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)."
Geeks and Linux enthusiasts were outraged at the move ...
And the United States Air Force.
My work here is dung.
Courts don't think false advertising is against the law anymore
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!!!
Would the judge have come to the same conclusion if a car manufacturer released a mandatory update that removed cruise control?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
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 judge stated that Sony had no obligation to keep PSN available to everyone. But did they have an obligation to keep the PS3 physical game library available to everyone?
In Finland Sony lost this battle and were judged to pay damages to everyone with the 1st gen PS3s that were affected.
Sony Marketing Executive: Okay all we're going to do is advertise that the Playstation 4 can play the games from any system ever made. ... well, I mean it could technically run some sort of emulator for each system if it existed but ...
Sony Engineer: But that's not true
Sony Marketing Executive: Shut up, we just announce after the launch that this functionality was disabled because of "security concerns."
Sony Lawyer, Son of Satan: I can work with that.
My work here is dung.
how the fairly basic logic of "they sold me the product with the marketed feature xyz which I valued and used, then disabled it after purchase, without compensation and with only forced permission" doesn't warrant relief?
(by "forced permission" I mean they asked, do you want your OtherOS to continue to work, or do you want your BluRay player to continue to work on new titles?" You were forced to choose which feature they were going to disable)
Further, how was it that all of the individuals that opted out of the class action and took them on themselves also lost?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
"Security concerns." This made me laugh, coming from Sony. Especially since it came in early 2010. It's a lie. Trotting out the "security" card just makes them look better.
Unless, of course, by "security" they meant "preventing people from hacking our bootloader." Or trying, rather.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Sure we were stuck with bugs and we wouldn't get wonderful whiz-bang features, but at least we wouldn't have to worry about the vendor modifying the device that we purchased after the fact. (Even though I wasn't hit by the PS3 fiasco, TI did something on their calculators quite a few years back.)
For what it's worth, I think one of the arguments made in favour of Sony was that you didn't have to upgrade your PS3's firmware. Which may be true, but it doesn't negate the fact that the firmware updates are required for newer games and people also expect to buy newer games when they get a PS3.
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?
It could be corruption. I'm not alleging it here, just speculating, for fear of being sued by Sony. Even though based on this judgement I should be able to allege whatever I like then take away that feature at a whim. Sony may or may not own one or more judges. Or alleged judges as the case may be.
Ipso facto ergo proctor hoc hoc dibildy do be do shebop. "Like a milking stool, my case rests on three legs". I am the law.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Sounds like the class need better lawyers!
You have to love the new EULA Sony put in place.
http://legaldoc.dl.playstation.net/ps3-eula/psn/u/u_tosua_en.html
Class Action Waiver. .... ((sorry had to remove the text I pasted -- stupid slashdot filter says I am using to many caps. I copied the original text verbatim))
I'm pretty sure a blatant bait-&-switch brakes some sort of law...
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.
Don't attribute this to corruption or bribery, as there is evidence of none and there is no reason to believe they exist here--particularly with federal judges, there is almost never an issue as to corruption. They don't need to be reelected.
No, here the problem was that the judge viewed Sony's behavior as akin to operating a private park it allows people to drive in if they agree to disable a feature of their cars. So people are still allowed to use the features of their cars if they do not go into the private park, but if they agree--i.e. if they agree to disable the Other O/S feature in order to use Sony's network--then that's fine, and it's not illegal for Sony to ask them to. To win, plaintiffs would have had to show they had a legal entitlement to continued access to the network. They didn't, so the judge tossed the case.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Sounds like the lawyers didn't do a good job explaining Sony's fault
http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
How dare you intervene on my behalf! I'll have you know that I'm easily twice as dim as he is!
I prefer to remain underestimated with low expectations of my performance.
My work here is dung.
In a big bureaucracy like the military, I assume everyone now knows that buying anything other than traditional computer equipment is going to be a significant carrier-limiting move.
"Several Nimitz Class Aircraft Carriers were rendered immobile after a large acquisition of non-traditional computer equipment on Tuesday by the USAF ..."
My work here is dung.
That isn't really true. The Finnish Consumer Complaints board investigated and came to the conclusion that they feel Sony should pay €100 in compensation for removing the feature.
They are not a court body and their 'judgements' have no legal power. They are simply a consumer rights lobby group.
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.
At least according to the multiple slashdotters who called me a "butthurt hipster suffragist" when I mentioned OtherOS in the last Sony Sucks post and modded me -1 flamebait.
According to them Sony had every right to remove the function; the vast majority of uses were infringing, Geohot knew exactly what would happen, and he's furthermore a sell-out pussy for not utterly destroying his life in a hopeless legal battle.
Meanwhile I haven't bought a Sony product in 10 years, think the PS3 was no better than 360 in the first place, and would rather give my money to companies that honor hundreds of years of law (not to mention fucking common sense) regarding who owns something once it's been paid for.
They issued a patch that crippled PS3, but no patch available to update graphics card driver on my Vaio. (Yes, they need to take it from Nvidia, re-brand it and put it up for download), It keeps BSOD-ing in video games. After giving their support a run for the money, their response was to "reset it to factory setting". Seems to be a universal response from all merchants when they are not capable of resolving a support issue.
This is exactly analogous to purchasing a microwave which, two years later, has its firmware updated to remove the defrost feature.
Judge is stupid and megacorporation is evil, news at eleven.
...self-punishment. I haven't purchased anything from them other than a CD burner many years ago, and my life is no worse for it.
Vote with your wallets and your advice to others who ask "what to buy", and don't buy Sony. Ever. It's easy.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
As a former Sony junkie I used to buy nothing but Sony products now I avoid Sony products like the plague. Will not even consider any of their products after seeing their behavior over the years. I went from recommending and buying Sony only to the complete opposite. Now I am happy to recommend against their products to everyone I come in contact with every chance I get.
... of all disc-based PS3 game software that requires an update of system firmware. Presumably, if an OtherOS user were to purchase such a title and attempt to install it, they would be forced to make a choice - return the game, or lose OtherOS. Since games are a regular part of the PS3 - not necessarily like the PSN - it would be a more serious legal contention. Anyone know of such games?
A $200 linux box isn't running on a cell processor which is what many people who give a shit about the other OS were after.
What is the next cheapest device that you can buy and load your own OS on that uses the cell processor?
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
California Judge buys new $40 million dollar mansion. Has been overheard saying "I just saved my pennies for a long time, that's how I afford it".
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
... And they have proof nobody will find a way to hack their ps3 system and download another OS then post it online anyways where?
It's hard to vote with your wallet when you're stuck with a nuanced position.
I thought Sony was being a bag of dicks. Evil? No, but, I think I finally came around to how I can circle the square with how I feel about Apple and Sony products. Someone on another article said that Apple is mean, not evil.
I really like the PS3. The XMB is far and away superior to the Metro dashboard(Metro's freaking -awesome- otherwise; I just don't think they implemented right on the 360). I can use standard bluetooth and usb accessories with it. I can upgrade it's harddrive with an off the shelf part...
But yeah, they pulled OtherOS and that was a huge dick move. I don't want to stop buying Sony. But I also don't like what they've done. I don't want to stop gaming; I don't want to buy a 360, I don't want to build a PC(besides; not all games I play are on PC).
What the hell do I do?
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Microsoft takes features out of their software the second Tuesday of every month. It's called "Patch Tuesday". That most people didn't want those features is irrelevant: some people did. That the features can be quite important is told by the fact that major enterprises employ teams to "vet the patches" against their golden images and designated sacrificial customers so they can avoid the ones that break critical infrastructure until the software that relies on the features can be upgraded, modified or replaced. Microsoft has no choice but to remove these features since they're also vulnerabilities that lead to compromise of the computer. In the best case these vulnerabilities can be considered poor design choices. In the worst cases like AutoRun they're just stupid.
Retail Windows users are on their own, and are typically divided into types: auto-update and no-update. The auto-update crowd have become used to some portion of their environment going dead now and then and waiting for their software vendor to issue an update - even if it's in the software library that interacts with the driver that drives the solenoid that opens their cash register drawer. The no-update crowd have become used to being very careful opening emails and clicking links and resigned to rebuilding their PC once a year when it's become too crap-infested to work at all. Neither set sees Windows as a reliable platform for home or small business use but what are they going to do? They don't have an IT team to keep them safe and can't afford one. Most of them would prefer their PC work more like their iPhone or Android phone, their iPad or Android tablet. But they don't sell something like that at BestBuy, Walmart or Staples yet.
I never held much hope the courts would find against Sony in this. It's probably legal. Wrong or right is a complete other thing. By keeping it in play for so long the suit has put it in the public eye that Sony will defend to the death their right to sell you a major software feature and then take it back. And that's the lesson we should all take away from this. It's a cultural thing. In Japan noone would question this at all. Sony is Japanese. The Japanese have great respect for authority, even corporate authority. They're not going to understand why we think this is not OK. Sony thinks this decision benefits their corporate brand, not diminishes it because it "proves they were right" - and there's nothing we can say to them that will counter this estimation because the concept is so alien they can't understand it.
I feel sorry for those affected of course, but that's not me. I don't own any Sony stuff. For fifteen years what the Sony brand means to me is "a thing that doesn't work with your other stuff." I was never in any danger of being impacted by this issue. See, I'm a "progressive" guy, and when I'm considering buying a new thing I look at both whether it is designed with open standards so it works with the things I have - but more importantly, will completely work with the amazing things I'm going to have after they've been invented and produced in the future. Sony doesn't pretend to offer that, so they don't get my money. I do like Samsung though - for now.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
those fine chaps at Anonymous.
In all seriousness, righting wrongs is always a noble vocation, even if it's not exactly legal.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I was sitting here reading everyone's comments and something struck me...(Apart from my wife telling me to come to bed)...
This is great for shareholders:
I guess it is now possible for Sony to put a firmware patch (required for PSN and New Games) that would effectively put your Blue Ray and DVD player into an alternative REGION code, thus rendering use of the device to watch movies useless, maybe along with a new "Streaming Service"...You choose, PSN+Streaming Service or Play your own DVD/Blue Ray movies...If you choose the latter, you also forego, from this point on, your rights to play any new Games released.
How about an update that requires a subscription of $9.99 for PSN. Don't upgrade if you don't want to pay, the choice is yours...But you can't play new games either...
How about an update that renders the current controllers useless requiring the purchase of new controllers...Update or no new games...
How about an update that removes the use of third-party TV's and only allows connection to SONY BRAVIA TV's...Update or no new games or PSN...
The choices are endless to squeeze consumers into making more necessary purchases to just use their device...
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
Class action suits almost always are about lawyers "representing a large group of people" enter court and attempt to win a suit against a large company with deep pockets. The problem is, to win that large sum of money, it depends on a few things.
1) There are enough people involved in the class action to make the judge see the suit as needed. 1,000 people is great... but getting 1.5 million people to sign up on a web site is far better. I have received many e-mails about products I registered suggesting I should spend 25 minutes of my time filling out a web form with gobs of personal information to be part of a class action suit for something I bought. If there's a problem with my product and I need it fixed, then I don't need the money, I want the product fixed. Screw this "you can receive money as part of the settlement" gig.
2) The amount being sued for has to be small enough that the company being attacked doesn't see it as cheaper to fight it than to pay it. So for a huge company like Sony, it can't be more than $10-30 million. If it's more, then Sony will fight it and whether they win or lose, they most likely will manage to negotiate the original amount downward.
3) The lawyer needs to justify the case financially. No lawyer is going to take on a case like "My toy won't run linux anymore" on principle. They need to eat and they probably bought a PS3 to play BluRays back when it was the only BluRay player... as a status symbol. They probably never even played a game on it and more than likely wouldn't know what Linux was if a penguin beat them with an iceberg. All they know is that a big corporation advertised one thing and then reneged on it and there's a bunch of people who are grumpy about it. This is a meal ticket to them. They'll invest a year or two of their lives in a gamble that they can either force a settlement or get a judge to make an award. From that settlement, the lawyer will take 30-50% off the top + additional legal fees.
After the administrative fee of handling the payouts, the lawyer divvy up the remaining 30% among the people who participated in the class action. After winning the $30,000,000 and getting down to the remaining $10,000,000. A database of all known PlayStation 3 owners will be spammed with mails about the class action and how they should now file to receive their winnings. Roughly a million people will sign up to receive their payment... either the whole thing through a PayPal transfer or the full amount minus a $2.50 fee for posting a paper check. In the end, the people that were so called represented will receive $7.50 - $10, and their playstation still won't run Linux. And to get the $7.50 to $10, they'll have invested half an hour of work. Assuming you can afford a PlayStation 3, that's not a lot.
It's not worth it... it's a waste of time and all it's doing is making Sony raise the costs to customers to cover these wasteful legal expenses.
Do you really think that making lawyers fat is the way you want the legal system to work?
It's time that class action suits are altered to say that "Either you sue for enough to make sure all the plaintiffs get some value out of it or no go.". Alternatively, maybe "Either fix the problem that spawned the problem plus a legal fee or nothing".
I'm pretty much with you on the "They're Dicks, not Evil" position, and I even had YDL on my PS3. And I also agree the lawsuit lawyers blew it with not mentioning blu-ray's and games.
When 3.21 came out I had a choice, either get a second PS3, or get an X86 box for Linux (I'd actually only run Linux on the PS3 and PS2 before, never on a PC)....I settled for the latter, and updated the PS3, after I transfered my /home over. /home directory still has files and settings from my PS2 Linux days.
I just realized that my
I heard that as well, and I do know that the let the guy who handled the OtherOS support in the hypervisor go, just before they removed it.
I mean Sony added more value to the PS3 for free after its release then they took away. Had this lawsuit won then I think that would have ended Sony every adding more value to a game platform after its release, they most likely would have required new features to be paid for rather then given away.
Anybody that cared about "OtherOS" most likely where not using their PS3 for games and movies anyways, and Sony warned of the removal of the feature so this also made the lawsuit moot. If you were actually "running" the OtherOS, then you couldn't update the PS3 firmware. Any Sony did not auto-update the firmware either at the time, so a user would have had to purposely applied the firmware that removed the feature.
Lastly, you can run Linux on almost any piece of hardware out their, what purpose to lament the removal of Linux support on PS3? It didn't run well anyways, you can buy a $200 network and bet better Linux support on it then on the PS3.
Glad to see some sanity in the legal system on this one.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
No, the Judge understands the law.
Prove that anyone specifically bought the PS3 for the OtherOS feature and then incurred damages that were caused by Sony?
You can't, why?
First, the patch was issued with a warning indicating the removal of this feature. If you required the OtherOS feature because you built a product or service using it, then you applied the patch through your own ignorance of that warning, this is not Sony's fault and therefore cannot be held accountable.
Secondly, if you required using the OtherOS for a product or service then there was no reason for you to update your PS3's firmware. The patch improved features for the use of the PS3 as a game and entertainment platform not for improvements to the OtherOS feature. In fact the patch specifically warned against the detriment of applying the patch towards the OtherOS feature. The patch cannot be applied while running the OtherOS feature, and Sony did not force or push the patch without the user's consent. Therefore Sony is still not accountable.
Thirdly, a winning a lawsuit is about proving you incurred damages over the loss of the feature. Dabbling in the OtherOS as a hobby is not a damage. Even if you were ignorant for applying the patch after being warned about the loss of the feature, or felt compelled to apply it because you swapped using the OtherOS along with regular PS3 feature, then you have to prove you actually lost money over the loss of the feature and specifically bought the system for that feature.
The Judge understood the law and didn't make the decision based on FUD, hyperbole or emotional context.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
A class action lawsuit by definition is about lawyers representing a large group of people against a defendant who can afford to pay out. It is "almost never" about one person suing another person who is poor.
And no, its not something that should be tossed away.
I agree there are blatant attempts to game the system by making frivolous suits against large corporations and hoping for the best, but if some corporation causes physical or financial damages to a group of people, then the group has a right to file a lawsuit. Filing as individuals would swamp the system and guarantee that nothing will result from it, especially if the group involves millions of people.
Frivolous lawsuits are, unfortunately, part of the legal system because in a free and democratic society anyone has a right to file a lawsuit if they feel they are due justice. The other options are marshal law or a dictatorship, would you be happy with either of those?
Fortunately there are judges that can weed out these lawsuits and throw them out of court before they become a public spectacle and overly waste of time and money.
BTW, don't feel sorry for large corporations or assume products and services would be cheaper without lawsuits. The price of the PS3 has dropped from $650 to $199 in the last 6 years in spite of these lawsuits. Most companies, believe it or not, are not going to nickle and dime customers to pay off for legal fees as they have amassed large collections of corporate lawyers and insurance to cover their asses.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Geeks like me who -actually- installed OtherOS were pretty disappointed when we found out that thanks to hardware locking that only true, pure jailbreaking would have allowed, that the actual PS/3 Linux was not all that much use. Cool to stare at for a few minutes, then you realize your computer does almost everything else better.