- Join Date
- Apr 2005
Sony Responds to PS3 Other OS Lawsuit, Requests Dismissal
Update: According to TheRegister.co.uk, a federal judge has dismissed all but one of the claims leveled against Sony for dropping Linux support from its PlayStation 3 game console, but gave the plaintiffs permission to refile an amended complaint that fixes the deficiencies.
Previously we reported on a slew of class action lawsuits against Sony due to the PS3 OtherOS removal, and despite a recent Sony victory IGN (linked above) now reports that Sony's attorneys have filed a motion for the court to strike the class allegations and dismiss the case.
To quote: "Sony contends the plaintiffs' claims that the company advertised the Other OS feature the later removed it - depriving PS3 users of software features - is contradicted by the explicit terms stated in SCEA's written express warranty, the System Software License Agreement and the PSN Terms of Service.
"These contracts specifically provide PS3 purchasers with a license, not an ownership interest, in the software and in the use of the PSN, and provide that SCEA has the right to disable or alter software features or terminate or limit access to the PSN, including by issuing firmware updates," the motion reads.
"Plaintiffs therefore cannot succeed in any of their claims because SCEA's alleged alteration/disablement of PS3 features including the Other OS, was entirely proper and authorized."
Sony's motion also said the complaint fails to provide any mass media advertising campaign, statements by SCEA, or PS3 packaging that referenced the 'Other OS' feature.
"Instead, it includes a mix of quotes drawn from obscure articles and unrelated third party publications, and a smattering of out of context and incomplete references to a few pages of SCEA's website and user manual," Sony said.
Sony went on to list several reasons why the court should strike the class allegations from the complaint and pointed to the fact all plaintiffs did not use the Other OS feature in the same manner, if at all.
"One plaintiff never installed Linux during the more than two years he owned his PS3; two plaintiffs used the Other OS feature only to do things equally available through the PS3 native operating system; one plaintiff supposedly also played Linux-specific games; and the last plaintiff used Linux extensively, including for electronic mail, word processing, spreadsheet software, and other 'productivity applications.'"
Sony later referenced various message board postings from PS3 owners admitting they had "no idea that the PS3 even had an Other OS function or Linux functionality."
The company also cited numerous postings from owners who stated they "did not purchase the PS3 because of the Other OS feature and did not use it" and others saying they downloaded the update because "they did not care about the Other OS feature."
Both parties will be heard before a judge on November 4, 2010. The plaintiffs, meanwhile, have requested that Sony turn over internal documents regarding the decision to remove the 'Other OS' feature.
"We are in the process of reviewing Sony's Motions to Dismiss and to Strike," a representative from the interim co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs told IGN. "These types of motions are fairly common at this stage of the litigation and we believe we have strong arguments for why they should be denied."
"We plan on vigorously opposing these motions and we hope to have them decided in November. In the meantime, we have requested that Sony turn over its internal documents about why the 'Other OS' feature was removed and we look forward to reviewing those materials."
More PlayStation 3 News...
09-19-2010 #2lazybuntu Guest
This is the type of thing that would push me to install homebrew on my PS3. So they claim SCEA has the right to modify/remove software at the drop of a dime?
Well now so do we. Take that to the bank and/or shove that Sony...
09-19-2010 #3tonybologna Guest
This doesn't surprise me at all. I bet they get their wish too!
09-19-2010 #4garretts228 Guest
If you want to say SCEA has the right to go and do what ever they want then ima go to our local kmart and buy all the ps3's they have and sell them on ebay with a micro controller ready to be plugged into the ps3.
I love kmart nobody buys any electronics from there so I now have 37 jtaggable jaspers sealed in there boxes all posted on ebay for sell.
09-19-2010 #5SiZMiK Guest
Their arrogance stinks in this case. It's this sort of stance and arrogance that will make me jailbreak my ps3. Oh and Sony ? You can quote me on that in your next court case.
09-19-2010 #6red8316 GuestThe company also cited numerous postings from owners who stated they "did not purchase the PS3 because of the Other OS feature and did not use it" and others saying they downloaded the update because "they did not care about the Other OS feature."
The biggest issue for me is that Sony forced me to choose between a game console that does Linux and games or a handicapped version of the same thing that ONLY plays games.
And as of a recently, it sure plays a heck of a lot of games and homebrew stuff now. Guess who's having the last laugh now Sony. Me and everyone else you peeved off, hahaha.
The whole licensing concept of ownership is twisted anyway in my opinion. I'm hoping the PS3 turns out like the old XBOX, a homebrew, emulator, medica center, back up playing, super hacked console.
09-19-2010 #7JonahUK Guest
The problem you have is that most of the judges on these cases are techno-illiterate and believe anything that a major corporation like Sony/MPAA etc tell them.
This is why they will win 99% of their cases. Here in the UK, there are people who are trying to change it via politics:-
Makes interesting reading.
09-19-2010 #8effbee Guest
What are you listing them under? I'd like to have a jtag jasper
09-19-2010 #9gygabyte666 Guest
This is such horsecrap! They need to ratify these damn SCEA's so that they hold some kind of warranty over the course of so many years. This doesn't stop at just Sony either, throughout the coming years to follow this will become a usual 'fallback' for all of the major corporations.
This includes but isn't limited to, Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Apple and all other companies who hide behind User agreements for their ethical misdeeds. For example, if you have these options available and useable for two years and then the company decides to start removing key features, you should then be able to choose if you want to keep your system/gadget.
If not, then you should be granted full refund amount and be able to return it to a local retailer instead of only being able to trade it in a used electronic/game store. Losing such a large amount of cash on such an expensive investment because of removed features is just such a huge moral kill-shot to me.
Sony are thief's and liars, I want to know how they sleep at night. These damn mandatory updates are another sack of bs that they shouldn't be allowed to do. I just lost almost everyone of my downloadable PSN titles and DLCs because I refuse to update. They need to add an offline license renewal system in place or allow for me to get my money back. All I have now is a ton of wasted space and can't play any of my games. At the least, I need a bypass for the updates just so I can access online to renew these damn licenses. I only upgraded my HDD. I didn't change consoles so this is BS!
Good Read! Thanks for the find. I'd really like to get those features back or at least get some kind of monetary refund for losing them.
09-19-2010 #10avojps24 Guest
bottom line = screw sony!