Aussie Man Loses "Other OS" Lawsuit Against Sony

Aussie Man Loses "Other OS" Lawsuit Against Sony

image

An Australian man who sued Sony over the removal of the "Other OS" option in the PlayStation has had his case dismissed.

Sony revealed in March that version 3.21 of the PlayStation 3 firmware would, among other things, disable the "Other OS" option available on older PS3 consoles. The company said the move would "help ensure that PS3 owners will continue to have access to the broad range of gaming and entertainment content from SCE and its content partners on a more secure system," but not everyone saw it in such a generous light. Numerous class action lawsuits were filed accusing Sony of misleading consumers by using the "Other OS" option as a selling point but then disabling it later. The separate actions were combined into one "mega-suit" in July.

The U.S. lawsuits are scheduled to begin this month but in Australia the matter has already been settled, at least for one PlayStation owner, and it's good news for Sony. Michael Trebilcock of Adelaide had sued the company for AU$800 ($725), the cost of a backwards-flushing PS3, because the system "could no longer be used as a computer," but his case has been dismissed. Reasons for the dismissal weren't given, but the court had previously been told that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission had found no fault in Sony's actions regarding the upgrade.

The case will obviously have no impact on the U.S. lawsuits but it has to be giving Sony executives a little more optimism about their chances. And despite having his case dismissed, Trebilcock came away with some good news of his own: He wasn't ordered to pay Sony's legal costs.

Source: ABC News

Permalink

Well, thats to be suspected. I am pretty sure the US suit will go same way

Well at least this Guy was sueing for a reasonable and reasoned amount. not like some of the Nut-jobs who sue for $3mil in emotional dmages because company X added a DLC pack they didn't like!

I'm sur eit will all end up the same way and I'm not sure of the law based around this but if it was a little on the dodgy side then I'm glad people are standing up to sony.

I would be shocked the us goes differently, us courts are very pro business at the moment, especial in the higher courts.

I would hope it goes differently; I know its removal in the UK can be seen as a breach of statutory regulations as its not "fit for the purpose and as described." as it had been when bought, breaching contract between the consumer and manufacturer.

And thus proves that the court is Aus are morons. Probably got paid under the table from Sony.

tk1989:
I would hope it goes differently; I know its removal in the UK can be seen as a breach of statutory regulations as its not "fit for the purpose and as described." as it had been when bought, breaching contract between the consumer and manufacturer.

Sony will simply argue that purpose is gaming console and that purpose is still there. Also in Sony's terms and conditions of sale they have the right to make changes so they aren't breaching the contract of sale. There is a reason why there isn't a lawsuit in the UK.

albino boo:

tk1989:
I would hope it goes differently; I know its removal in the UK can be seen as a breach of statutory regulations as its not "fit for the purpose and as described." as it had been when bought, breaching contract between the consumer and manufacturer.

Sony will simply argue that purpose is gaming console and that purpose is still there. Also in Sony's terms and conditions of sale they have the right to make changes so they aren't breaching the contract of sale. There is a reason why there isn't a lawsuit in the UK.

and THAT is exactly why all these lawsuits will fail. I'm surprised they're even being strung out this long, and not dismissed immediately, to be perfectly honest.

Surely sueing for that amount would be completely insignificant to Sony and not even cover his costs?

albino boo:

tk1989:
I would hope it goes differently; I know its removal in the UK can be seen as a breach of statutory regulations as its not "fit for the purpose and as described." as it had been when bought, breaching contract between the consumer and manufacturer.

Sony will simply argue that purpose is gaming console and that purpose is still there. Also in Sony's terms and conditions of sale they have the right to make changes so they aren't breaching the contract of sale. There is a reason why there isn't a lawsuit in the UK.

So, because its technically a gaming console they could in theory remove Blu ray support and have no problem? Technically its still fulfilling its purpose, which is to play games, and its apparently not breaching the conditions of sale you laid out, which is that they have the right to make changes.

No, im sorry. Sony's machine is a multipurpose one. People buy it for gaming. People buy it as a multimedia machine. People bought it for the OtherOS function. Products sold in the UK need to be as described; the term 'as described' means that the goods on offer should accurately concur with the description applied to them. The PS3 offered OtherOS support, and henceforth should support this feature. Once this feature was removed the product no longer worked as described, and therefore does not conform to its original description through no fault of the end consumer. Its something to add a feature, then remove it later on; it is something completely different to remove a feature that was advertised as being one of the main features of the product. There is also a European Directive which stipulates this point; the product needs to be "fit for the purpose which the consumer requires them and which was made known to the seller at the time of purchase.".

Digikid:
And thus proves that the court is Aus are morons. Probably got paid under the table from Sony.

it's actually a very american influence that such things can even get to court but it shows someone has some brains in there because they told him to get over it and stop wasting their time

Scobie:
Surely sueing for that amount would be completely insignificant to Sony and not even cover his costs?

If he had won sony would have most likely had to pay his legal fees. Then again alot of lawyers that take alot of these retarded cases dont actually charge hourly rates they just get a flat percentage of the winnings. Im sure this guy did have to fork over some large amount of money for his lawyer though.

MaxPowers666:

Scobie:
Surely sueing for that amount would be completely insignificant to Sony and not even cover his costs?

If he had won sony would have most likely had to pay his legal fees. Then again alot of lawyers that take alot of these retarded cases dont actually charge hourly rates they just get a flat percentage of the winnings. Im sure this guy did have to fork over some large amount of money for his lawyer though.

I wasn't sure if it was on a loser-pays basis, since he didn't have to pay Sony's fees and I don't know anything about the Australian legal system. Although I see plenty of no-win-no-fee lawyers advertising themselves on TV all the time, so I guess that makes sense. Forgive me, an expert I am not.

It's Australia, I am not surprised. Screw them. I hope the USA lawsuits will totally fuck over Sony.

uppitycracker:

albino boo:

tk1989:
I would hope it goes differently; I know its removal in the UK can be seen as a breach of statutory regulations as its not "fit for the purpose and as described." as it had been when bought, breaching contract between the consumer and manufacturer.

Sony will simply argue that purpose is gaming console and that purpose is still there. Also in Sony's terms and conditions of sale they have the right to make changes so they aren't breaching the contract of sale. There is a reason why there isn't a lawsuit in the UK.

and THAT is exactly why all these lawsuits will fail. I'm surprised they're even being strung out this long, and not dismissed immediately, to be perfectly honest.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/amazon-offers-partial-refund-without-return-to-ps3-owner-over-other-os-removal/7971?tag=wrapper;col1

molesgallus:

uppitycracker:

albino boo:

tk1989:
I would hope it goes differently; I know its removal in the UK can be seen as a breach of statutory regulations as its not "fit for the purpose and as described." as it had been when bought, breaching contract between the consumer and manufacturer.

Sony will simply argue that purpose is gaming console and that purpose is still there. Also in Sony's terms and conditions of sale they have the right to make changes so they aren't breaching the contract of sale. There is a reason why there isn't a lawsuit in the UK.

and THAT is exactly why all these lawsuits will fail. I'm surprised they're even being strung out this long, and not dismissed immediately, to be perfectly honest.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/amazon-offers-partial-refund-without-return-to-ps3-owner-over-other-os-removal/7971?tag=wrapper;col1

A) European laws don't hold much weight in US courts
B) What one retailer does, hardly sets a standard for the manufacturer.

Something really bugs me about this article...

Andy Chalk:

Sony's actions regarding the upgrade.

That. Right there.

In what sense is this an "upgrade"? Sony's explanation for the change is like saying you've disabled the windows on someone's car to help ensure that they get the best gas mileage possible. Yeah, it might help ensure that but that doesn't mean forcing the decision on someone when they originally had a choice should be considered an improvement. Is there just a note of sarcasm here that I'm completely missing or do some people genuinely believe that this improves the system?

Read the legal agreement you sign when you get the update. You don't HAVE to install the update, they don't make you. But if you do, you sign the agreement that you agree to the changes.

Now you could say that Sony makes you update the system, otherwise you can't log on to PSN or play new games. But PSN and Games are NOT NECESSITIES. THEREFORE, YOU HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO THEM. The PSN is a COMMERCIAL NETWORK, not a RIGHT. Go read a law book.

If you update the firmware, you must have pressed the X button to accept the agreement before the update is applied. If you did that, you cannot complain, because you should have read it. I know that 99.999% of people never read the agreement, but if you are going to argue in court, they will use that argument against you and that's an automatic legal nuclear strike on your case.

YOU PRESSED X AT THE UPDATE SCREEN. YOU ACCEPTED THE UPDATE. ZEE GAME, IT IS OVER!

If you didn't like the update, don't apply it! You do have a choice to apply it or not, and if you did, tough cookies, legally speaking. Some people are acting like their PS3 is their life or something. It's not - it's a console. And no one has a "right" to PSN or multiplayer. Yeah it's tough that they link it to the update, but again, it's THEIR NETWORK. You own the game, you own the console, you do NOT OWN THE PSN.

Again, read the user agreement contract. READ IT. They put those things in there, precisely for this reason!

Yeah, just proves that the ass with the most money wins the suit. We are so fucked when ACTA happens it isn't even funny.

He had no case; Sony never advertised the other OS comparability as a feature. Thus, the purchaser did not pay for that service. Removing it is not illegal and the man had no legal grounds on which to claim any money as some sort of compensation.

 

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