Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sony Sued Over PS3 "Other OS" Removal

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the they-deserve-worse dept.

Operating Systems 546

Stoobalou writes "A Californian Playstation 3 user has filed the first class action lawsuit against Sony over removal of the 'Install Other OS' function from the Playstation 3. The action seeks to redress Sony's 'intentional disablement of the valuable functionalities originally advertised as available with the Sony Playstation 3 video game console.' The suit claims that the disablement breaches the sales contract between Sony and its customers and constitutes 'an unfair and deceptive business practice perpetrated on millions of unsuspecting customers.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

File a complaint, don't just talk (5, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028550)

You should also file a complaint at your own national consumer agency. I asked the store I bought my PS3 from to restore the Other OS function or offer a refund on the product because the ability was stated in the box. In this case the seller is breaking the law if such stated features are later removed.

They initially refused to offer a refund, so I filed a complaint to the consumer agency. It's important you try to talk with the seller first, and if both parties don't come into a good conclusion, then file a report. They contacted the seller, who then again contacted me and asked me to return the PS3 and they would give me a full refund.

I'm sure stores will first try to say that they cannot offer a refund and it's up to Sony, but if law states they are liable, just take it a bit further and you will get a refund. It will teach Sony a lesson too.

Re:File a complaint, don't just talk (1, Funny)

strack (1051390) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028624)

national consumer agency? oh please. thats a toothless organisation for distracting idiots from taking proper legal action. i would assume. most agencies of that type are. class action those motherfuckers into honesty.

Re:File a complaint, don't just talk (5, Funny)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028652)

"class action those motherfuckers into honesty."
Legendary one-liner of classical proportions that even Dirty Harry can't top!

Re:File a complaint, don't just talk (3, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028936)

I love class-action lawsuits. I get lots of free money:

- $25 from the U.S. versus RCA, Sony, et cetera
- $75 from U.S. v. Paypal
- ~$4000 from U.S. v. Equinox (of course I actually gave them $10,000 so that was a bit of a loss)

And so on. I wonder what I'll get out of the PS3 class action deal?

Re:File a complaint, don't just talk (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32028788)

national consumer agency? oh please. thats a toothless organisation for distracting idiots from taking proper legal action. i would assume. most agencies of that type are. class action those motherfuckers into honesty.

Did you notice that you were replying to an anecdote about the agency in question getting results?

ps. Another thing that pops to mind: Maybe you are from the USA, while not everybody else is?

Re:File a complaint, don't just talk (-1, Troll)

pnewhook (788591) | more than 4 years ago | (#32029022)

Oh please. This is a ridiculous lawsuit that should immediately get thrown out of court.

I might as well try and sue Dell because I can no longer run OS/2 on their systems.

Re:File a complaint, don't just talk (0)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#32029106)

Why can't you run OS/2 on a Dell?

Re:File a complaint, don't just talk (-1, Flamebait)

pnewhook (788591) | more than 4 years ago | (#32029138)

They stopped supporting OS/2. Obviously they are evil, dont care about their customers and deserve a class action lawsuit.

Re:File a complaint, don't just talk (1)

maevius (518697) | more than 4 years ago | (#32029126)

You can't sue dell, because they don't advertise that you can run OS/2 on their current systems. You could sue them if they disabled the installation of Vista after the windows 7 release

Re:File a complaint, don't just talk (3, Insightful)

PalmKiller (174161) | more than 4 years ago | (#32029134)

Not the same thing. Dell may no longer sell OS/2 on their new systems, but you bet your bottom dollar that if Dell did something to wipe out OS/2 on a still working system...or a closer analogy, break a useful feature of OS/2 on all running systems sold by dell, it would be grounds for a lawsuit.

Re:File a complaint, don't just talk (0, Troll)

qoncept (599709) | more than 4 years ago | (#32029034)

It will teach Sony a lesson too.

This comment makes me feel like your whole reasoning behind this was to "teach the store a lesson." But what I'm guessing the way it turned out, you were just a complete jackass that felt like he was in-the-know causing trouble just for the sake of it.

You know they can't "restore the Other OS function" any better than you can. What lesson are you trying to teach them? "Don't do it again?" Don't do what, sell anything that connects to the internet?

If the point was getting your money back because Other OS was your deciding factor on the purchase, good for you. But urging everyone to go pull your shenanigans is a waste of time since the overwhelming majority of people buying this video game console are doing it to play video games.

Re:File a complaint, don't just talk (4, Funny)

Venik (915777) | more than 4 years ago | (#32029206)

Obviously, he wasn't addressing the twelve-year-olds. So you may go back to your your FF XIII

Why not just ask for a $50 refund? (3, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028568)

That's what an EU citizen did. It came out of amazon's pocket if I recall correctly, and I'm sure they then charged it back to Sony.

Re:Why not just ask for a $50 refund? (3, Informative)

redscare2k4 (1178243) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028640)

Sony officially stated they had not paid a penny of those $50 and that any similar issues are a matter between the final seller and the client and had nothing to do with them.

Re:Why not just ask for a $50 refund? (2, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028968)

Yes and my dad broke his arm at work. The lawyer official stated they admit no guilt and don't owe him a dime, but will happily pay to fix the arm plus lost wages. Sony's statement is the same deal - legalese - trying to protect their ass(ets).

Re:Why not just ask for a $50 refund? (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 4 years ago | (#32029064)

Yes and my dad broke his arm at work. The lawyer official stated they admit no guilt and don't owe him a dime, but will happily pay to fix the arm plus lost wages. Sony's statement is the same deal - legalese - trying to protect their ass(ets).

I agree that's probably pretty standard to avoid opening one up to more legal action; as is requiring neither party to discuss the settlement.

I have an EE degree. What's a good 2nd degree? CMP ENG or Comp Sci? I want to be eligible to apply for more jobs.

I realize I'm responding to a sig but I'd suggest an MBA. Science / Tech undergrad plus MBA is a good combination.

Re:Why not just ask for a $50 refund? (2, Informative)

Shrike82 (1471633) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028642)

Sony are refusing to reimburse retailers if they give refunds.

Re:Why not just ask for a $50 refund? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32028678)

Sure, when`s the last time you asked someone to offer you a refund based on something (ie technology) they don`t understand.

"but your ps3 still works"
"yes but it's loss some functionality that most people don't even know about"
"yes but your ps3 still works and you want me to give you 50$?"

Finally maybe it's because the laws in the EU are different than in the US. Not trying to put down your comment, I just can't see any retailer jumping up and saying "we'll give you a refund, sure!"

Re:Why not just ask for a $50 refund? (2)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028978)

"No it doesn't work. It was clearly indicated that it runs Linux. It does not run Linux. Therefore it doesn't work."

That said, I agree with your point. Negotiations with the stupid or stubborn can be tricky. You need to anticipate what they say and contradict them.

Re:Why not just ask for a $50 refund? (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028734)

I asked, and got told to FO. For the tiny amount of money involved it would waste much more of my time than the value that I'd get back from the refund. I'm finally starting to dislike Sony as much as most other Slashdotters. Previously I'd thought that the gaming division was pretty good even if the rest was run by morons.. but no longer.

Re:Why not just ask for a $50 refund? (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028990)

Sony decided that they'd put asshattedry in a whole new category years ago. If it wasn't for Microsoft being there first, they'd be the undisputed champs.

It started in the 80s with the quality of their electronics going downhill while banking on their reputation to keep prices up, and then the "gouge their customer" disease spread like wildfire throughout the rest of their divisions.

Even if Sony comes out with a "good" product, I won't buy it due to their reputation in how they deal with their customers. I have not seen a company with a more feudalistic attitude towards their serfs... err... customers.

Re:Why not just ask for a $50 refund? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32029016)

Sony was a good company in 1995 when they first entered the gaming arena.
They were still a good company in 2000 as well, although prone to exaggeration ("PS2 can do Toy Story in real time").
But then they devolved. It happens.

- By the way I still haven't seen Final Fantasy 7 ported to the PS3. :-| I know that was just a demo, but it would be awesome to play that game again with FF12-style, fully-realized character graphics.

Re:Why not just ask for a $50 refund? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32028738)

Because this thing cost a lot more than $50?

Re:Why not just ask for a $50 refund? (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028920)

Because in the US you aren't protected by EU law. EU law gaurentees that you're in line for a partial refund at least if part/all of the functionality of the device is not fit for purpose.

Re:Why not just ask for a $50 refund? (1)

fortapocalypse (1231686) | more than 4 years ago | (#32029018)

I'm pretty sure that Amazon just eats the loss as part of an effort to gain greater customer satisfaction, as I've been in a similar situation prior (except I was on the losing end because I dealt directly with the vendor who would not take the return vs. Amazon whose customers reported they were able to get a refund on return). I wish that more companies would follow Amazon's model in this regard (and many others), but Amazon has the upper hand because they make *so much* that they can afford losses like this.

Re:Why not just ask for a $50 refund? (2, Informative)

JohnFluxx (413620) | more than 4 years ago | (#32029028)

Sony have stated they will not give out refunds.

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/38565/Sony-rules-out-OtherOS-refunds [mcvuk.com]

"We do understand the frustration a small number of consumers may feel at SCE's decision to provide an upgrade to the firmware to disable the Linux operating system but we refute any suggestion that this action is in any way a contravention of the terms of Sale of Goods Act,” SCE UK’s David Wilson told ThinkQ.

“The console packaging and the in-box manual for the console do not refer to the use of Linux on the console. Rather, the console packaging states that the product's design and specifications are subject to change without notice and that the system software within the console is subject to a limited licence between SCE and the consumer, and this licence permits SCE to update the system software and services offered from time to time.

“The provision in the Sale of Goods Act which requires an item to be fit for a purpose made known by the consumer to the retailer prior to purchase and confirmed by the retailer applies only to the contract between the retailer and the consumer.

“The decision by Amazon to give a consumer a partial refund is clearly between Amazon and the consumer, but we do not expect the decision to have a legal basis and we have no plans to compensate retailers.”

Re:Why not just ask for a $50 refund? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32029224)

I think there was a court decision that what constitutes the purpose of a device is a combination of the fine print, and the advertisement and the non written feature provided as selling points if there is a reasonable expectation that the feature is integral part of the product

Can't lose! (1)

indre1 (1422435) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028584)

The PS3 owner can't lose this kind of suit or something is REALLY wrong.

Re:Can't lose! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32028620)

My bet is he will lose.
Sony will find some loophole, the judge will allow it because the removal of this function affects a very small part of the userbase.

Re:Can't lose! (3, Insightful)

Shrike82 (1471633) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028690)

My bet is he will lose. Sony will find some loophole, the judge will allow it because the removal of this function affects a very small part of the userbase.

Car analogy time. My car comes with a spare tyre in the boot (trunk for you Yanks). Now most people will never have to use this. Most people are lucky enough to buy, use and then sell a car without ever having a flat or blowout. Now, if the car manufacturer decides during a scheduled service that they're going to remove the tyre from my boot (and the boots of everyone else that comes in for a service) then it will only affect a small part of their userbase, but it doesn't matter. The car was sold and marketed as having a spare tyre, and they can't just take that away.

Re:Can't lose! (2, Interesting)

nitio (825314) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028860)

Unless it's like Brazil where the law states you have to have a spare tire at all times.

And God forbid you try driving around without one - it comes with a nice ticket for you to pay.

Re:Can't lose! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32028888)

It's tire. TIRE. :)

Re:Can't lose! (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028944)

Not in English it's not.

Re:Can't lose! (5, Funny)

Shrike82 (1471633) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028994)

Well hello there Mr. Obnoxious American. Now, as you may or (more likely) may not be aware, the English language was invented right here in little old Britain. We spell it tyre. You're entitled to mispell it as tire if you like, but every time you do we Brits have a quiet chuckle to ourselves, roll our eyes at our backwards cousins across the Pond and carry on in our usual dignified manner.

Re:Can't lose! (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32029002)

He said boot, he's obviously not American.

People like you give us Americans a bad name.

Re:Can't lose! (5, Funny)

ranulf (182665) | more than 4 years ago | (#32029084)

No, tire is what happens when Brits are repeated subjected to Americans trying to correct British spelling into the peculiar bastardized American dialect. The poster even made it clear he was British, so there's no point criticising his correct spelling. And yes, before you get uppity, "criticising" can be spelt with an s. And yes, spelt is correct too.

Re:Can't lose! (1)

teslar (706653) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028916)

Car analogy failure. It is illegal to drive a car without a spare tire, so the removal would actually affect every single person and not just a "small part of the userbase".

Re:Can't lose! (1)

Shrike82 (1471633) | more than 4 years ago | (#32029040)

World knowledge failure. It's not a legal requirement to carry one in Britain. So my analogy holds with certain pre-requisites. Also, stop being pedantic and accept that it's just an analogy. If it was completely congruous to the situation in question it woudn't be an analogy. Same deal with a shortcut, if it was easy it's just be the way. Bonus points to me for the Road trip reference.

Re:Can't lose! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32029096)

Also, that is theft and covered under existing criminal laws. I don't know how that would play out here, but I'd personally see criminal charges brought against them before some civil suit (but obviously also a civil suit after the criminal prosecution).

Re:Can't lose! (1)

Teancum (67324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32029098)

My bet is he will lose.
Sony will find some loophole, the judge will allow it because the removal of this function affects a very small part of the userbase.

Car analogy time. My car comes with a spare tyre in the boot (trunk for you Yanks).

One thing that I have hated about automotive manufacturers is that they are removing the spare tire from their vehicles... in a mis-guided attempt to improve fuel economy (it saves about .1 miles per gallon perhaps due to reduced weight) and to increase trunk space. Oh, they have something in there that can be used in "emergencies", but it isn't a spare tire any more. Commonly referred to as a "doughnut" in the USA, it is the emergency tire that is often smaller and certainly less reliable than standard tires and often rated at only holding out for about 30-40 miles while your car is lop-sided and wiping out any sort of alignment that your car may have when the flat happened in the first place, if that is the only damage it may cause to your vehicle if it is put into actual usage. It also isn't rated for the same speeds as normal traffic, so you may have to leave limited access highways (aka an "interstate highway" or something like the Autobahn) if it is installed as well.

While I like the analogy, this is one that shows Sony can get away with this sort of action explicitly because automobile manufacturers have been getting away with a similar loss of functionality for some time. Other similar issues involve how these same car companies are weakening bumper standards to the point that a toddler kicking the front of the car leaves a nasty dent. Those used to be rated for a 5 mile per hour collision without damage beyond scratching some chrome. They don't even have chrome on the bumpers any more.

Re:Can't lose! (4, Insightful)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028754)

It's also possible Sony will make every attempt to settle this out of court to prevent the court from definitively ruling on what a company may and may not put in a ToS/EULA. If a court ruled that when you buy hardware that REQUIRES software to run then you are buying the software as well there are going to be a lot of angry companies (E.G. Microsoft, Apple, Nintendo, etc...) out there whom will lose their easy way to shaft their customers.

Re:Can't lose! (2, Funny)

Vokbain (657712) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028848)

When have Microsoft, Apple or Nintendo ever shafted their customers by listing a feature on the box that didn't exist in the actual product?

Re:Can't lose! (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | more than 4 years ago | (#32029080)

I'm not saying they have done it, but the do have the potential too.

Maybe those three companies haven't. There was that fiasco with the George Orwell books being automatically removed from kindles after the books were purchased. I know Amazon "had" to do it because of some licensing thing and they did eventually give refunds, but what should have happened is they should have stopped selling the books and anyone who had already bought it should have been able to keep it. (http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2009/10/amazon-stipulates-terms-of-book-deletion-via-1984-settlement.ars). here's another example (http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2006/11/8255.ars) where FM recording feature was removed from Creative Zen via firmware. The customers threatened a lawsuit and the company re-instated the feature.

Re:Can't lose! (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 4 years ago | (#32029228)

i can't seem to find any evidence right now - but i seem to remember MS saying Vista was fast or something along that

Testing the EULA? (2, Insightful)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028586)

I suppose this might an opportunity to test those "We reserve the right to change the EULA" and the EULAs themselves in court.

FYI (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32028606)

In Europe, EULA's have been testen in court and found to be non-binding.

Re:FYI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32028636)

I fail to see how a court result in Europe have an effect in US... Unless something similar happened in US and I missed it. ps, Can you show me a link of that?

Re:FYI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32028648)

They might have been testen, but have they been tested?

Re:FYI (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028654)

Citation? I've seen rulings in specific countries in the EU that say users can reject an EULA after a purchase and return the part of the purchase to which the EULA applies. I have not seen any ruling binding in the whole of the EU that makes EULA's non-binding.

In the US and EU, courts have found specific portions of EULAs to be unenforcable, but I haven't seen anything making them non-binding in general.

Re:FYI (2, Interesting)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32029000)

That's because you won't see any such citations. The whole "EULAs are unenforceable" is a false meme that constantly repeated on Slashdot. It's the same as the people who will talk about how ISPs are "common carriers" yet no such actual status for ISPs exist. The problem is that since these falsities have been repeated so many times that most Slashtards take them as fact.

Re:FYI (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 4 years ago | (#32029140)

1. This case is in the US, not the EU
2. In *germany* EULAs have been tested in court and found to be non-binding.

Re:Testing the EULA? (2, Insightful)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028676)

I don't know much about US law, but I did study Swedish contract law which the EULA would fall under and generally such clauses are blatant violations of the law that states that contracts have to be balanced, generally they get away with them for services because if they change the terms you have the right to cancel the contract and get your money back, however for a device like the Playstation that would mean having to give a full refund as it no longer works as per the specifications it was bought for.

*standard IANAL disclaimer*

Re:Testing the EULA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32028846)

Well if they have to have their full purchase price refunded they very well should have to send back in the PS3.

I wonder how many people will sue then? Some, but not near as many. Some people are expecting to "get rich quick" (and that will probably be a $10 PSN voucher) and keep their PS3.

Re:Testing the EULA? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#32029076)

It will give very limited rights. However, I suspect it would allow them to make reasonable changes if things were unclear, or if a clause was found to be invalid, or if the law changes.

If the EULA was changed to be clearly in the favour of the other party I doubt there would be any complaint. Not going to happen though.

hi (-1, Troll)

silviasaint29 (1800600) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028650)

This sounds earily familar! Bol Apartments [bolcroatia.com]

Well... (2, Interesting)

Raxxon (6291) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028658)

(1) How do people join?

(2) If I bought the unit used for the ability to play PS2 games and OtherOS, do I qualify? It was bought within the time specified....

Re:Well... (1)

zepo1a (958353) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028696)

IANAL... But I believe you are already joined, unless you "opt out" by fileing your own suit. Isn't that how class actions work?

Re:Well... (2, Informative)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028756)

Indeed that is. That said, you do need to notify the judge/court/something that you are a member of the class, and therefore entitled to compensation under any ruling (after all, the court can't know you're a PS3 owner unless you tell them).

That said, I *think* you are given some period *after* any ruling to send that notification.

Re:Well... (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028798)

I've read anyone in the states who bought their PS3 before March 28, 2010 when the lawsuit was filed and initially had the functionality is automatically part of the lawsuit. I don't know if that applies to me in Canada or not. I've also read that you may Opt-out of the lawsuit if you wish, I don't know how you do that.

They perpetrated on me! (-1, Troll)

gimmebeer (1648629) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028666)

How do I get in on this? My PS3's BR drive stopped reading disks, I feel perpetrated by that as well and deserve my money back. Plus $10,000 in damages, of course.

Re:They perpetrated on me! (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028866)

There is a difference between a lense that wears out over time of usage (products that are being consumed, like with a non-rechargeble battery) and a car that simply works, but after service got it's backseat stripped. But hey, you can still drive the car, right? So what's the problem. Many people will never use teh backseat when they buy a car when they travel...

But I can see your point :P

This is all about the laywers... (4, Insightful)

nweaver (113078) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028680)

A prediction: there will be some settlement, where the "victims" can claim $10 in coupons for discounted games, but the lawyers will make a few hundred thousand or a million.

It's all about hurting Sony (1)

shrykk (747039) | more than 4 years ago | (#32029056)

A prediction: there will be some settlement, where the "victims" can claim $10 in coupons for discounted games, but the lawyers will make a few hundred thousand or a million.

That's a shame, but it's about the only way we have to hit Sony in the pocket for their bizarre anti-customer actions.

Re:This is all about the laywers... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32029062)

As long as it kicks Sony in the wallet, it is better than the whole lot of nothing that would happen otherwise.

Re:This is all about the laywers... (2, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#32029168)

With a class action, the lawyers are bearing much of the risk of failure - you are welcome to employ your own lawyer and pay the full cost for a potentially better trade off if you so wish.

Re:This is all about the laywers... (4, Insightful)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 4 years ago | (#32029170)

A prediction: there will be some settlement, where the "victims" can claim $10 in coupons for discounted games, but the lawyers will make a few hundred thousand or a million

Its the lawyers doing all the work here, how much money do you expect for doing nothing but signing your name, you don't even have to show up in court.

Pray I don't alter it any further... (3, Funny)

Cybercifrado (467729) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028692)

Sony reminds me of Vader from this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOaCRGVYGTc [youtube.com]

And if I weren't laughing, I'd be crying at the stupid shit Sony is trying to force the consumers into.

Re:Pray I don't alter it any further... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028714)

It's easy to laugh if you didn't buy a PS3. Bwahahahaha!

Re:Pray I don't alter it any further... (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028862)

You won't be laughing so hard if Sony "gets away with it". If they do you should expect to see every other major company start to pull this kind of crap after they've sold you a product promising A, B and C. They'll stop letting you use B. Then who'll be laughing.

Re:Pray I don't alter it any further... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32029046)

It's going to be interesting if Sony wins this. My guess is all kinds of companies will drop less used features to save money they'd have to spend to support them.

Re:Pray I don't alter it any further... (1)

MadKeithV (102058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32029050)

They'll stop letting you use B. Then who'll be laughing.

Wrong. They'll stop letting you use A, B and C, and instead offer a lame D.

Re:Pray I don't alter it any further... (1)

jack2000 (1178961) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028882)

I was going to buy a ps3. But now i never will, even if they restore the function.

Re:Pray I don't alter it any further... (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028886)

So how's that red ring of death working out for you ;) :P

Re:Pray I don't alter it any further... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32029008)

Didn't know the Wii had a red ring?

Re:Pray I don't alter it any further... (1)

caturday (1197847) | more than 4 years ago | (#32029082)

My Wii is great! Thanks for asking! Honestly, this is roughly the 10th time Sony has pulled this kind of bullshit. We're waaaaayyyy beyond "fool me twice."

Re:Pray I don't alter it any further... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32028986)

And even easier to cry when the only other non-computer current generation gaming systems are the Wii and a pile of shit.
Guess it is time to go back to listening to music and watching movies... ah crap never mind.
Ok reading then...
Anyone know where I can get a non-electronic book?

A contract can not take your rights away! (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028704)

A contract can not take your rights away!

Just as they can't say something like you must give us your kids.

Re:A contract can not take your rights away! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32028948)

This is not true, a contract such as a non-disclosure agreement takes away your right to talk about a specific subject.

Re:A contract can not take your rights away! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32028966)

Er, of course a contract can take your rights away. As long as doing so is not an illegal act.

It is routine to contract away legal remedies, for example. (E.g., all disputes will be handled by third party arbitration, or "damages are limited to replacement only.") Or to specify venue to someplace that favors the defendant.

While it is unusual, there are probably remote legal circumstances where "you must give us your children" might hold up.

Re:A contract can not take your rights away! (1)

jx100 (453615) | more than 4 years ago | (#32029180)

An adoption contract, maybe?

So what? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32028746)

Hopefully if Sony loses this case they'll simply send all of you open source screwheads a 5 dollar coupon to the Sony store and tell you to get a clue.

I, for one, back Sony.

Re:So what? (4, Insightful)

twistedsymphony (956982) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028876)

Human body update 568.3... since you have the potential to put non-edible things in your mouth we are disabling eating so that you may continue to breath our air service, you may chose to deny this update and continue eating but we will no longer allow you access to air... We're not forcing you to stop eating.. the choice is entirely yours. Have a nice day.

Help help! They're being "oppressed" (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32028960)

Come see the hyperbole inherent in the freetard system!

Re:So what? (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028906)

I'm kind of glad at least one person does. Too bad you have to be an AC to do so. LOL

Re:So what? (1)

muckracer (1204794) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028922)

> Hopefully if Sony loses this case they'll simply send all of you open source screwheads a 5 dollar coupon to the Sony store and tell you to get a clue.

This is not about Open Source. This is about customer rights...everybody's...yours included! And you're welcome for the effort of others to stand up for that.

Re:So what? (0, Troll)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#32029032)

So how is that ribbon interface working out for you on your widescreen? Miss the space to actually see what your typing? I thought that Microsoft Office was a "What you see is what you get" editor.

And how are all those malware virusses and nasty shit affecting your Windows install? You can't detect a rootkit if you got 'em!
If you got a virus scanner of some sort it will eat more CPU and more importantly HDD access time. Not to mention all the time and money due to power consumption by which you unnessecairily polute our planet with that takes up your life. Also the defragmentations and whatnot... Go no suspend to RAM with you driver? AAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaahw that sucks... nobody will fix this for you in your binary blob. Aaaaawh too bad...

And all this reduced CPU time due to the DRM and whatever Windows is 'doing'...

Your window management SUCKS. You get no free of charge video editor that kicks the shit out of iMovie and Sony Vegas (KDenLive, yes Linux has the best video editing for a long while...)

Etc, etc, etc...

By using a free of charge, documented OS I am actually able to do a lot and fullfill all of my needs. You on the other hand are the retart in this case.

Okey thanks bye. Oh and please die from something very soon, or opt out for the castration clause, because if you reproduce you will statistically lower the entire worlds IQ avarage.

Oh and BTW, that comment of yours was processed by freedom and gratis software... :)

A reasonable outcome (2, Interesting)

jmichaelg (148257) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028898)

I'm not a fan of class action lawsuits because they usually result in pennies for the consumer and millions for the attorneys. They're basically lawyer-enrichment actions.

For this suit to be any different, the best outcome would be to give Sony an option.

  1. Restore the Linux implementation and purchase full page ads in the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post advertising they have done so along with a mea culpa and a promise never to disable functionality again.
  2. Refund the full purchase price to any purchaser who wishes to return the unit and purchase ads as above advertising the availability of the refund with a mea culpa.

Give the attorneys a few million for their time whichever choice Sony takes and the outcome will serve as a warning to companies that they can't put whatever they wish into EULAs because consumers will bite back.
 

Re:A reasonable outcome (2, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028970)

If you think large torts are just "lawyer enrichment" then the criminal justice system is really just the same thing. It's a welfare system for mediocre law students.

That kind of stupid logic works either way.

The point is to discourage the next guy from stealing from you or crippling your wife.

Re:A reasonable outcome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32029100)

If you think large torts are just "lawyer enrichment"
I believe GP was referring to class action suits, not all large torts. In some large tort cases, the victim(s) actually get reasonable compensation for their trouble, whereas class action suits tend to give pocket change.

Pointless, sue individually instead. (4, Insightful)

Umuri (897961) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028914)

Class Action lawsuits in this country are near pointless in terms of causing redress, and barely hurt the companies they're brought against. In a lot of bigger companies they're seen as a regular cost of business.
As said in other posts, enjoy your coupon that ends up making you spend more money.

If you REALLY wanted to get redress, take sony to small claims court.
$50-100 filing fee(75 in my state), you can get damages up to $5000, and you can make sony pay the court fee upon winning too.

They'll either start settling cases, or waste a lot more sending representation to win.
So sue em for the cost a new PS3, since that's what it will take to restore you the original functionality that they took away ( one PS3 to play games and do PSN, one to run linux, since you can't do it on both anymore).

Having done the firmware upgrade... (1, Insightful)

McNihil (612243) | more than 4 years ago | (#32029030)

it was pretty clear and in no uncertain terms that the "other OS" option would be disabled if I continue installing it. It also plainly said that I was allowed not to upgrade but would lose the PS3 Store connectivity.

If you depend on the "other OS" solution you simply don't upgrade.

The only persons this effects are the ones that want to use BOTH linux stuff and the newest PS3 store things. Knowing that users that have the PS3 setup as a Linux test station are not using the PS3 store stuff in any case and wouldn't need the new capabilities like twitter and facebook. Also with todays GPU's the use of the cell is not as important anymore in computing clusters so really the whole things is a large non issue.

And furthermore... if the persons are so dependent on both solutions why can't they buy a secondary PS3? Presumably they are consumers and are going to spend money in the PS3 store... or more likely they wont at all.

This law suite should fail. Not that I want to be on SONY's side but they were 100% clear in their intentions regarding the "other os" option from day one.

This entire suite is a non issue.

Re:Having done the firmware upgrade... (1)

ranulf (182665) | more than 4 years ago | (#32029162)

Knowing that users that have the PS3 setup as a Linux test station are not using the PS3 store stuff in any case and wouldn't need the new capabilities

Big assumption you've made there. Lots of people used to use Linux and PSN. A small minority like myself have a PS3 dedicated to Linux (but even then, I still haven't upgraded beyond 3.15 on my main PS3 because it seems like a waste of a fat PS3).

Re:Having done the firmware upgrade... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32029190)

Yes, the firmware installer does give a notice that OtherOS will be removed if the firmware is installed.
And yes, there are most likely more people who don't use the OtherOS feature than people that do.

But what does that change? Does that make Sony more right than if the majority were affected?
I'm sure there are more people playing PS3 games than PS2 games. Is Sony right should they choose to disable PS2 compatibility of older consoles with their next firmware?

And I don't agree at all that Sony was 100% clear from day one that they would remove OtherOS. In fact, I don't remember anything of that sort at all. In fact, I do remember them clarifying when removing OtherOS from the "Slim" PS3 that this would not affect the older customer base...

And by the way, you are also wrong that it's just the PS3 store you lose if choosing not to upgrade. You lose the whole Playstation Network, so you can't play any network games anymore, yes, even older games that don't in anyway require the new firmware...

Re:Having done the firmware upgrade... (4, Informative)

ranulf (182665) | more than 4 years ago | (#32029198)

This law suite should fail. Not that I want to be on SONY's side but they were 100% clear in their intentions regarding the "other os" option from day one.

You mean stating that the PS3 was an "open platform" and that "Other OS" and "Game OS" would always be able to coexist on the same PS3?

They're even still publicising this fact here [playstation.com] ...

Re:Having done the firmware upgrade... (1)

jittles (1613415) | more than 4 years ago | (#32029200)

That's a big negatory buddy. It's quite illegal to disable advertised functionality in a product after someone buys it. I'm sure there are a handful of laws in CA that this violates, including bait and switch laws. As mentioned before, Sony offered this to try and get around VAT taxes in the EU. Taxes are lower for a general computing device than for a video game console. If you ask me, the EU ought to hit Sony for tax evasion, too.

Re:Having done the firmware upgrade... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32029230)

What if I bought a PS3 with the express purposes of:
A) Playing PS3 games
and
B) Utilizing the Other OS feature

Before both A and B were possible. Now A xor B is possible.

EULA (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32029044)

Sony's standard EULA states that if the machine
1) didn't work,
2) didn't do what the expensive advertisements said,
3) electrocuted the immediate neighborhood,
4) and in fact failed entirely to be inside the expensive box when you opened it,
This was expressly, absolutely, implicitly and in no event the fault or responsibility of the manufacturer,

5) that the purchaser should consider himself lucky to be allowed to give his money to the manufacturer,
6) that any attempt to treat what had just been paid for as the purchaser's own property would result in the attentions of serious men with menacing briefcases and very thin watches. /cite{Good Omens}

They just added
7) If the machine does work, we will break it the next time we want your money or feel like it.

I was seriously thinking about buying a PS3 (1)

va.va_va.va (973230) | more than 4 years ago | (#32029232)

But now, I might as well upgrade my desktop PC with a new AMD processor (screw you Intel will your ever changing sockets) and motherboard. Yes, I'll be missing out on some games but I barely have time to play the ones I already have.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?