Sony Hit With 4th "Other OS" Lawsuit

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Sony Hit With 4th "Other OS" Lawsuit

image

A fourth person steps up to sue Sony over the removal of the "Other OS" function on the PS3.

It's not just the United States Air Force that's upset with Sony over the removal of the "Other OS" function, as a fourth class action suit has been brought against the company.

Keith Wright of San Diego, California, alleges that Sony "unlawfully forced" PS3 owners to chose between features that had been advertised, as refusal to install the update which removed the "Other OS" option meant that certain basic functions, like connecting to the PlayStation Network, were disabled.

Wright is seeking reparations equal to the cost of the console, injunction relief and other damages for him and anyone else in the class, which is anyone in the US who purchased any non-Slim model of the PlayStation 3 between November 17, 2006 through March 27, 2010 and who did not sell their console before March 27, 2010.

The suit in full can be read here.

Source: IGN

Permalink

I'm amazed that people are getting their panties in a knot over something like this. For the air force it was kind of understandable but people suing for this is just ridiculous.

Can we see details of the other three? It's just that I was informed my university in the UK, the University of Leeds, was one of those who started a lawsuit against Sony because they were using the other OS or something for some research experiments which have now had to be shut down (at least, that's how I understand it). Is that right, or was I misinformed, can anyone tell me?

LeonLethality:
I'm amazed that people are getting their panties in a knot over something like this. For the air force it was kind of understandable but people suing for this is just ridiculous.

If sold you a laptop that you ran linux and windows on, and then a few years later updated it to make linux impossible to use, would I have damaged you and in fact removed functionality of your product that you paid for? Should you not have some way to pursue me?

Sikachu:

LeonLethality:
I'm amazed that people are getting their panties in a knot over something like this. For the air force it was kind of understandable but people suing for this is just ridiculous.

If sold you a laptop that you ran linux and windows on, and then a few years later updated it to make linux impossible to use, would I have damaged you and in fact removed functionality of your product that you paid for? Should you not have some way to pursue me?

At most I would want a refund, I wouldn't sue you for more than I paid.

LeonLethality:

Sikachu:

LeonLethality:
I'm amazed that people are getting their panties in a knot over something like this. For the air force it was kind of understandable but people suing for this is just ridiculous.

If sold you a laptop that you ran linux and windows on, and then a few years later updated it to make linux impossible to use, would I have damaged you and in fact removed functionality of your product that you paid for? Should you not have some way to pursue me?

At most I would want a refund, I wouldn't sue you for more than I paid.

Isn't that sort of all they are suing for?

LeonLethality:
I'm amazed that people are getting their panties in a knot over something like this. For the air force it was kind of understandable but people suing for this is just ridiculous.

People sue over almost anything nowadays, but this is a little more understandable. Removing the Other OS feature from the origonal PS3 models is a dick move on Sony's part due to how it was an advertised feature at first. And for the moment if people keep the Other OS thing, there's far more things they won't be able to do, mostly related to PSN.

LeonLethality:

Sikachu:

LeonLethality:
I'm amazed that people are getting their panties in a knot over something like this. For the air force it was kind of understandable but people suing for this is just ridiculous.

If sold you a laptop that you ran linux and windows on, and then a few years later updated it to make linux impossible to use, would I have damaged you and in fact removed functionality of your product that you paid for? Should you not have some way to pursue me?

At most I would want a refund, I wouldn't sue you for more than I paid.

I doubt they'll get much more than a refund (+costs). Very rarely will you see a lawsuit where the lawyers have not inflated the claim in every possible direction. You're right about the greed being wrong.

People, they smell a chance to make a quick buck from moaning and they jump to it. I think its well within Sony's right to remove an option from THEIR machine

Here comes the shitstorm. Why doesnt sony just save face while it has the change and re-install the other OS option

Maybe they don't like the fact that they were lied to, and are having an option them swung them into buying a console removed without prior warning?

This is a perfectly legitimate lawsuit, doubly so for the people using the other os feature.

most of these people probably didn't even use it, which is the worst part.

If they just changed it back already this wouldn't be a problem >.>

"oh noes we haz been haxd." Locks were made to be opened and it won't be too long until people hack the normal PS3 OS, then what? They'll just remove that?

I hate retards suing for everything.

Longshot:
Isn't that sort of all they are suing for?

From what I read they are suing for a bit more

MGlBlaze:

LeonLethality:
I'm amazed that people are getting their panties in a knot over something like this. For the air force it was kind of understandable but people suing for this is just ridiculous.

People sue over almost anything nowadays, but this is a little more understandable. Removing the Other OS feature from the origonal PS3 models is a dick move on Sony's part due to how it was an advertised feature at first. And for the moment if people keep the Other OS thing, there's far more things they won't be able to do, mostly related to PSN.

I can understand how one would be angry at Sony for removing an advertised feature but asking for anything more than a refund is just being greedy.

Hahahaha Sony, you use the "other OS" option to entice potential markets into commiting an expensive investment, then you coil it back when it threatens to destroy your monopoly with third party piracy.

Hahahahaha, oh well, it's the developer's call, let's see if Sony would yield...

wooty:
I think its well within Sony's right to remove an option from THEIR machine

By this standard, Sony could remove the ability to play games. Imagine the situation where the ps4 comes out, so Sony stops the ps3 from being able to play games to get more ps4 sales. Doesn't this sound ridiculous? But you're saying it should be legal, and Sony is saying that it is.

Wouldn't you only earn a small amount of money for that? I mean, they didn't brick the console they just took one of the many features out. It even made it more secure hacking-wise, so I don't understand the huge deal that's being made.
Someone willing to enlighten me?

AngryMongoose:
Maybe they don't like the fact that they were lied to, and are having an option them swung them into buying a console removed without prior warning?

This is a perfectly legitimate lawsuit, doubly so for the people using the other os feature.

point and case

now make sony bleed out x)

poppabaggins:

wooty:
I think its well within Sony's right to remove an option from THEIR machine

By this standard, Sony could remove the ability to play games. Imagine the situation where the ps4 comes out, so Sony stops the ps3 from being able to play games to get more ps4 sales. Doesn't this sound ridiculous? But you're saying it should be legal, and Sony is saying that it is.

But there is a difference between removing a feature which only a small percentage of people use to make the machine more secure and removing the primary function of the console.

poppabaggins:

wooty:
I think its well within Sony's right to remove an option from THEIR machine

By this standard, Sony could remove the ability to play games. Imagine the situation where the ps4 comes out, so Sony stops the ps3 from being able to play games to get more ps4 sales. Doesn't this sound ridiculous?

They did that with the PS3/PS2 backwards compatibility, there was a little angst, but nothing along the lines of a lawsuit.

wooty:
People, they smell a chance to make a quick buck from moaning and they jump to it. I think its well within Sony's right to remove an option from THEIR machine

People, they don't understand that in America there is a thing called first-sale doctrine which says that someone who purchases something like a PS3 owns that particular item. People, they don't understand that it is extremely ridiculous to remove this functionality based on what is a non-remote executable exploit. In the end this benefits absolutely no one, not even Sony as those that want to use the exploit will simply not update and wait patiently for a workaround to be discovered. This would be like Microsoft disabling all nic drivers in their operating systems, because some people get their identities stolen when they are manipulated into clicking a link in an email.

wooty:

poppabaggins:

wooty:
I think its well within Sony's right to remove an option from THEIR machine

By this standard, Sony could remove the ability to play games. Imagine the situation where the ps4 comes out, so Sony stops the ps3 from being able to play games to get more ps4 sales. Doesn't this sound ridiculous?

They did that with the PS3/PS2 backwards compatibility, there was a little angst, but nothing along the lines of a lawsuit.

You know my launch model PS3 still plays PS2 games. Sony released new units without that functionality, they did not take it away from the ones people already had.

reg42:

poppabaggins:

wooty:
I think its well within Sony's right to remove an option from THEIR machine

By this standard, Sony could remove the ability to play games. Imagine the situation where the ps4 comes out, so Sony stops the ps3 from being able to play games to get more ps4 sales. Doesn't this sound ridiculous? But you're saying it should be legal, and Sony is saying that it is.

But there is a difference between removing a feature which only a small percentage of people use to make the machine more secure and removing the primary function of the console.

There might be a conceptual difference, but is there a legal one? Sony is saying that it can do what it pleases with something you paid $300-$600 for. Sony could just as easily decide that the real purpose of the ps3 is to play bluRay. What most people don't seem to get is that Sony is removing a feature. What good company removes features for non-legitimate reasons. (No, Sony wasn't making the ps3 more "secure", they were trying to stop piracy i.e. keep their sales high)

wooty:

poppabaggins:

wooty:
I think its well within Sony's right to remove an option from THEIR machine

By this standard, Sony could remove the ability to play games. Imagine the situation where the ps4 comes out, so Sony stops the ps3 from being able to play games to get more ps4 sales. Doesn't this sound ridiculous?

They did that with the PS3/PS2 backwards compatibility, there was a little angst, but nothing along the lines of a lawsuit.

No, that's not the same thing. With the backwards compatibility they removed a feature from new revisions of the hardware, but with the "other OS" deal they're forcibly removing the feature from hardware that's been sitting in people's living rooms for years.

Sikachu:

LeonLethality:
I'm amazed that people are getting their panties in a knot over something like this. For the air force it was kind of understandable but people suing for this is just ridiculous.

If sold you a laptop that you ran linux and windows on, and then a few years later updated it to make linux impossible to use, would I have damaged you and in fact removed functionality of your product that you paid for? Should you not have some way to pursue me?

AngryMongoose:
Maybe they don't like the fact that they were lied to, and are having an option them swung them into buying a console removed without prior warning?

This is a perfectly legitimate lawsuit, doubly so for the people using the other os feature.

This is taken directly from the PlayStation EULA (End User License Agreement)

PS3 EULA:

SCEA reserves the right to remove any content and communication from Sony Online Services at SCEA's sole discretion without notice.

Thread OVER

Sony had every legal right to do this, they just should have read the EULA.

poppabaggins:

reg42:

poppabaggins:

wooty:
I think its well within Sony's right to remove an option from THEIR machine

By this standard, Sony could remove the ability to play games. Imagine the situation where the ps4 comes out, so Sony stops the ps3 from being able to play games to get more ps4 sales. Doesn't this sound ridiculous? But you're saying it should be legal, and Sony is saying that it is.

But there is a difference between removing a feature which only a small percentage of people use to make the machine more secure and removing the primary function of the console.

There might be a conceptual difference, but is there a legal one? Sony is saying that it can do what it pleases with something you paid $300-$600 for. Sony could just as easily decide that the real purpose of the ps3 is to play bluRay. What most people don't seem to get is that Sony is removing a feature. What good company removes features for non-legitimate reasons. (No, Sony wasn't making the ps3 more "secure", they were trying to stop piracy i.e. keep their sales high)

I can see your point. It's a type of "where do we draw the line?" scenario.

No, Sony wasn't making the ps3 more "secure", they were trying to stop piracy i.e. keep their sales high

This I have no problem with, as any other company would do it's best to combat the theft of it's products.

I support this lawsuit, because I think it's not about them getting their money back, it's about showing companies that they cannot do what Sony just did.

I don't think Sony is justified legally here, because even though they say they can change things in their EULA, these people bought the console, which was advertised to have BOTH PSN and the other OS feature, before agreeing to the EULA.

It would be like advertising that the console has some feature, then purchasing it, and finding out that the EULA says "yeah, we don't actually have that feature" just because it says it, doesn't mean it's legal.

Frank_Sinatra_:

Sikachu:

LeonLethality:
I'm amazed that people are getting their panties in a knot over something like this. For the air force it was kind of understandable but people suing for this is just ridiculous.

If sold you a laptop that you ran linux and windows on, and then a few years later updated it to make linux impossible to use, would I have damaged you and in fact removed functionality of your product that you paid for? Should you not have some way to pursue me?

AngryMongoose:
Maybe they don't like the fact that they were lied to, and are having an option them swung them into buying a console removed without prior warning?

This is a perfectly legitimate lawsuit, doubly so for the people using the other os feature.

This is taken directly from the PlayStation EULA (End User License Agreement)

PS3 EULA:

SCEA reserves the right to remove any content and communication from Sony Online Services at SCEA's sole discretion without notice.

Thread OVER

Sony had every legal right to do this, they just should have read the EULA.

You do realize that the EULA does not actually superceede state or federal laws don't you? In fact the suit alleges that the section dealing with their ability to change the terms at any time violates civil code in that state at least.

reg42:

poppabaggins:

wooty:
No, Sony wasn't making the ps3 more "secure", they were trying to stop piracy i.e. keep their sales high

This I have no problem with, as any other company would do it's best to combat the theft of it's products.

I have no problem with preventing piracy either. But in this case, Sony only hurt legitimate customers. With the psp, they generally at least try to add new features.

reg42:

poppabaggins:

reg42:

poppabaggins:

wooty:
I think its well within Sony's right to remove an option from THEIR machine

By this standard, Sony could remove the ability to play games. Imagine the situation where the ps4 comes out, so Sony stops the ps3 from being able to play games to get more ps4 sales. Doesn't this sound ridiculous? But you're saying it should be legal, and Sony is saying that it is.

But there is a difference between removing a feature which only a small percentage of people use to make the machine more secure and removing the primary function of the console.

There might be a conceptual difference, but is there a legal one? Sony is saying that it can do what it pleases with something you paid $300-$600 for. Sony could just as easily decide that the real purpose of the ps3 is to play bluRay. What most people don't seem to get is that Sony is removing a feature. What good company removes features for non-legitimate reasons. (No, Sony wasn't making the ps3 more "secure", they were trying to stop piracy i.e. keep their sales high)

I can see your point. It's a type of "where do we draw the line?" scenario.

No, Sony wasn't making the ps3 more "secure", they were trying to stop piracy i.e. keep their sales high

This I have no problem with, as any other company would do it's best to combat the theft of it's products.

I don't agree with the "Not many people use it, so it's not that illegal" argument. Legally, it's the same as removing the feature allowing you to play games in my opinion. Just because you personally weren't screwed over doesn't mean it's legal to do.

However, I do agree that I have no problem with Sony's motives, I understand what they did, the only problem is, it's not something they can legally do, and companies need to operate within the law.

Frank_Sinatra_:

Sikachu:

LeonLethality:
I'm amazed that people are getting their panties in a knot over something like this. For the air force it was kind of understandable but people suing for this is just ridiculous.

If sold you a laptop that you ran linux and windows on, and then a few years later updated it to make linux impossible to use, would I have damaged you and in fact removed functionality of your product that you paid for? Should you not have some way to pursue me?

AngryMongoose:
Maybe they don't like the fact that they were lied to, and are having an option them swung them into buying a console removed without prior warning?

This is a perfectly legitimate lawsuit, doubly so for the people using the other os feature.

This is taken directly from the PlayStation EULA (End User License Agreement)

PS3 EULA:

SCEA reserves the right to remove any content and communication from Sony Online Services at SCEA's sole discretion without notice.

Thread OVER

Sony had every legal right to do this, they just should have read the EULA.

The EULA has limits, for example, if you bought the console, and the EULA said "oh by the way, this console cannot play games, all it does is show you this EULA" it wouldn't be legal!

I will only say this once: "A EULA DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO BREAK THE LAW BECAUSE IT STATES THAT YOU RESERVE THE RIGHT TO BREAK THE LAW"

False advertising is false advertising.

danpascooch:

reg42:

poppabaggins:

reg42:

poppabaggins:

wooty:
I think its well within Sony's right to remove an option from THEIR machine

By this standard, Sony could remove the ability to play games. Imagine the situation where the ps4 comes out, so Sony stops the ps3 from being able to play games to get more ps4 sales. Doesn't this sound ridiculous? But you're saying it should be legal, and Sony is saying that it is.

But there is a difference between removing a feature which only a small percentage of people use to make the machine more secure and removing the primary function of the console.

There might be a conceptual difference, but is there a legal one? Sony is saying that it can do what it pleases with something you paid $300-$600 for. Sony could just as easily decide that the real purpose of the ps3 is to play bluRay. What most people don't seem to get is that Sony is removing a feature. What good company removes features for non-legitimate reasons. (No, Sony wasn't making the ps3 more "secure", they were trying to stop piracy i.e. keep their sales high)

I can see your point. It's a type of "where do we draw the line?" scenario.

No, Sony wasn't making the ps3 more "secure", they were trying to stop piracy i.e. keep their sales high

This I have no problem with, as any other company would do it's best to combat the theft of it's products.

I don't agree with the "Not many people use it, so it's not that illegal" argument. Legally, it's the same as removing the feature allowing you to play games in my opinion. Just because you personally weren't screwed over doesn't mean it's legal to do.

However, I do agree that I have no problem with Sony's motives, I understand what they did, the only problem is, it's not something they can legally do, and companies need to operate within the law.

Except they are completely within their rights legally. Check the EULA.

reg42:

danpascooch:

reg42:

poppabaggins:

reg42:

poppabaggins:

wooty:
I think its well within Sony's right to remove an option from THEIR machine

By this standard, Sony could remove the ability to play games. Imagine the situation where the ps4 comes out, so Sony stops the ps3 from being able to play games to get more ps4 sales. Doesn't this sound ridiculous? But you're saying it should be legal, and Sony is saying that it is.

But there is a difference between removing a feature which only a small percentage of people use to make the machine more secure and removing the primary function of the console.

There might be a conceptual difference, but is there a legal one? Sony is saying that it can do what it pleases with something you paid $300-$600 for. Sony could just as easily decide that the real purpose of the ps3 is to play bluRay. What most people don't seem to get is that Sony is removing a feature. What good company removes features for non-legitimate reasons. (No, Sony wasn't making the ps3 more "secure", they were trying to stop piracy i.e. keep their sales high)

I can see your point. It's a type of "where do we draw the line?" scenario.

No, Sony wasn't making the ps3 more "secure", they were trying to stop piracy i.e. keep their sales high

This I have no problem with, as any other company would do it's best to combat the theft of it's products.

I don't agree with the "Not many people use it, so it's not that illegal" argument. Legally, it's the same as removing the feature allowing you to play games in my opinion. Just because you personally weren't screwed over doesn't mean it's legal to do.

However, I do agree that I have no problem with Sony's motives, I understand what they did, the only problem is, it's not something they can legally do, and companies need to operate within the law.

Except they are completely within their rights legally. Check the EULA.

The EULA is not necessarily valid. Just because it says something does not actually make it so.

shadow skill:

Frank_Sinatra_:

Sikachu:

LeonLethality:
I'm amazed that people are getting their panties in a knot over something like this. For the air force it was kind of understandable but people suing for this is just ridiculous.

If sold you a laptop that you ran linux and windows on, and then a few years later updated it to make linux impossible to use, would I have damaged you and in fact removed functionality of your product that you paid for? Should you not have some way to pursue me?

AngryMongoose:
Maybe they don't like the fact that they were lied to, and are having an option them swung them into buying a console removed without prior warning?

This is a perfectly legitimate lawsuit, doubly so for the people using the other os feature.

This is taken directly from the PlayStation EULA (End User License Agreement)

PS3 EULA:

SCEA reserves the right to remove any content and communication from Sony Online Services at SCEA's sole discretion without notice.

Thread OVER

Sony had every legal right to do this, they just should have read the EULA.

You do realize that the EULA does not actually superceede state or federal laws don't you? In fact the suit alleges that the section dealing with their ability to change the terms at any time violates civil code in that state at least.

I agree completely, everyone thinks they are clever as they quote the EULA and demand that the argument ends, but what they don't get is that saying "We reserve the right to commit [insert crime here]" DOES NOT GIVE YOU LEGAL IMMUNITY!

I mean how stupid can people be!?

reg42:

danpascooch:

reg42:

poppabaggins:

reg42:

poppabaggins:

wooty:
I think its well within Sony's right to remove an option from THEIR machine

By this standard, Sony could remove the ability to play games. Imagine the situation where the ps4 comes out, so Sony stops the ps3 from being able to play games to get more ps4 sales. Doesn't this sound ridiculous? But you're saying it should be legal, and Sony is saying that it is.

But there is a difference between removing a feature which only a small percentage of people use to make the machine more secure and removing the primary function of the console.

There might be a conceptual difference, but is there a legal one? Sony is saying that it can do what it pleases with something you paid $300-$600 for. Sony could just as easily decide that the real purpose of the ps3 is to play bluRay. What most people don't seem to get is that Sony is removing a feature. What good company removes features for non-legitimate reasons. (No, Sony wasn't making the ps3 more "secure", they were trying to stop piracy i.e. keep their sales high)

I can see your point. It's a type of "where do we draw the line?" scenario.

No, Sony wasn't making the ps3 more "secure", they were trying to stop piracy i.e. keep their sales high

This I have no problem with, as any other company would do it's best to combat the theft of it's products.

I don't agree with the "Not many people use it, so it's not that illegal" argument. Legally, it's the same as removing the feature allowing you to play games in my opinion. Just because you personally weren't screwed over doesn't mean it's legal to do.

However, I do agree that I have no problem with Sony's motives, I understand what they did, the only problem is, it's not something they can legally do, and companies need to operate within the law.

Except they are completely within their rights legally. Check the EULA.

I said it before and I'll say it again, just because they say in the EULA "We reserve _____ right" does not mean they can use that right if it breaks the law, for example, if it said in the EULA "We reserve the right to rape you" and you clicked agree, that does not in fact mean that they have the right to legally rape you.

wooty:
People, they smell a chance to make a quick buck from moaning and they jump to it. I think its well within Sony's right to remove an option from THEIR machine

No it's not, because it's not THEIR machine, it's YOUR machine, you bought it for Christ's sake!

Why do people seem to think the company that made the product still owns it even after you paid for it? It seems to be a growing trend lately, especially with Apple.

These people BOUGHT the PS3, that means they own it, and are immune to having Sony do the equivalent of show up at their front door and repossess a piece of it because they feel like it!

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here