Sony Sued Over PS3 "Other OS" Removal

Stoobalou writes "A Californian Playstation 3 user has filed the first class action lawsuit against Sony over removal of the 'Install Other OS' function from the Playstation 3. The action seeks to redress Sony's 'intentional disablement of the valuable functionalities originally advertised as available with the Sony Playstation 3 video game console.' The suit claims that the disablement breaches the sales contract between Sony and its customers and constitutes 'an unfair and deceptive business practice perpetrated on millions of unsuspecting customers.'"

Comments

Re:Why not just ask for a $50 refund?

[idontgno]

Yes, I know it's not the best comparison in the world

Dang skippin' it's not the best comparison; it's neither a car analogy nor a pizza analogy.

If any human being came back to a buyer post-sale and changed the purchased product without consent from the buyer,

Oh, you see, you bought the hardware, but you just LICENSED the software. SCE isn't modifying the hardware, just the software which they still own and you use only at their sufferance. First sale ("you bought it, you own it") doesn't apply.

At least, that's the stand SCE and most other system providers take. If you buy hardware, that's yours. But you didn't buy the copyrighted software embedded in the device. You licensed it. (Hence, "End User License Agreement".) They (the copyright holder, the only true owner of the software) can change that software any time they please, because they own it. If the EULA includes language that says they can change the capabilities of the software at any time without notice or recourse, copyright doesn't forbid it. And the only recourse you would have is something much like the lawsuits you see here: "The hardware you sold me depends on a certain capability set provided by the software. You have a legal obligation to provide basic capabilities in order to render the hardware fit for the purposes it was sold for."

And because "legal obligation" and "basic capabilities" are debatable, that's why it pretty much has to be a lawsuit. For instance, is "Other OS" a "basic capability"? Does its removal render the hardware unfit for its purposes? SCE has already stated they don't think so. The plaintiffs appear to disagree. We shall see how it goes.

No, IANAL. But this is how it smells to me.