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!!!
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.
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'
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.
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???