PS3 Owner Refunded For Missing "Other OS"

Toxicgonzo writes "Amazon has given a European PS3 owner a 20% refund for removal of the PS3's OtherOS feature. (We recently discussed hacker Geohot's efforts to restore this feature.) The owner cited European law Directive 1999/44/EC — which states that goods must (1) comply with the description given by the seller and possess the same qualities and characteristics as other similar goods, and (2) be fit for the purpose which the consumer requires them and which was made known to the seller at the time of purchase. How many other European PS3 owners will follow suit? If Amazon forwards the bill to Sony, how will Sony respond?"

Comments

Justice

[headkase]

This is justice for anyone who was actually affected by the removal. And feedback for Sony for future decisions.

Re:Justice

[Coopjust]

Justice for anyone who lives and purchased their console from a European retailer.

In the US, the best I can probably hope for is a class action in which lawyers will make millions and I'll get a $10 coupon off of a PS3 game.

And Geohot's hack only works if you are on 3.15 or below, if you're on 3.20 (which has the other OS feature, last firmware to do so), you're out of luck.

Re:Justice

[RTFA]

And feedback for Sony for future decisions.

"Amazon has given a [...] refund". So, you assume Sony will refund Amazon?

Altough I am RTFA, I didn't RTFA so:
"(1) comply with the description given by the seller and possess the same qualities and characteristics as other similar goods" Was the Other OS characteristics ever listed as a sales argument / product description by Sony?

Re:Justice

[Vanderhoth]

The issue is it was Amazon that had to pay out not Sony. That being said if Amazon had to pay out to a S*** load of people they'd probably take Sony on. One large corporation taking on another has a better chance then a bunch of Linux geeks, but at best Sony would just have to pay out. I bought my PS3 for the other OS feature and I want to keep it.

If I had kept the receipt for my PS3 I might go after EB games for a refund. After all Sony took my $800 PS3 "super computer" and turned it into a cheap $150 PS3 Slim. I wonder if Sony re-enables the feature if the guy would have to give the money back?

Re:Justice

[Vanderhoth]

Was the Other OS characteristics ever listed as a sales argument / product description by Sony?

It's on my box. It was one of two main reasons I paid an extra $500 instead of getting a Wii.

Re:Justice

[Blue Stone]

>If I had kept the receipt for my PS3 I might go after EB games for a refund.

In the UK, and I guess Europe, you don't need your receipt, just some proof somewhere and somehow that you bought from that company - credit card records, for instance.

Re:Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't it also say they can change it at any time? I had read that it did. Also, did these folks make the requirement known to the seller at the time of sale? Pretty doubtful.

Re:Justice

[mysidia]

Yes, but just one person doing it isn't enough. We need for a significant percentage of Sony customers who bought a PS3 in Europe to do it in order to put a dent in Sony's costs, which probably is not happening.

Re:Justice

[ratboy666]

Sure they did

http://www.playstation.com/ps3-openplatform/index.html

Note though, that the feature is gone (read the red part at the top).

And, let's look at the original version of the page

http://web.archive.org/web/20061118073923/http://www.playstation.com/ps3-openplatform/index.html

Re:Justice

[theaveng]

Questions about the EU:

- How come the customer was not required to go to court *first* before getting his refund?

- What if the retailer had simply said, "No."
- What would have happened next?

Re:Justice

[Zerth]

Speaking of European sales, I wonder if any of the European countries will go after Sony for additional VAT and tariffs because the PS3 is now just a gameplaying machine instead of a "freely programmable general purpose computer".

Re:Justice

[VJ42]

How come the customer was not required to go to court *first* before getting his refund?

At least here in the UK, companies don't like ending up in court (even if they're in the right), so threatening them with legal action (just a letter\email citing the relevant legislation is fine; don't need a solicitor.)often gets you something (refund\replacement\money off vouchers etc.). Hell I've even got a replacement phone battery by complaining over the phone (citing the sale of goods act) at some bloke in a call centre half way round the world.

What if the retailer had simply said, "No." - What would have happened next?

He could then have taken them to the small claims court.

Re:Justice

[Vanderhoth]

I'd like to see that. I've read in several places they only allowed Linux for the EU tax break. I'd like to see Sony have to pay retroactively seeing as how they retroactively removed the feature.

Re:Justice

[LordLimecat]

I dont normally go to court before getting a refund for things I return to amazon...

Re:Justice

[Pvt_Ryan]

I bought mine 2nd hand on ebay, I wonder if I can get ebay to pay out.. I wouldnt do it against the seller as they were probably just a decent person trying to get rid of something hardly used.

Re:Justice

[jonbryce]

Because Amazon chose to refund him rather than face a court hearing

He would have gone to court
A county court judge / sheriff etc depending on juristiction would decide wether or not a refund was due

Re:Justice

[jimicus]

Questions about the EU:

- How come the customer was not required to go to court *first* before getting his refund?

Quite often the threat of going to court is enough to make someone pay up.

- What if the retailer had simply said, "No."
- What would have happened next?

The customer would have had to take them to court. Though most European countries have a small claims system expressly designed to be reasonably straightforward for dealing with these things.

Re:Justice

[theaveng]

So EU law works similar to US law. An American could do this same thing, cite the relevant law regarding flase advertising of a product, and get a refund. -or- Drag the retailer into small claims court.

Re:Justice

[VJ42]

>If I had kept the receipt for my PS3 I might go after EB games for a refund.

In the UK, and I guess Europe, you don't need your receipt, just some proof somewhere and somehow that you bought from that company - credit card records, for instance.

Not even that, just reasonable expectation that you bought it from the place you're trying to return it. Fox example, if a phone company has an exclusive phone, it's highly likely you bought it from them, so they have to refund\replace even though in theory you could have bought it from someone else who got it from them. The Sale of Goods act is great like that.

Re:Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

i think in Europe this kind of shit doesnt go through.
There are standards ,and if what you say will change is against standards - it doesn't matter what you say, your words mean nothing, you are still obliged to provide satisfaction to standards.
E.g., you sell some product that can be classified as food, you say on label, it may cause death or injury, someone eats it - you are in trouble, no one gives a fuck if end user was warned, the fact you broke laws regarding food industry pretty much mean - you are opened to law suit.

Re:Justice

[somersault]

I've done it anyway as I think that a message needs to be sent to Sony. Trying to encourage my flatmate to do the same thing despite the fact that he's never used the Other OS feature.

Remains to be seen whether they'll refund me 20% too. If they do, it means I got a seriously good deal on my PS3 :P

Re:Justice

[ShadowRangerRIT]

Those "change at any time" clauses are illegal in a lot of jurisdictions. Contracts require mutual informed consent on a fixed wording; otherwise your agreement to purchase a console could be rewritten into a marriage contract because you agreed that the agreement "could change at any time". Yes, it's an intentionally absurd example, but legally speaking, it's effectively equivalent (aside from those pesky activist judges who might make a decision based on the real world instead of a legal fiction).

Re:Justice

[Vanderhoth]

Doesn't it also say they can change it at any time? I had read that it did.

In the EULA it says they may change or update a feature, but never says they can remove features.

Also, did these folks make the requirement known to the seller at the time of sale? Pretty doubtful.

The sell person I was dealing with knew about it because I asked about being able to run Linux. The sales clerk pointed out on the box to me and told me I could install Linux. I remember it very clearly because I had read the PS3 could run Linux several times in the weeks leading up to the release and wanted to make sure it really could before I spent all the extra money on it. Maybe the store didn't know and the clerk was just extra knowledgeable, but seeing as how I bought my PS3 on release day I doubt it.

Re:Justice

[theaveng]

Why does Sony keep frakking up? Did they lay-off the old management in 2005 and replace them with new guys who make dumb decisions?

- "Yes the PS2 only cost $300 at release, but we believe customers will want to throw-out the PS2 and pay $800 to get a new machine that has the same games but in HD! No we're not worried about the $250 Wii." [Wii is now the #1 seller.]
-
- "This firmware won't damage your console." "Ooops guess it did. No you won't get a refund for your broken PS3."
- "This firmware will turn off the Other OS function. Ooops guess we owe you a $20 refund under EU and US law for false advertising."
- "Ooops looks like we owe billions in EU taxes too since the PS3's Updated Firmware makes it a taxable game."
- "We have a new Bluray Disc that holds 150 gigabytes! Sorry you'll have to throw-out your old players to get the new 150 HD 3D movies."

Re:Justice

[CharlieHedlin]

In the US you could certainly claim damage and sue in small claims court. Sony will almost certainly settle (with a gag order to try to keep it from spreading). I've considered it, but honestly I haven't found Linux on my PS3 particularly useful. I'm sure if I upgraded the hard drive and wanted to do extensive video encoding I would but I haven't. I spent a great deal of time tweaking the frame buffer to fill my TV without over scanning, and then never used it again.

I have decided to return any unopened Sony products I still have (Car stereo for boat) and buy another brand.

Re:Justice

[jisatsusha]

The other reason being blu ray, I presume?

Re:Justice

[Labcoat Samurai]

Let me get this out of the way: I'm disappointed in Sony for removing this feature. I firmly come down on the side of "this is bullshit"

However, I think that Amazon paying out for this unit is *also* bullshit. The product did do everything it was advertised to do. You separately agree to an EULA for use of the Playstation Network. Sony can do pretty much whatever it wants regarding that, up to and including terminating the network altogether, so your recourse, in this case, is to give up PSN usage to keep the Other OS feature. If Sony *did* discontinue the PSN service years after you purchased your system, would it be reasonable to expect a payout from Amazon?

Re:Justice

[poetmatt]

I'm wondering, is there no way to downgrade back to 3.15?

Re:Justice

[theaveng]

Also it's not the Ebay seller's fault that Sony altered the product's firmware. Plus you're probably past the 45 day limit to file an Ebay or Paypal dispute.

Re:Justice

[Pvt_Ryan]

Nor was it Amazon's...
It was just a thought, if i could screw a large corp and get away with it fine, but not some random guy.

Re:Justice

[The Moof]

I wonder if you could argue that this sets precedent for how much Sony has to shell out to each owner. $80 x 20-30 million owners and I think we'll suddenly get our feature back instead of Sony shelling out the roughly 2 billion dollars.

Re:Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

SONY should be the one to cough-up refunds, not sellers like amazon... as it's SONY that's pulling the feature... amazon was just being the nice guy to satisfy their customer.. but it was SONY that pissed 'em off.

Re:Justice

[Bert64]

Go after the seller, he can go back to wherever he bought it and get 20% of the original price back which should be more than 20% of what you paid anyway...

Re:Justice

[f3rret]

ahahah!

Suck it Sony!

Ahem I mean, that's nice for the people who now have the chance to get their money back when Sony decided that they didn't need the product they paid for.

Re:Justice

[Bert64]

Wether your flatmate used the feature or not, 20% cashback on the cost of a PS3 is worth taking.

Re:Justice

[MoonBuggy]

Amazon probably didn't take it to court first because they decided that the 20% refund to one guy was a more financially sensible option than allowing it to generate bad publicity and potentially run up legal fees. Whether they'll change their minds tomorrow when they see 1,000 similar claims is anybody's guess, though.

I assume that if they'd refused, the next step would've been a small claim in the county court (I know that's the case for issues like this under UK law, but it may differ since it's an EU directive, even though it took place in the UK). It's apparently fairly well set-up to assist individual claimants representing themselves, and the fees are low.

That said, the time and effort involved is probably still greater than the value of a PS3 - how much further value you place on the principle of the issue, however, is quite another matter!

Re:Justice

[VJ42]

So EU law works similar to US law. An American could do this same thing, cite the relevant law regarding false advertising of a product, and get a refund. -or- Drag the retailer into small claims court.

It'll be different in different member states but here in the UK if the retailer offers something and I later find out that they ripped me off (e.g. they only gave me a 10% refund, but I was entitled to a full 100%) I can still drag them back into the small claims court. If they acted fairly, however then they are fine.


It'll be close the the American system because yours is based on the common law that we invented; I don't know how it works in the rest of Europe, where they are based on the civil law system.

Re:Justice

[iapetus]

It wasn't a yes/no question. The question was "what is your position on the fact that Sony have removed functionality from the PS3 in a way that EU law appears to hold you liable for?"

If the retailer had simply said, "Our position is that we don't owe you shit" he would not have taken them to court, and would have reported that this was their position to anyone who was interested. He would then have contacted Trading Standards to ask them whether there was any case against Sony.

Re:Justice

[theaveng]

In the US, the best I can probably hope for is a class action in which lawyers will make millions and I'll get a $10 coupon off of a PS3 game

Not true.

A US citizen has the same legal protection as an EU citizen, either to demand a refund from sony, or else sue them in court for violating US law.

Re:Justice

[SlashBugs]

I can't speak for the rest of the EU, but in the UK the "fit for purpose" law is a surprisingly powerful bit of pro-consumer legislation. As well as requiring that a product actually does what the manufacturer claims that it does, the law also covers:

a) Functions that any reasonable person would expect the product to have, based on the advertising but also on similar products on the market. This doesn't obviate the customer's responsibility to do some research, just covers too-obvious-to-check things like if your brand new DVD recorder didn't include a DVD playback function

b) A robustness and lifespan that any reasonable person would expect the product to have. In the UK, all electrical goods worth more than a certain value (and some other classes of goods) are automatically garuanteed for one year, as part of the customer's statutory rights. But more interestingly, each type of product may also be garuanteed for a longer period based on what seems "reasonable". For example, a washing machine or cooker would be expected to last for several years under regular use before needing replacement or major repairs; if it fails within that timespan the customer can return it (Making those rip-off "extended garuantee" offers doubly useless). Better yet, the onus is on the shop to show that the failure to prove that it was due to your misuse, not you having to prove that it was a poor design or manufacturing defect.

Surprisingly few people know about these rights, and for good reason. If a product lacks features or develops a major fault too quickly, it's the shop's responsibility to replace the product or offer a refund to the customer; the shop owner is then left with the problem of getting that money back from the manufacturer. As you might imagine, they're not exactly keen to be in this position and so consumers are never told about it.

If the shop says "no" or tells you that you need to talk to the manufacturer yourself, they're either ignorant or lying. In which case, your next step is to get in touch with the Citizens' Advice Bereau and/or the Trading Standards Office, who are responsible for advising people about and enforcing the relevent laws, respectively.

Re:Justice

[somersault]

That's what I thought, but he's very .. enthusiastic(?) when it comes to morality. He says that he's never used or wanted the feature so he doesn't deserve a refund. He actually got annoyed at me for even asking Amazon for a refund too until I pointed out that I have used Other OS before. I do feel slightly guilty for doing this to Amazon as they have always been great for me, but I'm doing it to send a message to Sony.. and indeed because it's worth taking. If there's only a few people doing it it can't really hurt Amazon, but if there's a fuckload then they'll probably get some form of reimbursement against Sony, or at least could refuse to sell any more PS3s or something. Then maybe Sony will get the message and reinstate other OS.. though it seems more likely they'll just get pissed off and never include a similar feature in future PlayStations.

Re:Justice

[Vanderhoth]

No, it was for PS2 backward compatibility. At the time the format wars between BD and HDDVD were going on. Although I was sure BD would win out I wasn't willing to bank on it. Actually, I've had my PS3 for three years and only own one BD movie. Now I've read they're coming out with one of two new BD formats that will render the player in the PS3 obsolete. http://www.cnet.com.au/new-blu-rays-get-2-5x-storage-won-t-work-in-your-player-339302332.htm

Re:Justice

[iapetus]

You won't see that happen. That was back in the day of the PS2, and as far as I'm aware Sony never actually got away with that claim. Since then the tax rules have changed so that there isn't the same distinction between games consoles and computers, so there's no tax break involved in passing one off as the other.

Re:Justice

[MoonBuggy]

Minor correction: Amazon chose to pay out, they didn't have to.

Now, it's possible that the court would've held Amazon liable anyway, but it hasn't come to that yet, and they may just as well have informed the customer that their case was with Sony instead.

Re:Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to work for Sony Computer Entertainment Europe, and my understanding was that the tariffs are *higher* for a "freely programmable general purpose computer". They campaigned for ages to have the PS2 *not* be branded as such.

Re:Justice

[Vanderhoth]

I down loaded the 3.15 update, before 3.21 came out. Supposedly you could upgrade your console back from 3.21 with it using a USB drive. I haven't done the downgrade to 3.21 yet so I don't know if it will work. I'm sure you should be able to Google it and get the 3.15 download somewhere. There was someone in the PS forums who posted a link to a download site he ran... before his post was removed by the moderators.

Re:Justice

[Volante3192]

Except in the US, the company would fight it first and ask questions later. Sounds like EU is more customer friendly.

Re:Justice

[jonbryce]

EU law says the retailer is responsible for refunds, no matter who is to blame. It is then up to Amazon to get a refund from Sony, which I'm sure they will.

Re:Justice

[GigaplexNZ]

Fox example, if a phone company has an exclusive phone, it's highly likely you bought it from them

The PS3 is not exclusive to EB games, it could have come from any of a number of retailers.

Re:Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

Private seller? Sorry, no warranty whatsoever. You've got nothing.

Re:Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

You also should be aware that if you do talk to the manufacturer, courts have held that the retailer is no longer obliged to deal with the problem. Another wonderful piece of law is the consumer credit act - this places equal responsibility on a credit card company if the item costs over £100.

Re:Justice

[BattleApple]

Even if it's possible, you'll lose:
* Ability to sign in to PlayStation Network and use network features that require signing in to PlayStation Network, such as online features of PS3 games and chat
* Playback of PS3 software titles or Blu-ray Disc videos that require PS3 system software version 3.21 or later
* Playback of copyright-protected videos that are stored on a media server (when DTCP-IP is enabled under Settings)
* Use of new features and improvements that are available on PS3 system software 3.21 or later

Re:Justice

[Vanderhoth]

...No I think I'm right... It should have been Sony who paid out, but instead it was Amazon. Amazon shouldn't have had to pay out.

Re:Justice

[feepness]

If I had kept the receipt for my PS3 I might go after EB games for a refund. After all Sony took my $800 PS3 "super computer" and turned it into a cheap $150 PS3 Slim. I wonder if Sony re-enables the feature if the guy would have to give the money back?

Hey, where did you get a $150 PS3 slim? I'd like to pick a second one up for the bedroom.

Re:Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they lay-off the old management in 2005 and replace them with new guys who make dumb decisions?

The rootkit affair WASN'T a dumb decision? I think you meant to say ".. new guys who make equally dumb or dumber decisions".

Re:Justice

[galaad2]

the refund was actually 80+ UK POUNDS (84 actually), that's about $130 not 80

http://www.google.com/search?q=84+uk+pounds+in+usd

Re:Justice

[Jiro]

He ought to ask for the refund whether he's planning to use the feature or not, since not having the feature reduces his PS3's resale value.

Re:Justice

[dkf]

You won't see that happen. That was back in the day of the PS2, and as far as I'm aware Sony never actually got away with that claim. Since then the tax rules have changed so that there isn't the same distinction between games consoles and computers, so there's no tax break involved in passing one off as the other.

You have to check that for every separate EU country, as rules for what rate of VAT to use vary at the member state scale. (Control over taxation is very jealously guarded; I don't expect that to pass to Brussels for a long time, if ever.)

Re:Justice

[xaxa]

Minor correction: Amazon chose to pay out, they didn't have to.

Now, it's possible that the court would've held Amazon liable anyway, but it hasn't come to that yet, and they may just as well have informed the customer that their case was with Sony instead.

In the UK the blame lies with Amazon. If Amazon want to sue Sony that's up to them, but the Amazon customer doesn't need to deal with Sony.

Read The Sale of Goods Act 1979 section 48A: "the buyer has the right ... to require the seller to reduce the purchase price of the goods to the buyer by an appropriate amount". Everything in those sections refers to the Buyer and Seller, not the manufacturer.

Re:Justice

[lymond01]

So...just what do all those corporate lawyers your businesses have on staff do all day if not respond to litigation requests?

Or are you saying that...oh...oooooh! That must be nice.

Re:Justice

[dkf]

...No I think I'm right... It should have been Sony who paid out, but instead it was Amazon. Amazon shouldn't have had to pay out.

UK consumer law says it was Amazon who was liable. There was no contract of sale between Sony and the consumer. (Yes, the consumer is in a privileged position in UK law. It's one of the better pieces of UK legislation.)

Re:Justice

[shentino]

A good policy.

1. It keeps the merchant responsible for the vendors they choose to do business with
2. It puts the onus of dealing with the vendor on the merchant, whose bargaining power is presumably much more in parity.

Re:Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

So EU law works similar to US law. An American could do this same thing, cite the relevant law regarding flase advertising of a product, and get a refund. -or- Drag the retailer into small claims court.

Not really. In the USA the rule is generally caveat emptor, ("let the buyer beware"). People in the USA have very few consumer rights compared to the EU.

Re:Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, now, we're only talking about the PS3 mistakes here. Some of us have to work and we can't waste all day discussing ALL of Sony's stupid decisions in their history.

Re:Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

No, according to UK and European law it is the retailer who is responsible for reimbursing the customer or replacing/repairing the fault. It doesn't require a court to find Amazon liable, the law already states they are liable - a court would only have had to confirm they are if they disputed it.

Re:Justice

[xaxa]

If Sony *did* discontinue the PSN service years after you purchased your system, would it be reasonable to expect a payout from Amazon?

Under UK law it would be reasonable to expect a payout from Amazon if Sony discontinued the PSN service within "a reasonable time" (probably 5 years), if it was an important function of the device. (I don't have a PS3, I don't know if this is the case.)

Sony also can't do "whatever it wants" with an EULA either. (And note that the EU EULA is different to the US one.)

Re:Justice

[qwerty360]

3. It handles cases where an item was brought locally, but is manufactured half way around the world.

Re:Justice

[Vanderhoth]

$150 is all I'd be willing to pay for it as a gaming console.

Re:Justice

[Ipeunipig]

That was 84 GBP so it's a good bit higher that $2 billion.

84 GBP = 129 USD

Range of $2.6 to $3.8 billion

Re:Justice

[circuitworx]

I adopted the PS3 the night it came out for $599 + tax just for that specific ability to run Linux. Blu-Ray and Games were a secondary plus. All those 3 functions made the purchase price justifiable. I know I am not alone here in that reasoning. I could of got a bare-bone computer + blu-ray player separately if I knew the Other OS feature would disappear one day.

Re:Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

You live in fairtale land. A US consumer only has one option : BEND OVER AND TAKE IT. It's the difference between pure Corporatism and Socialism.

Re:Justice

[theaveng]

Or AMAZON is more customer friendly. If you tried this with the EU's version of Walmart, you might be told "no refund" even if the law says you're entitled to one.

Re:Justice

[tpholland]

Thanks for the informative response. (Note to mods--iapetus is apparently the customer in question.)

Re:Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

It works similarly here in Australia.

If you contact a company and let them know they might be breaking the law, they'll go out of their way to keep you happy with a refund or free stuff or similar.

If not, you can take them to small claims court.

Re:Justice

[AvitarX]

Except it is theoretically damaging resale value.

Whether or not your flatmate uses the feature, it's removal from the product lessens the value.

Re:Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

"And Geohot's hack only works if you are on 3.15 or below, if you're on 3.20 (which has the other OS feature, last firmware to do so), you're out of luck."

Is 3.20 an EU or other non-US release? In the US, 3.15 was the latest firmware for US consoles the Sunday before 3.21 was released.

Re:Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

Because we are not as fucked up as you?
And because they would have lost any trial. It's not like in the US where you just throw money at the legal system and win.

Re:Justice

[theaveng]

Did they lay-off the old management in 2005 and replace them with new guys who make dumb decisions?

The rootkit affair WASN'T a dumb decision?

As I said. 2005.

Re:Justice

[yacc143]

Then he would have to go to court, and the retailer would have to pay court costs, and both attorney fees. (Loser pays all is the common system in most of Europe.)

Re:Justice

[Nick Ives]

In the UK, all electrical goods worth more than a certain value (and some other classes of goods) are automatically garuanteed for one year, as part of the customer's statutory rights

That should be two years now because of the EU Directive on Consumer Rights. The same directive gives a minimum warranty period of two years but UK law extends that to six, except for Scotland where it's five.

Better yet, the onus is on the shop to show that the failure to prove that it was due to your misuse, not you having to prove that it was a poor design or manufacturing defect.

Actually that's only true for the first six months in the UK or three months (as a minimum) for the rest of the EU. After that you have to show that the fault was present when you originally purchased the item. For most classes of "the damn thing just broke!" that's not too hard though.

Here's the full directive; the relevant chapter starts on page 30.

Re:Justice

[tlhIngan]

* Ability to sign in to PlayStation Network and use network features that require signing in to PlayStation Network, such as online features of PS3 games and chat

Actually no. And this is one of the two things I've learned about the PS3 because of this.

1) Apparently modified firmware is loadable by anyone, no special tools needed other than a storage medium.
2) Playstation Network does not perform checks.

That's right, if you've got 3.15, you can either use a proxy hack, use a public no-update server, or set up your own DNS+Web server. Your PS3 will check against your server, see that no update is necessary, and connect to PSN. It's unknown how old your PS3 can be before it can't connect to PSN due to protocol changes. The only thing keeping people honest is the PS3, which if it checks Sony's server, and sees that its version is lower than what the Sony server says is current, it won't connect.

Now, what this has on the potential for cheaters on PSN, I don't know. But until this OtherOS fiasco, I wouldn't have bothered knowing.

How to bypass PSN version check - http://www.mydigitallife.info/2010/04/05/how-to-access-psn-bypassing-ps3-firmware-3-21-upgrade-for-otheros/
How to set up your own bypass - http://rvlution.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=123 (requires DNS and HTTP servers).

Thanks Sony!

Re:Justice

[theaveng]

Sony will almost certainly settle (with a gag order)

How effective is that, really? If I get back a refund for my Exploded iPhone plus sign a gag order with Apple, what's to stop me from speaking about it a year later? Nothing as far as I can tell.

Re:Justice

[blackraven14250]

"Terms are subject to change without notice" is commonplace in nearly every contract in the US, even though that doesn't hold up in court.

Re:Justice

[jridley]

...and lose, after spending tens of thousands on legal fees.

Re:Justice

[yacc143]

Was the EULA posted on the box and known to the customer before the buying decision?

If so, does the EULA contain text that has been deemed illegal in non-freely negiotated contracts, or are deemed illegal in contracts with consumers?

Re:Justice

[yacc143]

Does not matter, if you allow this, then the manufacturer could behind this.

Re:Justice

[surferx0]

This is justice for anyone who was actually affected by the removal.

It's only justice to those of you who fail to differentiate between the retailer and manufacturer. Amazon took the hit for this, not Sony. It is doubtful that Amazon will be able to get that money back from Sony and even if they do, they will still end up at a loss for the cost of having to get back that lost revenue from the manufacturer.

Re:Justice

[TyFoN]

This is true in Norway aswell, I know at least one computer hardware retailer, and there are probably more, that has stopped carrying OCZ ram due to them being anal about refunds and warranties. The shop still has to pay even if OCZ doesn't.

Re:Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

*UK* law works similar to US law. The rest of the EU has civil law instead of commom law.

Re:Justice

[rtfa-troll]

Or, more likely, EU courts are more likely to award costs where they belong. So, the standard US strategy of extending and extending the court case until the opponent is bankrupt just backfires. The earlier Amazon settles the cheaper it is for them.

What's really interesting about this decision, though, is that this potentially means 20% discounts for everybody who bought a console. Time to start telling your games playing friends about this too. This might get quite expensive for Sony..

Re:Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

In most EU if a product doesn't comply with its manufacturer description the manufacturer will get fined for false publicity(cant get the term right in English).

Re:Justice

[david_thornley]

The standard way of settling these charges in the US is Small Claims Court, which is reasonably fast and inexpensive. If you've got a $60,000 claim against a company, you might be facing five years and a hundred thousand dollars to collect it. If you've got a $600 claim, you're in much better shape.

Re:Justice

[Ephemeriis]

A US citizen has the same legal protection as an EU citizen, either to demand a refund from sony, or else sue them in court for violating US law.

That's true...

But the US is considerably more pro-corporation than the EU is. And we don't have the same exact consumer protection that the EU does.

I think you'd have a much harder time getting your refund here in the US.

Re:Justice

[stonewallred]

In my state you can only file a small claims case in the county which the principle you are suing resides. I was served papers (the sheriff dept called me and I stopped by to pick them up)for a dentist bill my insurance failed to pay, and they sued me in the county which I worked, not where I lived. The lawyer was a bitch, so after about 15 minutes of bantering back and forth, the judge asked if there was anything I wished to add. I asked that the case be dismissed since I lived in a different county, showed my DL and he dismissed it. Lawyer was not happy, as she filed in the wrong venue and would not get paid most likely.

Re:Justice

[HarrySquatter]

2) Playstation Network does not perform checks.

And you think they won't start performaing a check?

Re:Justice

[HarrySquatter]

You are assuming that all PS3 owners are going to:

1) Know about the other os option.
2) Care about having "lost" an option that they never knew existed.

Considering that 99% of people using a PS3 either don't know or care about the "Other OS" option, you seem to be way overestimating any costs to Sony.

Re:Justice

[HarrySquatter]

You may not be the only one, but you are part of an extremely tiny minority of PS3 owners that actually care about this option.

Re:Justice

[Vanderhoth]

Sorry I have to make a correction. All I would have been will to pay for it. After what Sony just did to me they'd be lucky if I'd take one for free.

Re:Justice

[HarrySquatter]

"Terms are subject to change without notice" is commonplace in nearly every contract in the US, even though that doesn't hold up in court.

Case law citations, please. And they have to be ones that are generally applicable to all contracts, not ones limited in scope to only the contract that was at dispute.

Re:Justice

[Volante3192]

Score one for karma.

Re:Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

And have a reasonable life time of use for its purpose. Even beyond Warranties. We have had car gearboxes replaced in 3 years due to it shoudl last 3 years as reasonable. Warantty periods are not the life of reasonable use. They are even liable outside of waranty periods.

Re:Justice

[Labcoat Samurai]

huh. Still doesn't seem to me that that should be Amazon's responsibility. There's not exactly anything they could have done about it. I suppose the law also permits Amazon to recoup some of their costs under the same circumstances?

Re:Justice

[uglyduckling]

Actually, no. Often these sort of issues are dealt with by the local Trading Standards Office. Because these regulations are to do with the retailer, not the manufacturer, retailers are concerned about their local reputation because of their direct relationship with customers but also because if they get a bad name it can affect their ability to get licenses to sell certain goods and generally make it difficult to trade. The Trading Standards Office can impose certain fines and require retailers to provide refunds or exchanges without ever having to go to court and without costing the customer a thing.

One of the things a lot of people don't realise is that, in the UK, retailers (not manufacturers) are responsible for the quality of goods for up to 6 years. If you can argue that it would be reasonable to expect goods to last a certain time, then the retailer can be required to repair or replace them regardless of warranty periods, and it's impossible to contractually sign those rights away. So e.g. a pair of shoes worn daily couldn't reasonably be expected to last beyond 6 months, but a premium computer (say a MacBook) most people would expect to last 3 years, so one can presume that a failure before that time would be a result of a manufacturing problem and you would be due a repair. That's why I never buy an extended warranty but make sure I buy from companies I can track down.

Re:Justice

[colordev]

this and this are likely couple of those places. Maybe you also found this PS2 tax court battle interesting :p

Re:Justice

[SmallMonkeyPirate]

In the UK you possibly wouldn't even need to take them court yourself. Merely report the retailer to Trading Standards (the govt dept for these kind of things for you non-Brits) detailing the advertising for the product at the time of purchase and how you believe the law has been broken and they will do it for you if your claim is valid.

Not only that, if they are successful they can also order other companies to offer refunds/discounts/compensation should they also have sold the product without those consumers having to go through the same process.

Going down this route means the govt not the consumer funds the legal action should the claim be valid and the company concerned dispute their breach of the law. Additionally in the UK we also have the pleasing effect of BBC1's consumer program Watchdog, if they take up your case the company will find themselves having a 10 minute grilling of their services and how they have broken the law viewed by several million prime time viewers. Watchdog is such an institution here that a bad press from them can have very serious repercussions on your sales, and will probably make the daily newspapers the next day in some form (probably the Daily Mail with a headline like "Amazon product lies killed Diana!"). This is what Amazon really fears.

Re:Justice

[theaveng]

Or, more likely, EU courts are more likely to award costs where they belong.

Why do you say that? You have experience with EU courts, or are you just making random guesses?

I don't know. I followed that whole "Foxy Knoxxy" trial, and it seemed to drag on-and-on-and-on for a long time. It doesn't seem european courts are any more efficient (or accurate) than american ones.

Re:Justice

[uglyduckling]

Not true. At least in the UK there is the Trading Standards Institute which will take on clearcut issues for customers at no cost to the customer. It's relatively easy to get fairly hefty refunds by writing a letter to the company, quoting the relevant legislation or regulation, and stating that your next step will be to involve Trading Standards. Most retailers will back down immediately because they know it will cost them huge amounts to fight, and cost the customer almost nothing.

Re:Justice

[theaveng]

I find your anti-americanism disturbing. Europe is not some kind of Utopia where consumers always win. Any european will tell you that, especially if they've been victim of one of those 3-strike laws.

Re:Justice

[hasdikarlsam]

Interesting. For comparison purposes, then:

The situation in Norway is more or less the same, with a few differences.

- The minimum period of time your device has to work for is two years, not one. This caused a bit of trouble with cellphone manufacturers who claimed batteries and/or phones were not meant to last that long. Poor dears.

- If the device can be reasonably expected to last significantly longer, it's five years.

- If there isn't a physical store involved (e.g. buying over the internet), you can return your purchase within 14 days of arrival, no questions asked. You'll still be out the postage. I used this to "borrow" some large HDDs once.

- Shops are *required* to inform the customer of these facts, so most people know.

Re:Justice

[uglyduckling]

He needs to think a bit more clearly. Amazon bought a load of these from Sony, and sold them to UK customers. Amazon are in breach of their contract of sale with all of their UK customers following the removal of this feature. Amazon should discharge their responsibility under those contracts and offer a partial refund to all of their customers (without them asking) as should all honest retailers as soon as they are aware of this issue. The retailers should then pursue Sony for their refund as Sony is in breach of their contract(s) with the retailers having altered the goods after the fact. Wanting the feature is irrelevant.

Re:Justice

[hasdikarlsam]

Even if they never cared about the option, they might enjoy an extra 130 pounds.

This really should be publicized better. :-)

Re:Justice

[uglyduckling]

It doesn't do everything it was advertised to do. If you accept the upgrade, the (advertised) "other OS" feature ceases to work. If you refuse the upgrade the (advertised) feature of being able to connect to PSN ceases to work. Having to accept the EULA for PSN may be an additional requirement, but the device as sold should be able to connect.

Re:Justice

[Bing Tsher E]

On the other hand, this could be an opportunity to educate the public:

"Have you ever heard about this thing called Linux? Sony recently changed the firmware on your PS3 so you can't run it anymore. You can get 20 bux from them. Here's what Linux is....."

A certain number of people will just want the 20 bux, but things like that raise the visibility of something to people. It could result in more people learning there are interesting 'Other' things they can do with a PS3 (and with other hardware they might own.)

Re:Justice

[GasparGMSwordsman]

Apparently you have never been to small claims court. It is pretty fast, very cheap and you can only win a small amount. It is as straight forward as possible.

If you simply wanted a refund you could file a claim against Sony in small claims court. You are looking at an average of $25 filing fees with the court (varies depending on where you live in the States). It can take a WHILE before you actually have a court date. I have never heard of a case where the time spent by the individual was more than 3 days effort, including the actual day spent waiting at the courthouse.

If you actually went to the effort of suing Sony and did not go the class action route (thereby giving up your right to sue in small claims court), my guess is that Sony would just give you the refund. It is simply easier to give you the money than pay an attorney to defend the action and on top of that, as a pre-trial settlement they could avoid attention and get a generally better deal than just winning the trial.

Re:Justice

[JumpDrive]

I think the bigger hammer Amazon has, is removing Sony products from their Web site. All of them?
I buy a lot of stuff from Amazon for the convenience, but I rarely walk into a store without looking at feedback on the product before I buy.
Amazon feedback, consumer reports, newegg feedback, and Tom's Hardware.

Re:Justice

[icebraining]

You got it backwards. It was the seller (corp and random guy) who screwed over the buyers.

The difference is the random guy got away with it and the corp couldn't. Probably because the buyer didn't want to request the refund from him, and possibly because he didn't demand a proof of payment in the first place.

Besides, yes, private sales have different rules than business sale, and second hand sales also have different rules than first hand sales.

Re:Justice

[VJ42]

The PS3 is not exclusive to EB games, it could have come from any of a number of retailers.

I realise that, I was just explaining the general principles of UK law on the matter of sale of goods & false advertising in general.

Re:Justice

[The Moof]

It was intentionally a low estimate. I was basing it on the 20% in the summary, not the GBP to USD conversion. I roughly estimated the average the PS3 price to be about $400USD (taking the price drops into account as new models were released). I also low-balled the number of system owners due to the Slim versions not being affected.

Re:Justice

[feepness]

I'm sure they're fine with that given the retailer shortages.

Re:Justice

[nosferatu1001]

Loser pays is the norm

So if you drag it out and lose, you pay everything (assuming the other side incurred "reasonable" expenses

This is a very very very effective system, as both sides are required to minimise expenses - if you dont, even if you win you may not get full costs.

Re:Justice

[The Moof]

I was going off the 20% in the summary, not the actual GBP amount.

Re:Justice

[Labcoat Samurai]

Formally, it's an EULA issue. You license software with the implicit assumption that you will need to agree to the license agreement or not be able to use it. Sony's license agreement may not be fair (I don't think it is), but that isn't Amazon's fault.

Re:Justice

[nosferatu1001]

My contract is with the person selling me the item, that is the person responsible for it working as advertised.

Amazon then hand the bill to Sony, as that is who THEIR contract is with (For example...)

Re:Justice

[jisatsusha]

I'm pretty sure GP was speaking about the law in general, and not the PS3 issue specifically.

Re:Justice

[Labcoat Samurai]

Under UK law it would be reasonable to expect a payout from Amazon if Sony discontinued the PSN service within "a reasonable time" (probably 5 years), if it was an important function of the device. (I don't have a PS3, I don't know if this is the case.)

This still seems crazy to me. What if Sony went out of business? (absurd, I know) Amazon would have to pick up the bill? I'm all for protecting consumers, but a reseller doesn't have any more direct control or responsibility for the actions of a manufacturer than the consumer does. Informally, it seems like trying to collect a debt from a dead person's relative.

Re:Justice

[sharkey]

Justice for anyone who lives and purchased their console from a European retailer.

Just out of curiosity, are there many non-living console purchasers buying from European retailers?

Re:Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, so much mis-information in this thread I really had a problem knowing where to hit 'reply'.

This is information from someone who works in retail extensively. I'm not a lawyer and I really don't care if I get modded down, but I sure as hell hope nobody takes information from the above two posts and goes to court with it. You'll be laughed out of the courtroom.

There is a ONE year warranty on products sold in the UK, by law. The two year thing which everyone keeps quoting was not adopted by our government. It means nothing. Daily Mail readers may feel differently, but I have no sympathy for you if you read such hate filled 'journalism'.

A retailer is not obliged to replace or refund a product. They are only required by law to *repair* the product. If they choose to do the former, then goodie for you, consider yourself lucky.

I love the way the parent mentions a fictional six year warranty, with a link which does not mention it. Might be worth reading links before you post them to bolster the point you are trying to make. The six year warranty does not exist. It's merely a six year commitment to 'look after' the consumer. This does not mean you get free repairs on the item, you may still have to pay after the first year. But you should be able to receive servicing etc. for at least six years after buying the product.

The only thing the parent got right was the six month part. After the first six months, the burden of proving the fault shifts from the retailer, to the consumer.

Please guys. Stop being so hateful here and telling everyone about their rights when you clearly have no idea yourselves.

Re:Justice

[cheesybagel]

The EU (mainland at least) is less litigation prone than the US. There are a lot more actually legislated laws, and less court established common laws. This means going to court is more of a last resort. Court lawsuits are slow and onerous. Oh and loser pays expenses IIRC.

Re:Justice

[uglyduckling]

It's not Amazon's fault, but they are still in breach of their contract when they sold the device, because it can't do something that it was advertised to do. The correct course is exactly what has happened here - the retailer settles with the customer (with whom they have a contract) and then takes it up with the manufacturer (because Amazon has a contract with them and the customer doesn't in terms of the sale). Unfair contract terms cannot be enforced. Amazon has sold a product with certain features advertised. You may be right in saying that those features are tied to another contract, but ultimately if the goods cannot function as advertised then Amazon are in breach of the sale contract.

I think you're getting confused because the EULA you mention is with Sony, and Sony also manufactured the console, and that is muddying the water. Think of it this way: if Amazon had marketed the console as "works with eBay!!" and then eBay changed their website so it didn't work with the PS3 browser, that wouldn't be Amazon's fault, but it would be their responsibility to make right or offer compensation as they advertised that feature when the sale was made.

Re:Justice

[westlake]

This is justice for anyone who was actually affected by the removal. And feedback for Sony for future decisions.

We are nine days out from the firmware upgrade.

How many systems do you suppose have been routinely upgraded without a thought given to the OtherOS?

The PS3's installed base last August was about 24 million units.

If the geek wants to impress Sony he has to deliver some really big numbers - a quarter million or so, I should think. 1% of the base. If he can't move 50,000 to demand a refund, the game is not even worth playing.

Re:Justice

[Tim C]

A retailer is not obliged to replace or refund a product. They are only required by law to *repair* the product. If they choose to do the former, then goodie for you, consider yourself lucky.

From the GP's link to which.co.uk:

If you buy a product that turns out to be faulty, you can choose to 'reject' it: give it back and get your money back. However, the law gives you only a 'reasonable' time to do this – what is reasonable depends on the product and how obvious the fault is....

You have the right to get a faulty item replaced or repaired, if you're happy with this (or if it's too late to reject it). You can ask the retailer to do either, but they can normally choose to do whatever would be cheapest.

So unless you're claiming to know more than Which, yes you can return the product (under certain circumstances) and you can ask to have it replaced, though the retailer can choose to repair it instead.

Re:Justice

[Duradin]

I wonder how long it will be before a store only lists a product's UPC code so they only thing the are advertising is that they know that UPC and 3rd party sites can do all the "advertising" (but not sell anything).

Re:Justice

[aix tom]

Actually, customer relations was one of the reasons Walmart failed in Europe (especially in Germany) when it tried to expand to over here a few years ago. ;-P

The other thing regarding this case might be that every retailer has to give a 2 year warranty on any product. One more important fact is that in the first 6 month after the purchase, the law specifies that a consumer that claims the product is at fault is right unless the retailer can PROVE that the product works as advertised, or the customer damaged it on purpose. So there would be not much to gain for the retailer by going to court, unless he can prove that in court.

For the remaining 18 month of the warranty the burden of proof is reversed, so there the customer would have to prove that the product was already defective by design when he bought it.

Re:Justice

[BattleApple]

That's straight from Sony's blog, so I'm inclined to think things may change ( Not that I believe everything Sony has to say. )

Re:Justice

[xaxa]

What if Sony went out of business? (absurd, I know) Amazon would have to pick up the bill?

Yes, I think so.

I'm all for protecting consumers, but a reseller doesn't have any more direct control or responsibility for the actions of a manufacturer than the consumer does.

They do choose which products they sell. From what I read on /. the US is too far in the other direction -- an MP3 player could break after 91 days and there's nothing the buyer can do.

This is a good general guide. (Or search "sale of goods act" on Google.co.uk)

Re:Justice

[Khyber]

best part about small claims court is that most won't allow lawyers in the room to argue, so you stand a better chance.

Re:Justice

[Labcoat Samurai]

Perhaps it is their legal responsibility, but I don't think it *should* be.

ultimately if the goods cannot function as advertised then Amazon are in breach of the sale contract.

And if the goods did not function as advertised, *when* advertised, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But we're putting extra words in their mouth. They didn't advertise "Will connect to the playstation network forever!" or even "Will connect to the playstation network for no less than the next 5 years" . Hell, I didn't see the wording, but I'd bet there was even a "subject to terms and conditions" disclaimer.

More pertinent to the point I'm making, I'd be surprised if it wasn't present tense, and since they don't have control over Sony's service, an honest present tense description is the best they can do and the most to which they should be held.

Re:Justice

[Khyber]

Learn about unilateral agreements and EULAs - many states, especially California, find those clauses null and void as it goes against their consumer rights laws.

Just speaking as the man that just knocked the crap out of EA for Spore and SecuROM here in the state of California.

Re:Justice

[Labcoat Samurai]

They do choose which products they sell.

And consumers choose which products they buy. This argument would only have traction with me if the reseller was privy to critical information that it refused to pass to the consumer, thus handicapping the consumer's ability to make an informed decision. Otherwise, I fail to see how the reseller is any more responsible for their bad decision than the consumer. Had the consumer sold a used game to Gamestop in good faith and support was later removed, would it be reasonable for Gamestop to go demand money from the private individual?

Re:Justice

[asdf7890]

This might get quite expensive for Sony..

Sony may not be paying. Amazon may have paid out to make this one problem go away. If many people try the same thing they'll probably stop doing so and instead refer people directly to Sony instead.

Re:Justice

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

From TFA: "If Amazon forwards the bill to Sony, how will Sony respond?"

Depends on the law. Does it just affect the end retailer, or can Amazon hold Sony responsible for the exact same, inaccurate description?

Re:Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

No, 3.15 is the last firmware to have other os. Do you even have a ps3? Or are you making stuff up? 3.20 removed the feature and Geohot is making a custom 3.20 firmware to bring it back. If you have already upgraded to 3.20 then I have heard you can not install the Geohot modified one to replace it, you have to still be on 3.15.

Re:Justice

[EvilBudMan]

Loser don't pay expenses here at least not always but it all comes out the same even in the US the court is designed to be something of last resort but instead of settling simple matters with both parties coming out better in the exchange, the companies here are insured against legal action and always say no. This causes a chain of events with the lawyers ending up with the money either way it goes.

Sometimes those massive class action suits are the only way to get a company to stop doing something and it takes a long time for results.

Re:Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

Get the fuck over it you alpha nerd losers. Christ...

Re:Justice

[xaxa]

I don't know the history, but not long ago the shop was supposed to know about what it was selling, and it wasn't as easy to find other information.

(PS: IANAL.)

Re:Justice

[Sparr0]

Laws of this sort rarely allow for that sort of buck-passing. Amazon sold the product, the product became defective/not-as-advertised, Amazon owes you a refund. You have no consumer relationship with Sony.

Re:Justice

[Labcoat Samurai]

I'm a strong proponent of transparency in advertising. If a retailer is dishonest or hides pertinent information, I want them to fry for it (figuratively). But if they are advertising in good faith and providing information that they have verified to be correct (and not misleading) to the best of their ability, I feel uncomfortable penalizing them merely for having bigger pockets.

Re:Justice

[anyGould]

Doesn't it also say they can change it at any time?

That sort of thing is pretty limited in practice, though - otherwise I could sell you a box promising gold bricks and the "we reserve the right" text on the outside, and a note inside saying "we changed from gold to air - enjoy!" on the inside.

Re:Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

Citations?

Re:Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your confusion lies in what I said was warranted. That's understandable considering that you lack the reading skills to digest a short Which article. From the link I gave:

You have six years to make a claim for faulty goods in England, Wales and Northern Ireland; in Scotland you have five years.

There is a statutory five or six year warranty in the UK for faults present at the time of purchase. A better way of phrasing it would be that there is a warranty at the point of sale and you have six years in which to exercise your rights. This doesn't cover normal wear and tear, so any product that usually wears out in less than six years isn't covered for acting as normal nor are faults that occur during that period, as long as said faults aren't related to a defect at time of purchase.

Most manufacturers offer warranties beyond faults present at time of purchase. I just returned a two and a half year old motherboard, for example, because the USB mysteriously died. That fault clearly wasn't present at time of purchase but I was covered by the three year manufacturers' warranty.

The only confusing part about my post was about it being relatively easy to show that faults were there originally. I guess there are a wide range of faults that occur that could be related to manufacturing defects but are pretty much impossible to show one way or the other.

Re:Justice

[iapetus]

The latter, and the EU directive is very explicit about that.

Re:Justice

[iapetus]

That's the way things work over here. Consumer has to exercise their rights against the retailer, retailer has the right to take it to the responsible party further up the supply chain. The law permits Amazon to recoup all of their costs.

Re:Justice

[sortius_nod]

Sounds similar to Australia (I know the laws are similar too). However, in AU if you get to the going to court bit, you don't take them to court, or even set foot in a court room. The Department of Consumer Affairs/Department of Fair Trading (depending on the state you are in) will do so on your behalf.

Most retailers or companies will avoid this step like the plague. I remember having my Wii drive die within 3 months of buying it, I sent it to Nintendo and they tried to say I dropped it. The console wasn't dropped when I hooked it up, and was only moved to be packed to send to them after the drive died. They refused to fix it without cost to myself, so I contacted the Dept. of Consumer Affairs, a week later I got a call advising me that they will contact Nintendo Australia, if nothing can be resolved they would take them to court on my behalf.

Needless to say, a further week later I had a call from Nintendo advising me that my console was repaired and on it's way back at no charge.

I'm amazed how broken the US justice system is in not giving ANY protections to consumers beyond false advertising, which, let's face it, can be fought quite easily by a large corporation against an individual. It's a lot harder for someone, no matter how many lawyers they have, to fight the government. Sure, they can win if they are confident no laws have been broken, but you'd better hope your evidence is impeccable.

Re:Justice

[feepness]

Here you go.

Re:Justice

[phoenix_rizzen]

Because most EU countries have sane consumer protection laws, where consumer rights trump corporate greed. The rest of the world can learn a lot from some EU countries.

Re:Justice

[AmiMoJo]

The key difference is that you have to sue them. In the EU most disputed are handled out of court either between the customer and the retailer or with the intervention of the relevant government body (Office of Fair Trading in the UK).

It costs you nothing beyond writing a few letters here.

Re:Justice

[RockDoctor]

Or, more likely, EU courts are more likely to award costs where they belong. So, the standard US strategy of extending and extending the court case until the opponent is bankrupt just backfires.

That's why the earlier poster from the UK was careful to specify going to "Small Claims Court" : the costs are all up-front, the risk of the costs is carried by the claimant, and the costs (including costs of collection) can be reclaimed from the defendant (assuming that the claimant wins).
Last time I used the system, I paid (IIRC) £34 to submit the paperwork to the court, the case was heard and found in my favour, and the defendant failed to pay. So, I took the court papers and the defendant's details to a court-approved debt collection company who, for a fee, door-stepped the defendant's Boss on a Sunday morning to serve the arrestment-of-wages order. Instead the defendant got fired and was then evicted from his flat, disappearing from any address I knew of.
Two years later ... I see the defendent's name on a personnel list for a job, double-checked that it was him (not just someone with the same name), and within 6 hours, his new Boss had the arrestment-of-wages paperwork on his desk for the original judgement, plus two sets of debt-collector's fees. I got paid.

In a commercial situation, many companies can't be bothered to send a lawyer to contest a SCC case and either fold, or negotiate. And that's not considering the concerns about bad publicity.
Personally, I find that reminding a supervisor of the full version of the First Law of Advertising is normally sufficient : the short form is "There is no good advert like a satisfied customer", and the oft-forgotten second half is "there is no bad advert as bad as a dissatisfied customer". "Dissatisfied", is of course, a fairly broad term, and leaves the manager with room to negotiate.

Re:Justice

[rtfa-troll]

Please compare the Wikipedia article on the "American Rule" with that on the "English Rule". basically the English rule is more or less standard in most countries other than the US.

This difference means that mostly the person who loses (and if your justice system is working, that's mostly the person who deserves to lose) ends up paying. Note, that normally, even in the UK, full costs are not awarded, just those costs that were reasonable and needed. Even so, this means that if you are in the right and able to prove it, it becomes much less likely you will let the other party persuade you to take a bad settlement.

This is independent of the efficiency of judgement. US courts tend to be quite inefficient, worse than English, and much much worse than German, but Italian courts, for example, regularly fail to decide (criminal) cases within the limits of their statutes of limitation and I believe their civil cases are also less efficient than those of the USA.

Re:Justice

[rtfa-troll]

What Sparr0 said; except.

You have no consumer relationship with Sony.

This isn't strictly true in most cases. Because of the risk that your retailer goes bankrupt or disappears, EU countries (I think all) recognise that the producer is also responsible if you cannot get satisfaction from the retailer. In some countries you can go directly to the producer without having to contact the retailer; I think in others (UK??) you have to attempt via the retailer first.

Re:Justice

[jimnorcal]

Damn! You guys in the UK are lucky to have such a nice set of consumer protection laws. There's no way in hell we'd ever see anything so grand in the US; not with all the politicians being bought off by the companies who sponsor them, especially now with that recent supreme court ruling where companies can contribute all the money they want to candidates. We're so screwed. :(

Re:Justice

[Calinous]

In Europe there are the so called "consummer protection agencies" - which can give fines out of proportion with the values of the items sold, or even take other measures (temporary closing until the situation which prompted the closing is solved).
      And sparring in court with a government agency is a totally different thing than sparring in court with an individual, so most companies caught in the act usually pay the fine.

Re:Justice

[Vanderhoth]

From what I've been reading the shortages are due to factory production issues, not consumer demand.

Re:Justice

[nunokjpg]

a) Functions that any reasonable person would expect the product to have, based on the advertising but also on similar products on the market. This doesn't obviate the customer's responsibility to do some research, just covers too-obvious-to-check things like if your brand new DVD recorder didn't include a DVD playback function

I returned an Iphone 3G in this spirit. "I don't know any other phone were I can't resent or forward a text message".

Re:Justice

[mcvos]

best part about small claims court is that most won't allow lawyers in the room to argue, so you stand a better chance.

This is a great idea! Ban lawyers from court rooms.

Re:Justice

[supssa]

Root kit was Sony Music, Sony Music and Sony Computer Entertainment are two separate entities, but as a typical slashdot troll you dont care do you.

Re:Justice

[James_Duncan8181]

Count another one right here.

Re:Justice

[DrVxD]

Also, did these folks make the requirement known to the seller at the time of sale? Pretty doubtful.

I can't speak for the rest of the EU, but in the UK if a product is advertised as performing a certain function (in this case, allowing the installation of another OS), there's an explicit contract that it will do so. The buyer is under no obligation to make the vendor aware of their desire to make use of that function. If the product does not function as advertised, then the vendor has an obligation to refund or replace.

Heh

[Pojut]

Cue the complainers who didn't even know their PS3 Fat could do this in the first place.

Re:Heh

[kramerd]

Actually, as a PS3 owner who chooses to use the included OS, I am still angry at functionality that was included with purchase being removed. This affects the potential resale value. Or perhaps I want to play my old PS2 games without buying a PS2, since I sold mine when I bought a PS3 to offset the then $600 price tag. I'm sure the majority of complaints stem from actual issues that vary based on how people use their respective consoles.

Re:Heh

[Pojut]

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are a LOT of people out there who were using this capability...I just mean the people who had no idea they could even do this suddenly demanding a refund.

Re:Heh

[Pvt_Ryan]

True but they actually help our cause even if it is out of their own greed. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Re:Heh

[kramerd]

The ability to install another OS is in the user's manual included with a new system. There really isn't a basis for claiming that any PS3 owner was unaware of the possibility. The fact that they had no interest in fully using every aspect of their console does not mean that they have no reason to demand a refund for lost functionality.

In perspective, if a mechanic I pay to wax my car (a continuous, time based upgrade to my hardware) claims that a new better wax will remove the functional ability to use cruise control, he has committed a tort even if I don't use cruise control because I live in the city. I suppose I have the option of buying another car of the same model so I can both use the shiny waxed version and the version with cruise control, but I bought one with the ability for both, and I shouldn't have to later purchase separate functional abilities. My prior knowledge of either car waxing and cruise control are completely irrelevant, because these items are common knowledge when it comes to cars.

Re:Heh

[Pojut]

Yeah, because Amazon (who provided the refund) benefited from the TARP funds. Geez dude, get a grip on reality and stop using talking points for every conversation. This has nothing at all to do with politics...take that malarky elsewhere.

Re:Heh

[Pojut]

You really think most people know their Fat PS3 could have used Linux at one point? The average person doesn't even know what Linux is, much less knowing they could install it on their PS3...

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Left turn to crazyville!

AMZN - no bailout
SONY - no bailout

theaveng - idiot

Re:Heh

[MemoryDragon]

Good for them, Sony needs to learn such a lesson...
I am not even remotely on Sonys side here, what they did is something close to stealing or fraud.
They sold something after a while they decided hey this was not such a good idea and took parts of it back, to have a real life analogy.
Sort of like you buy a car with an advertised replacement tire, after a while the seller decides to get the replacement tire back and fetches it from your garage, the info that he was going to pry your car open and remove the replacement tire was put onto the net and the date of the operation was April the first!

Re:Heh

[kramerd]

I don't care if they do or not.

My point is that not knowing about it is irrelevant to the loss of software function.

Re:Heh

[MemoryDragon]

The average person probably would not have used his replacement tire in the car as well, and probably only has a remote clue where it is. But yet if the manufacturer decided to get the replacement tires of the already sold cars back to cut costs and sell them somewhere else, what do you think would happen.
The feature was sold as such, it was advertised as such it is printed in the manual some people bought it exactly because of that feature and after 3 years sony decides to remove that feature for whatever reason.

At least here in Europe this is a clearly illegal act they performed!
And dont come with the EULA here, an EULA is electronic toilet paper in europe well toilet paper has more value than an EULA at least you can do something useful with it!

Re:Heh

[Xtravar]

Even for the people who don't use this feature, the update diminishes the value of their console, as non-updated consoles will inevitably resell for more.

It's easy to point fingers and say "oh we got a bunch of fake whiners here!" but the reality is that, even if you don't use this feature, Sony should not have the right to remove it.

Re:Heh

[blackraven14250]

I think this particular turn was a right turn, but ok.

Re:Heh

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I just mean the people who had no idea they could even do this suddenly demanding a refund.

When you buy a product based on its potential (i.e. what games it'll have in the future...), it's unnerving when Sony decides to arbitrarily remove features that potentially affect whether you can get those new games.

I don't think it's simply a matter of whether or not you use the feature. It's a matter of trust.

How Does a Refund Fix Anything?

[JoeCommodore]

I'm sure a lot of folks would rather see their paid-for features returned than a few dollars back from a retailer.

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything?

[Anonymous Coward]

because it begins to acknowledge that removing otherOS was a dick thing to do on sonys behalf

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything?

[Anonymous Coward]

If enough people do it, it will cost sony more than they thought it would, and be a warning to others. It's all too late anyway, if they haven't completely opened the door to piracy, they've certainly put down a welcome mat and turned on the porch lights.

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything?

[JoeCommodore]

>> If enough people do it, it will cost sony more than they thought it would, and be a warning to others. It's all too late anyway, if they haven't completely opened the door to piracy, they've certainly put down a welcome mat and turned on the porch lights.

Hardly. Would show to manufacturers that the feature was really valuable and maybe they can make more money by repackaging it at a higher cost. Also that removing features on the currently installed customer base is something they can get away with. (Of course many companies can claim prior art on that - i.e. Apple with Qucktime and iTunes and many others)

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything?

[Richard_at_work]

Amazon can't do anything about the lack of a feature, all they can do is refund.

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything?

[LoudMusic]

20% is plenty more than a few dollars. If they bought from Amazon when the device was new they paid Euro equivalent of $600 USD, which would be $120 USD back. That's a fair chunk of change - likely more than a day's pay for the vast majority of PS3 owners.

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything?

[jimicus]

Unfortunately in the UK (and I think most of Europe), sales of goods law covers the contract between retailer and consumer. Not manufacturer.

Amazon can't (easily) update the firmware of his PS3 to put that feature back again, so their options are pretty limited. The consumer can't get an injunction against Sony to reinstate the feature (because they never had a contract with Sony) and they can't get an injunction against Amazon to reinstate the feature (because it's not physically possible for Amazon to do so).

Myself, I think this demonstrates a huge flaw in current legislation - business to business sales (which Amazon buying a bunch of PS3s from Sony would come under) have nothing like the same level of protection as business to consumer sales. So if a retailer sells a bunch of products which then have functionality removed remotely by the manufacturer - entirely outside of the retailers control - the retailer winds up being held responsible.

Note: IANAL.

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything?

[iapetus]

I've been doing a lot of reading up on these things recently (I'm the PS3 owner mentioned in the story, and quite embarassed to be front page news on Slashdot when all I actually did was send a mail to Amazon asking them to clarify where they stood on this whole affair) - the relevant EU directive (1999/44/EC) states that where the retailer pays out but the lack of conformity was caused by the producer (or someone else further up the supply chain) the retailer has the right to go after the person responsible for the lack of conformity to get their money back - in this case, Sony. I'm hoping Amazon will end up doing this, because they're not the ones to blame for this.

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything?

[jbssm]

Well, at least in Portugal, you may choose whether to claim directly with the retailer or the manufacturer.

When I have a problem with any good and want to activate the warranty I normally choose the one that's closer to me, and it works either way.

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything?

[girlintraining]

I'm sure a lot of folks would rather see their paid-for features returned than a few dollars back from a retailer.

No. Most people don't care about the feature. But free money would be a welcome thing. Post it to facebook. Tell all your friends -- Get $80 for free, follow the instructions below! That'll fuck 'em long and good. :) Never appeal to the moral high ground when you can get people on board with good old fashioned cash.

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything?

[sjames]

If retailers take a big enough hit over this, they'll go after Sony for it (they DO have a contract with Sony) and they'll tend to drive a much harder bargain with Sony when the next product comes around.

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything?

[Vanderhoth]

Assuming you're not fibbing about who you are. I think I can speak for a lot of PS3 Linux users and say, "Thank you".

At the very least I've seen many comments from people saying they're going to do something, but nothing is changing. I know Amazon willingly paid you, but this sets a president and now people who didn't use Linux will probably go after the retailers for money. The retailers can cause much more ruckus then the "small percentage" of us that do use Linux.

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything?

[GigaplexNZ]

I'm sure a lot of folks would rather see their paid-for features returned than a few dollars back from a retailer.

No. Most people don't care about the feature.

There's a difference between "a lot" and "most". If it wasn't for your initial "No", I would have agreed with both of you.

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything?

[Fallen Kell]

And not an insignificant amount. Even if just 100 people get a refund from Amazon, you can sure bet that Amazon will go after Sony.

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything?

[LtGordon]

I bought a PS3 in 2008, and at the time I had to make a decision to go with either an Xbox360 or the PS3. At the time Sony was still behind on available content, but the fact that the PS3 had the official ability to run Linux without all kinds of hackery was a huge motivation behind my choice. Think about this another way: Imagine if Microsoft were to decide to remove Xbox Live from the 360. How many people chose Xbox with Live as a major contributing factor to their decision?

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything?

[mdm-adph]

With a 5-digit userid, you have to admit that if he's lying about who he is, then it's either an amazing coincidence, or he plans his jokes years in advance...

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything?

[galaad2]

again, it's 80 UK POUNDS (84 actually), that's about $130 not $80

http://www.google.com/search?q=84+uk+pounds+in+usd

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything?

[Valtor]

I've been doing a lot of reading up on these things recently (I'm the PS3 owner mentioned in the story, and quite embarassed to be front page news on Slashdot when all I actually did was send a mail to Amazon asking them to clarify where they stood on this whole affair) - the relevant EU directive (1999/44/EC) states that where the retailer pays out but the lack of conformity was caused by the producer (or someone else further up the supply chain) the retailer has the right to go after the person responsible for the lack of conformity to get their money back - in this case, Sony. I'm hoping Amazon will end up doing this, because they're not the ones to blame for this.

Thank you. This is much appreciated.

Patrick

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything?

[xavierpayne]

Thank you. You have inspired me to go to the Best Buy in the US that I purchased my PS3 (with other OS) and see where they stand. I too paid the price premium of being an early adopter so I could run linux. The way I see it SONY owes me at least the price difference between the PS3 fat I bought. and the slim they've basically turned it into.

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only elections can set a president

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything?

[JumpDrive]

Yeah, I'm sure a lot of people with Vista on their computers were thinking the same thing.

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything?

[girlintraining]

again, it's 80 UK POUNDS (84 actually), that's about $130 not $80

I just guessed.

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything?

[SEE]

Five-digit? n00b.

It means that eventually you'll agree to a EULA...

[Assmasher]

...when you actually purchase a product. What a horrific, but seemingly inevitable, solution.

Gack!

Car analogy.

[Anonymous Coward]

(since this is Slashdot and a story is never complete without a car analogy comment)
Imagine that you've bought a 4-door car and everything's working great... you take it in to get a winter tuneup or oil change or whatever and the dealer updates the under-the-hood computer so that the back door locks are always engaged and you can no longer open the back doors. You can still use the space, but anyone who wants to sit in the back has to go in through the front and via the inbetween space between the front seats.

Hows that?
OK, commentators...start you analogy engines! And respond to this comment with your better/updated car analogies!

-------------
TDz.

Re:Car analogy.

[EasyTarget]

Better analogy:
You are a nice happy nuclear family, mother, father, three kids.
You buy a 5 seat car for your family.
You get a Safety Recall notice, take the car in.
When it returns it only has 4 seats, the 5th has been removed 'For Safety!'

Re:Car analogy.

[JoeCommodore]

How about this, car co a made this nifty car that could take regular gasoline or diesel all you had to do was flip a switch.

One day you take it into the shop and the mechanic removes the switch, regular gas only, even though diesel had better than twice the mpg- "company told me to, sorry. Hey, here's a couple bucks for your troubles."

Re:Car analogy.

[Bearhouse]

OK, I'll bite.
How about you had a car that used to have a removable roof, so that - when you felt like it - you could drop the top and enjoy the free air and sunshine.
It comes back from the garage after a mandatory 'safety' recall, and - without consulting you - they've locked the roof closed forever.
Does not sound like the car you originally purchased...

Re:Car analogy.

[FlyingBishop]

It's more like taking off a trailer hitch on a sports car. Practically nobody uses their sports car with a trailer, but it's good to have the option.

Where your analogy fails is that cappuccino making has nothing to do with the basic function of the device. Even though few people use the Other OS feature, it's perfectly natural that people want to use an expensive computer to compute things, much like it's perfectly natural that people want to use an expensive automobile to tow their expensive boat.

Re:Car analogy.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can still use the space, but anyone who wants to sit in the back has to go in through the front and via the inbetween space between the front seats.

Sorry! Crawling into the back space, in any way, is a violation of the DMCA. ISPs will be required to put video cameras in your car to make sure you aren't occupying any unauthorized areas (that's their job don't ya know?).

Re:Car analogy.

[Monkeedude1212]

My Analogy:

You pay premium for a Dodge Challenger. You spend a year souping it up, new fuel injection system, NOS, anything and everything you might have heard of when you watched Fast and the Furious.

Dodge recalls the vehicles, for some issue.

When you go to pick it up, they return you a stock Dodge Neon.

Re:Car analogy.

[Pvt_Ryan]

How about: You buy a toyota It gets recalled for safety. It gets returned minus the accelerator (gas) pedal.. Oh wait that almost sounds familiar...

Re:Car analogy.

[Anonymous Coward]

More like: they sold him two devices (a games console and a computer), charging a higher price and using the extra capabilities as one of the justifications, and then took one of them back. Car Analogy? Let's say you agree to buy a $10,000 value car for $15,000 because the dealer is giving you a buy one, get one free deal. Once the contract is signed, they take the free car back and you've just paid massively over the odds.

Re:Car analogy.

[Labcoat Samurai]

That *is* really close. I'd add one thing. You have the option to keep your fifth seat, but if you do, they'll withold OnStar support.

Re:Car analogy.

[Joce640k]

...except it hasn't been removed for "safety", it's been removed because the manufacturer thinks it looks prettier with only four seats.

Re:Car analogy.

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't work at all. No one bought a PS3 specifically for the otheros feature. It was a pointless feature which had nothing to do with its basic operation or the reason it was purchased.

Try this:
1. Car co installs software so that let you plug a coffee maker into your car with various brewing options accessible from the radio controls.
2. Car co disables software so you can no longer brew coffee.

Nothing of value was lost.

Re:Car analogy.

[LtGordon]

How about this, car co a made this nifty car that could take regular gasoline or diesel all you had to do was flip a switch.

One day you take it into the shop and the mechanic removes the switch, regular gas only, even though diesel had better than twice the mpg- " The company claims that diesels diminish fuel sales, so they've decided to remove the feature from all models. Didn't you read the EULA in the owner's manual?."

I took the liberty of making this analogy more realistic.

Re:Car analogy.

[gameboyhippo]

I bought my PS3 just for the Other OS feature. My hacked XBox got bricked and my HTPC broke, so I wanted a legit way of bringing MythTV to my TV without having to build a new HTPC.

Re:Car analogy.

[dkf]

No one bought a PS3 specifically for the otheros feature.

That's untrue. I've seen them in a number of places running displays as, in effect, embedded systems with a bit more grunt than normal. For example, I know for sure that Barcelona Supercomputer Center has one in its lobby, showing the current loading, heat levels, etc. of their facility.

Re:Car analogy.

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

You know, some people actually use the Other OS feature. For some people, it may have even been a factor in buying the PS3.

Why the fuck are you even on this site if you don't get that?

Re:Car analogy.

[GigaplexNZ]

A car manufacture advertised a feature where by you could connect a cappuccino machine to the cars cooling system and make coffee while you were driving

If they plan on selling this in New Zealand, they had better prepare to pay royalties. My friend owns a patent in this (I kid you not, New Zealand Patent 538408).

Re:Car analogy.

[frozen_kangaroo]

That doesn't work at all. No one bought a PS3 specifically for the otheros feature. It was a pointless feature which had nothing to do with its basic operation or the reason it was purchased.

I did.

I bought it so that I could run MythFrontend on a games console under the TV. This lets me watch and manage recorded programs stored on a server in another room. So, I spent extra money on a PS3 rather than an XBOX. I was very pleased with the results.

Also, I can run GameOS and play games, and currently enjoy MW2 online for which I need to talk to PSN.

This was the purpose for which I intended my PS3 to be used, and now I have to choose one or the other. This p*sses me right off.

Re:Car analogy.

[ColdWetDog]

Have you passed the Touring test lately?

Re:Car analogy.

[ColdWetDog]

Ahhh! Touring / Turing !!!! When is Slashdot going to have a technical homonym checker??? We could be the first on the block with something.

Re:Car analogy.

[blackraven14250]

No one bought a PS3 specifically for the otheros feature.

Did you seriously just say that on /. ?

Re:Car analogy.

[tapanitarvainen]

No one bought a PS3 specifically for the otheros feature. It was a pointless feature which had nothing to do with its basic operation or the reason it was purchased.

I beg to differ. I have installed Linux on 20 PS3s that were purchased for the very purpose of running Linux, and they've never been used for anything else after purchase. (The free games that came with them were given away.)

Re:Car analogy.

[Zenzay42]

and the company is sitting on top of the regular gas market

Re:Car analogy.

[luddite47]

Okay - I'll bite.

Imagine that you've bought a 2-door car and everything's working great... Your favorite feature is the built-in roof mount for your array of HAM radio antennas. You take your car in to get an oil change and they remove the mount as part of a safety thing. You can still mount your antennas - but now you need to use a bumper hitch, and you have to install it yourself. There's a guy with a how-to on the web... (and that guy is pissed about the whole thing, but that's another story.)

See - a majority of users could give a rat's behind about a weird hobbyist feature. Most of the owners will be just fine without the roof mount. In fact, I bet that most owners won't even notice. There's just a few hobbyists that will be up in arms...

See the difference there?

Sure - you should feel entitled to some money back - but most consumers won't notice. It's not at all like you took their back doors away.

Re:Car analogy.

[noidentity]

How about a car with a hood you can open and add oil/radiator fluid/brake fluid yourself, and then an update locks the hood so only mechanics can open it?

Re:Car analogy.

[Anonymous Coward]

once had an mercedes 190, this car had a little lever in the engine to switch between "super and "normal" gasoline. nice but useless.

Re:Car analogy.

[socsoc]

Have you?

Re:Car analogy.

[JumpDrive]

Because he is a troll.
Anyway, I've been wondering what about all those people who used them to build clusters. I guess they wouldn't connect them to the internet, so they are probably okay. But man I would be pissed if someone connected my PS3 cluster to the internet and it just went away.

Re:Car analogy.

[Trarman]

In addition to withholding OnStar, the car just won't drive on any new roads.

Re:Car analogy.

[Labcoat Samurai]

Or, to torture the analogy some more, it'll drive on new roads, but whenever a new road is laid down, there are some lanes that will be maintained and updated, and only the people who removed their 5th seat are permitted to drive on them.

Re:Car analogy.

[Lije Baley]

Can such a family hug its children with nuclear arms?

Re:Car analogy.

[Anonymous Coward]

How does it feel to be no one? Back into non-existence for you, troublesome data point!

Re:It means that eventually you'll agree to a EULA

[TubeSteak]

No EULA will override basic legal principles.
Judges are rather consistent about the fact some rights just cannot be signed away.

Trying this in Norway

[juletre]

A friend of mine sent a letter to Sony Norway telling them how his PS3 stopped working as advertised. In Norway any consumer electronics should be expected to work in 5 years. As it stands his PS3 just stopped working well short of the five years.
No reply as of yet, but should be fun.

Re:Trying this in Norway

[Rakshasa Taisab]

Better than just that... The warranty is for 5 years while removing a functionality in this manner is likely to get them a metal rod up their asses when the consumer protection agency finds out.

Re:Trying this in Norway

[jbssm]

I believe in this case it's not even a warranty problem. In Portugal, the warranty is 2 years. But they cannot remove functionality just because the warranty is over. Even if it had passed 4 years I would still be entitled to compensation in this case.

Re:Trying this in Norway

[goffster]

Was "Other OS" an advertised feature?

Re:Trying this in Norway

[juletre]

Yes it was. I don't remember the exact phrasing. My friend's argument is in the lines of:

-You said it can play games
-You said I could put other OSs on it
I can no longer put other OSs on it, so my machine is broken. If I choose to not update it to keep the other OSs-option, I can no longer play games in the future.
Please provide me with one that works as advertised.

Re:Trying this in Norway

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually did mail Forbrukerrådet (the Norwegian consumer protection agency) about this, they gave a kind of twofold answer, my translation: "If you've accepted the terms at purchase (accepted the user terms) you probably can't demand any compensation from the seller."

The problem here is that I never accepted any terms at *purchase*. The product loses its advertised features when clicking a post purchase EULA.

I haven't bothered replying to their answer.

And btw; Hello, Jari! :) I absolutely love rtorrent!

Doesn't make it right.

[headkase]

Just because its in an EULA doesn't make it right. Imagine if EULA's were gradually introduced for computers themselves and say over 20 years they became a defacto-standard. As the old hardware died off you would be stuck in the EULA without wanting to be there but forced to through network effects. I don't think there should be EULA's required to make hardware work at all because it contains the word License. I don't license my hardware, I buy it. This is a moral distinction.

Re:It means that eventually you'll agree to a EULA

[Anonymous Coward]

EULA doesn't trump law though. At least not here.

its a start

[Anonymous Coward]

Rightly so. This was a advertised feature. Sony had no right to disable it. I think people should take action to do point that Sony restores this capability.

Amazons bad

[cenobyte40k]

It's up the the seller to make sure that the item is listed correctly. If Amazon failed to note that it was different from the other units it had sold before, that is it's bad and it need to pay. Sony changed the product, they didn't list it on Amazon.

Re:Amazons bad

[Vanderhoth]

No, The guy got a refund for a PS3 he purchased that originally had the Other OS feature. Sony removed it after he had bought and paid for the PS3, Amazon can't time travel and go back to remove the advertised feature before the guy bought this PS3 so it's not their fault. However, under EU law you can't go after the manufacture for a Bait and Switch you have to go after the seller.

Re:Amazons bad

[dk90406]

Amazon listed correctly. Sony just decided to change the product after the customer bought it. If Amazon has any brains they (and other resellers caught up in this) whould pass the bill on to Sony. Sony may even decide to revert the "update" and reenable the feature in order to save costs.

It is not as if newer firmware wont be hacked. Quite the contrary, now hackers who has left the platform alone, will attack it out of spite.

I can't understand why Sony keeps shooting themselves in the foot.

Re:Amazons bad

[jittles]

Sony removed the Other OS feature a while ago. This is a completely different issue, my friend. He had the Other OS option and Sony removed it via a mandatory (if you play online) software update.

Re:Amazons bad

[Vanderhoth]

I can't understand why Sony keeps shooting themselves in the foot.

Because they can't reach the trigger of the shot gun if they try to shoot themselves in the head.

Re:Amazons bad

[anyGould]

I would be amazed if Amazon hasn't already passed the bill back to Sony - it's a pretty standard practice in retail to get refunds from vendors.

Bait and Switch Bastards

[WilyCoder]

This is a classic bait-and-switch that Sony did...

Re:Bait and Switch Bastards

[socsoc]

You need to learn what that really means. People toss that phrase around like candy at retailers when something in the circular is sold out, it happens. It certainly doesn't apply in this situation.

Re:Bait and Switch Bastards

[sjames]

That's an important point. Stunts like this one ARE bait and switch, just through the magic of firmware, they have made it more effective by waiting until you actually have the product in your home before the switch part.

Re:Bait and Switch Bastards

[Sleepy]

I think YOU need to learn that Wikipedia is fallible, and that you should learn to not tell other people to learn from it.

AND I QUOTE:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bait%20switch

"2- : the ploy of offering a person something desirable to gain favor (as political support) then thwarting expectations with something less desirable"

The Webster definition could probably be worded better but it's pretty clear WilyCoder has it right. This is a case of Sony offering something desirable, then thwarting that expectation.

While it's common to describe this as a price switch, it can easily apply to a feature switch.

Re:Bait and Switch Bastards

[socsoc]

The quoted second definition still doesn't apply and neither does the first:

a sales tactic in which a customer is attracted by the advertisement of a low-priced item but is then encouraged to buy a higher-priced one

This one was one the times that wiki was right, chill.

Re:Bait and Switch Bastards

[Khyber]

No, it is not right. This is a bait and switch, regardless of the amount of time it took for the switch to occur. We are still paying for one feature and not having actual access to that feature.

Go spend some time in court and you'll learn pretty quickly. I did it, it's quite an eye-opener.

Re:It means that eventually you'll agree to a EULA

[Vanderhoth]

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're trying to say, but an EULA cannot override federal Law. This guy got money back because in the EU you can't sell a product then remove major features that were the advertised at the point of sale. So signing an EULA when the product was bought wouldn't matter, he still would have gotten his money back.

Interested in the results

[MoldySpore]

While am interested in running Linux on my PS3, I bought a slim so I never had the option anyway (according to Geohot his hack could possibly restore the OtherOS option on the slim as well).

I am much more interested to see how this plays out, if Amazon is handing out $ to end-users because of SONY'S decision to remove a feature. This could have huge impacts on any future company that things about removing an established feature from a popular product. Everyone should be watching this turn of events carefully, whether you care about the OtherOS option or not.

Valid anywhere else????

[Zen-Mind]

Is there anywhere else where this kind of law would apply, even if you have to enforce it with a class action suit?

Now they DID remove a feature that is was first advertised to have, making it LESS than it was when I first purchased it so removing value. To make an analogy, it would be like my car dealer removing my airbags saying there was a security risk, but not replacing it with an equivalent feature and not wanting to give me money back saying I never used the feature ...

No I currently don't use the feature on my old phat PS3, but if I ever buy another console (the slim or a PS4 when it is released), I always considered I could use it as a HTPC ... I don't like throwing away electronics, I always try to find 2nd lives for them.

What about Xbox running other OS?

[a1x2]

May that kind of move from Sony lead Xbox to explore the 'opportunity' approach this segment?

Re:What about Xbox running other OS?

[ShadowRangerRIT]

I've seen nearly identical comments posted before on Sony related articles (though apparently not by you). It makes absolutely no sense. WTF are you trying to say?

Re:What about Xbox running other OS?

[Khyber]

Since you can't comprehend English:

"Since Sony's taking this feature away, I wonder if Microsoft will decide to venture into this territory and allow users to install a version of Windows or other OS designed for the architecture to thumb their noses at Sony?"

Re:What about Xbox running other OS?

[ShadowRangerRIT]

That was my guess. I'm trying to figure out why the same gibberish has been posted multiple times in different articles.

What is really interesting is

[Pvt_Ryan]

"Without limitation, services may include the provision of the latest update or download of new release that may include security patches, new technology or revised settings and features which may prevent access to unauthorized or pirated content, or use of unauthorized hardware or software in connection with the PS3 system."

It doesn't say anything about removal of features. just adding them or changing them..

Re:What is really interesting is

[Anonymous Coward]

"removing them" is a change, is it not? ;(

Re:What is really interesting is

[Vanderhoth]

You mean kind of like I can change your car in to thin air?

That probably should have gone in the car analogy thread

Re:What is really interesting is

[jbssm]

In EU, even if it said it doesn't matter. An EULA (or any other agreement between parts), cannot override the transaction law (or any other law for that matter). So, imagine, even if you signed something saying that you have only 1 year warranty (like Apple once was trying to make us believe in EU), it doesn't matter, you can sign it, go on with your life and still have exactly the same rights as you had or any new purchase ... meaning 2 years warranty.

Re:What is really interesting is

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the word you're ignoring is "revised". "removal" is a change, revision, alteration, ...

Re:What is really interesting is

[karcirate]

Yes, but this is just a revised "setting" that "prevent[s] access to [now] unauthorized or pirated content, or use of unauthorized hardware or software in connection with the PS3 system." Good try, though.

Re:What is really interesting is

[Anonymous Coward]

They could argue that it's a security patch, even if it isn't.

Re:What is really interesting is

[LtGordon]

"Without limitation, services may include the provision of the latest update or download of new release that may include security patches, new technology or revised settings and features which may prevent access to unauthorized or pirated content, or use of unauthorized ... software in connection with the PS3 system."

It doesn't say anything about removal of features. just adding them or changing them..

I've adjusted your emphasis to the more appropriate sections. Sony is claiming that removal of "Other OS" functionality is an attempt to prevent piracy and use of "unauthorized software". Any legal system is going to agree that Sony is acting in compliance with the EULA. The real debate is whether the EULA can legally allow Sony these kinds of rights in the first place.

Re:What is really interesting is

[517714]

Revised features can mean deleted features. Changing something to nothing is a legally legitimate change. They are preventing the use of unauthorized software (Linux).

The real issues are 1) they said it can do X and Y now it can do X or Y, and you must choose (if you are still able) if you want the OS or the Games; and 2) they removed the feature that allowed them to avoid paying taxes - if they cannot demonstrate that they were planning to provide resititution to both the consumers and governments involved it could be fraud.

Re:What is really interesting is

[dissy]

"removing them" is a change, is it not? ;(

By definition, no

Change is being one thing before, and being a different thing after.
It still has to be a thing to count as a change.

Re:What is really interesting is

[Aceticon]

Even more interesting is that EULAs and any such after-purchase "user agreements" are not valid in Europe since they are consider an after the fact one sided attempt at changing the implicit contract which is the actual purchase.

They might be valid if people got to see them (and sign) BEFORE purchasing the product (subjected to some rules with regards to the language of them as a contract being clear and understandeable to the leigh man, which many EULAs would not pass).

At it is, if people didn't saw it before purchasing the product then it has no validity in the eyes of the law.

Re:What is really interesting is

[Anonymous Coward]

removal is a change.

Re:What is really interesting is

[Anonymous Coward]

revised features probably means revised feature list, meaning they can remove the feature.

Re:What is really interesting is

[GasparGMSwordsman]

That is why they have announced that this is fixing a "security hole." Although if they could not use that bit of text I am sure they would say that this is just a "revised" feature. You know, sort of like that hole where the wall used to be. Its just a BETTER wall made of air!!!

Re:What is really interesting is

[david_thornley]

IANAL, and this is speculation.

The wording doesn't look crystal-clear to me. It looks like you could argue either way.

However, this (and pretty much any) EULA is a contract of adhesion (if I've got the term right), and as a result I'd think the courts would generally give the benefit of the doubt to the other party. (This is how free agency came to baseball; the existing reserve clause was ambiguous, and since the owners had insisted on it the courts resolved the ambiguity in favor of the players.)

Re:What is really interesting is

[Anonymous Coward]

They are not removing a feature.

You do so by installing the FW update.

You can choose not to update, at which point you lose access to PSN.

They have changed the PSN agreement to require th 3.2.1 update.

You are free to keep Other OS, but not if you want to agree to the NEW PSN EULA.

They could come back and say fine you can keep Other OS, but if you do access to the PSN is $1000.00 a month.

Good news

[LoudMusic]

This is really good news and sets a very important precedent in the digital market of internet connected devices. You can not sell something with an included or promised feature (at time of purchase) and then take it away. That action would seem to correlate to theft.

Re:Good news

[geekoid]

breach of contract, not 'theft'.

They'll pay

[Bearhouse]

If Amazon forwards the bill to Sony, how will Sony respond?"

Sony will pay Amazon, no problem. There's less 'class action' frenzy in Europe, so it will probably be peanuts...

Re:They'll pay

[jittles]

Except that once people see they can get money back on their purchase they will go after it even if they never intended to use that feature. And why not? Sony shouldn't be removing features. It affects resale value.

Re:They'll pay

[galaad2]

hopefully, soon, Europe will also have class-action lawsuits.

The legislation is already under discussion for some time now, except it's called Consumer Collective Redress over here:

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/collective_redress_en.htm

Re:They'll pay

[Existential Wombat]

Class action suits are not for consumers. They are for lawyers.

Correction "offered", not "given"

[Rogerborg]

It's not entirely clear, but I hope that the owner tells them to suck on it, and insists on a full refund or repair.

Re:Correction "offered", not "given"

[jimicus]

It's not entirely clear, but I hope that the owner tells them to suck on it, and insists on a full refund or repair.

You could easily wind up shooting yourself in the foot. A partial refund (to account for the fact you've had some years use out of a product) is an established way of dealing with something that was sold some time ago.

It'd be a tad different if the OP had bought the unit recently. But that's unlikely as the only PS/3s that have been available new have been the slim ones (which have never supported "Other OS") for some time now.

I need to try this for my defective items

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to give this a try for the many defective items I've purchased, including:

- The shirt that said "One size fits all" but ripped after only two people were stuffed in it
- The "all purpose" flashlight that refused to peel potatoes
- The hand towel dispenser whose instructions said "rip down, tear up" and after I ripped it down and tore it up my hands were still wet and there were reams of low grade paper and mangled machinery everywhere

full refund

[grumpyman]

They actually should offer full refund to the console regardless of how old they are. It's not the same but what if car manufacturer disabled a 6th gear from a sports car?

Re:full refund

[delinear]

I assume this is their opening gambit - the customer is entitled to press for a repair or full refund if the product is not fit for purpose, but it might be that he's happy enough to have some money back if it's a feature he used rarely, so it would be silly of them not to try and mitigate their losses in this way (in fact, I think they have to attempt to mitigate the loss in order to pass the costs on to the manufacturer, which is why it's generally so damn hard to get a refund).

Re:full refund

[GigaplexNZ]

Then you would have a sports car with 5 gears. It will still be capable of exceeding the speed limit and you will have already used it for a while. How many car rental places have you seen that provide 5 speed sports cars for free?

Now, if the gear they removed was reverse, that's a completely different story. Now that I think about it more, this Other OS debacle is more like removing reverse than it is removing top gear. Carry on.

Re:full refund

[BigSes]

Allow me to play Devil's Advocate for a moment here...

They could always only refund or reimburse customers who actually EVER BOTHERED TO USE THE FEATURE. Theres been a ton of complaints on this, and it seems highly unlikely that many those of complaining ever have or ever would use the "Other OS" feature. I'm sure Sony could somehow determine if you had another OS installed at the time of the update that removed said feature, and hence removed your 2nd OS. That way, they would truly be compensating those who lost something they were using.

I understand that all of us, including myself, paid for this feature when I/we bought the units. However, I can't seem to force myself to be upset about this. I don't feel as though I lost anything. It just seems fair to make it right with those who were wronged, and I don't feel as though I'm among them. If this leads to more people, such as Geohot, hacking at the console, maybe it will pay off for everone in the end and be much more open than Sony's "Other OS" option?

http://www.decoramould.com/

[Anonymous Coward]

why that was made for the Entire word

It lets you buy a small form factor PC

[tepples]

I'm sure a lot of folks would rather see their paid-for features returned than a few dollars back from a retailer.

You can use the refund to buy a PC that contains the paid-for features. Case in point: Even though the Acer Aspire Revo has a fairly weak CPU by gaming standards, it still has an NVIDIA GPU, not a Voodoo3-class Intel GMA or (worse) a dumb frame buffer like that in the PS3 Other OS environment. It also has more RAM than the PS3, so no thrashing swap.

Re:It lets you buy a small form factor PC

[socsoc]

Can it play Blu-ray and PS3 games via HDMI to your plasma?

Re:It lets you buy a small form factor PC

[Anonymous Coward]

Other OS can't let you do that either.

Re:It lets you buy a small form factor PC

[gregthebunny]

...which has a 1.6 GHz Intel Atom CPU, not a 3.2 GHz PowerPC and seven Cell CPUs. The PS3's "Other OS" feature allowed scientists, developers, and engineers to implement the Cell processor for a few hundred dollars per unit. Now if they update their firmware, all that work goes to poop. :-(

Letters and Aussies

[fremean]

I'm working on my letters, two, one directly to Sony, and one to Harvey Norman.

I suck at letter writing... and I hate it so damn much... but I feel strongly enough about this.

A positive sign for Australians is the state of things in the UK, when I mentioned this to the ACCC they were very interested (I suspect being a Commonwealth country there's some influence here)

There's a word for that: lease

[tepples]

I don't license my hardware, I buy it.

Then consumer electronic entertainment products will become no longer available for sale. Instead, they are leased to you for 20 years in a contract among you, the retailer, and the manufacturer. Don't like it? Don't buy consumer electronic entertainment products.

Re:There's a word for that: lease

[blackraven14250]

Then consumer electronic entertainment products will become no longer available for sale.

What the hell? They have a much simpler solution: require you to agree to an EULA to use the software that happens to run on the hardware. You can't use the PS3 hardware without using the PS3 software at some point.

Re:There's a word for that: lease

[tepples]

They have a much simpler solution: require you to agree to an EULA to use the software that happens to run on the hardware.

A lease has the advantage that a judge will give the manufacturer more leeway with a lease contract than with the EULA presented after a (state-law) sale, simply because the terms were presented up front.

Re:There's a word for that: lease

[geekoid]

It's nt that easy. If in anyway it behaves as if you own it, then the court will rule that you do, in fact, own it.

It's how it's gone down before....what? you think this is the first time a company has pulled this shit?

Re:There's a word for that: lease

[AmiMoJo]

Then Chinese manufacturers will step in to fill the gap in the market.

It's already happened to the movie industry. People would rather get pirate copies because the genuine DVDs are so shitty, forcing you to watch ads and navigate pointless menus just to watch the film.

Re-Flash?

[YesDinosaursDidExist]

This may be ignorant, but wouldn't it be possible to flash the PS3 back to a previous version? It seems to me that there must be a previous version of the OS and firmware floating out there somewhere.

This works great for Europeans but...

[Toxicgonzo]

The Europeans have themselves covered with a nice consumer protection law, but what about Americans?

I want to bring this to small claims court in the states. Can anyone provide some good points of argument using US law that might help win the case?

Re:This works great for Europeans but...

[flyingfsck]

Every USA and Canadian state has its own Sale of Goods Act. Your mileage (or kilometers in Canada) may vary...

Re:This works great for Europeans but...

[david_thornley]

The general advice for small claims court is not to sweat the law too much. Go there with your complaint. It's the judge's job to be familiar with the law.

It won't hurt for you to try to look up the law, but if you can't find it, or can't understand it, go for it anyway.

Besides, in the US, state law may apply, so nobody can give a comprehensive answer for the US.

Isn't April Fools over already?

[ChunderDownunder]

The update was released on April 1, 2010.

C'mon Sony, it ain't funny any more.

Re:It means that eventually you'll agree to a EULA

[corbettw]

Does that mean I didn't actually have to give Microsoft my first-born son?

Don't worry, corbettw jr, I'm coming to get you!

Let's turn it around

[sjames]

Buy something direct from Sony on your credit card. Once you get it, charge back half of the value. See if they complain.

Re:It means that eventually you'll agree to a EULA

[Anonymous Coward]

Key word, 'some.' Did you forget bnetd?

Re:It means that eventually you'll agree to a EULA

[MemoryDragon]

In Europe the EULA is a piece of toilet paper, the main reason for this is that it is processed to the user after the purchase. There have been various trials regarding this and so far not a single one came out in favor of the EULA system.
It goes against the basic principals of sales rights and contractual rights!
The funny thing is most knowledgable end users know this but yet companies still waive EULAs in front of them thinking they will get any legal right out of it!

Plug 'em both in

[tepples]

Can it play Blu-ray and PS3 games via HDMI to your plasma?

You run DVD, Blu-ray, and PS3 games through your PS3 plugged into HDMI1, and you run PC apps and indie games through your Aspire Revo plugged into HDMI2. It's not like you have to return the PS3 to get the refund.

Re:Plug 'em both in

[socsoc]

But it's a single form factor and a single purchase using PS3 for both.

Re:Plug 'em both in

[tepples]

Even if PS3 still had Other OS, you still couldn't run indie 3D games or major-label PC games on your PS3. A mini-PC at least lets you run late-PS2-era PC games if not newer.

Re:It means that eventually you'll agree to a EULA

[MemoryDragon]

Fact is EULAs are not even remotely legally binding, because they are waived at you after the purchase and opening the package, at least here in europe it is like that. People are just so used to see all this legal bullshit that they think the EULA is some form of contract, which in Europe it clearly is not, and probably in the rest of the world as well!

Justification?

[lymond01]

I'm sure this has been explained before, but what's the justification for Sony doing this in the first place? It's a bit like buying a car (yes, I live in California so I use car analogies; and no, like most people who live here I wasn't born here) with a nice stereo. Then one day there's a note on your windshield saying the manufacturer stopped by and took your stereo away. I mean...is it like that? And if so, how is that legal at all?

This whole "we can remotely manipulate your purchases as we see fit" stuff worries me. Amazon made the biggest misstep by deleting the bad 1984 novels stating that because it's easier to take the books back now, they'll do it. They checked themselves after, but it makes me not want to use ebooks at all, lest my Kindle/iPad/etc has a newly banned book or something on it. Just think how easy Winston's job is going to be once all media is electronic.

Re:Justification?

[deek]

Justification? The only reason they've given is "security concerns", whatever that is. Sony have been very tight-lipped about it, even though there have been close to 10,000 posts on the issue, in official forums.

Everyone thinks it's because of the Geohot PS3 hack, which needs Linux access to work. The strange thing is, the PS3 hack will never be able to run copied games. What it does is allow hackers to read previously hidden system internal code.

So basically, the hackers will never upgrade, and the only people stung by this update are the legitimate users. Yes, it's a pretty stupid move by Sony.

As for legality, I'm not a lawyer, but I agree that it does seem very wrong for a company to retroactively remove features after purchase. I'm pretty sure it does break a few consumer protection laws around the world.

My masters thesis required the 'other OS' option

[David.R.Benham]

My Master's thesis involved studying the Cell processor, and due to cost, the only way I could get a hold of one was via the PS3. In fact, when I bought the PS3, the guy at Best Buy was surprised I wasn't buying any games for it. I told him I plan on installing Linux on it and was going to investigate the internal architecture of the Cell processor. I never would have bought the system if it hadn't been for the 'Other OS' feature in the first place. I am sure glad I finished my work in 2008, I'd be screwed if I hadn't. Now I'm faced with the risk of bricking it if I update it. Nice.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Don't we have a European law Directive 1999/44/EC?

[bill_kress]

This seems so obvious--how could we not have such a law in the US???

Not such a good alternative

[rickb928]

That sounds well and good, but consider users who have purchased maybe 10 games, and have $300-600 invested in those games. Will you expect Sony to take back entirely functional games also? Nothing wrong with the games, is there?

Or will you extend the warranty/guarantee to require reimbursment for those things dependent on the device?

This would make computer problems interesting, and certainly iPhone/iPod refunds a LOT more interesting, if Apple had to refund to a user the iTunes purchases, if the user went on to buy a Zune to replace their 'failed' iPod. After all, iTunes is pretty much Apple-centric, and claiming the user can still play songs on their PC (if they have one) misses the point that the portable device was the purpose to buying music specifically for it.

I would expect there is some reason why this is a problem. Asking for a refund for a product the manufacturer intentionally made undesireable for you after purchase misses the point. You paid for something else. You should be able to have it, unless the manufacturer offers a logical reason, I.E. safety or basic functionality. Rmeoving the 'Other OS' option from the PS3 might be an issue of functionality for Sony, but if so then they are admitting that the PS3 can't any longer work like it was advertised to do so at the time of sale. Woops. If they removed it to avoid the whole other OS thing because of operational or support concerns, doesn't that sound like they justgot caught with a feature they don't *want* to support, maybe because of cost? Or something deeper?

Re:Not such a good alternative

[Duradin]

It's a good thing then that Zunes play AAC files. Video is another story but basically no site is (legally) selling big name studio content without some form of DRM.

Re:Not such a good alternative

[rickb928]

If you can keep it out of iTunes, you can play it. I just don't trust iTunes... at all. But I have no Apple products.

Re:It means that eventually you'll agree to a EULA

[EyelessFade]

Not only that, but most EULA is written in a language even lawyers have problems with. And yes there has been trials where this has been one of the winning arguments.

Looking for that class action lawsuit now...

[Sleepy]

This is one class action lawsuit I look forward to signing on to.

Of course, if the US consumer protection laws had any real teeth, there would not be any need to depend on lawyers (who end up claiming most of the compensation for themselves).

Re:Looking for that class action lawsuit now...

[metamatic]

Yeah, hasn't someone started a class action suit yet? I'm in. I've been holding off updating my PS3, so I've been unable to use PSN and several of my games.

Re:Looking for that class action lawsuit now...

[JumpDrive]

I think it would be better if people just quit buying their products.
I quit buying Exxon/Mobil gas some years ago.

Sony wants its lunch eaten by OpenCL

[tepples]

GPU programming methods like CUDA and OpenCL have already started to impinge on Cell's turf. If Sony didn't want its lunch eaten by OpenCL, it would have sold a VAIO PC with a Cell coprocessor by now.

Has anyone in the US tried this?

[Jck_Strw]

With Amazon, Sony, Target, whomever.

Re:Amazons bad, Sony's worse

[Anonymous Coward]

Sad to say, but expecting Sony to revert the "update" is rather unlikely, for a variety of reasons. 1) Which is more cost effective, reversion or ignoring the minority of PS3 users? Depends on who the users are and how much money's at stake. 2) Is there any legal ambiguity on Sony's responsibility in the matter? If so, expect them to exploit it as much as possible, a long term bet might be for them to hope the complaints fizzle out as court costs mount or for out of court settlements to work in their favor. 3) Most importantly, in spite of the mercenary nature of most corporate entities, remember that we are talking about a Japanese corporation here. It's a little cliche'd, perhaps, but not inconsequential to note a STRONG cultural bias against the perception of having "lost face" in the matter. I think the next step we can expect from Sony on this will be not to remedy the complaints, but rather to silence the bad press on this issue. They might try to file defamation of character suits or some similar actions.

They have this already

[tekrat]

It's called a child booster seat. It turns a 4 or 5 passenger car into a two passenger car "for safety".

When I was kid, we had no such thing, and there was no carrying around an empty booster seat to work. Now laws have gotten so you can't do *anything* without breaking some kind of law.

don't want money

[SuperDre]

I want the feature back (through official firmware not customfirmware) not money.....

It only does *everything*

[tekrat]

Isn't Sony going to have to change their TV commercials now?

The current crop of PS3 commercials claim "It only does everything" -- now they are going to have to say "It only does everything*" and then in teeny tiny small print "* Everything except Linux"...

Re:It only does *everything*

[Khyber]

"The current crop of PS3 commercials claim "It only does everything" -- now they are going to have to say "It only does everything*" and then in teeny tiny small print "* Everything except Linux"..."

And Backwards Compatibility. And Memory Card readers. And a bunch of other shit.

It's pure false advertising at this point.

User Agreement?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody know what the user agreement that everyone has to accept prior to the update states? If they state that you must agree this functionality is removed before hitting accept doesn't that cover Sony?

Brilliant

[cheros]

That's QED then - I had the same "claim a refund" response from UK Trading Standards. Time to upgrade, I think, always nice to get some money back.. :-)

Dachshund-Board?

[ChunderDownunder]

If Cell were serious about becoming anything more than an experimental niche arch, they'd release a development kit ala BeagleBoard for such purposes.

I'm not sure if TI makes much of a loss out of the BeagleBoard but it has spawned numerous hobbyist projects...

Chinese game consoles

[tepples]

Then Chinese manufacturers will step in to fill the gap in the market.

Wii, PS3, and Xbox 360 manufacturing are already outsourced to Chinese companies like Foxconn. Movies run on commodity platforms (DVD-Video and Blu-ray Disc), but video games don't, unless you count PCs running Windows. If you mean that a company based in the PRC will handle the development and promotion of a console for sale in the western world, then who will make the not-in-Chinese-language games for this platform? Or by "Chinese" did you mean companies based in greater Taipei like Acer and Asus and "consoles" like Acer's Aspire Revo?

Re:Chinese game consoles

[AmiMoJo]

What I mean is look at Chinese DVD players which allow you to skip "unskippable" ads, play out of region discs etc.

Re:Chinese game consoles

[tepples]

Right, but my point is that the Chinese DVD players are compatible with existing movies because DVD is a semi-open platform. The game consoles are not even close. If I buy a Kensington Vii, for example, I can't play any mainstream console's games on it.

Multi-decade leases; electronics recycling

[tepples]

If in anyway it behaves as if you own it, then the court will rule that you do, in fact, own it.

A DVD rented from Blockbuster and played in a standard DVD player behaves as if the lessee owns it, but he doesn't.

It's how it's gone down before

But multi-decade leases aren't unprecedented. Great Britain had a 99-year lease on Hong Kong from China. The lease ended, and Hong Kong is now PRC territory. And with the move toward electronics recycling in the EU and elsewhere, return at lease end would become common practice.

This should work in Brazil as well

[agoliveira]

Just struck me that our consumer laws forbids that anything can lose resources like that without previous consent or proper compensation at consumer's decision. I bougth my PS3 in USA here so it does not apply to me but I wonder if one takes this to the proper authorities here, what would be the result? INAL but I think that Sony may be even prohibited to do this change here.