Sony Hit With Fourth Class Action Lawsuit

Another lawsuit filed over removing the "Other OS" PS3 feature.

Class action lawsuits continue to pile up against Sony.

The company has been hit with a fourth lawsuit for removing the "Other OS" feature from the PlayStation 3. Keith Wright of San Diego, Calif. filed the suit on May 6, 2010 claiming he utilized the feature on his PS3 console to install the Linux operating system.

The story is too old to be commented.
sikbeta3128d ago (Edited 3128d ago )


[email protected]!tch-desktop:~$ sudo su
[sudo] password for b!tch: *[bitching]*
[email protected]!tch-desktop:/home/b!tc h# sudo apt-get remove other-os
[email protected]!tch-desktop:/home/b!tc h# sudo apt-get sue for otheros-removal


Cevapi883128d ago

buy a PC...problem solved...i feel like laughing in these people's face if i ever saw them

Imperator3128d ago

Why has otherOS become so important? No one cared, or even knew about it before, yet now it's this HUGE thing. WTF is up with that?

alphakennybody3128d ago

time is rough especially with this economy state, what better way to ease it by suing big successful company :/ the american system is flawed on so many level.

kissmeimgreek3128d ago

the few people that used it got mad and sued because sony pulled a feature that was previously advertised. i dont know what they think is gonna happen... even if they win all their gonna get is a 30 dollar check in 5 years.

IdleLeeSiuLung3128d ago (Edited 3128d ago )

It's not about the feature, it is about the fact that Sony removed an advertised feature after they sold you the console.

Imagine them disabling network connectivity, just because they deemed it a security threat? Would you be mad if your Quad Core CPU was suddenly a triple Core because Intel deemed it a security threat? What if your motherboard manufacturer disabled your sound chip?

If you are a smart consumer, you will care that Sony falsely advertised. This is not a biased against Sony, but about consumer rights!

This is the first time I have heard of anyone getting 4 sepearate lawsuits for the same issue.

Go ahead, disagree because based on the comments here all the zealots are out. Remember, these lawsuits are here to protect your right!

commodore643128d ago Show
Biggest3128d ago

Who did they advertise it to? Apparently you guys. But you never bought one. So I don't see your issue. Yes, I am talking to IdleLeeSiuLung and commodore64.

HolyOrangeCows3128d ago (Edited 3128d ago )

"an advertised feature"

Find the advertisement that advertises the feature and post the URL.
Do it. Or else GTFO and STFU, trolls.

Rainstorm813128d ago (Edited 3128d ago )

please someone.... anyone find one AD where sony boasted the other os.the only place i ever saw it was in the manual.

For the longest time Sony didnt even advertise the PS3, Let alone majority of its features, I knew many people who didnt know PSN was free, let alone knew anything about the other os or knew how to utilize it.

If the deciding factor in buying a PS3 was the Other OS, then as 1.2 said you shouldve bought a PC.

CharlesDCI3128d ago

Other OS feature was never advertised. Sony Reps talking about the feature does not count as an advertisement. It never showed up in commercial, Internet, or printed ads.

DemiT3128d ago (Edited 3128d ago )

@ holyorangecows
@ raiinstorm
@ citizen_king

You guys want to know where and how Sony promoted and advertised this?
Seriously, are you guys for real?

Here's a link to where somebody else has proven it for us all:

I guess it's safe to say that Sony announced, advertised and promoted the Linux feature, as per the above.


@ citizen_king
I cannot believe you want to disregard public statements made by Sony's public spokespersons.
Their word represents the company.
That's why they are employed and paid for by Sony.

Who should we listen to instead? Santa Claus?

SprSynJn3128d ago

Very well said sir. It is one of the reasons I left the country.

If you people are so disgusted with Sony and their "evil" ways, then why don't you just sell the system and buy their competition? Why waste your time and the court's time with such immature actions? It really boggles the mind how ridiculous and self righteous we Americans can be.

IdleLeeSiuLung3128d ago (Edited 3128d ago )

Saddened to see you are such a fanboy ignoring the wrongdoings of Sony that is hurting not only the console industry, but any consumer sold products by setting a precedent.

You might just one day find yourself missing a feature you do need!

With that said, I don't use the Other OS feature and have no intention of ever using it. It was never a consideration for the decision to buy the PS3, but I do not condone a company stepping all over my rights to use the features as advertised by a company. I don't care if Sony indirectly or directly advertised or not, but as DemiT showed proof already actually advertising.

In case you didn't visit that portion of the site in the past, the red writing on the top disclosing the lack of Other OS on the newer console wasn't initially there:

However, I don't expect you to put away your fanboy ways to protect your own right! You would just rather make assumptions and attack others. May I suggest you go play some games on your PS3 instead... you are doing more harm than good here by speaking on behalf of consumers that Sony they can step all over you and you will thank them for it!!!

Hotel_Moscow3128d ago (Edited 3128d ago )

omg demi t do you know what an advertisement is

those are people talking about other os which is not considered advertising by those standards me telling you about other os iis advertising

radphil3128d ago (Edited 3128d ago )

DemiT as much as I agree about the fact that a removed feature should never be taken from a product and the lawsuit is fair game to be honest, that's not ADVERTISEMENT, that's talk OF the feature.

@IdleLeeSiuLung Personally one could say the same about what you're saying here as well...harming more than good. You're passively picking a fight.

Karum3128d ago (Edited 3128d ago )

The other OS feature was never marketed to the widespread public as a feature with the intention of it being a selling point lol.

You people are delusional.

Besides, there's what maybe 1% of the userbase that actually ever cared about this feature?

Removing Backwards Compatibility was a bigger issue than this tbh. If you're gonna get annoyed at something then choose that, not the removal of a feature that a handful of people cared about.

Theonik3128d ago (Edited 3128d ago )

"Advertising is a non-personal form of communication intended to persuade an audience (viewers, readers or listeners) to purchase or take some action upon products, ideals, or services. It includes the name of a product or service and how that product or service could benefit the consumer, to persuade a target market to purchase or to consume that particular brand. These brands are usually paid for or identified through sponsors and viewed via various media. Advertising can also serve to communicate an idea to a mass amount of people in an attempt to convince them to take a certain action, such as encouraging 'environmentally friendly' behaviors, and even unhealthy behaviors through food consumption, video game and television viewing promotion, and a "lazy man" routine through a loss of exercise . Modern advertising developed with the rise of mass production in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Mass media can be defined as any media meant to reach a mass amount of people. Several types of mass media are television, internet, radio, news programs, and published pictures and articles.[1]"

In other words talking about a feature which would persuade a group of consumers toy purchase their product is advertising.

radphil3128d ago


So you want to get literal to prove the point?

Ok. Then show a TELEVISION advertisement of this feature being touted.

DemiT3128d ago (Edited 3128d ago )

Thank you Theonik for educating us all on what it means to 'advertise'.

While hardboiled Sony fans may struggle with this issue, there can be no doubt that Sony promoted, highlighted and featured the linux capability as an integral part of the ps3 purchase, via mass media formats, as defined above.

According to your dictionary definition this then, most definitely, represents advertising.

Sony advertised Ps3 Linux.
Case closed.

Rainstorm813128d ago

1. Loss of Backwards Compatability
2. PS2/X360 Failure Rate

These things are far more dextrimental, which makes all these law suits look like a witch hunt. Who here rather have the other os instead of BC?

Demi some of those "proof" links are so old they are talking about features the PS3 never had! Sue for that since its in an "AD" heres an excerpt.

"Sony has previously made a Linux kit available with the PlayStation 2, but it is unclear whether any code created using PlayStation 3 and Linux will be freely spreadable and runnable via memory cards...... Sony has not yet commented on whether it will only be possible to distribute this content via some kind of Sony-regulated online server, or only to fellow Linux coders, as was the case for PlayStation 2 Linux, which spawned a number of homebrew games."

Out of the 160+mil PS2's sold who used linux on it really? Distribution of homebrew linux content NEVER HAPPENED, yet its here in your "PROOF" me ONE PS3 linux homebrew game or app that didnt enable piracy....besides you like reading how about taking a look at the TOS, that puts the entire lawsuit to rest.

insomnium3128d ago (Edited 3128d ago )

Sony DID NOT REMOVE LINUX. They stopped you from getting signed in to psn with a linux-enabled PS3. This is all covered with the tos however. No matter how much it frustrates some of you Sony never removed the Linux. Is this too much to comprehend?

@demi below

Exactly WHEN AND WHERE did Sony remove the Linux from your PS3?

DemiT3128d ago

not sure what your point is, raiinman.
Of course the links are old - they demonstrate what Sony was advertising at the time.

Your point has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
The issue is, Sony promoted the ps3 as linux capable.
Stop obfuscating the issue with non-sequiturs and offtopic tangents.

The ps3 was advertised and promoted as linux capable.
Mass media was used for this purpose, as per the definition.
There are now 4 lawsuits which follow as a result.

Don't lose sleep over it, ok?

Rainstorm813128d ago (Edited 3128d ago )

I think yall taking it a lil too serious....smh

The fact of the matter is in sony's TOS they said they can remove features at thier discretion via updates so it makes all lawsuits null and void really. Maybe people should read the TOS instead of just clicking accept.

I just find it funny that people complain about the PS3 trying to be more than a video game machine then, complain when they take non video game related features away.

I enjoy my PS3 and my Xbox360 for that matter without linux and it dosent make or break my enjoyment.........sorry for those that rather emulators and homebrew to some of thses current gen games. Enjoy Super Mario Brothers 3.......back to Red Dead Redemption.

Death3128d ago

Sony removed the feature. To argue this point is moot. If you do not update, you lose online access including PSN and the ability to play any new games. Including the update as mandatory to play the hottest game at the time is no accident. Instead of devoting time to fixing the security hole with other OS, Sony decided to completely remove the feature all together. This does not benefit gamers in any way and hurts those that used Linux on their PS3.

What is the count at today? Backwards compatability, Other OS, USB ports, and additional memory card ports have been removed. What has been added? Rumble support after they settled their lawsuit? The only thing people use to support Sony's decisions is the additional features on PSN that should have been included at launch.

The PS3 is a completely different product today than at launch and not in a good way. It has devolved steadily with the full support of the PS3 faithful. Feature after feature is removed and fans around the world rejoice.


IdleLeeSiuLung3128d ago

Gheeez, are you guy serious?


What? In what way am I hurting the industry, please elaborate?


The number of people using the feature or how many saw the ads are irrelevant? Backwards compatibility wasn't removed with existing machines! It was done to never machines and clearly indicated so.


1. Again, the BC feature was not something that was removed from existing machines. It was removed from newer units that was later sold to customers, not something advertsied then taken away after YOU PURCHASED THE PRODUCT.

It is coming abundantly clear to me that peopel don't actually understand the issue, otherwise they wouldn't suggest lack of BC as a reason to sue.

2. Yes, the Xbox 360 (I'm singling out the Xbox specific here due to the widespread effects) failure rate is something that shoudl be sued for. MS did a smart move and extended the warranty to cover this hence there is no case....

3 Again, how often people use it or how many is irrelevant to the issue. Allowing some one to take away your freedom because you rarely exercise the right would be pretty detrimental.


That is not entirely true, because you cannot play newer PS3 games including Read Dead Redemption without installing the latest firmware that removes "Other OS". SO even if I don't use PSN I still have that feature removed!

Besides, that is a question for the courts to decide and irrelevant to our discussion here.


The bottom line is I suggest you all go back and re-think what you are protecting? More accurately I should say, what rights you are giving up with your argument. It is abundantly clear to me that many of you are just ignorant and don't understand the issue!

When a company sells you a product, let's say an Xbox 360 and advertises it as a machine capable of connecting to Facebook and play games. If MS removed:

a) the Facebook feature, there is no issue. Why? Because it was a service and a service can be terminated at any time, especially one that was FREE!

b) the ability to play games is an issue. Why? Because it was a feature advertised as part of the product when you bought the product. It doesn't rely on a service. In many instances, you can't sign away your fundamental rights especially if the rights you are signing away isn't disclosed at the point of sale.

So there definitely is case here and it is for the courst to decide. For all my new products in the future including smart phones and laptops, I surely hope SOny looses. Not because of any puny compensation I might get and that lawyers get rich, in this case they are fighting for my right! You really should consider that!

BigPenguin3128d ago

I feel like I am taking crazy pills. My PS3 that I have hooked up to my main TV still has Linux, and it still acts as my media hub. I was not stupid enough to accept the update, so I did not lose out on anything.

I don't think people understand that Sony did not force anyone to remove anything. They merely said that if you want to use PSN(a service) you had to give up your other OS support, they gave the option.

Karum3128d ago (Edited 3128d ago )

Of course the number of people using it or not using it is relevant, the number of people actually using it would have been taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to include the removal of the feature in the FW update.

If there were 40-50% of the install base actively using the feature then it would have been a PR and legal nightmare and they'd have thought more than twice about it.

As it is, the number of people in proportion to the install base of the "phat" PS3 that actually used this feature was miniscule. So much so that they clearly were ok with dealing with PR and legal issues on a very small scale.

Let me ask you this though, Idle, and others also. Do you actually own a PS3? If so did you ever use the Other OS feature or were you planning to make much use of it? If yes, your grievance is justified, if not then are you simply one of these maniacal rights activists? Because if that's the case I'd be expecting you to have a bunch of suits of your own filed for things that actually have had an impact such as the removal of BC or the RRoD debacle. Things like that are what have an actual impact on a significant amount of people, not some irrelevant feature that about 14 people across the globe actually used (yes that is sarcasm btw).

Oh and here, just 'cuz I felt like looking it up.


"Such content may include automatic updates or upgrades which may change your current operating system, cause a loss of data or content or cause a loss of functionalities or utilities."

Now don't get me wrong, I don't disagree that anyone who actively used the feature isn't entitled to being pissed off or aggrieved, not at all because I'd be annoyed if I were one of them. My point is, you people are blowing it out of all reasonable proportion. It's not as big a deal as you're making it out to be.

Besides, here's how Sony's defence is likely to go.

"hey your honour, we didn't forcibly remove that feature, the user had the option not to upgrade and continue to use his Other OS feature but the terms of service for PSN state (see the quote from the TOS above) in order to use the PSN and a buncha other things on our machine". And a bunch of other legal mumbo jumbo meaning they'll get off with it...pretty sure a company as large as Sony will have thought about stuff like this in advance of any potential action. After all they do have an American division where the legal people will be well aware Americans are not shy when it comes to law suits over insignificant and silly things. And no, I am not branding everyone with the same brush but all these stupid legal proceedings we hear about always seem to come from the same place.

insomnium3128d ago (Edited 3128d ago )

That is exactly how I see it. About 1% of all these lawsuits and news about "evil Sony" is based on something tangiable. The rest 99% is nothing but people fighting out of principle and trying to earn a quick buck. If you people would just calm down for a second and judge the matter at hand based on the actual grief inflicted due to the actions Sony has made you might actually see that all of us agree with you. It's not right for Sony to do this to all of the "about 14 people across the globe actually used". Love that sarcasm btw.

It's all this blowing out of proportion that people do what pisses me off anyway. There are far worse solutions and backstabbings that MS has done regarding the x360. Noone has given'em hell like this for something that was even worse.

+ Show (23) more repliesLast reply 3128d ago
HolyOrangeCows3128d ago (Edited 3128d ago )

They will definitely win the lawsuit.....if Sony forgets to mention their TOS in court. lolololololololol

Now here come all of the upset people with Master chief avatars who used Linux on the PS3 to run their supercomputers AND play games online, in which they had to update their OS for.

Theonik3128d ago

I used linux to play emulated games on my PS3 and my avatar is Karl Schafer from UC2.
now the issue is more complicated than you describe. While Sony is covered from the TOS they cannot remove a feature that has nothing to do with the online which they promoted. The case is argued like this:
Person X bought PS3 to play online and use feature Y, company Z makes it so person X cannot play online unless he gives up feature Y. Person X can sue Sony under consumer laws that his product is no longer fit for the purpose for which he purchased it. That can render the TOS invalid as they are against the law.

As for a thing i saw being thrown around up ther BC is not the same case since the models advertised to be Backwards compadible still have the feature.

- Ghost of Sparta -3128d ago

Should have read the agreement, retards. Sony will beat this lawsuit the same way they beat pirates into tears.

N4BmpS3128d ago

When will these idiotic people understand? Sony lost a substantial amount of money with the PS3, they start to see improvement, then BAM! this d-bag geohot comes out of nowhere and hacks the system. Now, with the money invested in this machine, do they really think Sony was over stepping their boundaries? As a consumer, I don't think so. I have and still say Sony did the only thing they could think of to stop a bad situation.

avengers19783128d ago

These people need to get over it. Did they ever read any of there user agreements, that say we have the right to change this at anytime. Sony has nothing to worry about, nobody will ever win one of these cases. They are a bunch of cry babies, and most likely only want to use the other OS to try and steal stuff, so screw them. I hate thieves, and piracy is theft, same as going to a store and shoplifting.

Christopher3128d ago

Just FYI, class action lawsuits require that a large number of people take Sony to court for a single lawsuit, not a single individual. All of these are just individual lawsuits.

These are class action lawsuits:

dlp213128d ago

Let me start by saying that I love, use, and own 2 PS3's...I have a launch 60 and the MGS4 40GB. Let me also say that I have not upgraded at this point and time because I use the OtherOS feature. But I will be forced to upgrade both of these in the near future as Red Dead and obviously future games will force me too. And using 1 as a pure Linux box and 1 as a PS3 is out of the question.

Now that we got that out of the way, what we need to look at are a few things.

1) Just because you signed the TOS does not mean that it is a legally binding contract. That is for a court to decide and for a contract to be binding it must offer protections to both parties.

2) These lawsuits will have a far greater impact in the precedence that they set for a company to remove features from future products. If Sony prevails we will quickly find ourselves on a slippery slope.

3) This is a refute. You can't sue for something that is still under warranty(RRoD), or a feature that is not part of a new model of the same product(Backwards Compatibility).

4) This is another refute. I have Linux boxes and I have my PS3, and the performance I can get out of my PS3 is exponentially greater than my Intel Core i7 system. I use the PS3 to run a MathLab like program for my engineering courses, and it saves me a great amount of time running simulations. I can not go out and buy another PS3, cause I don't have the money to do that.

5) The reason it took so long for someone to hack the PS3 was because of the OtherOS feature. Hackers saw it as an open platform and therefor it wasn't on their radar.

I know a lot of you think this is a money grab, and for these people it might be; but in reality this will set a precedence for features in consumer electronics, and hopefully this results in the return of OtherOS instead of a cash reward. Even if it becomes a depreciated feature, as long as I can still use it.

BigPenguin3128d ago

You have no idea what you are talking about. You want to know what will be an even greater slippery slope then what you mentioned?

If the courts find that Sony's TOS and EULA do not actually protect the company. Because guess what, every company anywhere has the same things in place. And if courts decide that they are not valid for one company, it will cause just about every other company to be open to being sued as well for things that their TOS and EULA protect them against. No judge anywhere will ever find against Sony in this case. Every lawsuit that has been filed is the lawyer hoping Sony will just pay out to keep from going to court(going to court is expensive, often far costly more then just paying someone off is).

This is not something that should be hard to understand, no one has any case at all.

radphil3127d ago


If you actually read the comment instead of glancing over, you're doing more harm HERE than good.

Where in any place was the industry mentioned in my post?

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 3127d ago
-Alpha3128d ago

This is getting really annoying.

sikbeta3128d ago

Alpha... DAz LINOOCX!!!

-Alpha3128d ago

I agree with you. However, I don't know if it was intentional.

Look at how MS bans consoles. If Sony could do that, they should ban consoles, but not punish everybody. If they can't do that, then the best action would be to remove Linux, plain and simple.

I don't understand though, why piracy isn't a crime? I mean, if the geohotz guy admitted to cracking the PS3... then isn't he admitting to a crime? Unless I'm mistaken about the law...

Godmars2903128d ago

As far as arresting this guy or any other admitted hacker, guessing that so long as a more direct crime is committed, say actually hacking accounts to get credit card numbers rather than showing how one could be hacked, the Federal government wont get involved. That its up to Sony to go after him, though there are dozens more unidentified hackers to take his place. That in the long run it was just cheaper to plug the hole.

Given that other OS was in a discontinued model they probably could have let it go, but if they hadn't risked leaving a permanent exploitable blind spot as they updated everything else.

Karum3128d ago

Prevention is always better than trying to find a solution after a problem develops.

Pretty sure Sony took all this potential court action into consideration when making their decision. If removing it completely halts the chance of piracy on the PS3 for another lengthy period of time I'm sure they would gladly prefer to do that and risk a couple of law suits. Not to mention it ensures developers and publishers know they won't be losing money to piracy on the platform and can feel a little safer in their investments.

Personally I'm glad they took steps to halt piracy on the console.

RatFuker3128d ago (Edited 3128d ago )

i recently got went on a site called n4g and i heard you were being sued!

kevin butler: it seems we have has incidents like this but jack took care of them...he left the lawyers with a playstation 3in one of our offices and before you knew it, they forgot everything! with the playstation 3 you can get lawyers off your back anytime you want, and that my friends, is why i save 800 dollars a month from child support. kevin butler reporting it only does melting lawyers brains into mush.


NastyLeftHook3128d ago

that made me laugh my ass off! hahahahaha, bubbles for you! you deserve it man.+

RatFuker3128d ago

i think its bullshit how all of these articles are popping up. its pathetic.

RyuStrife3128d ago

I'll never get it at all. If these guys "needed" linux, buy another ps3 and just use that one ps3 for linux. If they're able to sue, well, they're able to buy a slim PS3. Anyway, I can see these guys losing. Why? If they ever read the box, it says on there "Design and 'Specifications' are subject to change 'without' notice"

Heartnet3128d ago

So true if they really really really wanted to use Linux just go on ebay and buy another ps3 phat!