Sony getting Sued for banning Linux

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/blog-post/1603817/sony-sued-banning-linux

Gamespot wont let me link the kotaku article since it contains the word Cla.ss in the address :roll:

Sorry if posted already I didn't see it.

Yea someone sued but ruling will be in Sony's favor. They removed linux for a legit reason. They removed it cause of people that want to hack their system using linux. Blame the hackers on this one, not Sony.

Also if a person does not update that means they decline the user agreement. Thats a man-made decision so why should Sony be at fault for that. They offer services for free anyways.

I miss the linux support but working in IT security i completely understand. If someone hacks the PS3 Sony will lose, big time. Someone has already turned this patch back around and added back other operating support with the blu-ray update. Just have to deal with no online play. Give and Take.

old news, by the way.

I liked having linux on my PS3 and was very sad when they took it away.

The majority of people never used it. Even most people who are linux friendly didnt use it. Some did, but not enough to legitimize keeping it IMO.budboarder

[QUOTE="budboarder"]The majority of people never used it. Even most people who are linux friendly didnt use it. Some did, but not enough to legitimize keeping it IMO.Fightingfan

I hope that this dude is successful so that maybe just maybe we might get linux back...

I wish everyone would stop whining about losing the Install Other OS function of the Playstation 3. It's not coming back. No matter how much litigation is involved.

If this is so important why don't people sue about online functionality of some games being dropped? EA just recently dropped online support for numerous titles, some of which I'm sure people on this board have payed for to play online. Don't give that crap about the back of the box saying they can retire their online services at any time with a 30 days notice because I'm sure Sony has something similar in place for their firmware.

What about DRM on the PC? Any lawsuits against that? I'm sure someone can pull something out of their butt like "Ubisoft's DRM is a violation of my Civil Rights".

We are still in a recession and the only thing gamers can do with their time is sue a game corporation because one of their rarely used features was removed for security reasons. It's people like this that is the blame for why everyone doesn't take gamers seriously.

[QUOTE="budboarder"]The majority of people never used it. Even most people who are linux friendly didnt use it. Some did, but not enough to legitimize keeping it IMO.Fightingfan

I wish everyone would stop whining about losing the Install Other OS function of the Playstation 3. It's not coming back. No matter how much litigation is involved.

If this is so important why don't people sue about online functionality of some games being dropped? EA just recently dropped online support for numerous titles, some of which I'm sure people on this board have payed for to play online. Don't give that crap about the back of the box saying they can retire their online services at any time with a 30 days notice because I'm sure Sony has something similar in place for their firmware.

What about DRM on the PC? Any lawsuits against that? I'm sure someone can pull something out of their butt like "Ubisoft's DRM is a violation of my Civil Rights".

We are still in a recession and the only thing gamers can do with their time is sue a game corporation because one of their rarely used features was removed for security reasons. It's people like this that is the blame for why everyone doesn't take gamers seriously.

jbc7343

As much as I like you, I have to somewhat disagree.

Yes, the whining does have to stop, but if you think about it, these guys aren't whining. People in forums whine; these guys are taking action. I also do agree about the EA thing, but right now, this is a bigger issue. Honestly, if people actually cared about those dead EA commuinities, people would revolt, but they're not.

Apparently the Install OS feature is enough incentive for people to get up and do something.

Besides, I think the removal of the feature, even if I never used it, was wrong on Sony's part. If you updated your console to 3.21, then you lost the Install Other OS option, something that was advertised as being a part of the console's functionalities when people dropped $400 - $600 on it; on the other hand, if you choose not to update and keep the option, you lose internet play - yet another feature to be advertised as being one of the PS3's many features.

Sony put their consumers in a "you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't" position and that's wrong.

That's my $0.02. Whatever Sony does makes no difference to me, so I'm not going to whine or complain - just putting that out there.

It's Sony's software, its theirs to do whatever they want with it. That guy from California isn't going to win this case.

So they're eliminating a feature that they've been promoting since launch and screwing all the PS3 gamers just to fight off a little piracy in their platform? Nice going....TheBigBadGRIM

Hm, well they did take away something that they promised and something people payed forDragard_Kaos

[QUOTE="jbc7343"]

I wish everyone would stop whining about losing the Install Other OS function of the Playstation 3. It's not coming back. No matter how much litigation is involved.

If this is so important why don't people sue about online functionality of some games being dropped? EA just recently dropped online support for numerous titles, some of which I'm sure people on this board have payed for to play online. Don't give that crap about the back of the box saying they can retire their online services at any time with a 30 days notice because I'm sure Sony has something similar in place for their firmware.

What about DRM on the PC? Any lawsuits against that? I'm sure someone can pull something out of their butt like "Ubisoft's DRM is a violation of my Civil Rights".

We are still in a recession and the only thing gamers can do with their time is sue a game corporation because one of their rarely used features was removed for security reasons. It's people like this that is the blame for why everyone doesn't take gamers seriously.

Scianix-Black

As much as I like you, I have to somewhat disagree.

Yes, the whining does have to stop, but if you think about it, these guys aren't whining. People in forums whine; these guys are taking action. I also do agree about the EA thing, but right now, this is a bigger issue. Honestly, if people actually cared about those dead EA commuinities, people would revolt, but they're not.

Apparently the Install OS feature is enough incentive for people to get up and do something.

Besides, I think the removal of the feature, even if I never used it, was wrong on Sony's part. If you updated your console to 3.21, then you lost the Install Other OS option, something that was advertised as being a part of the console's functionalities when people dropped $400 - $600 on it; on the other hand, if you choose not to update and keep the option, you lose internet play - yet another feature to be advertised as being one of the PS3's many features.

Sony put their consumers in a "you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't" position and that's wrong.

That's my $0.02. Whatever Sony does makes no difference to me, so I'm not going to whine or complain - just putting that out there.

Aww ... Well, I like you to. :P

But have you ever thought you bought a system and you never really bought the firmware. That's a proprietary OS that Playstation 3 is using. It doesn't matter if people are taking action. Nothing will be done by it.

Where was this "advertised feature" Let me Google this ...

So, after a quick Google search it seems that Other OS was infact introduced in a firmware update. It was never released with the system. How does this concern a launch feature when it wasn't one? It was patched in. Which would reflect that people did not pay for Linux support. I have never seen on any commercials or anything of the like advertising "Linux support". The only things I have seen are interviews saying the PS3 (and PS2) can run Linux. Wouldn't it just be a lot more economical to buy a pc than going to this length?

[QUOTE="Dragard_Kaos"]Hm, well they did take away something that they promised and something people payed forclicketyclick

I agree with you. I knew I liked you for a reason. :P

[QUOTE="Dragard_Kaos"]Hm, well they did take away something that they promised and something people payed forclicketyclick

EDIT: Now that I saw the post above, I see that the Other OS feature was free. Sony has all the rights to remove it if they wish then.

[QUOTE="clicketyclick"][QUOTE="Dragard_Kaos"]Hm, well they did take away something that they promised and something people payed forDragard_Kaos

EDIT: Now that I saw the post above, I see that the Other OS feature was free. Sony has all the rights to remove it if they wish then.

Also, the Install Other OS feature wasn't a launch feature ... it was patched in a firmware update. So no, people didn't pay for it. They received it for free.

So, after a quick Google search it seems that Other OS was infact introduced in a firmware update. It was never released with the system. How does this concern a launch feature when it wasn't one? It was patched in.

jbc7343

Oh, God damnit.

There goes my argument. I now have no respect for those guys suing for a quick buck.

I'll shut up now.

[QUOTE="jbc7343"]

[QUOTE="Scianix-Black"]

As much as I like you, I have to somewhat disagree.

Yes, the whining does have to stop, but if you think about it, these guys aren't whining. People in forums whine; these guys are taking action. I also do agree about the EA thing, but right now, this is a bigger issue. Honestly, if people actually cared about those dead EA commuinities, people would revolt, but they're not.

Apparently the Install OS feature is enough incentive for people to get up and do something.

Besides, I think the removal of the feature, even if I never used it, was wrong on Sony's part. If you updated your console to 3.21, then you lost the Install Other OS option, something that was advertised as being a part of the console's functionalities when people dropped $400 - $600 on it; on the other hand, if you choose not to update and keep the option, you lose internet play - yet another feature to be advertised as being one of the PS3's many features.

Sony put their consumers in a "you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't" position and that's wrong.

That's my $0.02. Whatever Sony does makes no difference to me, so I'm not going to whine or complain - just putting that out there.

Scianix-Black

So, after a quick Google search it seems that Other OS was infact introduced in a firmware update. It was never released with the system. How does this concern a launch feature when it wasn't one? It was patched in.

Oh, God damnit.

There goes my argument. I'll shut up now.

Sorry Scianix!! :P

[QUOTE="Dragard_Kaos"]

[QUOTE="clicketyclick"] Who paid for it? Linux is a free, open platform, and Sony was offering this service for free. Nothing was paid for. No money or goods were exchanged.jbc7343

EDIT: Now that I saw the post above, I see that the Other OS feature was free. Sony has all the rights to remove it if they wish then.

Also, the Install Other OS feature wasn't a launch feature ... it was patched in a firmware update. So no, people didn't pay for it. They received it for free.

I agree with you. I knew I liked you for a reason. :P

jbc7343

[QUOTE="jbc7343"]

I agree with you. I knew I liked you for a reason. :P

clicketyclick

So now what..?

This was going to be a great debate, but someone actually had concrete evidence, and now the fun's over... it's just another complain thread.

|:

[QUOTE="jbc7343"]

So, after a quick Google search it seems that Other OS was infact introduced in a firmware update. It was never released with the system. How does this concern a launch feature when it wasn't one? It was patched in.

Scianix-Black

Oh, God damnit.

There goes my argument. I now have no respect for those guys suing for a quick buck.

I'll shut up now.

So now what..?

This was going to be a great debate, but someone actually had concrete evidence, and now the fun's over... it's just another complain thread.

|:

Scianix-Black

Well that's no fun. Ok I'll play devil's advocate. Even though the feature was patched in, it was a bullet point that you'd be able to use Linux on the system. It was an advertised feature that they removed. One could claim that advertising a feature to get people to buy the product and then removing that feature is an underhanded tactic that betrays consumer confidence and undermines the free market.

clicketyclick

Yeah, but it's obvious that they didn't intend to remove the feature from the start, so that wasn't their intention. Had GeoHotz not hacked... egh... sorry Click, it's just... it's not the same...

Now you know how stupid and pointless the lawsuit is lolFlame_Blade88

So... thread has derailed?

*sigh*... frivolous lawsuits FTL :(Rakuho

[QUOTE="Rakuho"]*sigh*... frivolous lawsuits FTL :(Flame_Blade88

well.. i'd rather have my tax money be spent on this blatant circus than on some "questionable" government activities... but, that's whole separate issue entirely :P.

[QUOTE="clicketyclick"]Well that's no fun. Ok I'll play devil's advocate. Even though the feature was patched in, it was a bullet point that you'd be able to use Linux on the system. It was an advertised feature that they removed. One could claim that advertising a feature to get people to buy the product and then removing that feature is an underhanded tactic that betrays consumer confidence and undermines the free market.

Scianix-Black

Yeah, but it's obvious that they didn't intend to remove the feature from the start, so that wasn't their intention. Had GeoHotz not hacked... egh... sorry Click, it's just... it's not the same...

[QUOTE="Scianix-Black"]

[QUOTE="clicketyclick"]Well that's no fun. Ok I'll play devil's advocate. Even though the feature was patched in, it was a bullet point that you'd be able to use Linux on the system. It was an advertised feature that they removed. One could claim that advertising a feature to get people to buy the product and then removing that feature is an underhanded tactic that betrays consumer confidence and undermines the free market.

clicketyclick

Yeah, but it's obvious that they didn't intend to remove the feature from the start, so that wasn't their intention. Had GeoHotz not hacked... egh... sorry Click, it's just... it's not the same...

Well it clearly states in Sony's Terms of User Agreement that Sony has the ability to-... you gotta let it go... it's too late now...

This topic showed so much promise...

I wish everyone would stop whining about losing the Install Other OS function of the Playstation 3. It's not coming back. No matter how much litigation is involved.

If this is so important why don't people sue about online functionality of some games being dropped? EA just recently dropped online support for numerous titles, some of which I'm sure people on this board have payed for to play online. Don't give that crap about the back of the box saying they can retire their online services at any time with a 30 days notice because I'm sure Sony has something similar in place for their firmware.

What about DRM on the PC? Any lawsuits against that? I'm sure someone can pull something out of their butt like "Ubisoft's DRM is a violation of my Civil Rights".

We are still in a recession and the only thing gamers can do with their time is sue a game corporation because one of their rarely used features was removed for security reasons. It's people like this that is the blame for why everyone doesn't take gamers seriously.

jbc7343

[QUOTE="Scianix-Black"]

[QUOTE="clicketyclick"]Well that's no fun. Ok I'll play devil's advocate. Even though the feature was patched in, it was a bullet point that you'd be able to use Linux on the system. It was an advertised feature that they removed. One could claim that advertising a feature to get people to buy the product and then removing that feature is an underhanded tactic that betrays consumer confidence and undermines the free market.

clicketyclick

Yeah, but it's obvious that they didn't intend to remove the feature from the start, so that wasn't their intention. Had GeoHotz not hacked... egh... sorry Click, it's just... it's not the same...

I know that you're prolonging this just for kicks, but are you arguing that this is an ethical issue? Well, i guess this can only be an ethical issue since Sony has legal rights to remove Linux. And so then the question becomes "was that removal just?"... and that's pretty much as grey as an area can get. Personally, I agree with Sony's decision, but of course that's only because I never used Linux and I don't want the PS3 to be hacked (which could potentially diminish the dev's future incentive to develop games for the PS3).

ugh..anyway, before i get off track, the point that i really wanted to make (and the reason why I highlighted that excerpt) was that there are times when a company has to place its own interests -in Sony's case, the security of future profits- as the number one priority. Yes, i know that a lot of companies/corporations take that notion of "self interest" way too far, and hurt numerous "stakeholders" in the process, but is it really that bad that a company/corporation wants to protect itself from something potentially detrimental (which also has a way of indirectly trickling down onto the consumer)? We can argue that there were "other" methods that Sony could have implemented instead of completely removing Linux, but from a business perspective (which, i agree, could be questioned by some from an ethical perspective), it was the easiest (and cheapest) way to purge a compromised feature (and I think Sony's shareholders would share that sentiment... if they thought this "Linux" fiasco was a big deal in the first place, that is :P)

@Rakuho - no it's not bad for a company to protect itself from something potentially detrimental. But if they advertised that potentially detrimental thing as a feature or ability to consumers, then disable that feature/ability, then it is questionable.

well, it wasn't a detrimental feature when it was released...

BUT I do believe that "hacking" was definitely a contingency that Sony should have foreseen prior to providing people with Linux. If anything, Sony's fault lies in adding Linux to the overall "advertised" package in the first place (after some update that i can't recall). But removing Linux once it became a legitimate threat (despite Sony's prior overlooks)? I can't blame Sony for that.. and i say that even though I'm with you on that the consumer is getting the short end of the stick.

Imagine if sony disabled another ability that the PS3 has that they advertised too. One that you use. Well, what do you think about that? Especially if disabling it only serves their interests and does not protect or help you.

Before jumping to any conclusions, i would first like to hear Sony's reasoning for the removal of that feature. If that reasoning would not fit within my realm of what is "just," then, naturally, i would be upset. Anyway, a hypothetical is fun and all, but we would really have to cross that bridge when, and if, we get to it. In the mean time, we only have Linux as an example, and Sony's justification for its removal is understandable.

Sure, every company has a very important duty to their shareholders and I know the law supports that. But companies also have a very serious duty to consumers over promises in ads that has long been established in law, far longer ago than law about shareholders I believe.

Absolutely. Which is why i quickly noticed that you were making an ethical case... and in fact, it is a question of ethics that involves a "breach of consumer trust" in a way... but the severity of that breach is arguable.

Tbh, I think this lawsuit has a fair shot in court, but I don't think it'll ever make it to court. They'll probably settle for an undisclosed sum on the agreement to not talk to the media.

yeah... that's probably what will happen. But if this suit does indeed go to court, it has the potential to go either way depending on the judge. I still think this whole thing is frivolous, but that doesn't mean the guy doesn't have a chance...

clicketyclick

It's Sony's software, its theirs to do whatever they want with it. That guy from California isn't going to win this case.

KamuiFei

[QUOTE="KamuiFei"]

It's Sony's software, its theirs to do whatever they want with it. That guy from California isn't going to win this case.

Wuflungdung

but you're missing one point, the "reason" behind why car dealers would want to take away your GPS. You can't just say for the hell of it, because Sony had a reason (whether you agree with it or not) for removing Linux prior to leaving its customers with an ultimatum. And it would only be fair to draw an example that also contains such an element.

So they're eliminating a feature that they've been promoting since launch and screwing all the PS3 gamers just to fight off a little piracy in their platform? Nice going....TheBigBadGRIM

[QUOTE="jbc7343"]

I wish everyone would stop whining about losing the Install Other OS function of the Playstation 3. It's not coming back. No matter how much litigation is involved.

If this is so important why don't people sue about online functionality of some games being dropped? EA just recently dropped online support for numerous titles, some of which I'm sure people on this board have payed for to play online. Don't give that crap about the back of the box saying they can retire their online services at any time with a 30 days notice because I'm sure Sony has something similar in place for their firmware.

What about DRM on the PC? Any lawsuits against that? I'm sure someone can pull something out of their butt like "Ubisoft's DRM is a violation of my Civil Rights".

We are still in a recession and the only thing gamers can do with their time is sue a game corporation because one of their rarely used features was removed for security reasons. It's people like this that is the blame for why everyone doesn't take gamers seriously.

Scianix-Black

As much as I like you, I have to somewhat disagree.

Yes, the whining does have to stop, but if you think about it, these guys aren't whining. People in forums whine; these guys are taking action. I also do agree about the EA thing, but right now, this is a bigger issue. Honestly, if people actually cared about those dead EA commuinities, people would revolt, but they're not.

Apparently the Install OS feature is enough incentive for people to get up and do something.

Besides, I think the removal of the feature, even if I never used it, was wrong on Sony's part. If you updated your console to 3.21, then you lost the Install Other OS option, something that was advertised as being a part of the console's functionalities when people dropped $400 - $600 on it; on the other hand, if you choose not to update and keep the option, you lose internet play - yet another feature to be advertised as being one of the PS3's many features.

Sony put their consumers in a "you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't" position and that's wrong.

That's my $0.02. Whatever Sony does makes no difference to me, so I'm not going to whine or complain - just putting that out there.

I'm not really surprised, someone was bound to do it. And honestly, I don't hold anything against Sony for doing what they did.LightR

[QUOTE="LightR"]I'm not really surprised, someone was bound to do it. And honestly, I don't hold anything against Sony for doing what they did.gamer082009