I don't think it will hold water. If it where, someone could have already sued and won under forced firmware updates to access the PSN store. PSN is a service, OtherOS is not. I think the only legal wiggle room would be via bluray films but to that extent sony could possibly just make a BR software player for linux for those who do not upgrade.
Sorry for being late to the party. This is quite original in its facts. It seems to be one of the few, if not the first case, in which a fully functional operation in a device is deliberately and unconditionally disabled in favour of protecting the system (Which mind you has to deal with any interference you subject it to) and/or its proprietary technologies in an effort to limit possible loss of profit arising out of piracy or any other unauthorized action on the network or the system. The point is valid that since the feature was advertised it forms part of the subject matter of the contract, its very essence depends on this, one could argue. This fact combined with the above analysis makes it very clear that Sony are taking back something you paid for. Sony cannot argue, in my view, that users should not update. There was never an asterisk or a big red hand that said "PS3 for games OR linux". It was always originally planned, and agreed by paying counterparties, that Linux can co-exist with the PS3. The very fact that you can change OS on boot-time is a practical way of saying that Sony is allowing you a choice which is not permanently stuck in being either solely Linux or solely XMB. By leaving no other choice but not to upgrade if one wishes to keep Linux, Sony effectively forces you to make a permanent and irrevocable decision: Either keep your PS3 up to OUR standards and enjoy the rest of the main meal or fuck off and eat Linux. It is apparent that the original contract between Sony and its affected customers is broken either expressly, or impliedly based on ethical business concerns (disabling a fully functional feature which customers have paid for) as well as implied contractual obligations arising out of ordinary and uninterrupted usage of the feature, OtherOS. I am sure the creative types can think of many different or similar flaws in what Sony is doing but this is all good if you're into academics. They are breaking new ground in that this is the first time a feature can be disabled remotely by a central entity, kinda spooky for old judges if the attorney can play it right. Who knows.. In practice even if Sony is wrong the easy way out for them would (probably) be to credit PSN moneys to people who fall within the claim's scope (tight as they can make it I bet) and "pay back" a fair amount to those customers who bought a PS3 for linux. That said I really do hope they get slapped for this, I wouldn't want a bad precedent of this sort to come into my home appliances - it would make the internet a watchdog for man's own property instead of a tool. PS: next time around if they wanna fuck about they should lease the console, not SELL it. Property is personal in its whole entirety. Yes. Bad precedent takes years of unjust practices, cases, commissions, tax payer moneys etc to fix. You wouldn't want the next big company relying on such a stupid decision for something much more important. Imagine if company X could reach in and disable anything it saw fit on something that you paid for and are supposed to get official support for the lifespan of the product..not a pretty picture.
Sony has to have known it would be sued. My guess is that Sony crunched the numbers and the conclusion was that any money lost in a class action suit is trumped by the risk of leaving OtherOS in and risking rampant piracy. Potential settlement offers are probably already being drawn up.
If it's completely based on closing down a possible hacker's nook, then it's like shutting down your shop simply to keep people from stealing things. The ammount of friendly fire is extreme.
Honestly the original concept for the ps3 was that it would be a video game system and alternative pc if you will. The original design was so ambitious they had to cut stuff out just to make it affordable and practical. However when sales were observed within 2 years of launch sony started realizing they would have to cut costs to save money. Cutting bc was a start. But the whole linux thing, it was only chosen cause sony could not get rights to put windows on it due to microsoft being a competitor in the gaming market. Even though they use windows os in the pc market, they do not compete against Microsoft in that market. I mean do you really think the average consumers even knows how to use linux? Hell no, they just thought that with the ps3 popularity people would accept linux and use it as a way to go the internet and do misc things. Of course it obviously backfired due to costs, complexity of using linux for average users, and poor hardware design. Trust me if microsoft was not in the video game business sony would of had have used a windows os. And as for the whole paying for online for 360, it is worth it cause it forces them to address issues asap. I have heard horror stories about people using ps3 online services and it disconnecting or having issues that are never resolved. I mean look at wii, since you don't pay for the online they do not bother making an effort to fix any issues of slowdown or lag since your not paying for that service.
In the USA, they have law firms that specialize in this kind of 'class action lawsuit'. Almost always, the company settles out of court. It's a big business. All people have to do is sign a piece of paper to join the suit. The more people the law firm get, the more money they get and the more convincing the case against the company. Plus, the company often has to give the law firm a list of customer info so that the law firm can contact them.
So what does that mean, that the law firm makes some cash and OtherOS is still scrapped? everyone that signed the piece of paper gets a 10 bucks gift psn certificate to shut up?
I read it and agree with it, don't be sad ;-) Actually the Linux support was something I had high hopes for and one of my major pro arguments for buying the system. Even with all the limitations Sony put in there it was/is somewhat usable. But now that they basically shit on the open source community... they can bite my shiny metal ass!
Well, you didn't expound into the details of how consideration for both parties would affect the enforcement of the contract, but no I don't disagree with it. :lol:
@Barc0de Could you say what you think about the impact these "contracts" have on minors? Here in the US they've 0 effect, you just can enforce any contract on a minor (recalls many free cd's from BMG and Columbia House due to this) I mean any underage kid can walk into a store and buy a PS3 or any other console (and nothing is ever agreed upon nor any contract terms disclosed at this time, or even if their parents bought it for them.. what would that mean when the kid goes to play a new game and is forced to accept some agreement and update firmware to play?
I guess that could be part of the explanation for no windows support. But still I would imagine if microsoft wasn't in the gaming market they probably would of made a special version for ps3. But honestly it sucks that sony keeps cutting back on features. Was it true that the one of the updates actually disabled bc on the models that supported it? They have been hinting about charging some aspects of online but haven't decided yet.
Still I am hopeful that it's an April 1st joke, if not then it is rather frustrating that Sony's PS3 is the system that just keeps losing features via revision & updates. It'll soon upgrade to a simple games console (what's with that?) and I'll be stuck having to play games on it!
