Sony sued for removing "Other OS" feature on PS3s

[Matthew DeCarlo]

It took longer than we expected, but someone has finally filed a class-action lawsuit against Sony for removing the "Other OS" feature on its PlayStation 3 consoles in a patch last month. Filed on April 27 by Anthony Ventura of California, the suit accuses Sony of the "intentional disablement of the valuable functionality originally advertised as available."

In addition to breaching the sales contract between purchasers, Ventura's filing says Sony deceived "millions of unsuspecting customers." As such, the lawsuit is being 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 sell their PS3 before March 27, 2010."

Among other things, Ventura is after compensatory damages and injunction relief. While no exact figure is given, the suit says "the amount in controversy is in excess of $5 million." Further details are available at IGN, who has retrieved a copy of the lawsuit (PDF).

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/38782-sony-sued-for-removing-other-os-feature-on-ps3s.html

 

[Guest]

Trust america to lead the way. I bet he doesnt even use the feature.

 

[ET3D]

I think that in this case it's an important decision for a court to make. Can a manufacturer of a product remove a significant feature after a consumer buys the product?

 

[Guest]

Hello sir, remember the car you bought from us last year? Well I am here to weld the back doors shut, you can't use them anymore because we say so.

Have a nice day and FU

 

[Richy2k9]

hello ...

humm i've had a lot of troubles with this FW, had to backup all my files, format the hard-disk to recover the reserved space, restore the DATA before doing the update.

but will i sue SONY for this, i don't think so, wasn't really using that feature, i intended though, but no big loss.

well i hope SONY reintroduce the feature with possibility to run from an external drive.

cheers!

 

[Guest]

When you have people that will use that feature to steal money from that manufactor,then yes.I dont blame sony for what they did.

 

[Guest]

Off course it's an american, they sue everyone and everything for anything.

 

[Guest]

The courts should just throw this out.

Why should Sony support some fringe feature ?

If 0.000009 of market uses the "other OS" - boo hoo. Buy a desktop system or nettop like a normal human being.

 

[LightHeart]

I don't think it matters if someone uses the feature or not, it's the fact that a manufacturer has removed a working function. What is your OS of choice decided to remove some function via an update, most people would be upset. The real question is does a manufacturer have the right to sell you a product and then remove some function?

 

[RealXboxMaster]

I agree. I might not use the feature now but down the road...maybe yes if my other pc dies.. I can turn my PS3 into a full blown computer....Make sense

 

[Renrew]

Another BS lawsuit that will enrich the Lawyers and leave the PS3 users with nothing but a pittance.

When will the public realize they are getting screwed every time a class action suit is filed?

 

[windmill007]

I never use the feature but I don't want things taken away. If they can do that whats next...they will make it so you can't stream certain video files. I say this needs stopped now before they do more damage to the PS3. I for one haven't done this upgrade and won't til I have no choice or there is an alternative firmware out there. You mass non boo-hooers just have the follow the herd mentality. If everything was left to you we would have Apple ruling the world and we would all have way less freedoms.

 

[BMfan]

realxboxmaster said:
I agree. I might not use the feature now but down the road...maybe yes if my other pc dies.. I can turn my PS3 into a full blown computer....Make sense

You can build a very cheap pc that works better than the PS3 with yellow dog on it.
I'm glad they removed it,it was just a waste.
I tried yellow dog for a while and compared to a pc it was rubbish.

 

[Wendig0]

Guest said:
Off course it's an american, they sue everyone and everything for anything.

You're a fine example of why Guest poster's shouldn't be allowed on these forums. You're a coward.

There is a legitmate reason to sue Sony for this. For one, They advertised it on a regular basis as a computer, not just a gaming console. Sony has all but taken away the computing aspects of the ps3, and left consumers with a shell of what they used to have.

Lets say HP advertises a new mediasmart all-in-one pc to have the best HD picture and fastest dvd-rw of any system in its class. Six months down the road they come out with a mandatory patch that disables your dvd drive simply because it has the ability to burn discs and could be used to duplicate copyrighted movies. Does that make sense? No? Neither does Sony advertising the ps3 as a computer and removing all computing ability from it.

 

[Burty117]

To the post above me, it's not the
matter that you can or can't buy a computer really cheap and still be better than a ps3. It's the fact they have sold and advertised a product with that functionality but now they have removed it by "updating" the console software. To me that is not even an update as updates are supposed to add functions not remove them so even calling it an "update" is a little missleading,

anyway I hope Sony either just add the function back in or pay a hefty fine or severly reduce the price of ps3 to say £100

I could buy one then

 

[Burty117]

Sorry meant to bmfan

 

[Tekkaraiden]

Wendig0 said:

Lets say HP advertises a new mediasmart all-in-one pc to have the best HD picture and fastest dvd-rw of any system in its class. Six months down the road they come out with a mandatory patch that disables your dvd drive simply because it has the ability to burn discs and could be used to duplicate copyrighted movies. Does that make sense? No? Neither does Sony advertising the ps3 as a computer and removing all computing ability from it.

While I agree with you I think your analogy is a little bit off. It would be more like they disabled the burning capability of the optical drive than disabled it all together. Disabling it completely would render the system useless. Disabling the other OS feature does not render the PS3 useless it just took away a valued feature.

 

[BMfan]

anyway I hope Sony either just add the function back in or pay a hefty fine or severly reduce the price of ps3 to say £100

I could buy one then

You are unhappy with Sony even though you don't own a PS3,i'm the one that should be upset but i don't care it was a useless feature for me.

When i 1st got my PS3 i bought myself an external,downloaded yellow dog because i thought i will give the other OS feature a try.What a waste of time,within 3 months i bought myself an entry level PC and never looked back.

I doubt sony would lose that case,all they have to do is prove that people would use it to hack their machine.

 

[Guest]

To BF man

Then they came for the other OS feature, but I did not use it so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."

 

[Relic]

Good, I hope the court sees how anti-consumer this is and what a horrible precedent could follow if products down the road can have features simply turned off just cause. How anyone can defend Sony for this action is beyond me and makes me assume you're just a fanboy. Any product I had that the manufacture decided to retroactively remove features from would make me question if I should purchase anything from them again. I remember how Sony proudly promoted the OtherOS feature too on the original PS3 which makes this even worse.

 

[theosephus]

the first recorded legal action on this matter was in europe, but the suit was filed against amazon.com utilizing a european law (Directive 1999/44/EC). so let's not be too quick to complain about america's legal trigger finger. and no im not an american, nor do i have a ps3. this is strictly a legal issue involving consumer rights and the nature of product ownership and personal property.

despite the company staying within their terms & conditions, the disabling of a feature that was advertised as a selling point is without doubt a matter for the courts and should not be accepted without protest. it genuinely devalues the product. the mere mention that it is optional is nonsensical as to refuse the update will disable access to the playstation online network. i'll explain why:

once money changes hands, the sold item becomes personal property and while the playstation online network is a free service, it is still intrinsic to the value of the product. to make the update 'optional' only by forbidding access to the playstation network upon refusal gives sony an unacceptable amount of leverage over the consumer's behavior after the product has been sold to the consumer and is rightfully theirs.

personal property issues come into play here, and despite the terms and conditions giving sony the practical right to do this, there still stands the question as to whether the terms and conditions themselves are a violation of a consumer's right to pay for and own a product in its entirety.

understand this; if all ps3s were being rented from sony, i would understand and accept this move. ..but to advertise and sell the item then force the consumer to choose between online access or the OS function is too much control over the product after it has been sold.

to conclude all this windbaggery, this move by sony is something the courts should look at and decide whether the affected owners should be refunded for the value of the lost functionality. i think the company has a right to do this due to their terms and conditions, but they must also accept that the limitation of their product after the point of sale is a devaluation of the product and demands monetary compensation or a retraction of the update itself.

this could get very expensive for Sony if the lawyers on our side are worth their salt. what sony does next comes down to whether they value brand reputation and consumer opinion above the potential lost revenue that the OS feature presents via piracy.

 

[matrix86]

Ok, so a lot of you people are forgetting the point of the lawsuit. The point is that consumers bought a product for all the advertised features, and now Sony is taking that feature away from the very system they advertised. I don't own a PS3 and even I don't think they should be allowed to do this. If we allow them to do this once, what's to stop them from doing it again...or what's to stop another company from doing the same thing to a different product.

Unless the consumers signed or agreed to allow Sony to take away an advertised feature, Sony has no right to do so. I don't know much about law, but I don't think that this is a legal move. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

 

[Wendig0]

Tekkaraiden said:

Wendig0 said:

Lets say HP advertises a new mediasmart all-in-one pc to have the best HD picture and fastest dvd-rw of any system in its class. Six months down the road they come out with a mandatory patch that disables your dvd drive simply because it has the ability to burn discs and could be used to duplicate copyrighted movies. Does that make sense? No? Neither does Sony advertising the ps3 as a computer and removing all computing ability from it.

While I agree with you I think your analogy is a little bit off. It would be more like they disabled the burning capability of the optical drive than disabled it all together. Disabling it completely would render the system useless. Disabling the other OS feature does not render the PS3 useless it just took away a valued feature.

At least you understood my point

 

[tengeta]

Nobody cares about the loss of features until its one they like, be careful Sony fanboys. Microsoft slowly opens with 360 with each update, Sony slowly turns it into their corporate controlled device just like the PSP go.

 

[Guest]

I'm sorry but I don't see this going anywhere, people can argue and whine all they want that they can't do this because it was listed as a feature when they bought their PS3, but really... who bought a PS3 just because it had "other OS" included? maybe 1,2..3 people? (hackers maybe). Every one and their mothers bought a PS3 because they wanted to play the latest games and Blue ray movies, and i can guaranteed the other OS was the least of their concerns. This thing is just a pathetic attempt to collect some money which is not going to happen because of this that they agreed to when they bought a PS3...

"Without limitation, services may include the provision of the latest update or download of new release that may include security patches, new technology or revised settings and features which may prevent access to unauthorized or pirated content, or use of unauthorized hardware or software in connection with the PS3™ system."

Sony can argue that the "other OS" prove to be a security risk and it'll most likely fall under the statement above which the user agreed to when they bought the PS3.