Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

QOTD: Should Sony be Sued for Removing Linux?

Last response: in News comments
Share
May 28, 2010 8:29:22 PM

They marketed it with a feature and after the product was sold they took it out. Doesn't really matter what the feature was, they shouldn't have done that. Not Sony, not any company should be allowed to do that.
Score
25
Anonymous
May 28, 2010 8:30:46 PM

totally
Score
9
May 28, 2010 8:31:01 PM

My answer is yes, it was well known prior to the update that the PS3 supports Linux and was used on several occasions as a selling point. With the feature removed with numerous users, universities, and the military being impacted with this loss Sony should either reimburse in partial for the loss of the feature or restore it on existing models. Under EU law Sony could face some legal trouble in that region.
Score
23
May 28, 2010 8:31:18 PM

Yes, and if we're going to sue Sony for removing Linux support, then let's get them to bring back backwards compatibility for PS1 and PS2 games while we're at it.
That's one of the things holding me back from buying one.
Score
16
May 28, 2010 8:31:39 PM

Yes
Score
11
May 28, 2010 8:32:37 PM

Yes, they should, if only to set a precedent to stop others from doing this same kind of thing. Removing features from an already purchased product is tantamount to theft if you ask me, (and any EULA that tries to make this practice kosher should be illegal, too). If Toyota recalled those accelerator challenged vehicles, and in the process disabled 'left turns', shouldn't they be sued? There's little difference here in my eyes. Sure, Toyota could argue that one could live without left turns, after all 3 right turns equals one left. But would you buy that excuse? Doubtful.
Score
11
Anonymous
May 28, 2010 8:34:33 PM

no one cares about linux, I can slap a pentium 3 with 1 gig ram and a geforce ancient and make a far more usefull linux box than a ps3, face it microsoft has the operating system monopolized
Score
-12
May 28, 2010 8:35:57 PM

The result of any lawsuit is likely to be just some coupons for future Sony products. They are not going to bring the other OS option back. While it was a nifty feature for the technically inclined it's market importance is small compared to game and movie sales and the required DRM. I'm sure third-parties will fix the problem regardless.
Score
-3
May 28, 2010 8:36:30 PM

The air force also is looking into taking sony to court as well as researchers if the system fails and they send it in to be repaired they will flash the ps3 with newest firmware as policy thus loosing otherOS.
Score
2
May 28, 2010 8:36:36 PM

I don't think they should be sued, because they actually have the rights to add or remove software features at anytime:

http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/ps3_eula_en.html

in particular, read section 3 (Services and Updates)

"Some services may change your current settings, cause a loss of data or content, or cause some loss of functionality."

However, this is so deceptive that they should be heckled and/or boycotted for actually doing it.
Score
-4
May 28, 2010 8:40:49 PM

If Sony can remove features at their whim, then who really owns the PS3? Does Sony own the operating system? Can you install your own OS on the hardware without coming up against DRM? If Sony can get away with this, the next thing you know, all consoles will be "rentals." You won't be able to resell them, you won't be able to play them in the future when Sony changes to the PS4.
Score
9
May 28, 2010 8:45:39 PM

I'd say that they should be sued. Yes, the penalty won't be that bad, but the company did market their products with certain features that they then revoked. That's a classic example of not only breach of contract, but if it's shown it was planned in advance, it can be deemed fraud.
Score
9
May 28, 2010 8:46:40 PM

I believe that they should be sued for the removal of added features. I would be one that would sue also. I bought my PS3 just for the fact that I could install Linux and use it as a Muti-Media Center for files that the PS3 can't natively play. Like RealMedia, some AVI and MPEG, Quicktime files, geez I wish Sony would put those formats useable in an update. I know some of Picture and video files dont play on my PS3.
Score
4
May 28, 2010 8:48:25 PM

I think this is akin to what Amazon did recently with removing books from user's Kindles.

Not right. If you don't want the feature on the machine Sony, then stop allowing the feature on all *NEW* PS3's.

I'll gladly raise my hand for a share of my money lost b/c of this.
Score
4
May 28, 2010 8:57:57 PM

so can i sue Apple because i bought an iphone for the "baby shaker" game, and then apple removed it without my consent?
Score
-4
May 28, 2010 8:58:05 PM

sstymI don't think they should be sued, because they actually have the rights to add or remove software features at anytime:http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/ps3_eula_en.htmlin particular, read section 3 (Services and Updates) "Some services may change your current settings, cause a loss of data or content, or cause some loss of functionality."However, this is so deceptive that they should be heckled and/or boycotted for actually doing it.


Just because it is in the EULA it doesn't make it legal. The EULA still needs to satisfy the requirements of U.S. law.
Score
8
May 28, 2010 9:03:33 PM

700 people is a shitty sample size. this shouldn't be taken as a serious survey as statistics and interests can vary widely from region to region. was this even international?
Score
-1
May 28, 2010 9:07:29 PM

weepeeso can i sue Apple because i bought an iphone for the "baby shaker" game, and then apple removed it without my consent?


Yes. As distasteful that it is, you paid for it and it became yours. Not theirs.
Score
6
May 28, 2010 9:22:13 PM

njalterioJust because it is in the EULA it doesn't make it legal. The EULA still needs to satisfy the requirements of U.S. law.


Absolutely. I can put in a EULA that upon you purchasing a PS3, I am allowed to come over to your house and shoot you in the face. Just because you signed an agreement unwittingly saying "hey, go ahead and shoot me in the face", doesn't mean I shouldn't go to jail for killing you.

Some people are just stupid. "the EULA this and the EULA that"... f**k the EULA. Ever heard of such a thing as Right and Wrong? Apparently Sony hasn't.
Score
7
May 28, 2010 9:30:11 PM

Yes.

But what a stupid, useless article. Why bother even talking about a survey that has nothing to do with the topic? Bad journalism. No offense Jane, normally I like your reporting.
Score
-4
May 28, 2010 9:32:10 PM

This is very different from the backward compatibility issue in that you knew whether or not your PS3 was backward compatible at the point of sale, it either was or wasn't and you had the choice to buy it or not. That's fair to me, although not the smartest move on Sony's part in my opinion.

It is completely unethical, and some courts will rule illegal, to advertise a feature on a product which would later be removed. It was marketed to some as a component to a supercomputer with the Linux feature, and like the first post says, many universities and institutions purchased it solely for this purpose. And so, in some cases in which this holds true, those people alone should have no trouble winning settlements and legal battles (if they can afford the lawyers).
Score
3
May 28, 2010 9:33:18 PM

Yes.What a dumb story.If you bought a product and it was advertised to do something so you got it and then they just take that away.
What do you think anyways ?

YES !!! And for every bit you can as it is rootkit sony.
Score
0
May 28, 2010 9:46:27 PM

Imagine if you bought a car and the manufacturer decided a couple of years later to remove the sound system from all of their cars. Would anybody think this was OK? There is no difference here. It isn't (or at least shouldn't) be legal to sell a product and then partially remove part of that product after the fact with no justification or recompense.
Score
2
May 28, 2010 9:46:43 PM

twbg4cqYes, and if we're going to sue Sony for removing Linux support, then let's get them to bring back backwards compatibility for PS1 and PS2 games while we're at it.That's one of the things holding me back from buying one.

Not exactly the same thing since the old systems with the chip still play older games, it's just new ones that can't. If they were to write code into the OS to block those older systems from playing those old games then it would be the same.
Score
3
May 28, 2010 9:48:19 PM

I take issue with Sony removing Other OS out of principle. They should not be allowed to take out features that were part of the system when purchased, major or minor. It's just wrong; a bait and switch. But something else to consider is that in the EULA, the words "functionality" and "functioning" are both used in the software updates section only. No where are "features" referred to as "functions." In fact, the word "feature" is used to describe the things that the system may do (such as "Internet Features"), while the word "function" is used to describe how well the features work, as it says that software updates will ensure that the services are "functioning properly." Therefore, I take the use of "some loss of functionality" as meaning a software update may cause certain features to function at a loss, or slower/less efficiently. This may sound like splitting hairs, but so is using an EULA to justify the removal of features which were bought and paid for by thousands of people.

Something else I take issue with is how Sony claims that this software update is "optional." If that were true, then I would not have had to return Red Dead Redemption to amazon.com in exchange for the 360 version. An optional update would contain new features or fixes which you could opt out of without removing compatibility with future games which were written for the system. If Sony wants to play the "optional" game, every game they release should be mandated to disclaim which firmware revision it requires, and not be able to say that the games are simply PS3 compatible. I own two PS3s and neither of them are now compatible with Red Dead Redemption.
Score
5
May 28, 2010 10:05:44 PM

Lets sue Nintendo too for removing the Homebrew Channel.

Of course too many lawsuits and the gaming industry's going to bankrupt. Mario doesn't come cheap.
Score
-4
May 28, 2010 10:15:27 PM

@ twbg4cq

The issue is not the same as with backwards compatibility (especially hardware based using the Emotion chip). You could (before they killed off the 20GB and 60GB versions) opt to buy either a model that did or did not have this feature, but if you did buy a version that did have it, then a simple firmware update would not have removed this ability like it did with Install Other OS. I was lucky enough not to have updated the firmware on my PS3, but the upsetting part is that I can't connect to the internet with the console, because it tries to force a firmware update.

As to the original question, yes, I believe some legal action against SONY is in order for having done this to their customers.
Score
1
May 28, 2010 10:19:07 PM

I can't imagine a less relevant article. It doesn't matter if linux support was something I bought the ps3 for or not. It was a feature they advertised, then subsequently removed. I paid for that feature along with everyone else who bought a ps3 prior to the removal.

Fine with me if sony wants to sell systems with no linux support from here on out, but they have no right to take back what they already sold me.

I'd be pissed at Honda if they decided to show up and remove the headrests from my car. I didn't buy my car because it had headrests, but that doesn't mean it's ok for them to take the headrests back after the sale.


On a side note, I thought there was already a class action suit going? no?
Score
2
May 28, 2010 10:22:03 PM

This
weepeeso can i sue Apple because i bought an iphone for the "baby shaker" game, and then apple removed it without my consent?


Not the same. They pulled it from the app store. They didn't update the code so you couldn't run the app if you bought it.

It's would be the same (and you would be able to sue imo) if your iphone was updated so it couldn't run any third party apps because they might cause security risks.

At the 2005 E3 Sony Press Conference, Sony said the PS3 would be more than a simple game machine and that it would launch with Linux support. I think the suits are valid. Since I have a launch 60gb, and am part of the class of the class action law suit, I will take my $5 check after the greedy lawyers get paid.
Score
-1
a b 5 Linux
May 28, 2010 10:23:03 PM

I don't think that changing the features a product has should warrant a law suit. It's not like Linux compatibility was the Playstation's main selling feature (and you can still install it using a patch made specifically to do so). They decided that they wanted to remove a feature, and that's that.
Score
-4
May 28, 2010 10:42:09 PM

Yes we should sue Sony for that.

I purchased my PS3 for blu-ray and linux support only. I decided to go with the PS3 because of firmware update for new features not to get features remove. I don't really game on the PS3.
Now I'm thinking of building a HTPC for dual boot with Windows 7 and linux to replace my PS3. My PS3 is not even connected to my LAN.
Score
-2
May 28, 2010 10:50:29 PM

I don't think it's any different than the Kindle fiasco.

If that lawsuit established anything, it's that you can't sell a feature and then take it away after someone already purchased the product.
Score
2
May 28, 2010 10:53:55 PM

Absolutely!

If you bought the product, whether you use the ability or not, they should not be able to remove it.
Score
1
May 28, 2010 10:59:07 PM

Nah they should be sued for the following:-
1. PS4?
By now we deserve a kickass GHTPC (that's gaming home theater PC) level of a console,complete with a better OtherOS that can run proper Ubuntu or its derivative with no hiccups.Cell are powerful yes but we're in the turn where integrated CPU+GPU solutions are getting better,Sony should seriously laser focus on that.When all else fail they can dbl team it with AMD/ATI.No I'm not kidding.I've been wanting a console that's also productive in the middle of the living/entertainment area.

and

2. PSPhone
..because I can't get anymore creative with what's been floating around already previously.

Enough with the PS3.Get us PS4.
Score
-5
May 28, 2010 11:25:07 PM

Personally I think so, a lot of people including the military bought it for that reason.

and I may not have used it, but I was planning on it. I wanted a multimedia center that would play all my movies on it so I could watch them on the big screen in HD, with surround sound.
Score
0
May 28, 2010 11:49:22 PM

Yes! They need to learn that you don't advertise certain features as a selling point only to take them away down the line. First they removed the PS2 Hardware compatibility so they could lower the price. But we all know it was a bullshit move so they could keep milking the old PS2 for more money. Now its Other OS support, because they're afraid people could start doing things they don't want. Like they couldn't just patch it, instead of completely removing it? I'm glad I never got around to getting one, because I know I would be pretty damned pissed off about paying for something and then having it become less and less useful over time.
TL;DR: I hope they get nailed for this.
Score
1
May 29, 2010 12:00:37 AM

I know I'm going to get voted down for this, but one thing that irks me is how come there wasn't this much of an uproar when backwards compatibility was taken out? Or maybe there was and I don't remember it. Anyway, as far as I know, Sony wasn't sued for the loss of backwards compatibility, a feature that seemed to matter to a lot more than the Other OS user base.

Or was the user base fine with the loss of one major feature and all it took was another for them to start saying "Sue Sony!"
Score
1
May 29, 2010 1:06:19 AM

Yes of course. People, like the United State Airforce, by this as a cheaper super computer node and removing that feature is a real kick in the teeth.
Score
-1
May 29, 2010 1:13:44 AM

I think they should be sued. Alot of their business for the PS3 has been research and supercomputing companies who use them as a cheap alternative to a PowerPC.
Score
0
May 29, 2010 1:33:02 AM

No they should be raped and thrown into a den of lions. IMHO
Score
0
May 29, 2010 1:42:01 AM

Although I didn't buy the PS3 for the Other OS feature, yes, Sony should be sued.
Score
0
May 29, 2010 2:04:50 AM

njalterioJust because it is in the EULA it doesn't make it legal. The EULA still needs to satisfy the requirements of U.S. law.


Exactly... I keep reading comments from people who say "it's in the EULA". What these people don't seem to understand is that EULAs are void of value if they violate the prevailing law of the land.
Score
1
May 29, 2010 2:12:53 AM

xenolI know I'm going to get voted down for this, but one thing that irks me is how come there wasn't this much of an uproar when backwards compatibility was taken out? Or maybe there was and I don't remember it. Anyway, as far as I know, Sony wasn't sued for the loss of backwards compatibility, a feature that seemed to matter to a lot more than the Other OS user base.Or was the user base fine with the loss of one major feature and all it took was another for them to start saying "Sue Sony!"


I am not a lawyer...

There is a large difference here:
The PS3 devices that were sold without BC were sold that way, with a bill of sale and receipt in the hands of the client (a sales contract) that was clear on the lack of the BC feature prior to the sale.

For the Other OS feature, Sony modified the device to perform differently that negetively affects the purchaser. A feature sold AFTER the SALES CONTRACT was COMMITTED to has been violated.
This is a bona-fide breach of that sales contract and a EULA should not give Sony the power to breach that sales contract.
Score
1
May 29, 2010 2:33:26 AM

Deffinatly considering that all the people that bought it for the linux support did so before all the price drops!
Score
0
May 29, 2010 4:08:40 AM

if they were to put 100% psx and ps2 emulator in all ps3 then i wouldnt mind losing linux.
Score
0
May 29, 2010 4:17:59 AM

yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes sue them until they put it back on the console
Score
0
May 29, 2010 5:27:40 AM

The military and many other institutions may use the PS3 for a variety of functions but do you honestly believe they use the default firmware?
It’s not like the Air force went down to Wal-Mart and bought 200 PS3’s installed Ubuntu and called it a server. They have custom OS’s running on custom firmware, and they don’t hook them up to the PSN so this is a non issue for them. Furthermore, on the original PS3 boxes nowhere does it advertise the ability that you can install Linux on it. Sony has never given that ability any support, it was simply an option that was present. Removing a non advertised feature that they have publicly stated they do not support is not a crime.
Score
0
May 29, 2010 5:45:22 AM

Sony needs a kick in the ass for what they have done.
Same same with the PSP (while custom firmware is frowned upon, many use it for more than just ripping games, because it actually makes the damned thing useful).
Just because Macintosh wants a draconian future doesn't mean you have to too Sony...

Score
2
May 29, 2010 6:30:09 AM

Sony should be sued for existing! ;) 
Score
0
!