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:And the USAF

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you want access to the PS3's GPU? It sucks. You can do better on a AMD's Llano platform for half the cost of a PS3. I wouldn't doubt the Radeon 6310 in the E350 has more computational power then a PS3, SPUs included. It will also have more RAM and use a fraction the energy.
By the way - I'm a ex-games programmer with 17 years in the biz, four of them programming the PS3 so I know of what I speak. The PS3 has 6 pixel quad pipes for a total of 24 ALUs running at 550MHz. The HD6310 has 80 total pipes running at 500MHz.
The PS3 GPUs can't do double float math either. I'm not sure about the 6310.

Re:And the USAF

[Migraineman]

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.

Re:And the USAF

[berashith]

I am sure that is a great comment, but as soon as I saw a big block of text that started with "blah blah EULA", I just scrolled right past.

Apparently...

[Anonymous Coward]

Courts don't think false advertising is against the law anymore

Re:Apparently...

[mark-t]

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.

Re:Apparently...

[mabhatter654]

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???

wow

[Anonymous Coward]

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!!!

Car analogy

[Nidi62]

Would the judge have come to the same conclusion if a car manufacturer released a mandatory update that removed cruise control?

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.

Okay Okay Okay I've Got It!

[eldavojohn]

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.
Sony Engineer: But that's not true ... well, I mean it could technically run some sort of emulator for each system if it existed but ...
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.

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.