PSX-SCENE Forum Discussion for Sony PlayStation/PsOne/PS2/PS3/PSP/PS VITA
  • SCEA Files Motion To Dismiss OtherOS Lawsuit Again

    April 1st 2011 marked the one year anniversary since Sony had removed the OtherOS feature from their Sony Playstation 3 consoles. At one point this was a feature that Sony had promised to always support. Since breaking that promise, they have been engulfed in a legal firestorm from upset users who have filed a class action lawsuit against Sony. Today, we've been informed of the latest happenings in the case, which involve Sony's attempt to get the case dismissed once again.

    Attachment 1081

    There’s news from the class action litigation, In re Sony PS3 ‘Other OS’ Litigation, where the plaintiffs are suing Sony Computer Entertainment America for removing OtherOS from Playstation 3s. SCEA has filed another motion to dismiss [PDF] the class action case, once again saying that the plaintiffs’ newly filed First Amended Complaint is insufficient to state a claim. The original complaint’s claims, except for one, were dismissed, with the judge giving the plaintiffs a chance to refile. Now that they have, SCEA says this refiled complaint should be tossed out also. There will be a hearing on all this on May 12th.


    And the class action plaintiffs are asking the judge [PDF] to help them get discovery that SCEA is, they claim, reluctant to provide. Role reversal. In the SCEA v. Hotz litigation, SCEA is all about discovery, all they can get. Here, it’s the opposite.
    There is a transcript from a February 9th hearing in the Sony class action attached as an exhibit to the plaintiffs’ letter to the judge in the case, and I think you’ll be amazed. Would you like to know what SCEA’s lawyers think of customers who use Linux? We get to find out, because the hearing begins with SCEA asking the judge for access to the plaintiffs’ hard drives. Why would you want that, the judge asks? These are not defendants accused of anything, remember. Sony is the one in the hot seat, but here is the incredible answer: because, says their attorney, these plaintiffs say they used Linux, so SCEA suspects they were part of a hacking conspiracy, and they’d like to check. There’s more, and I’ll tell you all about it.


    And SCEA claims in the transcript that it wasn’t the entity that decided to drop OtherOS. It says in this courtroom that Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. is responsible for that decision. In Hotz, SCEA says it is responsible for pretty much everything to do with PS3s in the US, or at least I got that impression. SCEA also tells the judge at the hearing that there’s been a change in the corporate setup. SCEI isn’t the parent of SCEA any more. So I did a little research on that. Who are they then? And how how were they related? I have found some press releases that clarify very nicely.

    Source:
    Groklaw
    PS3Hax

    Comments 32 Comments
    1. MadnessImport's Avatar
      MadnessImport -
      When Users attack

    1. ISOHaven-PSG's Avatar
      ISOHaven-PSG -
      Quote Originally Posted by KilluminatiStyle View Post
      Right, calling it fully functional is wrong, I agree. Fully functional for what I wanted to use it for is more like it......
      Here's the major difference between you and me.

      1. I accept the FACT that I am not entitled to a never ending PSN service. Some day, PSN will go away. That is FACT. That is REALITY. No one can sue Sony if they decide to flip PSN off tomorrow. Yet, crybaby little POSs like yourself will attempt to ASSume that you have a RIGHT to PSN because you bought a PS3. The end result to all of that would be you are DEAD WRONG.

      So what's my point? It is perfectly acceptable for Sony to make you choose between OtherOS and PSN. They are 100% within their rights to tell you to stay the hell off their PSN service. In FACT you can piss them off to the point where they can BAN YOU (your console) forever. That's more factual PROOF that you have ZERO RIGHTS to PSN.

      So yes, choosing between OtherOS and PSN is 100% valid.

      2. Unlike your sorry ***, I can afford two PS3's. One for gaming and one for PSN. Clearly, you can not. So your comment about me getting a job....PRICELESS.

      Like I said, you damn kids never grow up.

      You THINK you know the laws. You THINK you know what companies can and can not do. You THINK you know what you are entitled to. The problem will all that is, you THINK like a typical ignorance consumer.
    1. peeer-PSG's Avatar
      peeer-PSG -
      Quote Originally Posted by ISOHaven View Post
      Here's the major difference between you and me.

      1. I accept the FACT that I am not entitled to a never ending PSN service. Some day, PSN will go away. That is FACT. That is REALITY. No one can sue Sony if they decide to flip PSN off tomorrow. Yet, crybaby little POSs like yourself will attempt to ASSume that you have a RIGHT to PSN because you bought a PS3. The end result to all of that would be you are DEAD WRONG.

      So what's why point? It is perfectly acceptable for Sony to make you choose between OtherOS and PSN. They are 100% within their rights to tell you to stay the hell off their PSN service. In FACT you can piss them off to the point where they can BAN YOU (your console) forever. That's more factual PROOF that you have ZERO RIGHTS to PSN.

      So yes, choosing between OtherOS and PSN is 100% valid.

      2. Unlike your sorry ***, I can afford two PS3's. One for gaming and one for PSN. Clearly, you can not. So your comment about me getting a job....PRICELESS.

      Like I said, you damn kids never grow up.

      You THINK you know the laws. You THINK you know what companies can and can not do. You THINK you know what you are entitled to. The problem will all that is, you THINK like a typical ignorance consumer.
      The real question here is not about having to choose between PSN or OtherOS. The real problem is that you have to choose between OtherOS or newer games compatibility, which is inacceptable. But Sony always do dumb moves so... I guess the karma is getting them with all these hackers that hacks the PS3 today.
    1. ISOHaven-PSG's Avatar
      ISOHaven-PSG -
      Quote Originally Posted by peeer View Post
      The real question here is not about having to choose between PSN or OtherOS. The real problem is that you have to choose between OtherOS or newer games compatibility, which is inacceptable. But Sony always do dumb moves so... I guess the karma is getting them with all these hackers that hacks the PS3 today.
      No, that was his specific point:

      "As this was the case I made an EDUCATED DECISION to keep my PS3's ability to stay online while reluctantly losing my PC ability.

      The bottom line is that this is NOT a choice that I nor anyone else who made the purchase with the intentions of it being a dual purpose machine should have had to make."

      However, to address your point here, you are no more entitled to future proof titles then you are PSN.
    1. lessthanzach-PSG's Avatar
      lessthanzach-PSG -
      Quote Originally Posted by ISOHaven View Post
      No, that was his specific point:

      "As this was the case I made an EDUCATED DECISION to keep my PS3's ability to stay online while reluctantly losing my PC ability.

      The bottom line is that this is NOT a choice that I nor anyone else who made the purchase with the intentions of it being a dual purpose machine should have had to make."

      However, to address your point here, you are no more entitled to future proof titles then you are PSN.
      I really do think that the biggest concern most people (should) have is the large amount of games that require the latest FW. That is the big ******g kicker right there. If I had chosen to stay on 3.15 (or whatever) I would have effectively said "I don't intend on buying or playing any new games from this point forward". That is a pretty significant statement considering Sony has made it quite clear that they intend on squeezing many more years out of the PS3 before they develop new consoles.
      Think about how much money Sony and their developers would have lost had the majority of their user base decided to stay on OtherOS. Imagine how much their new game titles' sales would have been negatively impacted. Sony made a huge gamble by taking that feature away, and why? SO that they could be the only piracy-proof console?? Every other console out there is hacked, it's part of life. ******g deal with it, move on and learn how to operate your business in a way that dissuades people from hacking without taking away major features that impact the majority end user.
    1. peeer-PSG's Avatar
      peeer-PSG -
      Quote Originally Posted by ISOHaven View Post
      No, that was his specific point:

      "As this was the case I made an EDUCATED DECISION to keep my PS3's ability to stay online while reluctantly losing my PC ability.

      The bottom line is that this is NOT a choice that I nor anyone else who made the purchase with the intentions of it being a dual purpose machine should have had to make."

      However, to address your point here, you are no more entitled to future proof titles then you are PSN.
      Altho that game compatibility is the most important problem, PSN is still a good reason too. Maybe for him its more important to have PSN access, depends what he is using his PS3 for.

      I'll make you a comparasion that will make you to reflect. When you purchase a new car and it came with Air Conditionning (which is optional), you think that your car maker would be entitled to remove the air conditionner from it? They tell you if you don't let us to remove it from your car you will never be able to get support from us in the future. Would be dumb ain't it? If its defective or have problems they should propose to change it to a new version one but not to remove it.

      Well in this situation here is pretty similar. Its just that this time the stuff is more than likely virtual (software). Sony should never have sold their PS3 consoles with OtherOS from the start if they did not have the intention to support it till the end, its their own error.

      Also, having OtherOS on their console was the best thing they could have done to prevent piracy. If Sony would never removed OtherOS, the PS3 would still remain unhacked today...
    1. Kondor1-PSG's Avatar
      Kondor1-PSG -
      Quote Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
      Sony has NO right to remove a feature that millions of people PAYED for when they purchased a fat PS3. Then Sony claims that it was a "optional" update. even though it limited the use of the PS3 for linux users even more.
      Notice that it states in the 3.21, it is optional. Any refusal to update results in loss of features such as future bluray playback/game playing. Yet no where do they have a list of games that use what Firmware to tell you which games you will not be allowed to play. Nor on boxes/instruction manuals do they place that information. You purchase the game, pop it in, then find out you have to update. Well 99% of places will only exchange for same title(aka: no return of payment). NOR does it state in ANY FIRMWARE THEREAFTER that OtherOS will be removed. I just noticed that in the new EULA as of April 1st. The content from PSN (not that this is even related), is non transferrable in ownership to the user now. This included purchased DL content, Movies, Music...etc. This means, no backups to your pc, pda, personal Mp3 player...etc, and they can revoke the right at anytime for any reason without reimbursal. Also stated is the non-refund of funds that are used for PSN, including such as stoled credit card or debit card information. Thats right, purchases, authorized or not, not refundable. SCEI was the company that supposedly said to remove OtherOS, SCEA states they are the sole USA entity. Now with SNEA (PSN's own entity). How is this going to affect GeoHot's case the 16th? how is this going to affect the previous OtherOS case? According to an email i got from Sony Consumer Services the PS3 ownership is transferred when purchased, therefore the system is the users, not a rental such as any purchased content. Therefore removal features should be optional...to remove or not to remove...at user's descretion?
    1. ISOHaven-PSG's Avatar
      ISOHaven-PSG -
      Quote Originally Posted by peeer View Post
      Altho that game compatibility is the most important problem, PSN is still a good reason too. Maybe for him its more important to have PSN access, depends what he is using his PS3 for.

      I'll make you a comparasion that will make you to reflect. When you purchase a new car and it came with Air Conditionning (which is optional), you think that your car maker would be entitled to remove the air conditionner from it? They tell you if you don't let us to remove it from your car you will never be able to get support from us in the future. Would be dumb ain't it? If its defective or have problems they should propose to change it to a new version one but not to remove it.

      Well in this situation here is pretty similar. Its just that this time the stuff is more than likely virtual (software). Sony should never have sold their PS3 consoles with OtherOS from the start if they did not have the intention to support it till the end, its their own error.

      Also, having OtherOS on their console was the best thing they could have done to prevent piracy. If Sony would never removed OtherOS, the PS3 would still remain unhacked today...
      There are major holes with your example.

      1. In order to use your example you would have to explain to me how Sony came to my house and took away USB ports. Nothing about your hardware has changed.

      2. The other flaw in your example is, cars contain software. I hope you are aware that a car manufacture can change the software in your car at any time, without your permission BY LAW! Lets say you bought your car because it had a certain software feature that you thought was cool. However, come to find out that software isn't functioning very well or maybe it's causing dangerous situations while driving. The next time you take your car to the dealer for them to work on it and they hook it up to their diagnostic machine and it detects you need an update....BAM! New FW. You just lost your feature and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

      3. Or lets say you made some upgrades to your car that required you to tweak the cars software to get some extra performance from your upgrades. That happens all the time. Upgrading the exhaust or air intake is enough to warrant reprogramming your cars computer. In order for chip manufactures to protect their product they only allow you to program ONE vehicle at a time with their solution. Well, the next time you take your car in....BAM! They write over your changes. You now lost them. You will have to pay for another chip solution to make your changes again and those usually aren't cheap. Again, there isn't a damn thing you can do about it because you do NOT own that software and they can update it as they see fit.

      In the case of vehicles they are able to make those changes by law (safety). In the case of a console they are allowed to make those changes because you AGREE TO THEM.
    1. KilluminatiStyle's Avatar
      KilluminatiStyle -
      Quote Originally Posted by ISOHaven View Post
      There are major holes with your example.

      1. In order to use your example you would have to explain to me how Sony came to my house and took away USB ports. Nothing about your hardware has changed.
      Except for the fact that I can no longer use MY HARDWARE in the fashion advertised in the stores, on the box, and online. A functional change after the sale is down right crooked.

      Quote Originally Posted by ISOHaven View Post
      2. The other flaw in your example is, cars contain software. I hope you are aware that a car manufacture can change the software in your car at any time, without your permission BY LAW! Lets say you bought your car because it had a certain software feature that you thought was cool. However, come to find out that software isn't functioning very well or maybe it's causing dangerous situations while driving. The next time you take your car to the dealer for them to work on it and they hook it up to their diagnostic machine and it detects you need an update....BAM! New FW. You just lost your feature and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

      Do you honestly think that if this ever were to happen anyone would even notice? It's not like they just flash away your ability to use headlights or the radio or perhaps take away my power locks! Poor example IMHO but then again... opinions are like A$$HOLES, everybody's got one!

      Besides, that's a COMPLETELY different ordeal. Chips will only be reprogrammed for emission control or safety issues. I'm fairly certain that my PS3 wouldn't have caused any pile-ups on the interstate.

      You seem to be missing the point. I don't care about EULA this or that. Neither does the guy wearing wrangler jeans that bought the console from Walmart. Sony and pretty much every other major manufacturer needs to be VERY clear about the product that is being sold in the box on that shelf. Sony pulling the plug on a feature that was marketed on the damn packaging is just WRONG. Period. This issue needs to be used as an example to come up with better laws to protect the consumer's rights. Bottom line, I say be bury Sony.



      AVERAGE JOE PURCHASES HARDWARE FROM STORE.

      AVERAGE JOE USES HARDWARE TO IT'S FULLEST ABILITIES.

      3 YEARS AFTER THE PURCHASE C0C|< GOBBLERS (AKA SONY) SAY "STOP USING THIS FEATURE OR YOU WILL LOSE THESE FEATURES!"

      AVERAGE JOE SUCCUMBS TO CORPORATE TYRANNY.
    1. ISOHaven-PSG's Avatar
      ISOHaven-PSG -
      Quote Originally Posted by KilluminatiStyle View Post
      You seem to be missing the point.
      Hilarious!....and very hypocritical.
    1. KilluminatiStyle's Avatar
      KilluminatiStyle -
      Meh.. kidz. Whaddya gonna do?
    1. ISOHaven-PSG's Avatar
      ISOHaven-PSG -
      Quote Originally Posted by KilluminatiStyle View Post
      Meh.. kidz. Whaddya gonna do?
      You do exactly what I'm choosing to do with you. Not go around and around in circles. I've stated my points of view. Take them or leave them. You clearly choose to leave them. Your loss.