Aussie Gamer Loses PS3 Court Case Over 'Other OS'

dotarray writes "An Australian man who took Sony to court over the company's decision to remove Linux functionality from the PS3 console has now lost his claim, with the court clearing the manufacturer of any wrongdoing regarding the upgrade."

Comments

Is this any surprise?

[chaboud]

It's completely ridiculous, which shouldn't surprise anyone. We already know that going into court is a crapshoot, with somewhat random results, but the one thing that we can be certain of? Having money enough to have a team of attorneys permanently on staff (like Sony) is definitely going to help tug the randomness in your direction.

How could any court not view this as false advertising? My guess is that they have fresh Vaios and PS3s (i.e. hookers and blow) to spare.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[jimicus]

It's not quite as simple as that for a number of reasons:

1. A number of countries have a system for dealing with claims with a low monetary value (which this would almost certainly fall under) and generally speaking this system is set up to make it practical for you or I to sue a huge company by limiting the amount of costs (and, for that matter, messing around) either party can incur.

2. "How could any court not view this as false advertising?" : Good question. IANAL, but I can think of three things: I seriously doubt many people genuinely used their PS3 for Linux - and Sony could easily dig up numbers to support that, the fact that the feature was removed in the update was well known and in the release notes and the update may well have shipped with a "regardless of what this does to your console, you can't sue us" disclaimer.

I would add that IMV the only thing worse than Sony doing this is that I haven't yet heard of a single legal case where the judge(s) involved seem to be taking it particularly seriously. I really don't like the idea of living in a world where a manufacturer can release a product with features X, Y and Z only to remove Z - even from items already sold - at a later date. Could be particularly interesting here in the UK where no matter what the manufacturer does, it's the retailer who's on the legal hook if they sell you something which doesn't perform as advertised.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[rmm311]

Obligatory Simpsons reference about Mr. Burns team of high-priced lawyers in waiting.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Nursie]

It's a bit of a weird situation for the law though, isn't it?

it's not exactly false advertising because it was there at the time and if you'd searched through all the small print I'm sure you would have found a lot of "we can do what we like, no guarantees sucker" type text. Judges do seem to be getting less tolerant of that crap I suppose.

But yeah, I can't see that this fits false advertising, it's a little more like reneging on a contract.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[nacturation]

It's completely ridiculous, which shouldn't surprise anyone.

The ridiculous and surprising part is his legal defense:

"He explains that he believed a warning about the update, downloaded on April 1st, was just an April Fool's joke."

If I were the judge, I would have adjourned the case until April 1st and then handed down the victory to Sony then.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[chaboud]

That appears to be a case of stating too much. Sony simply advertised and supplied a feature, only to force users to choose between two features (linux, network gaming) later on. That should be sufficient to at least recover the cost of his PS3 and associated purchases (which are useless without a PS3). In Aussie dollars, that's like, what, $12 Million?

I skipped installing the linux-killing update and haven't switched on my PS3 since. I know it's indirect, but when Sony looks at the game sale rates not being what they'd hoped, I know that I've done my tiny, anonymous part for fairness in support of continuous features.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they advertise Linux compatibility!? Never seen that myself.

There is a different between being cleared of wrongdoing and being cleared of something illegal. The fairer minded among us want the laws to reflect values such as ethics and "what's right" but that isn't what they are for in a modern society unfortunately. They are for making decisions based on rules fought for by the powerful, for money and/or power obviously. Unfortunately, that's not the vast majority of "us".
 

Re:Is this any surprise?

[chaboud]

We have subscription accounting (Sarbanes-Oxley) for products for which the manufacturer is obligated to support the advertised feature-set and ongoing work.

It hardly seems like a stretch to hold manufacturers to their advertised add-ins (especially "free" ones that have their cost built into the cost of the device) for the reasonable life-time of the product.

Sony totally boned the PS3 lifetime, though. The degree of cluelessness with the little things and the amount of damage that they have done to such a technically impressive platform is just mind-boggling.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[jimicus]

It's a bit of a weird situation for the law though, isn't it?

That sums it up beautifully.

While consumer law in many countries explicitly bars terms which say "you can't sue us", I seriously doubt it accounts for products which may be updated over the course of their lifetime in this fashion.

  For one thing, much of it was probably written long before user-updateable firmware became common, in which case the idea that it might even be physically possible to disable a feature post-release would be totally alien.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Provocateur]

skipped installing the linux-killing update

How is it as a linux box? I've heard that it is quite limited, but I am not sure how (HDD? memory?) And how come you haven't powered on, does it contact the mothership (sony) looking for an update? Can that part be disabled?

Otherwise, I will be looking for these on the auction sites, if it's worth it. I'd appreciate your opinion or comments on this aspect of the box.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[mjwx]

It's completely ridiculous

Not really.

which shouldn't surprise anyone

I'm certainly not supprised, well not at the ruling as it's completely logical.

Contrary to the popular delusion, you the gamer are the product, the advertisers and game makers are the customers. You also agreed that Sony could change things whenever they wanted when you opened the box. Sony's done nothing illegal here, wrong maybe but definitely not illegal. It's the courts job to rule on violations of the law, not good will. At absolute worst the court should have ordered the gamer to hand back his PS3 and Sony to refund the gamers money in full.

How could any court not view this as false advertising?

Because it wasn't advertised prominently or deceptively. When you buy a Sony Playstation or Microsoft Xbox you are expected to understand that things may be subject to change at Sony's (or Microsoft's) whim. This is part of what we call "common sense" or more accurately "having half a brain" so what I want to know is why this case made it to an Australian court in the first place. The plaintiff is clearly a moron.

My guess is that they have fresh Vaios and PS3s (i.e. hookers and blow) to spare.

Actually no, we enforce some standards of integrity over here. Besides, Sony was legally in the right.

Point in short, when you buy into a closed platform you accept that the owner of that platform can change whatever they like without prior notice.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

For one thing, much of it was probably written long before user-updateable firmware became common, in which case the idea that it might even be physically possible to disable a feature post-release would be totally alien.

That is the problem. The law doesn't currently consider the idea of upgradeable firmware. That doesn't change the fact that disabling a feature post-release is a dirty business tactic. There were a lot of people who did use the PS3 for Linux and gaming. It is not possible to continue to use the Playstation Network if you don't continually install the firmware upgrades. While they're saying that nobody is forcing consumers to upgrade to firmwares that drop the other OS support they're essentially locking people out of the online section if they don't. It's dirty and it should be illegal.

All we have here is a bunch of tech companies (Sony, Apple, etc) who are treating the device like they own it. They are operating it like the user is leasing it from them, which is not true. They're really exploiting the fact that the law hasn't kept up with the technology to be able to fuck everyone around.

The law will evolve, but it will take more than one guy in the small claims court. It'll take an army of highly paid lawyers. The lawyers will win in the short term but (hopefully) in the long term the law will start to catch up with the technology.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Maximus633]

While I tend to not feed the trolls this comment seems to be more of an attack. You must not understand what Linux is about. It is not about anti-copyright thieves or pirates. I think you will find if you take the time to look beyond what someone is spoon feeding to you that you might see it is actually the opposite. Most Linux users (be it system admins or the Linux home user) respects copyrights. We relay on those same evil copyright laws to enforce companies and individuals to follow the agreement for the use of our code or project. While the "releasing" of the code is different in each case (GPL BSD etc) they all have the same request for copyright as most people. The Linux community has even taken cases to court in which code was "used" without their permission or in a way not intended in their agreement for the right to use the code.

With that being said how can you say that linux users are against copyright if we want it enforced on our own products. Yes there are people who use linux to "break" copyright and move around things. However, this happens in the Apple world as well as the Microsoft world. May I remind you that majority of the copyright cases filled by the RIAA are users using programs that were developed for a Windows Operating system.

There are just as many people out there using the other operating systems who don't give a crap about copyrights as there are those that use linux who don't care for copyrights.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[gamricstone]

I don't believe this is false advertising, as no one who purchased a console before the update was required to install the update. Sony is under no legal obligation to provide access to the PSN, and they are simply refusing to offer this service to consoles with outdated firmware. As for removing the option to install other OS, that is also Sony's choice for future firmware iterations as well as future console sales.

That being said I think its a shitty move on their part, but far from illegal unless they continue to advertise the feature.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's limited in that you don't get access to many of the things that games need, like fast hardware accelerated graphics, communicating directly with the bluray drive, and such things.

So, you'd probably not want to use PS3 Linux for playing graphics-heavy games, and AFAIK, you can't view bluray movies.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

You also agreed that Sony could change things whenever they wanted when you opened the box.

In Australia you can accept a contract without the option to see it before accepting it? I'll have to remember not to move there. I'm told that Contract law in New Zealand says that you can't be bound by one of those "opening this package implies accepting of this contract" deals if the contract is inside the box. You can't read it if you can't see it, and you can't disagree (or agree) with it if you haven't seen it.

So, I'd like to note that your "standards of integrity" are amusing.

In short, get your hand off it. You'll go blind doing that.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Haxamanish]

maybe if linux users were not just all anti-copyright thieves and pirates, [...]

Hi, I am a Linux user and I am anti-copyright and anti-"Intellectual Property" in general. But I have never stolen anything nor raided any ships. Oh, you mean illegal copying of software... Well, since I use Linux I do not need to make illegal copies, nor do I have the time for that because free software is released at such a fast rate that I have no hope to learn to use all of it in my lifetime. (Apologies for feeding the troll.)

Re:Is this any surprise?

[peppepz]

The contract for the PSN is accepted separately, after you bought and powered on the console, when you create a PSN account, after having read a pretty large license agreement.

Another agreement is displayed before installing any system software upgrade and you have the option to accept it or reject it.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to play newer games or blurays, or play online via PSN, it will need to contact the mother ship for a firmware update.

You can either have your old PS3 with Linux, and only be able to play older blurays or games and not go online, or upgrade which will remove the Other OS feature, and be able to play new games, blurays and play online.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[TapeCutter]

"A number of countries have a system for dealing with claims with a low monetary value"

Yes, all Australian states have a small claims tribunal that handle claims up to a few thousand dollars and/or disputes with government departments. They are specifically designed for quick and cheap dispute resolution. As such Sony's legal army would be useless, they would basically be confined to barracks.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, they did advertize -- not in billboards of course but in the spec sheets.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's completely ridiculous, which shouldn't surprise anyone..

I'm seeing a lot of crap coming out of Australia these past couple of years, regarding information suppliers' rights to do... well, pretty much whatever they feel like doing. I can't see this flying in North America, but who knows?
I do know this much : SONY has lost me as a customer forever. I may not be aware of every single piece of tech that they have their finger in, but you can bet if it stinks of them, it won't be in my shopping basket.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Aeternitas827]

I'll reference the many, continuing, 'It only does everything' ads that Sony runs repeatedly through primetime, with no disclaimer text...at least here in the States. While this could count as puffery for some things (i.e., being, say, a nuclear device, a flying car, and so on), a function for which it has been determined capable (i.e., running an alternate operating system) and later prevented from doing would certainly nullify that sort of defense.

Did Sony, initially, advertise falsely? Not at the start, within reason. But did they continue an advertising campaign that they had rendered false? Yep. In that regard, they've done wrong. Anything else from there, material breach of agreement and whatnot, is quite a bit more murky.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

And all windows users are god-fearing, church-going, PTA-attending, family-oriented people? Way to generalize, you fuck.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Chrisq]

Good question. IANAL, but I can think of three things: I seriously doubt many people genuinely used their PS3 for Linux - and Sony could easily dig up numbers to support that.

I don't think numbers using it should affect it. If you buy a device with a feature that you use that should be enough.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

They can print the disclaimer in any size they want, if they try to market it with "It runs Linux" and it won't it is still false advertising. They can even put stickers on the box that says it won't run Linux. As long as they try to sell it with "It runs Linux" they better make sure that it do.
I don't know the consumer laws that are in place where you live but last time I read those where I live this could be considered a defect that they have to fix. (Optionally they can allow me to fix it myself and charge them for the cost as long as it is "reasonable".)

Another way to look at it is that it wasn't really false advertising since the product actually did what they said it would do. Then som random jerk (Who happened to be the same company that sould you the product.) accessed your property and removed features from it. Call it theft or vandalism.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

And if your car dealer sold you a car which came with lifetime service, but two years down the line decided that they would only service cars which opted to have the steering-wheel removed?

Re:Is this any surprise?

[TheRaven64]

I don't believe this is false advertising, as no one who purchased a console before the update was required to install the update

Unless they want to play new games, new BluRay movies, or continue to access PSN. If you don't install the update, you lose these features (which the console was advertised as having), if you don't install it then you lose the ability to run Linux (which the console was advertised as having). Whichever choice you make, you lose some of the functionality that the console was originally advertised as having.

I hope that Microsoft and Nintendo will remember this for the next round of the console wars, and remind people that Sony doesn't sell you a console, it lends you one and reserves the right to disable arbitrary features in the future.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is quite shifty and probably illegal.

"Congratulations on buying your new car! If you want our permission to move your car from our property you will have to sign this contract that allows us to take the car back at any time."

Re:Is this any surprise?

[oliverthered]

Call it theft or vandalism.

Nope, it's called a trojan horse, virus, root kit etc....

My set-top box upgraded without asking me.

Basically my set-top box was hacked.

There are laws against this kind of thing in the UK. 'Hacking' laws.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't there also the part that newer games would possibly stop themselves from being played if your system version wasn't >version x.y.z? I think i read that here on /.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

We are not Anti-Copyright.

We LOVE the GPL... Its a copyright license for (nearly) all linux stuff.

Try again, Mr. Troll :-)

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Moridin42]

Not that you need a PSN account to play your games, retrieve game patches, or firmware updates. So.. not at all like signing a contract to actually be able to move the car you purchased.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[BlueStrat]

My set-top box upgraded without asking me.

This ^^^

It nearly always boils down to a couple of basic principles;

Does the user/owner control a device he has purchased and "owns" by any other legal measure, or does whoever made it? Furthermore, is it fair that the user is told he owns the device when it's advantageous to the maker, but is told they don't own it when it comes to things that the maker is opposed to owners doing or doesn't want to pay/be liable for?

These are the clear issues they'd like to muddy in peoples' minds.

Strat

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Vectormatic]

yeah, newer games can require a newer firmware version and possibly ship with the update right there on the disk

effectively sony is saying "games or linux, you chose", which is right in the face of the fact that it was sold as "games and linux"

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Vectormatic]

newer games will also require the newer firmware, and even ship with the update on the disc

car analogy "either you agree to agree with any agreement we give you, or we wont allow your car to run on any newly built roads"

Re:Is this any surprise?

[plumby]

It is not possible to continue to use the Playstation Network if you don't continually install the firmware upgrades. While they're saying that nobody is forcing consumers to upgrade to firmwares that drop the other OS support they're essentially locking people out of the online section if they don't. It's dirty and it should be illegal.

For me, this is the critical issue.

If it was simply the case that he'd entirely voluntarily decided to update his firmware and not noticed the bit that said it was going to disable Linux, then to some extent that's his own fault.

But it's not entirely voluntary. He had a console that used to be able to both run Linux and connect to PSN. Sony presented him with a choice of either removing Linux or removing PSN access. Don't know whether I missed it, but the article seemed to skip over this point.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[houstonbofh]

It's completely ridiculous, which shouldn't surprise anyone.

The ridiculous and surprising part is his legal defense:

"He explains that he believed a warning about the update, downloaded on April 1st, was just an April Fool's joke."

If I were the judge, I would have adjourned the case until April 1st and then handed down the victory to Sony then.

That and his damages... Renting a laptop? The PS3 was not a laptop. He should have gone for the price of a PS3. Then he would have won. Less money, but more than he got!

Re:Is this any surprise?

[tepples]

Not that you need a PSN account to play your games

Some games require logging into PSN in order to play, either because A. they were previously purchased from PSN and use Assassin's Creed 2-style continuous Internet activation or B. their multiplayer modes require multiple consoles instead of splitting the screen.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but that's the legal catch here, isn't it?

You can continue to use the console that YOU own... you just can't continue to use the PlayStation Network that *THEY* own. That, my friend, is how they are "legally right, even though they are morally wrong".

Here's a PS3 console. It does this, that, and other stuff. If you want it to connect to our network, you're going to need to do updates, even though it may have other issues. If you don't want to do those updates, you don't have to... (after all, it's your console!), but then you can't connect to our network anymore.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[houstonbofh]

I do know this much : SONY has lost me as a customer forever. I may not be aware of every single piece of tech that they have their finger in, but you can bet if it stinks of them, it won't be in my shopping basket.

You mean the CD rootkit, the "secure" thumb drive rootkit, and the BluRay shenanigans weren't enough? I am a Linux geek, but this is no where near as bad as the other 3.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Ash Vince]

Sony totally boned the PS3 lifetime, though.

But not in any sort of way they actually care about. The lifetime of a PS3 they care about is the amount of time you can use it to carry on consuming their content (ie, licensed PS3 Games and BlueRay Movies). Other crap you can do with the device that does not make them any money they don't care about.

Even on the PC Linux is a niche market amongst home users that carries very little commercial weight as a result. I bet on the PS3 it was even more so so when the Other OS feature became a security hole in the platform it was simply not worth fixing when it could be removed far more cheaply and the only people it would annoy a few geeks.

Remember also that they did not force you to apply the update so if you wanted to you could have carried on playing all the single player games you already had and never upgrade. The only legitimate customers it affected were people who used the Other OS feature and also played games online.

The simply fact is they removed a feature that most of they customer base did not care less about having. They did this to make sure they carried on getting revenue from games producers. Sony's big selling point to game producers is the enhanced security over the Xbox360 which has more users. If they lost this selling point more and more developers would just abandon the platform and save the money they spend supporting it.

I know the PS3 has better capabilities but that is a selling point to end users, not game development companies since they usually have to support both platforms anyway and have to deal with lowest common denominator hardware. They can improve the rendering a little on the PS3, but the bulk of the gameplay will be identical between PS3 and Xbox360.

The truth is that I am amazed the PS3 is still getting any game development anyway. It has long since been overshadowed by the XBox360 and Wii in terms of userbase. It may have been by far the best console on paper, but it was just priced too high to manufacture. This made the console expensive to buy and even then it was being sold at a loss and still is apparrently, long after the Xbox360 is being sold at a profit per unit.

http://nexus404.com/Blog/2010/02/05/sony-still-posts-a-loss-for-every-ps3-sold-ps3-costs-sony-18-more-than-it-costs-you/

This leaves Sony's only hope being that it will take off as 3.5 generation console and creep back into the market as the Xbox360 and Wii start to look dated in terms of technical specs (ie - no BlueRay). This will only work though if Sony can cling onto game developers producing content for it. They can only do this by screaming to the world that their console is the most pirate proof in a big old PR game with the managers of the game development companies. PR games are very rarely based on fact anyway so whether the Other OS feature actually made it more secure is largely irrelevant.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[betterunixthanunix]

I seriously doubt many people genuinely used their PS3 for Linux

Funny, I seem to recall that from the start, the majority of PS3 owners were running GNU/Linux on their PS3s. I also seem to recall Sony dropping that capability in the new PS3 models to try and cut their losses. Maybe I need to get my memory checked though.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[sumdumass]

Perhaps the AU legal system doesn't have the same concept of bait and switch as what's in the US systems.

Perhaps the regulatory board that cleared Sony didn't look at it thoroughly enough or had an alternate motivation.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[chaboud]

I used Linux largely for Cell development when I worked at Sony, but also for occasional browse-on-the-TV stuff.

It's a memory-constrained box, though there is a bit of hackery available (and in use, on mine) to use graphics memory for a little large-page help. The HDD is a laptop drive, and everything works fairly well with a wireless keyboard/mouse. You can rip/archive Blu-Ray (which I've never done) and do most Linuxy things. Still, Eclipse, big GIMP work, and anything else that leans hard on memory is in tight quarters. Picture the Flash working for FedEx, carrying one package at a time. The trucks would win.

I haven't started the system because I have Linux elsewhere, am not currently writing code for the Cell, and was pretty much sticking to gaming online. Since going online would mean making a cripple-the-system choice, I've just skipped it altogether, opting instead to buy some games on Steam. I'd been looking forward to several games, but the Linux removal killed my interest in the system.

We now have a component Blu-Ray player.

It's a Samsung.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Theaetetus]

While they're saying that nobody is forcing consumers to upgrade to firmwares that drop the other OS support they're essentially locking people out of the online section if they don't. It's dirty and it should be illegal.

You should demand a full refund of all of your subscription fees for the online section.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

> "I seriously doubt many people genuinely used their PS3 for Linux - and Sony could easily dig up numbers to support that"

Sony certainly trumpeted the existence of Linux on its hardware loudly, extravagantly, and broadly to every Linux user in the entire world before the PS3 was coming out. They got tons of free PR from Linux-heads who blogged enthusiastically about it. And it got to the point where some Linux advocates who didn't even play games were buying a PS3 anyway, just to show their support.

We could easily dig up many blog posts and articles to support that, too.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Loconut1389]

What department at Sony do you work in, Legal?

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Mad Leper]

Majority?? I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be incorrect to put that number at about a fraction of one percent.

And there's little doubt that many OtherOS users either loaded Linux and quickly got bored with it, or tried to find some way to get ripped PS3 games to work before giving up.

Sony dropped the OtherOS support on the new slim models to a chorus of "meh..so what" from the PS3 community. It wasn't until Geohot starting bragging about his so-called PS3 hack that people took an interest in the OtherOS function, and naturally began crying foul when Sony started removing it from the older models.

The OtherOS function was a gimmick and served no usefull purpose on a gaming console.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[byuu]

You should demand a full refund of all of your subscription fees for the online section.

And for all the games you buy that end up requiring a firmware >= the Other OS disabling version to play, since the game packaging doesn't mention minimum firmware required.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

"a system for dealing with claims with a low monetary value"

Typically "small claims court" or a similar name. You write up your complaint, the entity you're suing writes a response, you can show up in person instead of hiring a lawyer, and a low ranking judge sits down with you and renders a verdict, usually very quickly. You can't get injunctions, specific performance etc. just "I find for Bob, you owe him $3000 now go away".

Very good for disputes where one entity is being unreasonable and just needs a judge to come out and say it. Not good when there's a real legal issue to be decided, the more expensive but more thorough regular process is much better at getting to the heart of such things.

So e.g. you broke my windows with a ladder, having forgotten how long it was while moving it - I ask you to pay for the breakage, you refuse => good small claim, principles are well understood, facts known, judge will find in my favour.

Whereas e.g. you genetically engineer a gerbil to resist common gerbil disease. I buy one, but it gets sick and dies. I try to claim vet bills, you say it's just bad luck => bad small claim, lots of unexplored issues, expert testimony on gerbil diseases, genetic engineering muddies the water, hire a real lawyer.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[pnewhook]

Sony totally boned the PS3 lifetime, though. The degree of cluelessness with the little things and the amount of damage that they have done to such a technically impressive platform is just mind-boggling.

I don't think anything Sony did will affect sales in the slightest. This is a non-issue as the vast majority of the users simply dont care that an obscure and little used piece of functionality was removed. It was simply not cost effective for Sony to keep supporting it.

This lawsuit was ridiculous in that the guy was bound to lose since Sony did nothing wrong legally.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[sumdumass]

I'm investigating the situation in Australia a little more to attempt to understand it, but their laws clearly state that if you warranty a particular good for service, you have to provide a good capable of that service.

It would seem to me that updating the product wouldn't negate that at any time in the future unless there is a specific condition to the update and agreed upon before the update is made. It would also seem to me that a console that runs Linux as well as plays Play Station games and connects to the Play Station networks, would have to continue doing so or it could run afoul of the bait and switch laws because the failure was specifically due to the companies actions. While I understand there was a warning on April 1st (which could be confused with a joke), regardless, both the linux ability and the removed access to their networks for playing games should be not allowed under the existing law. It's my understanding that the choice was to lose one ability and not retain both which makes the product something entirely different then represented when sold.

I wish I could find the supposed ACCC ruling clearing sony of wrong doing, but it seems to be a mystery right now.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[mcgrew]

Sony totally boned the PS3 lifetime, though. The degree of cluelessness with the little things and the amount of damage that they have done to such a technically impressive platform is just mind-boggling.

XCP showed them that idiotic customers and pwned governments will let them get away with anything they want. Sony is above all law, seemingly world-wide. I can't understand why anyone would buy computer gear from a company that roots its paying customers' computers. That just seems mind-bogglingly stupid to me.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Aussie Court system has a big black SONY COCK up their ass.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[cynyr]

the PS3 only has 256MB of ram, and no access to the GPU* apart from frame buffer, and very little of the shelf stuff can make use of the SPUs. In fact you can't even use mplayer to play bluray movies, for lack of hardware aceleration. If you want to write software for the Cell, or just browse the web without flash in linux, it shoudl work great. If you were thinking "OOO OOO HTPC" better go buy an ION/Atom and use that for the same money, or an older intel mac mini and a broadcom crystal HD card.

*Well i hear there was some progress on breaking out of the hypervisor to get GPU access just before sony shit canned the other OS feature.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[mcgrew]

WTF? Why would I want to pirate software when all the software I need comes with the OS for free?

You're AC because you couldn't pass /.'s IQ test to get your account? It's a REALLY easy test...

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

The OtherOS function was a gimmick and served no usefull purpose on a gaming console.

Tell that to the United States Department of Defense.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Hatta]

They're really exploiting the fact that the law hasn't kept up with the technology to be able to fuck everyone around.

The law will evolve

The law will evolve, but it will evolve to codify their right to fuck around with the console you own.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[IndustrialComplex]

I don't think numbers using it should affect it. If you buy a device with a feature that you use that should be enough.

Yes, we advertised that our pipes could handle 300 PSI but 99.9% of people who purchase our plumbing supplies use it at household water pressures. That someone would put a fluid at 250 PSI through our pipes is just silly.

Numbers can be justification for removing a feature from future models, but if it is sold with a feature and that feature is removed or fails to operate at that level then the manufacturer owes the buyer a refund.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Dishevel]

They also release new games that need the update and will not play without it.

So Sony is making you choose between running other OS or playing new games and playing games you have already bought online.

Not exactly cut and dried. What Sony has done is wrong. I know why they did it. It may end up being the best move for them. It is still wrong and your statement that the update is not forced is wrong for a great many people.

The choice of do I want to use the system I paid for to do everything Sony promised (Other OS and old games on online) or do I want to do everything else Sony promised (Play new blue-Ray movies and new games and play new and old games online). Saying that Sony leaves us with a choice is bullshit and you know it. Give me your cash or I shoot you in the head.

Was there a reason you said that? Was it karma whoring or just stupidity? Maybe you work for Sony.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Ben4jammin]

Other crap you can do with the device that does not make them any money they don't care about.

If a customer buys your product because of feature "x" (other OS) then that is making them money.

I bought the PS3 because of Other OS,specifically because that made it a bit more "open" than the 360. But if you remove that function and considering this: http://news.cnet.com/microsoft-has-xbox-360-blu-ray-drives-ready-to-go/ you have just removed any reason for me to buy a PS3 or even continue to buy games for it. I KNOW that MS won't make a system that has stuff like Other OS so I have no expectation that would lead to disappointment. But when I pay for something and THEN you remove it I am disappointed.

Disappointed to the extent that I am done with the PS3 and any games for it. Furthermore, it seemed there were many academic folks that like using the PS3 for number crunching. MS seems to think a lot of having schools use their product which is why you can buy a student version of Office (at a discount) with just a *.edu email address.

I get your points about this affecting only a small percentage of the user base and that it matters way more to developers. But as you said PS3 is being overshadowed and therefore you would think they would want to differentiate themselves from the evil empire. As you said, PR is mostly BS anyway so why would it matter to leave the Other OS function in there?

Re:Is this any surprise?

[bouldin]

I seriously doubt many people genuinely used their PS3 for Linux - and Sony could easily dig up numbers to support that,

I bought my PS3 specifically to code a physics simulator on the Cell processor. IBM and Sony had set up Georgia Tech as a center of competency for Cell development with this kind of purpose in mind. Hell, the Air Force bought thousands of PS3s with no intention of gaming.

After the firmware update was announced, I stopped development on the PS3 and reworked the code for CUDA.

Sony killed the Cell, and I am not going to waste time developing on a dead platform. I use my PS3 to watch netflix now.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[jimicus]

All the documentation there mentioned the trader, not the manufacturer. I'd assume that traders have some sort of agreement with their own suppliers, where that leaves them if the manufacturer decides to retrospectively remove features is anyone's guess.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I wouldn't even have made that an argument in court. Instead I would have implied that Sony knowingly removed functionality from my machine which I paid for, and that even though there was choice involved, the choice was between two different pieces of functionality. They charged me 600 USD for a device that did X, X, X, and X, and then removed X without returning any money.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[AusIV]

And all the games you've already bought that require the online section. If I bought a game believing I'd be able to play it online for the life of the console, then they pulled something like this then that game has lost a significant portion of its value.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[jimicus]

The keyword here is "many".

Sony have sold several million PS3s. They've probably sold a few thousand that wound up being used for Linux.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

So 35 million units sold vs. 40 million Xbox 360s means Sony should shut it down? Talk about your hate. As for the Wii, nobody thinks of that as a serious gaming machine. That aside, I understand it has sold and is selling a lot of units. It is doing so for the same reason the Twilight movie series sells so many tickets. It appeals to a group of people not tapped into before.

The PS3 is doing just fine. Yes, more units would be better but the PS3 is an excellent piece of hardware. Part of the problem is all the Sony hate the PS3 has to deal with. Not a Sony fanboy by any means. I just love buying stuff that gives me more for my money and I was able to guy a really nice gaming machine/entertainment unit for less than it cost a mega corporation to build it. That makes me feel so much better than realizing I could have bought a Wii that sells for far more than what it costs to make let alone what it is actually worth. The Wii should be selling for $100 or less by now. Anyone buying one is getting ripped off.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[JarinArenos]

"False Advertising" doesn't even begin to cover it. The parallel that any smart plaintiff should be making in court is this:

"Imagine if you just bought a brand new Toyota Prius. Now, you're buying it because it's a hybrid car; that's its primary function. However, it also has things like "stereo" and "air conditioning" which factored into your decision to purchase it. Now imagine that a year or so after you purchase your car, it's summer, and you're quite happy that you have air conditioning, and in fact have come to rely on this to make your long hot commutes livable. All of a sudden, a Toyota representative comes by your house, uses the special skeleton key that lets him get into any Prius they've manufactured, and pulls out your AC unit. You tell him to stop, but he shows you that the contract you signed when "purchasing" the car states that you don't actually own it, and that Toyota can still do whatever they want with it. He also tells you that if you'd known about it ahead of time, you could have changed your locks, but that would've voided your car's lifetime warranty and also stopped you from driving on the highway.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Narishma]

The difference in userbase between the PS3 and 360 is negligible (35 million vs 40 million) as far as developers are concerned.
As far as Sony losing money on the PS3, that hasn't been the case since around march of this year in the USA, and a couple of years back in other regions where the PS3 is sold at a higher price. That article you linked is a bit old.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Narishma]

Look at the date on that article.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Ben4jammin]

Yes I saw the date was 2 years ago. My point is that Blue-Ray is no longer going to insulate/differentiate Sony's product from competition. You can get a BR player for less than $100 and if MS thinks it can gain market share by adding BR support to the 360 you think they will hesitate to do so? Compared to some of their tactics for getting market share it would be quite tame.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[phyrexianshaw.ca]

or you could always just buy two. one for games, one for linux.

alien concept, I know!

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

All we have here is a bunch of tech companies (Sony, Apple, etc) who are treating the device like they own it. They are operating it like the user is leasing it from them, which is not true.

But that's not true either, and we really have to get this right: They are treating the ongoing relationship with the end-user like they own it.

You own the device -- you don't have to install the upgrade. The tricky business is the continued normal use of something like a PS3 requires ongoing upgrades from Sony. Which brings us to,

They're really exploiting the fact that the law hasn't kept up with the technology to be able to fuck everyone around.

Product law revolves around the goods being delivered as advertised at purchase, plus a degree of warranty protection that defines the period where that must stay true.

But what we're bumping up against is that in use we have an extended relationship period that has previously been considered a Service and not a Product, as far as commerce law goes.

Which leave us where, precisely? (IANAL either.) Probably with the EULA. Probably the courts would decide on this point that reading the EULA is the responsibility of the end user, and if they don't like the future implications of that contract, they have the option to return the goods immediately, and to otherwise suck it up.

I don't think we'll see a law change any time soon. When we have enough cases like this with problems sufficiently annoying to the greater population, legislators will probably react to voter outrage by requiring EULAs to be rather more clear. Similar to current law tweaking on things like product labeling and advertising.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[HeronBlademaster]

Why should I reward Sony by buying a second console (ignoring for the moment whether they actually make a profit on console sales, at the very least it inflates their userbase numbers) just because they screwed me over by trying to remove features from my first console?

More to the point, why should the solution to "Sony is removing a feature" be "Spend another $300+ on Sony hardware"? I already bought Sony hardware that did both, I shouldn't have to buy more Sony hardware just to continue doing what my hardware did when I bought it.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[BlackBloq]

The friggin country is a dictatorship ran by elitists white business men. Big surprise on the verdict. What a joke of a country.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

This lawsuit was ridiculous in that the guy was bound to lose since Sony did nothing wrong legally.

Sony, is that you?

Re:Is this any surprise?

[unix1]

This is a non-issue as the vast majority of the users simply dont care that an obscure and little used piece of functionality was removed. It was simply not cost effective for Sony to keep supporting it.

This lawsuit was ridiculous in that the guy was bound to lose since Sony did nothing wrong legally.

So, if "vast majority" of Toyota owners no longer use cassette tape players, it would then be OK for Toyota to single-handedly rip them out when such cars are taken into scheduled maintenance? After all, it's a "non-issue" to most people, right?

The fact is - it was advertized and sold as a feature of PS3. Certain people bought it, in part, because it had that feature. It's unfair to remove it after sale. Just because you may not care, doesn't make it OK or legal to do. In fact, with that logic, they can remove other features like their Internet browser, or image gallery, or CD player, or disable USB ports just because they no longer see it as "cost effective" to keep it for you. How many of those features would they have to remove before you notice something is wrong?

Re:Is this any surprise?

[feepness]

The truth is that I am amazed the PS3 is still getting any game development anyway. It has long since been overshadowed by the XBox360 and Wii in terms of userbase.

Your information is out of date. The PS3 is right behind the 360. The higher sales of the PS3 have allowed it to catch up to the 360, despite the yearlong headstart. Attach rates are also similar.

The Wii of course, is in a different class.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't think anything Sony did will affect sales in the slightest."

Sure...after all, they are still last, and still losing.

In the slightest, wrong. I'm only one person, but I've cut back from buy a PS3 game a week to one a month since they did this. I don't know if the new game will run on the old platform as well or require an update which it may not ask me permission to deploy on my hardware.

"It was simply not cost effective for Sony to keep supporting it."

Spoken like someone with no understanding of why Sony locked down the PS3 in the first place, or where Other OS is actually implement in the consoles to begin with.

All new slims didn't have Other OS. It was on all the older consoles. It had already been implemented there. Sony was out of inventory of the fats. How is something already implemented on the old platform going to cost Sony money, esp. when removed from the current gen ones anyway?

Further, this will harm Sony in the long run. Loads of people have already been migrating away. They'll keep their PS3, but the platform, while not dead, is seriously screwed.

And as /. has covered again and again, this has accelerated more efforts into hacking the PS3 wholesale, which if successful, will destroy the PS3. The PS3 was locked down hard to prevent piracy given the history with the PS2. The Other OS update was put there to prevent the possibility of hacking, however shortsighted. But in the long run, it's pushed interest in breaking the console. This and the previous will make any PS4 hugely unlikely to be a success, given Sony's history of mismanagement.

It's basic human psychology--do not take away something that was there, or promised, and expect to be seen in a positive fashion for present or future dealings.

It's a strange day when MS, even with their higher fees and lesser hardware, is a better platform than the PS3. And I HATE Microsoft.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[unix1]

I hope that Microsoft and Nintendo will remember this for the next round of the console wars, and remind people that Sony doesn't sell you a console, it lends you one and reserves the right to disable arbitrary features in the future.

Or, more likely, they'll see this play out first. If Sony wins, or settles out of court for some pocket change, they'll start doing the exact same thing - "hey, we didn't know we could get away with this."

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Nursie]

Umm, I'm not sure it's long since overshadowed, it has 38 million units sold compared to Xbox's 47 million. 9 million is a lot, but it isn't like the PS3 hasn't sold.

Also Sony get to ride the new 3d wave as the only console able to output 3d 720p games. I know a lot of people think it's going to fail, but we'll see on that front.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[zzsmirkzz]

It is not possible to continue to use the Playstation Network if you don't continually install the firmware upgrades.

It is also not possible to continue to play new games, which also require you to install the newest version of the firmware.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[GasparGMSwordsman]

Except in most jurisdictions Sony DID do something legally wrong. That is why in most of the EU, retailers selling PS3s have offered partial refunds upon request. That is just one example. Here is a link so you don't have to Google it:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/PS3-playstation-Linux-Rebate-Amazon,10140.html

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Kilrah_il]

IANAL, but so are most of the people here, and still, whenever there is a court decision we have 2 options:
1) The court rules the way the /.-mob thinks -> Great judge with insight and understanding for the people.
2) The court rules opposite of what we think -> Stupid/corrupt judge.

Why can't we understand that maybe the judge wasn't stupid or corrupt, but he/she just had good reasons to rule however he did, which we, being not-lawyers, may not think of. If someone here would actually read the verdict (cue "You must be new here" jokes), he may find good reasons why the judge's decision isn't sound. Until someone does it, I think it is a bit rush to run along and shout "Sony bought off the judge, etc.".

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Ash Vince]

What Sony has done is wrong.

In what way, legally or morally?

If you are talking about morally then you need to remember that everyone's morals are different and most peoples change over the course of their lifetime. Expecting a large company to even have any morals let alone ones you share is about as pointless as pissing into a gale. I bet Sony do far worse than this in the name of making a profit.

If you are talking about legally then in at least one jurisdiction you are wrong, thanks to the judges decision it is now perfectly legal (until successfully appealed). I have a felling it is perfectly legal in most other parts of the world too but I am not lawyer.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[gamricstone]

Nope I don't work at Sony, and IANAL, this is just my opinion.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[oliverthered]

Well there's something called statutory rights in the UK. possibly a bit like first sale rights in the US (I believe that's what they are called).

The device was neither rented nor licensed so I own it.

mod chips for consoles are only banned because they can be used to circumvent copy protection. A mod chip that done something else should be allowed.

There's also trademark law, but that's not related to my ownership or my right to resell, just a retailers ability to sell something that's trademarked.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[westlake]

This lawsuit was ridiculous in that the guy was bound to lose since Sony did nothing wrong legally.

Not to mention that he was trying to recover the $800 he supposedly laid out for the rental of a replacement laptop.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Dishevel]

Like I said. Sony is in fact forcing me to lower the value of an item I already paid them for in one of 2 ways.

When I buy a car Ford dose not get to come out and say that I can choose to have them remove my A/C or disable any way to ever have my car repaired again.

I bought the car with A/C. I paid for that. They sold it. They do not get to take the A/C cause they do not like it anymore and if I dare to not remove the A/C they will flick a switch that makes my car suddenly worthless.

Again. I find it hard to believe that you are actually incapable of seeing this.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Kartu]

Did Sony sell much less GAMES than Microsoft? (Nintendo isn't even in the same league, its customers normally do not buy any games, besides what's in initial package).

When comparing console sales, don't forget about PS3 being unhackable (up until August 2010) => not attracting "pirate" consumers.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[phek]

you contradicted yourself there. if game developers are developing for both platforms anyways, sony's security against piracy isn't really a selling point because the software can get pirated anyways through xbox. As for upgrading the firmware I still haven't and I also haven't bought any new games for the ps3 since it happened (even though there's at least 3 or 4 that I would like to purchase). I'm also fucked because I can't play games i bought (made by sony and other developers) for the sole purpose of playing online. I mildly use the system as a media console, but it's atrociously horrible at that (maybe its gotten better with the newer updates but i really doubt it) and I'm about to replace that with a revo. So now I use the system to do some cell development on and play old nes/snes games on (i also use my wii for that but there are quite a few games that the wii marketplace doesn't have and these games are way more entertaining than most modern games). Fact is I bought the system while it was still at it's highest price for the benefit of being able to use it to do more than just play games. Now that I've paid for it they've given me the option of one or the other. Next console generation I'm not going to be buying sony which means there will probably be 3 others that I know who won't buy it if i'm using another system.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Excelsior]

Remember also that they did not force you to apply the update so if you wanted to you could have carried on playing all the single player games you already had and never upgrade. The only legitimate customers it affected were people who used the Other OS feature and also played games online.

First, this is not limited to Online games. I attempted to not apply the upgrade to keep my Other OS feature, and some of my non-online games required the update. Second, who cares online vs offline - I paid $50-70 for these online games, and I expect to be able to play them as well.

I was left with a choice of losing value for my original $600 purchase (the PS3, which I purchased partly due to the Other OS feature) or of losing hundreds more in games I can no longer play. It's pretty simple, Sony reduced the value of my purchased product. Sony sold me a feature, and then took it away. This is an illegal abuse, no matter how many or few people installed Linux.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[sumdumass]

The manufacturer and trader isn't really all that distinguishable or separable as it would seem as they can be both in the same.

If you owned a manufacturing plant and I contracted to have you build something and you didn't advertise anything about that but I did and then sold it, you would be separate. However, if you manufactured, marketed, and sold to suppliers, a product and I purchased it for resale, you would be both the trader and manufacturer- even to my customers who purchased the product based on your representations or my repeating of them. Especially when I'm passing your claims and representations off to my customers.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[mwvdlee]

To me it looks simple...

The bait:
Run Linux AND all the latest games.

The switch:
Run Linux OR all the latest games.

You're forced to choose and no matter the choice, you lose a feature.

Whether or not most PS3 owners run Linux is besides the point; those that did had part of the features they paid for removed.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[uninformedLuddite]

Why would you want to buy a PS3 to run Linux? While I think that companies disabling features at a later date sucks the big one and that the law is an ass I really think the whole I can't run Linux on my PS3 is a big wank.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[bell.colin]

Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) is U.S. law, I doubt this would apply in Australia (last i check they are not one of our 50 states)

Re:Is this any surprise?

[jimicus]

Indeed. But AIUI Aussie consumer law means the customer's supposed to go back to the retailer, not the manufacturer.

The fact that in this case the manufacturer is squarely responsible for the bait and switch is neither here nor there.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Loconut1389]

I considered buying a PS3 about 70% for linux software development (GNURadio), and I'm sure as heck glad I didn't now as I would like to have played games once in a while- especially online. So for me, they would have been retroactively removing either the main feature I wanted or preventing me from using it for any games which still a large part of the purchase decision. As they marketed it as an open platform, I'd sure as heck call that false advertising. I would have been absolutely furious since they removed exactly what I bought it for- games and linux.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[jimicus]

I think we may be talking at cross-purposes here.

I'm referring specifically to the retailer, the last point in the chain as it were. The Tescos, the Safeways, the Wal-Marts of this world.

Such legislation seldom covers the purchase of several thousand Playstations in the business-to-business transactions taking place between manufacturer, distributor and reseller - don't know about Australian law specifically but AFAIK these are usually "buyer beware" as far as the law is concerned.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[sumdumass]

We are not talking across points here,

That manufacturer and the retailer can be the same here even though they are different. Otherwise, I can build a car, claim it will get 200 MPG and make your electric meter spin backwards, and you will be irresistibly attractive to the women if you have the "magic addon package" installed, then escape any consumer safety laws by having the dealership or some garage who doesn't make the same claims, install it.

Obviously this doesn't happen and is illegal in most jurisdictions. If you make a claim designed to further sales and are connected with the product in any ways, the law will apply to you as long as your behind the claim.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[AK Marc]

Remember also that they did not force you to apply the update

Yes, they did. They told you, "Install this or you'll no longer be able to access online content (to the point where some paid for content would become unavailable after the fact and no new content will be available) and new games requiring the new firmware will not work." That's force. They actively punish you if you don't do it.

Re:Is this any surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought there was a version of mplayer that took advantage of the SPUs on the PS3, but I could be mistaken.

Appeal posible

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a lower level court and an appeal is possible.

Re:Appeal posible

[cappp]

Is there? I've spent a frustration 30 minutes bouncing from link to link looking for some actual details without much luck. It's pretty much all cut 'n paste, most of what's out there looks to be word for word repetition, and no-one seems to have bothered to provide the actual basis for the decision or the avenues for review. I was all ready to blast the summary for linking to some gaming site but sadly enough their content was equal to all the rest I could find.

So much for the internet creating a space for human creativity unbound and nuanced reporting. Maybe it's just the bitterness of a failed search talking but from where I'm sitting, it's all page-hits and no actual content.

Re:Appeal posible

[julesh]

Is there? I've spent a frustration 30 minutes bouncing from link to link looking for some actual details without much luck.

Yeah, the details are rather scant. But the decision was apparently made by a magistrate, which means he filed either in a local court or in the federal magistrates court. Either of these can be appealed (*almost* automatically) to a higher court, if he chooses to do so.

Very sad.

[ahaubold]

Yet another case where money > consumer protection/right.

Re:Very sad.

[DrugCheese]

Justice by credit line

Re:Very sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. I wonder how much Sony paid to get their way through this.

Re:Very sad.

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Hmm. Yet another case where emotional knee-jerk > evidence-based judgement.

Re:Very sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please keep posting comments on your moderation, so that soon we won't have to see any of your comments as long as we browse at +1.

Re:Very sad.

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Oh no! Don't make me post at 0 or -1! I'll do anything! I didn't need this "integrity" thing anyway...

Yes, mein censor! I will toe the party line from now on! I didn't mean to contradict you. From now on, if you say there is evidence, then I will unquestioningly believe you.

(Is that enough? Do you want more?)

Re:Very sad.

[baka_toroi]

Shut up you sad, sad, fanboy.

Re:Very sad.

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Fanboy? I do not own, nor do I have ever intention of owning a PS3.

Was that based on evidence, or emotional knee-jerk? You decide!

Another link

[Lliam33]

Forum post from the guy involved. Scroll up for some more info.

Re:Another link

[Anonymous Coward]

To save people from trawling through all the other posts, this filters the thread posts to MickJT only.

He should appeal

[Aussie]

He no longer has what he paid for and Sony are responsible. They should have at least provided a method of restoring the functionality to how it was.
I must admit I'm surprised the ACCC took that stance, I'd really like to see more details.

Re:He should appeal

[Rogerborg]

Ditto. Please sing out if you find any. At the moment we just have a single (very nearly) context-free report, echoed ad infinitum. The reasoning (if any) behind the ACCC and Magistrates' decisions are what will matter in the long term.

Re:He should appeal

[jimicus]

There's a forum linked elsewhere - in essence, Sony's argument was "you can't sue us, the EULA says so" and the judge agreed.

Re:He should appeal

[Xest]

Is there even an option of appeal in small claims cases?

If there is, any idea how they work? is it just to another small claims court or does it get escalated to a higher court, and if so, do your potential liabilities increase should you lose there too?

I agree appealing is a smart option in this case, but I don't know if the appeals process for this sort of thing actually fairly caters to it or not?

Re:He should appeal

[GNious]

Man, I love coming from a country where that shit (EULA, and signing away rights) doesn't matter!

Re:He should appeal

[The Moof]

I despise that entire idea (and I know I'm not alone). Basically, agree and install the update, letting them strip out features on your console. Or, refuse the EULA and the update, and they will strip out features on your console anyway. Plus, you won't be able to play some games if you refuse the EULA, so it's more than just the loss of PSN functionality if you refuse.

The kicker is that a judge sees it Sony's way. At least this was in Australia, so there's still some faint hope for the rest of us.

Re:He should appeal

[DarthVain]

Contract Law. You agreed to the EULA. No one forced you to buy the product. You could have taken one look a the EULA, and walked away saying "No thanks". Hell most people don't even read their insurance or mortgage agreements, let alone agreements for a PS3.

Problem is they have become so ubik these days, that there is some sort of EULA on everything now indemnifying companies from blame or litigation. Most of these are ridiculous in length. I mean the iTunes one is like 75 pages long, not to mention, WOW, or any purchase or service. I would spend the rest of my days reading through EULA's. Odds are if I actually read them, I wouldn't want to agree with them.

The main problem is while no one forces you to buy a product and accept a EULA, really they do collectively, as everyone uses them now, so you really have little choice in the matter. Most of them are ridiculous such as credit cards, or ISPs, or anything, that basically somewhere has two clauses that say "we can do whatever we want", and "we will change this agreement however we like, but we will notify you somehow". My Cable company changed my EULA to include bandwidth caps once upon a time, notification to me consisted of posting the revised EULA to an obscure link on their website somewhere. I didn't find out until they cut off my service. Nice.

EULA still doesn't protect you from doing illegal stuff. However it does make it harder to prove. So while I could sign an agreement at a doctor's office, or the white water rafting place that says I won't sue if I die, it doesn't protect them from if they mess up and you die. It is a much harder thing to prove however. Just like some contracts are illegal, I can't make a contact that says "you will allow me to murder you" as no matter what, that's still against the law.

So that would be the key here, is it fraud or not. As they advertise one thing, yet did another. Their defense might be that, well it is in the EULA so we actually advertised that these changes may take place thus it isn't false advertising. The counter argument would be, that it is hidden in a 75 page agreement, so it isn't really discoverable. In most cases, they would likely ask, "so did you read it" and in most cases the response would be "no", and I think many judges without looking too deeply into the case would be "case closed".

I have heard that some consider many of these EULA's not worth the paper they are written on, as in a lot of areas, apparently a contract that is so heavily weighted in only one persons favor is not considered a valid legal contract. From my limited understanding I have heard that most of this EULA stuff has not been really tested in a real court of any significance. That is what this issue needs, a lot of court time and public awareness as it is really getting silly.

A 800$ small claims court is not going to do it, despite the amount of press it is getting online. This needs several multi-year class action big money suits before any judge is going to start looking at the actual significance of these agreements and if they are actually legal and just.

Judgement apparently not posted yet

[Namarrgon]

When it is, I'd expect it to appear here.

Why do people even trust Sony anymore?

[KarlIsNotMyName]

Personally I lost all respect for Sony with the whole rootkit deal.

Re:Why do people even trust Sony anymore?

[tacarat]

Personally I gained very much love for Sony music and support their efforts to end piracy. My Sony PS3, VIAO and music collection can only be pried from my cold dead hands until next updates come. Then my Sony branded credit card comes out to buy from the online store. Express shipping most great!

FTFY
Sincerely,

Sony IT dept

Re:Why do people even trust Sony anymore?

[stealth_finger]

Ain't that the truth, and even before that they were shady.

Re:Why do people even trust Sony anymore?

[blippo]

Sony is a media company, and they sell crippled devices.

I have a PS3, a Xperia 10 and a set top box, and they are all intentionally not delivering what they could,
in order to protect Sonys media interests.

Never Sony again.

Re:Why do people even trust Sony anymore?

[TheRaven64]

Sony's media and hardware divisions are more or less independent, so it's not necessarily fair to judge one by the actions of the other. This decision shows that they are both (independently) anti-customer.

Re:Why do people even trust Sony anymore?

[couchslug]

"Personally I lost all respect for Sony with the whole rootkit deal."

Most people don't care. It's a TOY, it plays games, it's a trifle.

Re:Why do people even trust Sony anymore?

[imakemusic]

It's a TOY, it plays games, it's a trifle.

Well I still think Sony should get their just desserts.

Re:Why do people even trust Sony anymore?

[arth1]

Most people don't care. It's a TOY, it plays games, it's a trifle.

I know a lady who saved and made sacrifices for six months in order to buy a PS3. For her (and others who don't make much money), it was obviously more than a trifle.

Re:Why do people even trust Sony anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a TOY, it plays games, it's a trifle.

Well I still think Sony should get their just desserts.

Unfortunately they won't... which is parfait the course.

Sorry, that pun was stretched more than taffy.

Re:Why do people even trust Sony anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy, things are going to be different when you have to start paying for your shit on your own. Of course you don't care, 'cause Mom's gonna buy you a new (whatever) when it comes out.

Facepalm

[DrScotsman]

Okay I am really confused over all of these attempts to sue the manufacturers, maybe I'm missing something here. In the UK, if a product is not as described/fit for purpose among other things, the seller is liable (providing they're a business etc.). It's the same thing EU-wide (1999/44/EC), surely it's the same with Australia and North America?

Or am I wrong about the UK, and the manufacturer is also liable? Any British IANALs got some case or statute law that says that a buyer can sue a manufacturer for false advertising?

Re:Facepalm

[Anonymous Coward]

Why in the world would it be the same in North America or Australia?

That approach doesn't make any sense at all!

it's just EU stomping on small businesses. Who is best able to know and control if a device has its features? In what way could a retailer know, prevent, forsee, control Sony from firmware updates? Build a flux capacitor?

Sony made the claim. Sony broke the claim. The law in the civilized world holds Sony accountable. The UK hardly qualifies.

Re:Facepalm

[SimonTheSoundMan]

In the UK, the consumer only has a contract with the retailer they bought it from. The manufacturer is not liable.

People have been successful in the UK with a full or partial refunds. Amazon, GAME and HMV have given damages or full refunds to customers. £84 is what Amazon offer for a partial refund, and you get to keep the console.

Re:Facepalm

[cc1984_]

I know you're trolling but let me explain why the UK does what it does.

The Sale of Goods act (1953) was brought into being to protect the consumer from shops palming off problems to the manufacturer. Your equipment is faulty? Send it back to the manufacturer. The book you bought has pages missing? Phone up the publisher to get it replaced. With this act the retailer is obliged to offer a replacement to the purchaser and it becomes the retailer's responsibility to get a replacement from the manufacturer. No flux capacitor required.

Re:Facepalm

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a bit of a legal quagmire, as you're buying a product from one company that contains a service provided by another company not party to the original contract (who just happens to be the manufacturer). It wouldn't be right to allow an action against the vendor as they actually sold exactly what they promised, and it doesn't seem like any of the consumer protection laws would allow an action against the manufacturer as they're all centred around contract and you didn't have a contract with the manufacturer. Maybe there is some avenue of agency law - that you can argue, since you're purchasing not just hardware but software with an ongoing expectation of support and the ability to utilise advertised features such as network play, then the vendor is really acting as an agent of the manufacturer (this effectively allows a breach of contract based action against the manufacturer). The bottom line though is that the law is not set up to deal with rapidly changing situations, it works best where there is initial legislation which is refined over time through legal precedent. In this brave new world, only the legislation has a chance of keeping pace with the technological changes, and since legislation is driven by politicians and they're driven by lobbyists who are funded by big business, it's hardly surprising the consumer doesn't often get a fair deal.

Re:Facepalm

[TheRaven64]

The same act provides the shop with grounds to take it to the supplier. Basically, it means that the supply chain works both ways. You take the problem to the shop, and they are required by law to address it. They then take it to their supplier, who is required by law to address it. The complaints go from the customer to the retailer to the wholesaler and then to the supplier.

Part of the logic behind this is that you have a lot more leverage against the person closest to you in the supply chain. Your decision to boycott Sony and tell all of your friends to do so makes little difference to them. Your decision to boycott a local shop and tell all of your friends to do so makes a bigger difference to them. The shop's decision to boycott Sony won't make much difference, but their choice to switch wholesalers would. The wholesaler's decision to stop providing Sony products would be a much bigger threat to Sony than a single customer.

Re:Facepalm

[Xest]

Indeed, and it makes the retailer less likely to do business with problem publishers/manufacturers, hence putting greater pressure on them than an individual by themselves could to rectify their poor business practices.

It's easy for a manufacturer to fob off multiple independent individuals, it's harder for them to fob off the retailers who are their gateway to getting their products to consumers in the first place.

Re:Facepalm

[JasterBobaMereel]

The UK system is sensible ....

Instead of the customer suing Sony and having to wait months if not years for a resolution, and having to involve lawyers etc .... they pester the people they bought it from, who then can band together and hassle Sony ...

Who is Sony going to listen to, a small band of customers who are suing them, or a group of retailers, some of whom some of their best customers ?

The UK and European still holds Sony accountable, but stops each customer having to approach Sony and then sue them individulaly ...

Note customers have got refunds or partial refunds from some retailers already under this system .... whereas in Australia Sony does not have to pay anything?...

Re:Facepalm

[cynyr]

ahh for a refund, but i want to use the device i paid for, not return it. How does one go about doing that?

The story so far

[Lord Bitman]

A man walks into a shop:
"Hello, good sir. I would like to purchase a computer."

"Here you are. That will be $600"

"A fair deal indeed. Thank you."

[ Several months later, our hero comes home to find his computer missing. In its place is a short note and a paddle-ball ]

"Dear customer. We have taken the liberty of replacing your computer with a paddle-ball, as we learned that people were attempting to use their computers for non-paddleball-related activities."

Re:The story so far

[Anonymous Coward]

No. It's more like this:

A man walks into a shop:
"Hello, good sir. I would like to purchase a computer."

"Here you are. That will be $600"

"A fair deal indeed. Thank you."

[ Several months later, the user calls a tech to come service his computer. ]

"If I service your computer, as you've requested, it will remove a feature."

"I understand and agree to your terms."

[ The user is stunned when said feature is removed and sues the company. ]

[ Judge laughs at the user and tells him to get a life ]

Re:The story so far

[Missing.Matter]

No, in this case the tech would solicit to service his perfectly fine computer, then say if he does not service it, the user will not be able to connect to the Internet. You act like the user had a choice. His choice was update or get screwed, or don't update and get screwed even more. If I asked you if you'd like to be raped with lube or without, which would you choose?

Re:The story so far

[Anonymous Coward]

Err..is it not more like

A man walks into a shop:
"Hello, good sir. I would like to purchase a computer."

"Here you are. That will be $600"

"A fair deal indeed. Thank you."

[ Several months later, our hero hears a knock at the door, he opens it and finds a sales assitant form the shop]

The sales assitant asks the man if he would like a free upgrade to his computer which will turn it into a paddle-ball.

  Why certainly says the man.

The next day he realises that his computer no longer operates as it used to...

Re:The story so far

[Cruciform]

You walk into a dealership of recreational vehicles.
You see an amphibious car on display. The head of the amphibious car manufacturing division has stopped by the dealership, and is extolling the features of it to customers.
"Drives on land! Operates in water like a boat!"
So you buy one.
After you buy it, you might use both features, you might not. But isn't it awesome knowing if you want to you can just drive down to the lake and go for a spin?
But then there's a knock on the door. A representative of the company says they would like to enter your garage and make some modifications to your amphibious car. They're just going to remove all of the features that work in water. You don't HAVE to let them modify it, but if you don't then your car will not be allowed out of your garage.
You can still go out and start it up, but driving it on the road is will be expressly forbidden.

So now you're stuck with a choice. An amphibious car that doesn't drive in water, or one that doesn't drive at all.

Seems kind of dirty to me.
Especially after they explicitly advertised the PS3 as a computer.
http://kotaku.com/179245/why-the-ps3-is-a-computer-sony-dodges-euro-tax-men

Sony should now be required to pay back taxes on all that hardware.

The problem in a nutshell

[westlake]

A man walks into a shop:

"Hello, good sir. I would like to purchase a computer."

After which he points you to towards the Sony Vaio, the HP Pavilion, the Lenovo ThinkPad. Perhaps a Dell Inspiron if you a looking for a budget desktop.

He does not send you to the racks with the XBox 360, the Wii, and PS3.

Re:The problem in a nutshell

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hello, good sir. I would like to purchase a multi-purpose computational machine that is advertised as both a computer and a paddle-ball."

Re:The problem in a nutshell

[Loconut1389]

As evidenced by the scores of military and business users making compute clusters out of these, the cell platform is great for many HPC applications- and the PS3 was a great way to get at it and the other os feature made it feasible and even marketed to use that way (there was a web page about their "open platform").

Re:The problem in a nutshell

[kestasjk]

Next you'll be telling me my washing machine doesn't have to be capable of running Linux.. It contains a computer, when I went into the Harvey Norman and asked for a computer they directed me to the washing machines, so excuse me if I think the CEO of Electrolux deserves some prison time..

Re:The problem in a nutshell

[cynyr]

and? feature lists included "other OS". Shall I take a picture of my PS3 box that says it?

Re:The problem in a nutshell

[westlake]

As evidenced by the scores of military and business users making compute clusters out of these, the cell platform is great for many HPC applications

The PS3 was a great celll platform because it was cheap - and it was cheap because it was being sold at a loss.

The use of a video game console in a "mission critical" application would almost certainly violate any real or implied warranty of fitness that would stand up in court.

Re:The problem in a nutshell

[Anonymous Coward]

Woosh!

If you're going to miss the point that completely, don't bother replying.

Poor Choice of Damages

[DavidD_CA]

It says he sued to get back $800 (AU), which was the cost of renting a laptop for some unspecified period of time.

He should have sued for the retail price of the PS3.

Re:Poor Choice of Damages

[Anonymous Cowpat]

yeah, that was what I thought. It immediately looks like a time-wasting idiot-case when he seems to want a resolution which (a) let's him keep his PS3 as a gaming machine and (b) make Sony pay for him to have a seperate computer as well (and as the sort of nerdy type who installs Linux on a PS3, he probably has a seperate computer anyway). He'd probably have been more successful if he'd demanded they take the product back since they were crippling it.

Re:Poor Choice of Damages

[drinkypoo]

Is there some way to specifically ask the court to restore the feature? Because this is what is really needed here. Sony promised it, then they took it away, they should be made to give it back.

Re:Poor Choice of Damages

[Anonymous Coward]

It'll show "Anonymous coward" but it's Michael here. The media got it wrong. Check the whirlpool thread for information on it. The majority of the damages claimed was for the cost of something, anything, that can do that which was removed. An example is a laptop. Then compensation for the downtime between April and now, which was based on renting.

If the explanation of the ruling becomes public, you will see that the justification for the amount of damages didn't play much of a part in the judges decision. Too much weight was put on the EULA.

Re:Poor Choice of Damages

[Frogbert]

That was the retail price of a Playstation 3 in Australia at launch.

Re:Poor Choice of Damages

[DavidD_CA]

Then he should have said that, instead of claiming $800 for the laptop rental.

May be a GOOD decision

[Anonymous Coward]

If the person did not suffer any 'loss' by this disablement/amputation of functionality, then it follows Sony would also not suffer any equivalent 'loss' for the newish PS3 USB Jailbreak R4 chips etc.
Now we are dealing with 'sold' units. Extending this to the unlocking or jail breaking of say the iPhone so it can do other things supports this premise. As long as the law is applied fairly and evenly.

Re:May be a GOOD decision

[Anonymous Coward]

They also would not suffer "loss" from a torrented movie, then, by my estimation. But seriously, do you think SONY is going to allow that to happen? They will continue to attack consumers and competitors on all fronts, until they are the supreme masters of the world. Stop buying SONY products, and teach them a some humility.
SONY doesn't belong in an open market.

This is theft or wilful damage

[Errol backfiring]

If you can see a feature as an independent thing, then that feature was stolen after he bought it and paid for it. Otherwise, his machine was wilfully damaged by Sony.

Re:This is theft or wilful damage

[tophermeyer]

I'm sorry, I think I missed the part of the article where they interviewed the Sony Killbot that was sent to this guy's house to mess with his PS3, can you link it?

(Serious Face) There was an update, he had to agree to an updated EULA before he downloaded. He misinterpreted the EULA as an April Fools joke. This is unfortunate, but ultimately his own damn fault for agreeing to something without understanding it. Nothing was stolen. Sony just pushed an update out to their OS. If he wants to run Linux so bad, he is perfectly free to open up his PS3 and do it himself. If he's not capable of doing that without relying on Sony's PS3 OS to do it for him then that's his problem.

Re:This is theft or wilful damage

[Aussie]

Crap, he was given a choice of "lose Linux" or "lose future features". The missing choice is refund.

Analogy

[Errol backfiring]

Then this is very sad justice indeed. That means that if I make, for instance, bicycles and attach some kind of EULA on it, I can put myself above the law by denying any responsibility in the EULA. I don't need to deliver basic quality, or a safe vehicle, or deliver a functional thing if I repair it. Even if an EULA is nothing more than a forced, after-the-sale contract which should be void in any country with a serious law.

Re:Analogy

[jimicus]

Oh, very much in so. An EULA is a blatant attempt to turn a business-to-consumer transaction (which in many countries has all sorts of legal protections) into the legal equivalent of a business-to-business transaction (which in many countries has very few legal protections - if you're a business you're meant to have the good sense to exercise due diligence and hire a lawyer if necessary).

What the world really needs is a judgement in a first-world country in a court which makes binding decisions acknowledging this and telling the big company in no uncertain terms where to stick their EULA. Though very few individuals have the money to chase something all the way to such a court, and any director with half a brain will settle out of court as soon as it becomes apparent that something like this may happen.

Re:Analogy

[L4t3r4lu5]

Rubbish. Your lack of basic safety checks could kill someone, so you're damn right you'll get hosed in court if you don't do them. A better analogy would be issuing a product recall for a minor adjustment to the gear ratios, then finding out that it came back with only 12 gears instead of the advertised 18 you bought it with.

Still, you all bought the damn thing knowing full well what was in the EULA. More fool you, firstly for not reading it and thinking "GTFO I'll buy a pretzel for the walk home" and also for thinking that the fact the EULA should be unenforceable is a good enough reason for a court case.

Re:Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but from what I remember from the Business Law course I had, something like EULA's might possibly be invalidated if you could provide a convincing case for "unconscionable contract" under the UCC. This stunt pulled by SONY just might be that convincing case. A wonder that no one seems to be pursuing the matter on that basis.

To use a car analogy

[scdeimos]

Customer: I bought this Sony Car because it had headlights. I need headlights so I can drive my car at night.

Sony: We removed the headlights feature at your last service because headlights can be used to flash oncoming drivers. But removing headlights has made your Car lighter, so it can go faster and use less fuel. We hope you like the changes.

Customer: I can't use my Car any more because you took the headlights away, thus it's no longer roadworthy and it would be illegal for me to drive it. Give me back my headlights, and pay $800 for the rental car I've had to use in the meantime.

Sony: No.

Judge: No.

Rest of the world: Dumb-asses.

Re:To use a car analogy

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Customer: When they called me and offered to remove my headlights, I only agreed because I thought it was a joke!

Slashdot: SOOONY BLOOOOOD!

Rest of the world: Dumb-asses.

Re:To use a car analogy

[daid303]

Correct analogy would be that they would only service the car if they also could remove the headlights.

Re:To use a car analogy

[Theaetetus]

Customer: I bought this Sony Car because it had headlights.

Sony: What? This is a gaming machine. Yeah, we put headlights on it because it looks good, but it's not meant for strapping to the hood of your car. Are you insane?

Customer: Linux!

Sony: Uh, okay... Incidentally, due to people cheating, you're going to have to choose between using our completely cost-free online gaming network, and your "headlights".

Customer: Give me $800 and free car!!

Re:To use a car analogy

[sorak]

Another car analogy:

Customer: I'd like to buy a car.

Sony: Sure!

Customer: Can I install Linux on this and use it as a server?

Sony: Yeah, you can do whatever you want, now sign this fifteen page contract!

Customer: Do I have to?

Sony: Yes, but don't worry. It's just there for decoration.

Customer: Ok.

Six months later...

Customer: You removed Linux from my car...

Sony: Yeah, we just realized it's a car, and you might be using Linux to add features that we should be charging you for.

Customer: That's not fair.

Sony: Remember the contract? It says I can do this...It's right after the part that says that I get to have sex with your mother.

Customer: What?

Sony: Raising someone who would sign such an agreement was taken as consent. It's all legal.

Customer: I'm taking you to court.

Sony: We have fifteen lawyers, do you need a ride up there?

Later

Judge: So, this "car" you speak of...It's like an electric horse, right?

Customer: But it runs Linux...

Judge: And as for your mother...Well, I'm pretty sure that would be illegal, except that this guy sells electronics, and current contract laws don't say anything about "rape by an electronics salesman"....I guess we'll have to wait for the law to catch up with the technology on that one.

Customer: Does this mean "no Linux"?

Judge: Boy, I don't know what the hell you just said, but I like you. Now get outta my court room, you little scamp.

Re:To use a car analogy

[ogl_codemonkey]

Actually, it's more like:

"When they called and offered to remove my headlights, I only agreed because it was the only way I could use the petrol and tires I'd already installed; or any future petrol or tires I may need. Also, they'd stop letting me drive on the Interstate if I declined."

Re:To use a car analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a pretty bad analogy. It's not illegal to operate a PS3 without Linux. Let me fix it for you...

Customer: I bought this Sony Car because it had an air conditioner. I need air conditioning because I live in a desert.

Sony: We removed the air conditioning feature at your last service because air conditioners can be used by people illegally living in their cars. But removing the air conditioner has made your Car lighter, so it can go faster and use less fuel. We hope you like the changes.

Customer: I can't use my Car any more because you took the air conditioner away, thus it's no longer what I wanted and it would be too hot for me to drive it. Give me back my air conditioner, and pay $800 for the rental car I've had to use in the meantime.

Sony: No.

Judge: No.

Rest of the world: Dumb-asses.

Re:To use a car analogy

[tophermeyer]

And a more correct analogy would be that instead of headlights they removed the part of the car that also makes it work as a boat. Still perfectly capable of working as a car, but no longer able to perform a seldom used and impractical "other" service.

Re:To use a car analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Michael here again. Regarding it being a joke, I thought removing OtherOS was just totally absurd. Surely 3.21 had features not in the list. Though, I did think that there could be a real possibly of them actually doing it. I wasn't totally surprised that OtherOS was removed when updating, because I expected it to just be returned the next day or very soon after. 3.30 was the real disappointment.

Re:To use a car analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, come on. If you are going to use an analogy, at least be somewhat realistic...

Customer: I bought this Sony Car because it has an ash tray. I need an ash tray so I can smoke at night

Sony: We removed the ash tray at your last service because it was causing a short in the computer system which may make it vulnerable on the road. And we have found that 99.9% of our customers don't use the ash tray so we just removed it entirely. We hope you like the changes.

Customer: I can't use my car any more because you took the headlights away. Give me back my ash tray and pay $800 for using my own ashtray which I owned anyway.

Sony: No

Judge: No

Rest of the world: Couldn't care less

To be fair, the percentage of people who use ash tray in their car is probably far greater in percentage than people who installed linux on PS3.

Re:To use a car analogy

[Warhawke]

Customer: I bought this Sony Car because it had headlights. I need headlights so I can drive my car at night.

Sony: We removed the headlights feature at your last service because headlights can be used to flash oncoming drivers. But removing headlights has made your Car lighter, so it can go faster and use less fuel. We hope you like the changes.

Customer: I can't use my Car any more because you took the headlights away, thus it's no longer roadworthy and it would be inconvenient for me to drive it. Give me back my headlights, and pay $800 for the rental car I've had to use in the meantime.

Sony: No. The 400 page document you signed at purchase gives us the right to add or remove any part upon servicing your vehicle. If headlights are important, may we suggest our new car line, the Vaio?

Customer: But EULA was TL-DR!

Judge:.Cry more, n00b

Rest of the world: American Idol!

FTFY

Question

[Lord Lode]

Why is it that Sony first allowed Linux on PS3 (and earlier PS's too), and there were even supercomputers built with PS3's, and that later Sony decides to disallow that support completely? Why the sudden change?

Re:Question

[mrjb]

Just a guess: because 1. They make their money on the games, not on the console, and/or 2. Money is more important than providing added value to your customers?

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

The change was brought about, because some asshat rooted the PS3 via the Other OS option.
As far as Sony are concerned, a rooted PS3 equals game piracy. Therefore, they kill the Other OS option to stop the onslaught of piracy which was about to hit their pockets.

Re:Question

[drinkypoo]

Why is it that Sony first allowed Linux on PS3 (and earlier PS's too), and there were even supercomputers built with PS3's, and that later Sony decides to disallow that support completely? Why the sudden change?

They allowed it because of the significant number of people who said they would only buy a PS3 if it could run Linux, and they wanted to deny the sales to Microsoft. Linux has long been used inside Sony (and in dev kits) for Playstation game development so it was probably a relatively trivial operation. The Hypervisor is probably already used to provide security (anti-cheat, anti-hack, anti-copy) protection for games so it didn't have to be added for Linux. They took it away because it could trivially be used to copy Blu-Ray movies. Of course, it still can, if you haven't updated, and we only need a handful of "pirates" who are willing to upload, or distribute to uploaders, to make the whole thing a moot point.

I think it is fair to say that the "it will run Linux" thing will never work for anyone again. Maybe that was the point. Of course, if Linux is the underlying OS, then no hacking is required, so it could still be a selling point for a future Linux-based console. This seems like a no-brainer to me; Linux provides all the technologies needed, and it's Free.

Re:Question

[cynyr]

George Hotz managed to get to ring 0 of the hypervisor. Basicly he had full control of the hardware, or enough control to get there. Now he still needed to boot gameOS to make any games work, but sony probably figured it was just a mater of time before he reverses the gameOS too. His blog has since become invite only it would seem.

Shortly after GeoHot annoced this sony announced the removal of "otherOS" as it was a security problem.

Re:Question

[jmerlin]

Because someone was able to make progress towards gaining complete control of the device largely due to the "Other OS" feature. This would've made it rather easy to bypass all DRM put in place by Sony for the device, and we all know Sony really really likes their DRM and wants to shove it down our throats (ala.. rootkits). So their response was to completely remove "Other OS."

They initially added it because many people wanted it but also because EVERY OTHER CONSOLE was cracked solely to be able to run custom software on it (in many cases, Linux), and if that feature is available out-of-the-box, nobody needs to crack it. People got curious and wanted to crack it just because we weren't given full machine-level control over the devices we pay for and own (hopefully this will get pwned in a court of law requiring that manufacturers ship products that give the owner 100% access to the entire device, not just an isolated HV jail), and at that point "Other OS" outlived its usefulness as an anti-cracking feature. The only way things like this can be stopped is by legal precedent that says that manufacturers can't sell someone a product and restrict them to only using it for 1 singular action. If I buy a brick, it's a perfectly good door-stop too. If I buy any device with a processor and I want to reprogram it to control my sprinklers, I should be able to do that. What Sony is saying is "nope, you can't do anything we don't say you can do, you don't own that device, we're just kind enough to let you borrow it, now bend over!"

Re:Question

[westlake]

Why is it that Sony first allowed Linux on PS3 (and earlier PS's too)

1 The PS3 was a premium-priced console built around some very new and expensive tech.

The OtherOS was supposed to help drive sales to the enthusiast and early adopter - but it never ammounted to all that much.

2 That was long before every home video component known to man became web-enabled. When Pandora, Netflix, Skype and all the rest are directly accessible from your HDTV, you don't need to muck around installing Ubuntu and Firefox on an aging PS3 Phatt.

3. --- and long before console-excluive online services like XBox Live began coining money for Sony's compeitors.

Not all non-free apps have free counterparts

[tepples]

Well, since I use Linux I do not need to make illegal copies, nor do I have the time for that because free software is released at such a fast rate that I have no hope to learn to use all of it in my lifetime.

Not all non-free applications have free counterparts. For example, what is a close substitute for each of 1UP's top PS3 games of 2010 that is distributed as free software?

Re:Not all non-free apps have free counterparts

[nschubach]

I think you missed the point. Linux users don't usually have to steal (pirate) software because the software that is out there to pirate is most likely not something that would run on Linux...

So calling Linux users "pirates" is asinine at best.

His point has nothing to do with equivalent Linux games in general.

Re:Not all non-free apps have free counterparts

[tepples]

Linux users don't usually have to steal (pirate) software because the software that is out there to pirate is most likely not something that would run on Linux

It looks like you and Haxamanish are claiming that the fact that Linux doesn't have major-label video games in the first place* is an advantage of a Linux PC over a PS3. Either that, or I am missing even deeper points and would appreciate an explanation.

* Other than a few token M-rated first-person shooters, which aren't helpful to fans of something other than M-rated first-person shooters.

Re:Not all non-free apps have free counterparts

[jimicus]

Haxamanish's original words were:

Well, since I use Linux I do not need to make illegal copies, nor do I have the time for that because free software is released at such a fast rate that I have no hope to learn to use all of it in my lifetime

Your argument - that much commercial software still doesn't have equivalents in Linux is true, but misses the point. I would interpret Haxamanish's words to mean: I do not need to make illegal copies because all the software that I care about has free equivalents. Therefore Haxamanish is a Linux user, has no need to pirate software and (one assumes) objects to being labelled as one who does.

(On a side note, how the Hell does a Linux user pirate software in the first place when there's so little pirateable commercial software for Linux? Or was the original troll equating pirates with Linux users simply because neither pay for their software?)

Here's what I think of it, should anyone care

[mrjb]

The point of branding is to help people recognize what they can expect from a product. If you disagree with the proven track record of shady business tactics of a company, just consider their logo to be a warning label. You'll be surprised at how well this works.

Old News

[Anonymous Coward]

This is really just another breadcrumb in a long standing series of Sony business practices, which has been covered by reputable news agencies for ages now. Here's just one example: http://www.theonion.com/video/sony-releases-new-stupid-piece-of-shit-that-doesnt,14309/

Isn't this the logical extension ??

[King_TJ]

You're talking about Sony and others regarding the device as though "the user is leasing it from them" -- yet every time I look at intellectual property copyright, it sounds like they're implying just that! (You're not really buying the music/movie/software! You're simply paying for a license to use the content according to all the rules we've set forth! The physical media you received in the transaction is just the vehicle used to get the intellectual property from point A to B. It doesn't imply you really BOUGHT a copy of our product itself.)

No surprise.

[Caerdwyn]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but is anyone surprised that the government of Australia is making (more) stone-age-stupid decisions regarding technology? Their track record on all things related to high tech demonstrates institutionalized ignorance. This is just another example of Australia's willful lack of understanding of the modern Internet-enabled world.

We'll just add this one to the list.

Bullshit.

[RichiH]

> This lawsuit was ridiculous in that the guy was bound to lose since Sony did nothing wrong legally.

Bullshit. If I sell you a device that can make juice and funny noises and advertise it as such, you expect to make juice & hear funny noises. When I remove the funny noises, part of the initial advertisements which made you and many others buy my device, on purpose I am willfully reducing the functionality of the product I sold to you. As I am forcing you to upgrade the device to be compatible with new fruit, I am twisting your arm, and hard.

The fact that the big players get away with stuff like this all the time does not mean the practice is legal. Neither does it matter how many people used the feature.

PS: No car in my analogy!

Re:Bullshit.

[pnewhook]

I buy a TV that says it can display broadcast tv channels. Someone changes the broadcast standard so that analog is no longer available and I need a digital converter box.

Obviously then Sony is on the hook for false advertising since I can't watch TV any more!!

Re:Bullshit.

[RichiH]

If the someone is Sony alone and at a whim, not the government plus the whole industry at once, yes.

Copyright infringement in Wine

[tepples]

Your argument - that much commercial software still doesn't have equivalents in Linux is true, but misses the point.

In an article about a video game console, video games are implicitly a background point.

I do not need to make illegal copies because all the software that I care about has free equivalents.

In that case, popular video games happen not to be among the software that Haxamanish cares about.

On a side note, how the Hell does a Linux user pirate software in the first place when there's so little pirateable commercial software for Linux?

Wine can run infringing copies of software.

CORRECTION

[tepples]

Wine can run infringing copies of software.

I made a mistake in my previous post. PS3 is not x86, therefore Wine doesn't run. But Other OS could still run DOSBox and other emulators capable of using infringing copies of games.