QOTD: Should Sony be Sued for Removing Linux?

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.

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.

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.

totally

Yes

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

Yes. As distasteful that it is, you paid for it and it became yours. Not theirs.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@ 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.

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?

This

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.

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.

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.