Top
430°

"OtherOS" class-action lawsuit: GeoHot, Sony now share same charge

Ars Technica: The claims against Sony in the ongoing class-action lawsuit dealing with the removal of the "OtherOS" functionality in the PlayStation 3 hardware have all been dropped, save for one.

Read Full Story >>
groklaw.net.
The story is too old to be commented.
FantasyStar2767d ago (Edited 2767d ago )

I remember this one. Sony in late 2010 moved to have the case dismissed in New York. Lemme see if I can dig up the link.

EDIT: Found it.
http://www.next-gen.biz/new...

Things are certainly spicing up in the game industry. ;)

Dante1122767d ago

So all the other claims were dismissed against Sony but one (no conclusion), so now the plaintiffs had to refile again to go to the District Court to dispute that case with a different judge?

AndrewRyan2766d ago

This case is going nowhere. Sony is suing for tampering, geohot simply "jailbroke" his PS3 that he bought to unlock features that were blocked such as other OS. Other hackers came along and took this jailbreak and started making pirated games, geohot had nothing to do with the pirated games.

I really don't see this going anywhere. If they could catch the hackers that release the pirated games then yes there would be a case and a win for sony, but geohot is in the public because he knows that he can't be sued, look at the iphone/ipod touch for example.

Personally, I don't care if you pirate your games, or buy your games. The only thing that pisses me off is when I see cheaters in multiplayer games.

Biggest2766d ago

Knowing that you can not have one without the other, how do you feel about it?

FantasyStar2767d ago

To be honest, I don't know. It's been quiet in New York since the November hearing.

2767d ago Replies(1)
GSpartan7772767d ago

There is no fucking way I'm reading all that. That is longer than all 5 essays and my history paper I had to write last semester. My God. Someone summarize that shit.

Apotheosize2767d ago

Same, id love to know whats in there but jesus thats a lot of text

Kors2767d ago

summary is in the credit url (Ars Technica):

http://arstechnica.com/gami...

StbI9902767d ago

It is so long, that it is FORBIDDEN...xD

JD_Shadow2767d ago (Edited 2767d ago )

To put it in a nutshell (it's pretty long and confusing if you're not familiar with the language and details), Sony is suing Hotz under the same laws and state that the people in the class action are suing Sony for, and it seems like Sony is contradicting themselves in the two cases (saying one thing in the CA lawsuit then turning around and saying something completely different for the exact same thing in the Hotz suit), and while Sony is putting on a good case in the CA suit, it's not without huge holes (Sony is claiming that they only have to "be nice" to you for the year warranty, then after that, they can fuck you sideways all they wanted and you were forced to take it). In other words, the people in the CA suit could actually WIN that, and if they do, it will be intense implications on what happens in the Hotz case (in which most of the Hotz case fits around that very removal).

Look for this to get extremely interesting. This is the WORST thing that Sony could had happen, actually.

joeorc2767d ago (Edited 2767d ago )

Look for this to get extremely interesting. This is the WORST thing that Sony could had happen, actually.

no this is the best thing, the reason why?

many consumer's see anything they buy they own an that also mean's the Software on the Machine..you do not own the software, you get a licence that's all.

if people do not like it build your own software. OS an all, see how you like your IP stolen an mod. without your OK people would have a whole Opinion when it's their's that is getting screwed with..lets see George Hotz, failoverflow team make an OS, an all the software to run on it, an see how they feel about hacker's bulldozing their right's of creative copyright's.

that's exactly what this is about, it's not about hacking something you own, it's about hacking something you do not own..the software does not belong to you. unless you made it yourself. an you own the ip 100%.

the people whining about this state their consumer right's are being stepped on. here's a thought How would they feel if there are hacker's trying to force their software to go open source, which is exactly what George hotz is trying to do, when does that give the right of the consumer to tell a company that your software is to go opensource, it's not ok for the consumer to be told that but it's ok for the consumer to tell what software a company makes goes open source?

because that is what Hotz an failoverflow is doing, so when does the consumer right's trump a company's right's over the companies right's to their software, when companies sell you software? if that's the case How about Windows OS go open source?

JD_Shadow2767d ago

Linux is already open source, and it is one of the most popular OSes out there right now. So you're argument about open source being a bad thing is completely backwards. Some of the better programs out there, such as Gimp (an alternative to Photoshop) are open source.

Secondly, obviously, the judge saw something that told him that the class action guys had a case, or he would've thrown everything out. He left in the most important part of their case.

Now, as for your other issues, like I said before, there are things that are (or were before DMCA came around) within your consumer rights. Of course, you can't pirate anything or infringe on someone else's gaming experience. But what about other things? Say I modded my PS3 to have it be able to run iTunes and be able to download what I buy off of iTunes to my PS3, and I install iTunes on my PS3. Now, I'm not hurting anyone else's playing experience (hell, I might have people e-mailing me telling me how to do such a thing...I don't know, by the way), but yet, I get banned from PSN because I did something they didn't allow. What exactly did I do wrong? Obviously, I did something Sony didn't like, but did I cheat on a game? Did I pirate anything (I bought an iTunes track, so I've obviously got the track legally...not that Sony has cared in the past where you got the track you probably have on your PS3 now)? What exactly DO I own when I buy a piece of hardware? A lease? If I want to be on PSN, should I sacrifice the right to install iTunes via something Sony doesn't want me doing? You might say yes (and there has been this cult following now that is putting Sony's desires ahead of what the law would actually state, which amazes me), but I would beg to differ.

And one of the major issues that Sony will have is putting consumers in a tough spot, as the article suggests. When 3.21 hit, consumers were left with one of two options, and both of those options would leave them with less functionality than they had before. Lose OtherOS, or lose PSN functionality and being able to play future games. The being able to play future games such as GT5 would kill those without a reliable internet connection (or those without one at all). So...what is the lesser of the two evils there to you? What about anyone else who might think differently? That's the thing Sony must explain...which will be tough. And also remember the quote about Sony not touching Linux on the fat machines, yet they did anyway on the grounds of "security". I don't think that's easy for Sony to explain off, and why I think it just got heavy.

gamingdroid2767d ago

LOL... payback is a b1tch and trying to make an example of Hotz might just now backfire.

I'm for software licenses and being paid for your work (i.e. I'm a software developer). However, treating your customers with respect is something I also demand (as a consumer).

There is nothing wrong with software licenses until they start trampling all over you, then you gotta speak up!

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2766d ago
ssj2gohan832767d ago

I just love it when people rat on Sony for removing the other OS. When it was Geohot who was using it to hack the system.

Acquiescence2767d ago

that OtherOS wasn't even on the Playstation 3 on launch day. It was actually added with one of the early firmware updates. So it wasn't even advertised at all initially. None of GeoHot's flock like to speak of that little issue though.

maddfoxx2767d ago

I remember Update 3.21. It wasn't a forced update, but people downloaded it anyway because they would rather have PSN or Linux on the Ps3. My question is. . . If Geohot doesnt care about PSN, like he said many times before, then why did he download the update in the first place? I swear nothing this guy says makes sense.

JD_Shadow2767d ago

The article here actually turns it around to exemplify this scenario. What if Sony suddenly came up with an update to remove the gaming feature from the PS3, and only left watching Blu-Ray movies on your PS3 (I know the article used Linux as an example. So sue me). And you were forced to accept the update if you wanted to use the internet feature on the PS3 to do certain things on certain BD discs...and to even watch future BD movies? You would be outraged, would you? But you would have no real choice. Same thing here. If they wanted to play future games and that, they were forced to accept the update regardless of if they actually wanted to or not, with Sony not being exactly transparent as to what exactly they were doing there.

That and the article does quote someone that says that, when there was worry that the OtherOS feature would go away from the fats when the slims didn't have it in the first place, that either Sony or the Linux makers (forget which one) told them that they would not touch OtherOS in the fats in future updates. That's a BIG thing that Sony would have to try to explain off.

SSKILLZ2767d ago

Yeah they could do all those things , but seriously ? Removing the capability to play games on the ps3 is kind of a double Edge sword.

maddfoxx2767d ago

"What if Sony suddenly came up with an update to remove the gaming feature from the PS3, and only left watching Blu-Ray movies on your PS3"

I don't understand how anyone could compare the PS3's gaming feature with the removal of OtherOS. OtherOS was removed because hackers like Geohot were using it to create homebrews that left the system vulnerable to piracy. Thats the reason why Sony removed it and thats why Geohot is so pissed. He couldn't create his homebrews so he worked for about a year to crack the PS3 wide open. And instead of keeping it to himself or staying anonymous (like most hackers do), Geohot opens his big mouth and gets himself into trouble.

Hes looking for fame and attention. Lets not forget that there are 8 other people being sued for this jailbreak, but Geohot is the only one that is constantly found on TV and in the headlines. He keeps claiming that he only cracked the PS3 to get the feature back. . . truth is he made custom firmware 3.21 a week after 3.21 with the ability to install other operating systems. So why didn't he stop then? With a attention whore like him, my best bet is he wanted to be known as the first to crack the PS3.

radphil2767d ago (Edited 2767d ago )

" What if Sony suddenly came up with an update to remove the gaming feature from the PS3, and only left watching Blu-Ray movies on your PS3"

That's a silly example for you to put. OtherOS wasn't a primary functionality of the system, playing games is. They advertise it just like they do stating that it's a blu-ray player.

I really don't get why in all these articles people use this example to the extreme just to scare.

Those commenting on here aren't actually looking at a real reason to go up in arms about.

gamerz2766d ago (Edited 2766d ago )

To those saying it's a stupid example comparing removing OtherOS to removing gaming, well it's the exact example Sony is using to justify how they can remove OtherOS without being sued.

As stated in the article, their primary defense for removing OtherOS is they can remove any feature for any reason after one year, because that's all the express limited hardware warranty grants you.

radphil2766d ago (Edited 2766d ago )

@gamerz

And do you HONESTLY think they'll PURPOSELY gimp themselves out of billions of dollars to do that?

If they shut down the gaming portion, they shut down the first party studios, which shuts out a huge portion of profit.

What I'm going at is people need to put thought into their examples instead of just out on a whim.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2766d ago
Show all comments (53)
The story is too old to be commented.