Slashdot Mirror
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)."
just wow.
2015. Sony releases the PS4. Sony releases an update for the PS3 which removes all remaining functionality. When the console is turned on, the message "Buy a PS4!" is displayed. No games will play.
And now it's legal!!!
Sony advertised this as a specific feature of the platform. They then took it away (or took away other abilities if you chose to keep that one). How the hell could the case be dismissed?
The shrinkwrap agreement on the PS3 says they can change anything they want about the device at any time.
Sony didn't advertise the OtherOS feature after they removed it, so trying to get them on false advertising is a stretch.
I think the upshot is that you agreed to the EULA, and the EULA said Sony can do this, so the Judge doesn't see what leg you have to stand on. It was unpopular, but they didn't break any law. This is actually an important test for EULAs, since normally removing functionality from a device after the sale would cause legal problems, but the EULA prevented that.
I read the internet for the articles.
If you bought the PS3 in order to use OtherOS, the update wasn't mandatory. It's only mandatory for games. No one had OtherOS forcibly removed.
Not that I agree with their choice, but a Linux PS3 and a Gaming PS3 have different requirements. What was lost was the ability to have both fully functioning at the same time. This seems like something they should have been able to articulate to the judge, but if they just focused on "it's a mandatory update", which is a false statement, I can see how it would be dismissed.
You can see the judge's logic on p. 5 of the order. He says users had the option to refuse the software update, keep running Linux, and stop using PSN. "Nothing in plaintiffs' factual allegations or their arguments is sufficient to support a conclusion that Sony has any obligation to maintain the PSN in operation indefinitely." This seems strange to me. When you buy a PlayStation, part of what you're paying for is access to PSN. Of course nobody expects PSN to be operational in 100 years, but neither does anyone expect PSN to be permanently shut down one hour after they buy their PlayStation.
Find free books.
That would be all well and good... Except Sony never really marketed the feature. A few odd quotes from Sony and some more detailed spec sheets from tech shows mentioning it are not in themselves marketing. It was never treated as a core feature by Sony and certainly wasn't marketed as such, the vast vast majority of users didn't know anything about it.
Then there's the fact you were and still are able to use the Other OS feature on PS3s, you just can't update it (which means no PSN and a restricted library of games you can play). Courts accept that products can have limited lifetimes when it comes to support and Sony are more than entitled to release games for the PS3 that customers can't play on certain console configurations. The most obvious example of this would be PS Move only games. If you want to play those, you have to hand over more money for the Move kit and have to possibly mess around with your AV setup which was fine up until then.
A convincing argument for both of these wasn't presented to courts and ultimately it's the courts who decide if there's a case to answer for.
I think that the point is that they advertised the OtherOS feature *BEFORE* they removed it... and then they removed it, effectively making a form of bait-and-switch for people who had already bought one with the expectation of that capability.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
When you buy a product, there's a reasonable expectation that, for the lifetime of the product, the features available to you at time of purchase will continue to be available, barring hardware/technical issues.
For example, it is unreasonable for a company to sell, say, a laptop with a DVD burner, then disable your WiFi with a warning that enabling it will disable your DVD burner. It just doesn't make sense, from any angle, that a feature advertised on the box would be disabled in order to keep another feature mentioned on the box. It just boggles the mind that they feel this is an acceptable course of action.
That said... a reasonable expectation may not translate into something actionable in a court of law. At the least, Sony should be shunned (I, for one, haven't purchased another Sony product since the incident, and have no intentions of doing so in the future. My PS3 is collecting dust at the moment, despite titles that intrigue me. I won't fund them directly or indirectly through licensing deals with game companies.) by all customers.
Under the license that you are offered, you're correct. I imagine it's perfectly possible that the USAF is able to acquire different licensing that allows them to accomplish their mission with Sony's hardware.
Sig withheld to protect the innocent.
A judge (who is doing his job properly) only rules based on what was argued. There is no mention of 'new games' in the order. If 'new games' is really an issue, then it is the plaintiff's fault for not bringing it up.
That's the beauty of software these days. You purchased the hardware, which you have in your possession. You didn't purchase the software. You purchased a "license" to the software. Sony is still providing you with software, albeit in updated form. They fixed a bunch of bugs, and added new "features." What's not to like?
This is the fundamental problem with software "sales" as they currently exist. They're a hybrid sale/license, such that the laws associated with sales and licenses don't really apply well. The software industry hops to the side that benefits them the most. Oh, you want to sell your copy of SuperMetalHaloBrothers ? Sorry, you *licensed* the software, and the license is non-transferrable. Oh, your kid munged your CD for SuperMetalHaloBrothers and, since it's licensed, you'd like to just get replacement media? Sorry, you *purchased* the item and you'll need to re-purchase it because the original item was destroyed.
Valid contention, provided there is a list of games that require firmware installs of v3.21 or up; please mod parent UP in this case.
True, but if those games were released after the PS3 in question was sold and after Other OS was being advertised, the fact that those new games won't run without the update will be irrelevant for any assertion of warranty or suitability of purpose. If the PS3 with pre-3.21 firmware continues to run every game that it ran at the time you bought it, it passes the legal test (as HizzonorTheJudge pointed out). It's the linkage of continuing PSN access to accepting 3.21+ (and loss of Other OS) that was the remaining point of contention, and it looks like Sony set things up "correctly" (from their perspective).
Yup, it sucks. The recourse now is to punish Sony with your wallet rather than with a lawyer. Frankly, I think that a boycott will be more effective in any case, as it is much more directly tied to Sony's profit-and-loss statements than a court case that would have at most resulted in a half-hearted firmware update. I buy thousands of dollars' worth of consumer electronics, music, movies, computing equipment and games per year, both for myself and as gifts to others; some of my work has also had me as the decision-maker on five-to-six-figure computer purchases (for both the test lab and for users' desktops and laptops). Sony used to get a good chunk of that. They now get zero, and I don't see what could Sony could possibly do to convince me to change that in the future.
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
Wrong.
1. Anyone who send a failed machine to Sony for repair received a replacement unit with OtherOS removed.
2. PSN and some new games require the firmware update, therefore, a non-updated PS3 is crippled and can't play games that are designed and market for updated PS3's. Since the PS3 is primarily marketed as a game console, the inability to play new games designed for the PS3 is contrary to the primary purpose of the machine, thus "crippling" it.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Accepting the patch:
Can still play on network
Can play the latest games
Cannot use Other OS.
Not accepting the patch:
Cannot still play on network
May not be able to play the latest games
Can use Other OS
All three conditions were advertised, and thus all three conditions should be delivered. That's like me coming to your house after you bought a car from my dealership and telling you that I'm going to take either the tires or the doors because i want to sell them to someone else for extra money. It was right there in your contract, I can do whatever I want to your car after you purchase it, and you can't stop me.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
He did not say that Sony did nothing wrong--he said the plaintiffs hadn't made their case. There is a massive difference.
Did the console payment legally entitle the user to have access to the network? The plaintiffs failed to show that it did. Sony doesn't have to provide a reason to be banned if their contract doesn't require them to--whereas Ford and other auto companies might promise to provide service as part of a package that obligates them to do so. But if they required you to disable your navigation system as a condition of their repairing a car they were not obligated to repair, I don't see why you would be able to sue them for that. (It would be a poor sales move, though.)
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
How about the Brits? Sony used the ability to run Linux as a " computer" to get a reduced import tariff versus an "electronic toy". Does Sony get to pay the back taxes now???