SCEA Files Motion To Dismiss OtherOS Lawsuit Again

There's news from the class action litigation, In re Sony PS3 'Other OS' Litigation, where the plaintiffs are suing Sony Computer Entertainment America for removing OtherOS from Playstation 3s. SCEA has filed another motion to dismiss [PDF] the class action case, once again saying that the plaintiffs' newly filed First Amended Complaint is insufficient to state a claim. The original complaint's claims, except for one, were dismissed, with the judge giving the plaintiffs a chance to refile. Now that they have, SCEA says this refiled complaint should be tossed out also. There will be a hearing on all this on May 12th.

The story is too old to be commented.
denero12808d ago

go sony get those other os hacking scum cause each one who used it was trying to hack the systemmmm!!!!

Godmars2902808d ago (Edited 2808d ago )

Yeah! Like the US Airforce! And special law enforcement agencies who were using them cluster computing to track down pedophiles and data thieves!

They all be scum and pirates! ARG!

(Maybe I should be saving that for IBM...)

BK-2012808d ago

They don't need the PSN thus they don't need to update. That excuse is getting old now.

ThanatosDMC2808d ago

They dont go online to play games or anything. It's just a cluster.

Wenis2808d ago

Is anyone else curious, as to why the article, has so many god damn, commas,?

BrianC62342808d ago

There are plenty of options for Cell processor workstations. The government is just using Sony when they make these cheap supercomputers. What Sony should do is tell the government we'll make you more of the OtherOS PS3s if you lock up all these piece of crap hackers and never let them out.

gamingdroid2808d ago (Edited 2808d ago )

So I take it you support corporations overstepping individual freedom?

That is what you are essentially suggesting. Let the courts decide, but it seems the court isn't exactly just. The below section really disgusts me and I don't think I want to continue to support Sony. They essentially is in my knowledge the only company I know of that has actually removed a feature available at the point of sale!

"Again, plaintiffs must address the fact that none of the representations they have thus far identified include any express promise that the Other OS feature would be available indefinitely or for any particular period of time. Accordingly, the CLRA claim will be dismissed, with leave to amend."

If Sony wins, it is going to be legal for companies to remove features at will and determine how you can use something you legally purchased.

When the next Playstation 4 comes, Sony will disable your PS3. It was never advertised as working indefinitely!

DigitalRaptor2808d ago

gaming droid,

If they remove a feature to prevent people from abusing their content and/or losing money, they should have the right to do so.

Do you think they really want to remove those features? Of course not. Would it piss me off if Sony removed a feature that was useful to me? Yeah, but I'm not gonna sue Sony for it. Goddamn!

That would be more damaging to me as a consumer because they would be putting more resources into lawsuits and less into gaming. Do I want that? Of course I don't. People really are such fools

gamingdroid2808d ago (Edited 2808d ago )

So what "content" was being abused that isn't being abused now? If Sony is loosing money is because they had a business plan, and they have all the right to remove features on new units they are selling, not on units I already bought!

How would you like if the car companies said, we are removing your car's ability to drive by disabling a piece of software because it is a service since we are updating your car for "security" concerns. We are just loosing too much money unable to sell new cars because of the old cars on the market!

If you buy that corporate bullsh!t about Sony removing Linux due to security concerns then you are rather naive.

There is got to be balance between capitalism (which I support strongly) and regulation. In this case, corporation is stepping all over consumers and it is completely ignorant to support that if you can't see the big picture.

Godmars2902808d ago

I'd actually like to know why there's absolutely no mention much less talk of a cyber lemon law. Why you're expect to agree to software use *after* you've bought software when being asked beforehand makes more sense.

More to the point, I want to know why you can't make a stupid joke on the internet w/o someone taking you seriously, and why none of the replies to my earlier comment seem to have nothing to do with it.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2808d ago
thebudgetgamer2808d ago (Edited 2808d ago )

you click accept on tos so shut up.

yea we know sony is evil and the hackers are here to help us all.

also lol @ ps3hax i wonder if they are impartial.

Loner2808d ago

They link their source at the end of the page

Groklaw is an award-winning website covering legal news of interest to the free and open source software community. Started as a law blog on May 16, 2003 by paralegal Pamela Jones ("PJ") at Radio UserLand, it has covered issues such as: the SCO-Linux lawsuits; the EU anti-trust case against Microsoft; and the standardization of Office Open XML.

gapecanpie2808d ago (Edited 2808d ago )

Yeah I did accept it but I wish I had of known $ony would have pulled this crap before I had paid for my ps3 and brought their crappy games when the system first came out. I probably wouldn't even gotten a ps3 or gave it a second thought. The fact the ps3 had the ability to install Linux made it seem more appealing to me at that time. Sony should give me a $100 out of the $600 that I paid for my 80GB ps3 for removing a feature they advertised and then removed and thats regardless if I used it or not (which I did lightly) because I paid for it.

labaronx2808d ago

which goes back to my point of settling out of court, 100 dollars seem fair for the people who "currently" filed

DigitalRaptor2808d ago (Edited 2808d ago )

Yeah that makes so much sense.... 0_o

So if Sony removed some games/content from the PSN Store or pulled the multiplayer servers from a game, they should pay you for that too. Gimme a break.

How do you expect Sony to measure how much worth the OtherOS feature was to each individual PS3 owner? Do you not think many people would exploit this and try and get some free money? Go on... explain to me how that would work!

Looks like someone needs to find themselves a job and some perspective. You sound like a child.

And on an additional note... if you think that it's fair for Sony to pay back their customers, surely Microsoft should be penalised in a similar way because when you buy their games that have multiplayer functionality, you're only getting access to half the game you paid for (unless you're an XBL Gold subscriber).

gapecanpie2808d ago


What you just said made no sense really and you can't compare removing multi-player from a game and $ony removing the Otheros feature, that's a apple to oranges comparison. Oh and I have a job thank you very much don't assume things that you know nothing about and you really shouldn't get so defensive for a company that don't even know you exist.

Seriously I swear some of you people are so blind and loyal to a company that it's sicking and why you even brought M$ up? That just prove one thing to me about you and thus I cant really take nothing you say seriously.

gamingdroid2808d ago (Edited 2808d ago )

"Microsoft should be penalised in a similar way because when you buy their games that have multiplayer functionality, you're only getting access to half the game you paid for (unless you're an XBL Gold subscriber)."

I don't like that form of marketing, i.e. small writing, but it is available up front in writing before you open the package.

It is understood that if you want to play the game online it requires a paid service and not essentially forced upon you.

It even clearly says it on the packaging on the console when you buy it. In most stores in the US you can return the console within 30-days and get a refund so you have ample of time to get acquainted with the way Xbox Live works.

edit: if you read the comments in the article it is in stark contrast to the fanboys here on

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2808d ago
sjaakiejj2808d ago

what a crap website. First they have very little knowledge of how the law actually works, and second, I've never seen sentences that long.

JD_Shadow2808d ago

After seeing comments like these, I have a feeling that N4G has, for the most part, lost it!

Fails to read ANYTHING!

Fails to address ANYTHING unless they can easily dismiss it with quick one-liners that prove that they don't have any knowledge of what is even going on!

Let's completely ignore EVERYTHING about the contradictions and their trapping people with choices that would make them lose functionality regardless of WHAT they choose.

Let's just support Sony because there's no way they can ever be WRONG on anything, and God forbid we so much as QUESTION their legal morality!

evrfighter2808d ago

So you noticed it too...

N4g is a breeding ground for raising the perfect corporate toy soldier.

ziggurcat2808d ago

yes, let us ignore exactly what caused the removal of the other OS feature to begin with and just keep on implying that sony's the big, bad villain here...

JD_Shadow2808d ago

Wow! You just completely ignored EVERYTHING!

You've also took Sony's word at face value like everyone else is doing.

If it's Sony saying it, it's completely correct and there's no CHANCE they could be spinning it to fit the POV they are trying to advertise.

If it's their opponents in a court case, there's no WAY they can be taken seriously since it is just Sony's word over theirs.

For one, the basis of OtherOS removal is what is being argued in the case, because there have been reports about the hackers being the scapegoat because of another issue:

"The reasons are simple: The PS3 Slim is a major cost reduction involving many changes to hardware components in the PS3 design. In order to offer the OtherOS install, SCE would need to continue to maintain the OtherOS hypervisor drivers for any significant hardware changes – this costs SCE. One of our key objectives with the new model is to pass on cost savings to the consumer with a lower retail price. Unfortunately in this case the cost of OtherOS install did not fit with the wider objective to offer a lower cost PS3."


If this was the reason why Sony removed OtherOS from the Slims but they couldn't cut costs from the fats, but someone made a guarantee that the fats would not have OtherOS removed, how would you get out of that in order to cut costs? Simple: you use whatever excuse you can safely advertise to your fans that they will blindly buy into, no matter HOW improbable, so you can remove it without consequence. Thing is, Sony got caught doing that, and they are trying every sneaky trick in the book to get out of it.

And it's not like they are being consistent in this case when comparing it to the Hotz case. Read the stuff Groklaw has about this ( ), and you'll see that Sony is saying something completely different as to who is responsible for US PS3 stuff than who they said was responsible in the Hotz case.

ziggurcat2808d ago



don't be a hypocrite.

the plaintiffs haven't exactly shown themselves to be the most honest of individuals. in fact, during this whole process they've been a bunch of whiny babies.

the slim model cannot be used in this argument. removal of otherOS on an entirely different hardware revision is irrelevant and you seemed to have ignored the part in the quoted statement where ewen says, "SCE would need to continue to maintain the otherOS hyoervisor for ANY SIGNIFICANT HARDWARE CHANGES..." last i checked, the already existing fat models were not going to be receiving any significant hardware changes to justify the removal of other OS.

so even if it may have been omitted from the slim model to lower some of the cost of production, it does not (and should not) imply that it was also removed from the fat models as a means to cut costs. you're buying too much into corporate conspiracy theory.

and fuck groklaw. it was painfully apparent just how biased the author was (not just within this article, but every groklaw article i've read) within the third paragraph and entirely following the quoted court transcripts - and it was a cleverly chosen "snip" of the transcripts, obviously used to paint an anti-sony argument to make it seem they're lumping all linux users into the same group.

why don't you provide more objective sources instead of presenting what's clearly a biased opinion against sony in these cases.

Show all comments (27)