there has now been a third lawsuit filed, just read on ign
"The suit states Sony allegedly failed to disclose to customers that it reserved the right to remove advertised, built-in features. The suit also states the right to remove the 'Other OS' feature is not disclosed in Sony's Terms of Service or System Software License Agreement."
well, they've already lost because the EULA/ToS did mention those things.
"well, they've already lost because the EULA/ToS did mention those things."
It could really go either way on that. Since it was put in the middle of a really long EULA. Court cases have ruled before that the EULA is not disclosure.
I don't think they will get far with that, but you don't have to in a court case. Just because one of your causes of action doesn't hold up doesn't mean that the entire case gets thrown out.
Just saw the "The suit also states the right to remove the 'Other OS' feature is not disclosed in Sony's Terms of Service or System Software License Agreement."
That's completely bogus, it was in the EULA.
So far Anthony's lawsuit is the best worded one I've seen so far.
Ok, I've read the complaint pdf now, and they only say that Sony inadaquatly disclosed that it could remove OtherOS in the future, not that it didn't. The people writing the article just weren't reading the pdf right. This will have a much better argument in court.
After reading it, it's almost the exact same as Anthony's word for word, but Anthony's brings in a lot more support about how Sony advertised the OtherOS feature. This one has a bit more causes of action, but I don't think they all hold footing as well as the main "false advertising" and all the acts breaking fair trade agreements.
I could careless about the other OS feature all i do know is my PS3 worked fine with no problems at all right up till i did the 3.21 update once i did the update thats when my PS3 stopped working all games freezing up on me then at times not even showing a disc in the player . All i can think is when they did away with the other OS there was also a file in there that affected some of the older fat systems some people got lucky and had no problems with the update ALOT of peoples PS3s died after doing the update . So maybe if anything we might get a FW update that might correct this problem thats all im looking for .
Sony doesn't have to continue updating the PS3 with amazing new features, instead they are now wary of giving something to us for free on the chance that users will sue them over any and every little thing. In fact, they will go sit down and talk about whether giving people something free (such as PSN) is even the best course of action?
Why SHOULD they operate a free network out of their own pockets? Answer me that question. Why should anyone offer any service at no cost if all it does is drain the company funds? What are these users doing for Sony, that warrants operating a network and offering it for no cost?
This also sets a future precedent. Instead of offering users a free, and open system, they are going to offer a closed system aimed at generating profits at all levels. Why would they offer a free system where one could install Linux if there are going to be people who take advantage of Linux for nefarious purposes?
Sony has already sat down and considered whether it should be offering a free service such as the PSN. According to an article posted at Kotaku on December 18, 2009, Sony was already considering a premium subscription service for the PSN four months before the uproar over Sony's remove of the "Other OS" on the older PS3s. The article show that Sony was contemplating how best to make more money from their system. One can view the subscription plan and the removal of the "Other OS" feature as related events. On the Playstation Blog, the reason for the removal of Linux functionality is that: "disabling the “Other OS” feature will help ensure that PS3 owners will continue to have access to t... By removing Linux functionality, Sony can tell its content partners their content is secured from piracy from hackers and so Sony will be able to secure more profits from its premium service.
As to "Why should anyone offer any service at no cost if all it does is drain the company funds?" I think that anyone with even a passing familiarity with how capitalism works does not think a company should operate a service at a loss - of overall profits that is. If maintaining the PSN costs Sony $ 2 million a year and Sony is making $100 million a year from sales of games, rentals of movies and shows, sale of movies and shows, etc., then let them eat the cost. My figures are just example since I could not find any figures on how much it costs Sony to maintain and run the PSN. Additionally, there are other factors at play for Sony in deciding if the cost of the PSN is worth the hassle: overall company profits, possibility of increasing the PSN's profitability, shareholder satisfaction with the cost of the PSN and other factors I am I sure I am completely missing.
Presumably, PS3 owners were supporting the PSN by downloading movies and television shows, by buying and playing disc-based games with online multi-player functions and buying and playing downloadable content, new games and old PSN classics. The fact that the PSN is currently free should not be taken as a sign that Sony did not think the free network was not a way to make money at all levels of the console. The better argument is that Sony wanted a free network so as to be able to provide a sale-able attribute to distinguish itself from Microsoft's X-Box Live system. The possibility of the a premium-based network suggests that Sony is now comfortable with the 20 million PSN accounts that it no longer needs to worry about using its "free" network as a selling point to potential buyers. One has but to consider Hulu's plan to charge a subscription fee of $9.95 to see that when a "free" service crosses some hidden threshold, the operators will seek to make more money from the service.
My answer to the question "Why would they offer a free system where one could install Linux if there are going to be people who take advantage of Linux for nefarious purposes?" is that this is a question Sony should have already answered before it decided to advertise the the PS3 as an open system. I'm not a tech genius, but I find it hard to believe that the brilliant engineers at Sony could to predict that people would find a way to exploit Linux on the PS3. One has but to consider that people were modding the original PS to play copied games and imported games; that once the PS2 had hard drive capabilities, people figured out how to copy PS2 games they owned - and did not own - to the hard drive. I'm sure Sony was happy when the fine folks at Epic Games touted the openess of PS3.
The use of Linux on the PS3 pre-CECH-2000 was a selling point for potential buyers, a way of distinguishing the more expensive PS3 from its major rival, the X-Box 360. The removal of the "Other OS" feature is a way for Sony to protects its future profitability. I do not have a problem with Sony's desire, what I have a problem with is their method. Sony released a product with what seems to me an obviously high potential for hacking, took my $600 and now four years later wants to protect itself by taking something away from me. Sony should be allowed to protects its content and that of its content partners. But, it should do so at its expense, not mine. Sony should figure out how to defeat the hacks from Linux systems without stealing a function of my system from me.
I do not mind the loss of the PSN so much. What has me concerned is that I am potentially losing all future blu-ray discs.The recent fiasco with Avatar Blu-ray discs underscores the conflict between consumers and content producers. A PC magazine article on purchasing a Blu-ray player mentions that Blu-ray players have web features, but it makes no mention of the need to update firmware as an on-going function of owning the device. Unless I comply with Sony's decision, my $600 PS3 turns into a pretty shiny brick that does not do "everything" as the PS3 is currently advertised. I'm fortunate enough to own a PS3 that can play PS2 and PS1 games. Is firmware update 3.30 going to take that away too because content providers want to sell their old catalog through the PSN?
If users get their Linux back, then Sony will be admitting they made a mistake, but also demonstrating their understanding of consumers' angst about losing a function of something they own. Additionally, what Linux-PS3 owners get, and all consumers get, is the satisfaction of knowing that we should not have to decide if we are willing to give up an advertised feature of a product two, three, or fours in future because the company did not predict how the product could be used. Finally, what happens is that Sony wins the hearts of PS3 owners by demonstrating that the company is not willing to throw its consumers - particularly early adopters - under the bus because of its mistake.