ago

the otherOS feature was advertised on ads and commericals when the system launched? i dont ever remember an ad on tv saying you can install another OS all i see is them advertising games and movies.

i never even seen it in print.

sikbeta2703d ago (Edited 2703d ago )

"But...but da LiNøøZX on da otha OS Featurez, I can't usez da LiNøøZx even IF I DON'T KNOW How to USE The [TERMINAL]"

What a Waste of Time.

IF you AGREED with the TOS, there is nothing you can do, you want OtherOS, don't Update, if you don't update you lose PSN, sorry but you PAID for a PS3, not for The PSN Service...

Shadowstar2703d ago (Edited 2703d ago )

"IF you AGREED with the TOS, there is nothing you can do, you want OtherOS, don't Update, if you don't update you lose PSN, sorry but you PAID for a PS3, not for The PSN Service..."

Hm. I don't know about you, but I paid for a system I can play PS3 games on. (And I wanted to be able to program on a cell processor in my free time, because I'm geeky like that, but I don't expect many others bought their PS3s for that.) We're talking about the loss of future PS3 titles, not just online support or being kicked out of the PSN store.

Let's face it, my system is pretty much bricked unless I update and lose functionality.

Christopher2703d ago

Actually, you can still play single-player games if you don't patch. You just can't play the online elements.

Shadowstar2703d ago

No... PS3 games come with the required firmware for the game, and they make you install them if you want to play the game. I've had this happen to me before, since I've always been a little lax in getting firmware updates. (I'm paranoid about bricking computers or consoles. Updates never seem to have enough testing before they're out in the wild.)

cool cole2703d ago

I'm sorry but, when did Sony ever advertise the other OS for the PS3?

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 2703d ago
Colonel-Killzone2704d ago (Edited 2704d ago )

Lmfao Sony is gonna win this case so this is not even something to have a article about. I find it funny that hackers can mess with sony ps3 and add features etc that was not intended to be used on the console or even steal their games. But now when sony removes a feature to protect there games and their console they are doing the wrong complete nonsense if you ask me. Hardly anyone uses this feature whats so great about it can someone tell me please ? How does linux on my ps3 improve my gaming experience ? Oh yea i forgot it doesn't.

Persistantthug2703d ago

I don't use my radio CD player in my 2007 Mustang GT, does that mean Ford can come into my house and take it out of my car?

When I bought my PS3 for $400 a year ago, I was promised I'd be able to have and use that OTHER OS feature whenever I wanted...

I was lied to.

It's about consumer's rights here. Just like when Sony put Spyware on peoples computers back in 2005 because they "felt like it".

This is not cool and should NOT be allowed by any court. That is the point, Colonel-Killzone.

Biggest2703d ago

Why are people using these crazy car analogies? If you must have one, try this one. You are sold a car with an awesome interactive feature. You can tell the car to play a certain song, change the inside temperature, and even lock or unlock your car. Someone finds a way to exploit that feature and use it to break into ANY car that has the same feature. The car manufacturer requests that you bring your car in to the dealership to be updated. If you do, you lose the ability to tell your car to lock or unlock. If you don't, you may lose your car or other personal belongings pertaining to your car.

I hope that everyone involved in this situation gets what is coming to them. I personally believe there will be some lost time from work and wasted money.

Persistantthug2703d ago

You see, Sony didn't disable this OTHER OS feature for the consumers security and benefits....they disabled it for THEIR OWN benefit...that's a key difference here.

At anyrate, when I purchased my $400 PS3 fat, I was told I would have the OTHER OS feature, and be able to use it whenever I saw fit....

I was lied to....end of story.

Sony's in the wrong, period.

Biggest2703d ago

I didn't skew anything. If someone is able to exploit the car's voice activated system everyone minus the law breaker is effected. In the case of the PS3 everyone minus the law breaker is effected. Sony's protection is broken and the console is forever vulnerable. Games are pirated and the developers feel the sting. They devote less time and resources to great games which the general consumer feels. And lastly there is the good chance that the people that benefit from such a turn of events will find a way to hurt the general consumer even more. Maybe Sony didn't think for one second about anyone but Sony. But in the end it is a benefit to the very large majority of consumers, developers, and share holders that didn't care about Linux on a console to begin with.

soulraver2703d ago

You are the same kind of person that would also install a hacked firmware, if one ever comes out, to play pirated games, but when that firmware sent credit card info to a hacker, you would want to sue Sony for not protecting you from the hacker.

Persistantthug2703d ago

I don't and haven't downloaded anything Pirated....period.

Save the conjecture for someone else, another time perhaps.
thanks.

The bottom line is, Sony owes me a PS3 with the working feature I was promised or my $400 that I paid for a year ago.

A check would be fine.

That's why they are getting sued.

sjaakiejj2703d ago (Edited 2703d ago )

You agreed to the terms and conditions when you first made a PSN account. These stated that Sony is allowed to add or remove any features when they see fit.

When you bought your Mustang, did it come with Terms and Conditions stating that they were allowed to remove your CD Player at will?

I rest my case.

Persistantthug2703d ago

T&C/TOS that Sony "MADE UP" may or may NOT be in compliance with specific state statutes or laws. Sony as a large company maybe large and seemingly infallible, but large corporations make mistakes all the time (2005 SPYWARE)

When I purchased my $400 PS3 last year, I purchased it with the idea and intention that it would have OTHER OS and no PS2 Backwards compatibility.

Sony taking the feature away MIGHT go against some obscure CALIFORNIA consumer rights policy....maybe, maybe not. But its worth exploring. I could see a liberal'ish CALIFORNIA judge that sides on the rights of consumers....definitely possible.

This isn't an automatic win for Sony here.

T&C and/or TOS's aren't necessarily the end all be all...not necessarily.

That's all I'm trying to say....we'll see.

sjaakiejj2703d ago (Edited 2703d ago )

You're missing the point, Sony can put anything in these Terms and Conditions, these are part of the contract you get the moment you purchase the product, and as long as they get you to accept them, they are legally allowed to do EVERYTHING in those terms and conditions, because you AGREED to them. If you didn't agree with the term that features may be removed at will, then you shouldn't have agreed with the terms and conditions in the first place when you created a PSN account.

Any product bought is bought with a contract. This contract, just as any other contract, can have ANY terms and conditions in it, all you do is agree to / sign it. If you don't agree to it, then you're not holding your end of the contract.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 2703d ago
MattyF2704d ago

Sony likely won't lose this case.

rexus123452703d ago

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Sony must have consulted its over-payed and over-sized corporate legal team extensively before going ahead with this update.

jazzking20012704d ago

HELL YA
it would be great if i can get some money back from Sony >.<

commodore642703d ago (Edited 2703d ago )

I agree, Dude.

Sony sold many hundreds of thousands of ps3 skus based on the strength of linux inclusion alone.

What's more, the linux inclusion generated headlines and free viral marketing for Sony.
http://www.wired.com/techbi...
http://www.gamepro.com/arti...

In court, it will be shown that Sony was able to sell additional ps3 skus on the strength of its advertised features, yet misled its customers who bought the console on the basis of its advertised features, by removing the touted feature after the point of sale.

Competent lawyers will be able to prove that a large number of users bought ps3s simply because it included linux. Even the customers who did not use linux were likely influenced by the 'linux included' marketing campaign at the time.

After all, other gaming consoles did not include linux. Thus, serious users who wanted to game AND run linux had no choice but to buy a ps3.
Those same users are now the ones who are taking Sony to court.

Now that Sony has removed these features, the courts must decide whether Sony deceptively used such advertising and marketing to gain additional marketshare at the expense of its competitors, for which misled customers ought to be refunded.

In addition, Sony's TOU, which was implemented purely to protect Sony's interest, while denying the rights of consumers, will be closely scrutinised in court to see whether it is lawful or not.
My guess is, the courts will favour the consumer as, realistically, ps3 owners are forced to upgrade their firmware if they want to keep using it's other features. If they don't upgrade, Sony ensures the console is rendered semi-functional. I certainly would call that a 'choice'. Maybe 'compulsion' is a better word?

It will be interesting to see what the courts decide, as seemingly many thousands of disgruntled customers are asking for their money back.
Who can blame them?
They are feeling deceived and rightly so.

Man up, Sony.
Give us back Linux, or some measure of refund.

gapecanpie2703d ago (Edited 2703d ago )

I said it once and I'll say it again.

I sure do hope Sony will lose this case for such a downgrade. Hopefully a class action lawsuit, because removing the Other OS is just pure BS that must not go un-punished and regardless of what many of you loyal sad geeks think this is BS, regardless if I use the feature or not and only a complete loyal idiot would think that way anyhow.

Because I know when I paid $600 including taxes for my 80GB PS3 it has/had BC, memory cards readers and the Other OS feature that I expected to all ways be there.

Truthfully the Other OS was one of the many reason why I brought a ps3 over the 360... Sony has done nothing but piss me off this gen. and I will not be buying a ps4 or what ever they are going to call it.

tinybigman2703d ago

the great games, blu ray movies i can play and watch not because of linux. if i was computer savvy i wouldnt even use it on the system as thats what my pc or laptop is for.

if you bought the ps3 for linux only and not the games or movies then im afraid you've wasted your money.