Judge Dismisses 'Other OS' Class-Action Suit Against Sony

An anonymous reader writes "You may recall that in early 2010, Sony decided to roll out an update that would remove the ability for PlayStation 3 owners to install a different operating system on the console, citing security concerns as the reason. Geeks and Linux enthusiasts were outraged at the move, particular since the "Other OS" functionality had been advertised as a feature of the PS3. A class-action lawsuit was soon brought against Sony. Many of the initial claims were thrown out, and now, a federal judge in California has granted Sony's motion to dismissed the lawsuit, saying, 'As a matter of providing customer satisfaction and building loyalty, it may have been questionable. As a legal matter, however, plaintiffs have failed to allege facts or articulate a theory on which Sony may be held liable.' Here's the full text of the order (PDF)."

Comments

And the USAF

[eldavojohn]

Geeks and Linux enthusiasts were outraged at the move ...

And the United States Air Force.

Re:And the USAF

[poetmatt]

methinks you forgot the reality of your statement: they rely on having linux on them (which, no, just having custom firmware will not fix because the removal of otherOS also means it's not legal to flash custom firmware), but also because they rely on PS3's having linux on them for hardware replacement.

From the air force on this exact issue, and why you, sir are the one who is not at all bright:

"We will have to continue to use the systems we already have in hand," the lab told Ars, but "this will make it difficult to replace systems that break or fail. The refurbished PS3s also have the problem that when they come back from Sony, they have the firmware (gameOS) and it will not allow Other OS, which seems wrong. We are aware of class-action lawsuits against Sony for taking away this option on systems that use to have it."

Re:And the USAF

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, uh, you do realize that the techdirt article you linked to is from May 2010, RIGHT? The quote from the USAF is even older than that. A cursory search shows plenty of info indicating that the USAF is in fact running clustered PS3s/linux - and is getting special treatment from Sony. Here's a link (out of many) with more recent information on the matter:

http://www.itworld.com/hardware/141994/air-force-launches-supercomputer-made-ps3s

Re:Car analogy

[Caerdwyn]

If you RTFPDF, an automotive analogy is, in fact, cited in the case. Here, let me get that for you...

• "With the exception of the “Unjust Enrichment” claim discussed further below, all of the counts are based on plaintiffs’ fundamental contention that it was wrongful for Sony to disable the Other OS feature, or, more precisely, to put PS3 owners to the “Hobson’s choice” of either permitting the Other OS feature to be disabled or forgoing their access to the PSN and any other benefits available through installing Firmware Update 3.21. Plaintiffs offer an analogy: “if Toyota disabled the battery feature in its hybrids and forced owners to use only gasoline, it would not matter whether the auto’s warranties had expired.” Opposition at 1:8-9. In plaintiffs’ view, it should be self evident that, “A manufacturer cannot unilaterally take away a fundamental feature of a product after that product has been sold to a consumer – regardless of whether the warranty is still in effect.” Id. at 1:9-11."2

But the judge said it's a flawed analogy (as most automotive analogies are):

• The flaw in plaintiffs’ analogy is that they are claiming rights not only with respect to the features of the PS3 product, but also to have ongoing access to an internet service offered by Sony, the PSN. A somewhat fanciful, but more apt, analogy would be if Toyota sold hybrid vehicles with an advertisement campaign touting that Toyota owners would have access to a recreational driving facility, a no-speed limit amusement park for cars. Then, at some time thereafter, Toyota instituted a rule that its hybrids would not be permitted in the park unless the owners allowed the battery feature to be disabled. In those circumstances, Toyota hybrid owners who declined to authorize disabling of the battery feature would still have fully-functional hybrid vehicles, capable of running on an electric motor or a gasoline engine, as appropriate under the conditions. Similarly, PS3 owners who declined to install Firmware Update 3.21 still have fully-functioning devices, capable of either being used as game consoles to play games on optical disks, or as computers, with the Other OS feature.

So, what the judge is saying is that this isn't really about Other OS. It's about access to PSN, and that linking access to PSN to disabling Other OS is legal. That doesn't make it ethical, but this is a court not a church. He has to rule on matters of law not emotion.

For what it's worth, I think that Sony was slime for doing what it did (as they are for many other things that they have done... rootkits, not giving a damn about customer security, etc.), and it will be a cold day in hell before I buy a Sony product or fail to advise others to not buy any Sony product, but IN THIS CASE they didn't run afoul of the law. I also think that it's vastly preferable that judges wield their powers objectively rather than emotionally, because otherwise a racist or homophobic or nationalist or otherwise reprehensible judge would be completely able to get away with imposing their emotion as law.

I also hope that some of the shrill voices here are never allowed to sit on a jury, because if they are, they would surely decide the case based upon who they liked and hated rather than on the facts and guilt-or-innocence. Mob-think is not a suitable substitute for law or rationality.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the ruling. What it boils down to is that, even though PSN + Other OS were both advertised features, there is no guarantee that PSN will exist indefinitely. And, the court acknowledges that it is at Sony's discretion. Because you have the choice of installing firmware 3.21, or not, Sony hasn't violated their original agreement to provide Other OS functionality.

It's not very complicated, in fact it's downright easy to read, and fairly well articulated at that..

If Sony had disabled Other OS without a user's choice, they would be paying some large settlement costs right now. As it is, they only pay their lawyers to defend against an obviously weak case.

Sorry, that's just how it is.