PS4 News on Facebook! PS4 News on Twitter! PS4 News on YouTube! PS4 News RSS Feed!

Home PS4 News - Latest PlayStation 4 and PS3 News

August 31, 2010 // 7:42 pm - While everyone awaits a verdict on the injunction in the recent PS JailBreak lawsuit hearing, another Australian PS3 gamer has lost his OtherOS lawsuit to Sony recently.

According to GamePron.com (linked above) Michael Trebilcock had asked for AU $800 in compensation (the cost to rent a laptop for each day he was unable to use Linux on his PS3, plus fees), with a claim that the updated console could no longer be used as a computer.

To quote: "Unfortunately for Trebilcock, the Magistrates court heard that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission cleared Sony of any wrongdoing regarding the upgrade, and the claim was dismissed.

Mr. Trebilcock was not made to pay Sony's legal costs."

Australian PS3 Gamer Loses OtherOS Lawsuit to Sony

Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and drop by the PS3 Hacks and PS3 CFW forums for the latest PlayStation 3 scene and PS4 Hacks & JailBreak updates with PlayStation 4 homebrew PS4 Downloads.



#12 - nofunatall - September 9, 2010 // 1:21 am
nofunatall's Avatar
agreed. i think you are spot on gemini.

#11 - clouduzz - September 1, 2010 // 3:04 pm
clouduzz's Avatar
B) Network access, online play, to-be-released game titles, BluRay compatibility

If Sony didn't purposefully prevent you from playing to-be-released game titles (by checking the OS version), then they may have more room to legally withhold online play and 'feature updates'.

BUT forcing users to update (by requiring the OS update, in order to continue using the PS3 system for to-be-released game titles) is the crux of the issue.

Couldn't have said it better myself, that's why I'm glad the system is finally exploited now they will see how it feels to get screwed over! Not to mention when it was rumored that they were taking it away they flat out denied it and then did it anyway. So screw Sony

#10 - gemini420 - September 1, 2010 // 12:04 pm
gemini420's Avatar
Quote Originally Posted by Subverter View Post
As stated before when the lawsuit was filed, $ony can do what it wants. we agree to the user terms and agreements .. and we also have a choice u either upgrade the fw and loose OtherOS or keep OtherOS by not upgrading.

when i bought both of my ps3 i bought it to be used as a gaming system if i want linux i can use a real pc. and just to answer the comment some will post " i paid $499.99 and now we loose OtherOs" its like anything else, when a device first comes out we pay extra $$ for this commodity soon the price drops like now ps3 cost $299.99, i say the extra $200.00 i paid "then" has well been worth it for all the gaming i've done, and i'm sure most will agree.

Just because Sony wrote a EULA that covers their own butt (in every conceivable situation they could think of), does not mean that it will be legally upheld in court.

You need to consider when you agreed to that EULA. Was it before you purchased (and opened PS3, and used the PS3)? No, it was afterward.

Did you purchase the PS3 system based on Sony's advertised features? Yes.

Does a manufacturer have the right (regardless of the manufacturers claims) to retroactively alter the product to remove advertised features? Courts will decide this, not the manufacturer ...

Product manufacturers would love to take your money and then retroactively do what is in their own best interest. This is why there are consumer rights, and there are courts to uphold those rights.

Normally, product manufacturers do not go down this path. But, Sony chose to do so. EULAs like this are rarely challenged in court.

No questions asked, this is new ground. And could set a very scary precedent *if* Sony is allowed to disable advertised features as they choose. It will redefine the concept of 'purchased property'.

No matter how you look at it, Sony is removing advertised features ...

Choose to loose either ...

A) Other OS

or

B) Network access, online play, to-be-released game titles, BluRay compatibility

If Sony didn't purposefully prevent you from playing to-be-released game titles (by checking the OS version), then they may have more room to legally withhold online play and 'feature updates'.

BUT forcing users to update (by requiring the OS update, in order to continue using the PS3 system for to-be-released game titles) is the crux of the issue.

#9 - GrandpaHomer - September 1, 2010 // 11:24 am
GrandpaHomer's Avatar
Quote Originally Posted by Subverter View Post
when i bought both of my ps3 i bought it to be used as a gaming system if i want linux i can use a real pc.


You CLEARLY have no idea at all what are you talking about

PS3 computing capacity is WAY ahead of ANY PC in it's price category (and actually even in any category above) and that's exactly WHY some people really bought for it's capability to run linux / other OS including US Army and loads of other research facilities

#8 - Tex Murphy - September 1, 2010 // 3:27 am
Tex Murphy's Avatar
This was just a small claim. Hopefully the class action lawsuits go the consumer's way.

It's sad that the "Australian Competition and Consumer Commission" doesn't support the consumer.

#7 - xUb3rn00dlEx - August 31, 2010 // 8:28 pm
xUb3rn00dlEx's Avatar
Quote Originally Posted by silentcircuit View Post
I'm not up on Australia's consumer protection laws / stance, but as I understand the UK is extremely pro-consumer and more specifically pro-consumer choice, so it may go differently there.

In the US, suits in California and other fairly liberal courts are likely to be successful against Sony, but I'm not certain how it would go at the Federal level. Are there any current US suits in regards to this?

I need to keep up better.

California is liberal? I was under the impression that it was the opposite (at least in terms of who runs the state.) I'm curious as to you mentioning that the UK is extremely pro-consumer, because I did my reading and you are correct, but I also found that the major players in the EU are likewise. I think that the EU (UK included) have a much better chance at beating Sony than America. I guess we just have to wait and see, I hope I'm wrong though!

#6 - xer0 - August 31, 2010 // 8:28 pm
xer0's Avatar
Sony can do whatever it wants... they wrote up their user agreements to keep them in the clear in the eyes of the law...but that doesn't make what they did right.

I can't see myself buying another console if this is how these guys are going to treat their customers. These companies want to excise way to much control over the systems they sell. I wouldn't have such an issue with what they did if it only disabled access to PSN because I don't need or use it anyways but the fact they they limit you to only playing old games and movies is crap. They basically crippled the main functions of the system you purchased if you wanted to save OtherOS.

#5 - Subverter - August 31, 2010 // 8:20 pm
Subverter's Avatar
Quote Originally Posted by silentcircuit View Post
I'm not up on Australia's consumer protection laws / stance, but as I understand the UK is extremely pro-consumer and more specifically pro-consumer choice, so it may go differently there.

In the US, suits in California and other fairly liberal courts are likely to be successful against Sony, but I'm not certain how it would go at the Federal level. Are there any current US suits in regards to this?

I need to keep up better.

check these out there some of the lawsuits in the US: http://ps3.ign.com/articles/108/1086720p1.html

http://boardsus.playstation.com/t5/PlayStation-3-Updates/Lawsuits-filed-in-Fed-Court-against-Sony-regarding-FW3-21/td-p/45587243

#4 - jabberosx - August 31, 2010 // 8:16 pm
jabberosx's Avatar
Well that sucks!.. so much for suing $ony.

Lets see what the outcome for US case will be. Though Sony might use this case as a example.

#3 - silentcircuit - August 31, 2010 // 8:14 pm
silentcircuit's Avatar
Quote Originally Posted by PS3 News View Post
It will be interesting to see if all the other PS3 OtherOS lawsuits go in the same direction as this verdict or not...


I'm not up on Australia's consumer protection laws / stance, but as I understand the UK is extremely pro-consumer and more specifically pro-consumer choice, so it may go differently there.

In the US, suits in California and other fairly liberal courts are likely to be successful against Sony, but I'm not certain how it would go at the Federal level. Are there any current US suits in regards to this?

I need to keep up better.