Sony Sued For Removal Of Linux Support From PS3


Recommended Posts

A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sony Computer Entertainment America for the removal of the 'Other OS' feature from the PlayStation 3.

In March, Sony released firmware v3.21 that disabled the feature, disallowing users from installing the Linux operating system. The update was not mandatory; however those who chose not to download it were cut off from a number of other features, one of which included signing in to PlayStation Network.

The suit, filed on April 27 by Anthony Ventura of California, seeks to redress Sony for the "intentional disablement of the valuable functionality originally advertised as available" for the Playstation 3. The disabling of Linux support is not only in breach of the sales contract between Sony and its customers, the suit says, but also a deceptive business practice "perpetrated on millions of unsuspecting customers."

Sony publicly stated the removal of the feature was for security reasons, however, the lawsuit says the company was more concerned with potential piracy.

"On information and belief, contrary to Sony's statement, the 'security concerns' did not involve a threat to PS3 users, but rather reflected Sony's concerns that the Other OS feature might be used by 'hackers' to copy and/or steal gaming and other content."

The suit also alleges Sony violated California's Unfair Competition Law by restricting the PS3's functionalities by "forcing consumers to choose between the Other OS function and the Other Advertised Features impaired by Update 3.21"

The suit states those who purchased a PlayStation 3 had "no ability to negotiate the System Software License Agreement's terms which was only provided to them after they purchased their PS3s, including the terms allowing Sony to remove functions at will, allowing it unilaterally change the System Software License Agreement at will and forcing consumers to either accept any changes in the System Software License Agreement or cease their use of their PS3."

This class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of a nationwide class of all persons who purchased a PS3 during the period of November 17, 2006 to March 27, 2010 and who did not resell their PS3 before March 27, 2010. The suit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, and injunction relief. No specific sum was listed, however the suit says "the amount in controversy is in excess of $5 million."

IGN has contacted Sony for comment. We'll update this story when we hear more.

My link

Lawsuit PDF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the one hand, I could see wanting to sue Sony for the Other OS removal. If I were using it AND legitimately playing games, then I'd be ****ed. It's really just a dick move by Sony.

On the other hand, the EULA or whatever apparently states that Sony can change/remove functionality at their discretion. So it doesn't look like this law suit will go anywhere. Yeah it sucks if you're one of those few who installed Linux on your PS3, but sack up and deal with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the one hand, I could see wanting to sue Sony for the Other OS removal. If I were using it AND legitimately playing games, then I'd be ****ed. It's really just a dick move by Sony.

On the other hand, the EULA or whatever apparently states that Sony can change/remove functionality at their discretion. So it doesn't look like this law suit will go anywhere. Yeah it sucks if you're one of those few who installed Linux on your PS3, but sack up and deal with it.

EULAs are not above the law, though (in fact, quite the opposite!). It's unfair (and quite unlawful) for sony to remove features after you've bought a product (if you bought a card from Ford and 10,000 miles later they remotely disabled 5th gear (or the stereo), people wouldn't stand for it, so why stand for this.

i hope someone in the UK sues sony as its illegal in the uk as its false advertising and not fit for purpose by removing functionality.

I'm locked in a battle with Sony and Toys R Us (who I purchased it from), however none of them will admit liability - in fact Sony are refusing to even return my calls and letters now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sony haven't been "sued", that would mean someone has already won a lawsuit against them, silly IGN.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EULAs are not above the law, though (in fact, quite the opposite!). It's unfair (and quite unlawful) for sony to remove features after you've bought a product (if you bought a card from Ford and 10,000 miles later they remotely disabled 5th gear (or the stereo), people wouldn't stand for it, so why stand for this.

I'm locked in a battle with Sony and Toys R Us (who I purchased it from), however none of them will admit liability - in fact Sony are refusing to even return my calls and letters now.

I'm not saying I agree with Sony's decision. I'm just saying that because it's in the EULA and you must "agree" to it before you start using the PS3, then you can't really sue them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying I agree with Sony's decision. I'm just saying that because it's in the EULA and you must "agree" to it before you start using the PS3, then you can't really sue them.

Not really sure about other countries, but in the UK EULAs cannot really be held up unless you agree before purchase, and even then, they will always have a line stating "this does not affect your statuary rights" - the rights provided by the sale of goods act that products must be fit for purpose and as described. By removing the feature - it's not as described.

The problem with this is that under UK law, the retailer, not Sony, is liable. Getting them to admit that, however, is easier said than done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying I agree with Sony's decision. I'm just saying that because it's in the EULA and you must "agree" to it before you start using the PS3, then you can't really sue them.

im prettu sure EULA hasnt been tested in court either so they mean crap anyhow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

im prettu sure EULA hasnt been tested in court either so they mean crap anyhow

OK, trying to read what you have written... You are pretty sure that an EULA has never been tested in a court of law? For real? That's what you mean?

Then you are 100% wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently (I read this from a user here, credibility unknown) the majority or all of the publicity surrounding the OtherOS functionality was generated by 3rd parties such as websites etc, as opposed to Sony advertising it. Because that functionality gained a lot of reputation, people thought it was Sony who pushed it directly. So technically it is not false advertising. On any ads on PS3, I really only ever got 3 functionality, online, blu-ray and of course, PS3 games. And wireless control and whatnot. Well discounting the "Do everything" ads.

bmaher, in that case, we can sue Microsoft also for no longer supporting online for the original Xbox or something along the lines. Or if Call of Duty 4 was taken offline. It is a feature, such as original OS was a feature. And at least you got a choice here by not updating it (not that really justify anything in the greater context I feel). Is only unlawful if they are actually found guilty. Between Sony's lawyer power and their close eye on profit, I doubt the lawsuit will go anywhere even if there is a legitimate case. Whether there is a legitimate case, I don't know, but personally no for the reasons I stated already.

Have to say though, not many people actually KNOW about the Linux functionality before it was removed. Ether I hang around lay people, or that most just don't care. (Random comment, PS3 Linux lovers don't get sensitive)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really sure about other countries, but in the UK EULAs cannot really be held up unless you agree before purchase, and even then, they will always have a line stating "this does not affect your statuary rights" - the rights provided by the sale of goods act that products myst be fit for purpose and as described. By removing the feature - it's not as described.

The problem with this is that under UK law, the retailer, not Sony, is liable. Getting them to admit that, however, is easier said than done.

Ah, I wasn't aware there was such a law. It'll be interesting to see which way the case goes then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have to say though, not many people actually KNOW about the Linux functionality before it was removed. Ether I hang around lay people, or that most just don't care. (Random comment, PS3 Linux lovers don't get sensitive)

I don't know anyone who doesn't know about the linux functionality of the PS3. I was always looking forward to using it when they announced it at E3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really sure about other countries, but in the UK EULAs cannot really be held up unless you agree before purchase, and even then, they will always have a line stating "this does not affect your statuary rights" - the rights provided by the sale of goods act that products must be fit for purpose and as described. By removing the feature - it's not as described.

The problem with this is that under UK law, the retailer, not Sony, is liable. Getting them to admit that, however, is easier said than done.

That's all well and good, and if the retailer agrees that it's their responsibility then they are entitled to a full refund given proof of purchase. Only problem is - I can guarantee almost everyone will -not- want to give up their PS3 just because they're losing a feature they probably barely used if at all.

To be honest, most till systems aren't even designed to handle partial refunds in a such a manner that's being described above - they would have to go directly to the retailer's head office in order to get a refund. Most refund procedures occur when a person wants to return an item - in this case what the customer is asking for is a part of their money back and keep the item - good luck trying to convince most store managers to let you do this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's all well and good, and if the retailer agrees that it's their responsibility then they are entitled to a full refund given proof of purchase. Only problem is - I can guarantee almost everyone will -not- want to give up their PS3 just because they're losing a feature they probably barely used if at all.

To be honest,

I would, given it's a full refund, you can pick up slims at a cheaper price than the fats were being sold at. Why wouldn't you want to get a newer quieter model and money back for essentially a machine that now does exactly the same thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Random American suing?

We see this so often, given this case isn't as ridiculous as others, still good luck he'll need it. Hope he doesn't lose too much money in court expenses.

and 5 million? Where the **** do these people pull figures from? Maybe if the amount they wanted to claim wasn't so ridiculous such lawsuits would be taken more seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and 5 million? Where the **** do these people pull figures from? Maybe if the amount they wanted to claim wasn't so ridiculous such lawsuits would be taken more seriously.

Class action. Divide by (likely) number of claimants. Makes sense now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Class action. Divide by (likely) number of claimants. Makes sense now?

Someone got 80$ or something from Amazon due to the removal, so roughly 62,000 people would need to be wanting to pursue legal action for this $5,000,000 to make sense if we want to talk a reasonable figure of return for losing Linux.

I seriously doubt 62,000 PS3 owners even use Linux.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone got 80$ or something from Amazon due to the removal, so roughly 62,000 people would need to be wanting to pursue legal action for this $5,000,000 to make sense if we want to talk a reasonable figure of return for losing Linux.

I seriously doubt 62,000 PS3 owners even use Linux.

62,000 doesn't sound like a particularly big number, given the number of PS3s sold. It's what, around 0.5% of US owners? (12 million units sold in the US so far)

(Afaik, estimated damages in class action lawsuits are based on the number of likely/valid claimaints, not the number already partaking.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

62,000 doesn't sound like a particularly big number, given the number of PS3s sold. It's what, around 0.5% of US owners? (12 million units sold in the US so far)

So I'm guessing you've probably never used Linux on the PS3, understand the regular console shopper, or have looked at the usage rate of Linux in the PC market?

Yeah, very high chance it's lower than 0.5% of the install base who actively use it and would want to claim against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sony haven't been "sued", that would mean someone has already won a lawsuit against them, silly IGN.

In US legal terminology, "sued" means that a lawsuit has been filed, not that it has been won. It might mean something different where you are, but the article title is correct here.

Yeah, very high chance it's lower than 0.5% of the install base who actively use it and would want to claim against it.

And that is why that is an estimate. Remember too that the figure also includes legal fees, which could possibly be a large percentage of the amount. Also, people do not have to already be using Linux to join the class action. They merely have to have bought a PS3 during the time frame, and not have sold it before the firmware update was announced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Random American suing?

We see this so often, given this case isn't as ridiculous as others, still good luck he'll need it. Hope he doesn't lose too much money in court expenses.

and 5 million? Where the **** do these people pull figures from? Maybe if the amount they wanted to claim wasn't so ridiculous such lawsuits would be taken more seriously.

I am not sure why there are people taking sides with Sony on this. Even if you never intended on using the Other OS option that does not give Sony the right to remove the option. The PS3 was sold with the OPTION to install Linux, it should not matter how many people actually used the feature, what if one day you wanted to try it out. I agree that the $$ amount is crazy but I would be against any company that sells a product with a feature then removes it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.