By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - Sony sued over Linux removal, Case documents surface

alephnull on 01 May 2010
JazzyJeez said:
What's with all the analogies?

This court case is less about the removal of other os, and more about someone trying to make a rather disgusting amount of money.

It's obviously about making a ton of money for the lawyers; for everyone else, it's about making the manager who took the decision to go ahead with other os removal feel some blowback.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 01 May 2010
joeorc said:
Kasz216 said:
joeorc said:
Kasz216 said:

Let me ask you a question. Say I give out a bunch of buisness cards... someone uses on of them to berak into my house. So I go and break into everyone elses house and take back my buisness cards.

If arrested am I "not the offender"?

A wrong, just because someone else wronged you doesn't suddenly not make you the offender.


Your entire premise is faulty.

there is a big problem

the XMB is not your house it's Sony's!

the Linux application is not even your's  also you are granted a license to use not to own, and Sony is not going into your house and taking it, they are knocking on your door and asking for it.

How are they breaking in if they are Asking for permission for you to remove the old XMB. and replace it with the new XMB.

you say no they say ok, but compatability will suffer and walk away and move on to the next house. the civil claim is that Sony is taking it away from the Consumer which is not true that's a fact that cannot be disputed can the consumer keep Linux? that answer is true can the consumer keep a previous firmware on his PS3? yes it can. the Consumer can indeed keep Firmware 3.15 or older on their PS3 but compatability will suffer. it's been that way ever since it has been released. there were game's i purchased that required a new firmware on my PS3 if i did not update i could not play the game, and there have been how many complaints that certain game's have had an effect on the PS3's and sometimes glitched the PS3 until a patch. This has been the case of not just the PS3 also the xbox360 and some PC program's.

if there was no way for the Consumer to ever update their PS3 inorder to play future game's that that would be an issue, but since the consumer can indeed make his or Her PS3 compliant with future XMB requirement's of not only security but also future games software.

Sony is not keeping the PS3 from being updated the consumer is.

 

 

Once again, that's completly faulty logic... they are forcing you to choose between other OS and playing future games, when the removal of other OS has NO effect on the capability and Sony has no reason to remove it.  They advertised other OS... and being able to play games as VITAL features.  They are now forcing you to choose between one of those two vital features.

It would be like if you signed a contract with me to mow your lawn and trim your hedges... then I tell you a few weeks later you had to choose.

how so:

Sony cannot force you to update, they just told the Consumer COMPATABILITY ISSUES are going to be there it is for you to choose to not update:

the judge will ask how is it they are removing the function if you can still keep it?

the fact that your or my PS3 did not come PREINSTALLED WITH LINUX when we purchased the PS3 mean's you did not purchase a PS3 with linux on your Machine you purchased a PS3 with the XMB that has at that Time the OPTION by a consumer to install other OS through the XMB function's of that XMB have changed over time. you cannot PICK OR CHOOSE WHAT YOU DO AN WHAT YOU DO NOT WANT OUT OF THE XMB

it's all or nothing: since my ps3 did not come with background downloading on the PS3 does that mean I can sue because I was forced to get background downloading because a game i purchased required the new update to play the game and on that update just so happen to have background downloading.

 you do not have a claim on the ownership of the XMB , thus you cannot tell what Sony can and cannot offer in the XMB. you can request function's in the XMB but you cannot demand them. Because you do not own the XMB.

you do have the right of not updating, but on the same token you cannot cry foul if Sony's PSN requires or a game developer requires a new ver. of the XMB to play, because you can still update your PS3.

Sony gave the consumer the reason why the Install other OS function was removed out of the XMB of future ver's of the firmware.

before hand and it was not done just on the spur of the moment. sony even before Jan 2010 Sony was looking into the Hack. If Sony cannot find a work arround to the HACK OTHER THAN TAKING OUT Other OS install out of the XMB and can very well prove that to the judge that it was the only way to protect the product's security of the console when connecting online.

and if this case so happens to be thrown out than what?

 

 

And yet... that's completly irrelevent.  It's ONLY relevent if they offer TRUE dual options... which they aren't.

While the rest of what you said, is just wrong.  That's why, you know... software companies don't change it so that the last firmware update of a system just completly bricks it so you have to buy a new one.  You can't take out functionality.  You can add functionality, but not remove it.



joeorc on 01 May 2010
Kasz216 said:
joeorc said:
Kasz216 said:
joeorc said:
Kasz216 said:

Let me ask you a question. Say I give out a bunch of buisness cards... someone uses on of them to berak into my house. So I go and break into everyone elses house and take back my buisness cards.

If arrested am I "not the offender"?

A wrong, just because someone else wronged you doesn't suddenly not make you the offender.


Your entire premise is faulty.

there is a big problem

the XMB is not your house it's Sony's!

the Linux application is not even your's  also you are granted a license to use not to own, and Sony is not going into your house and taking it, they are knocking on your door and asking for it.

How are they breaking in if they are Asking for permission for you to remove the old XMB. and replace it with the new XMB.

you say no they say ok, but compatability will suffer and walk away and move on to the next house. the civil claim is that Sony is taking it away from the Consumer which is not true that's a fact that cannot be disputed can the consumer keep Linux? that answer is true can the consumer keep a previous firmware on his PS3? yes it can. the Consumer can indeed keep Firmware 3.15 or older on their PS3 but compatability will suffer. it's been that way ever since it has been released. there were game's i purchased that required a new firmware on my PS3 if i did not update i could not play the game, and there have been how many complaints that certain game's have had an effect on the PS3's and sometimes glitched the PS3 until a patch. This has been the case of not just the PS3 also the xbox360 and some PC program's.

if there was no way for the Consumer to ever update their PS3 inorder to play future game's that that would be an issue, but since the consumer can indeed make his or Her PS3 compliant with future XMB requirement's of not only security but also future games software.

Sony is not keeping the PS3 from being updated the consumer is.

 

 

Once again, that's completly faulty logic... they are forcing you to choose between other OS and playing future games, when the removal of other OS has NO effect on the capability and Sony has no reason to remove it.  They advertised other OS... and being able to play games as VITAL features.  They are now forcing you to choose between one of those two vital features.

It would be like if you signed a contract with me to mow your lawn and trim your hedges... then I tell you a few weeks later you had to choose.

how so:

Sony cannot force you to update, they just told the Consumer COMPATABILITY ISSUES are going to be there it is for you to choose to not update:

the judge will ask how is it they are removing the function if you can still keep it?

the fact that your or my PS3 did not come PREINSTALLED WITH LINUX when we purchased the PS3 mean's you did not purchase a PS3 with linux on your Machine you purchased a PS3 with the XMB that has at that Time the OPTION by a consumer to install other OS through the XMB function's of that XMB have changed over time. you cannot PICK OR CHOOSE WHAT YOU DO AN WHAT YOU DO NOT WANT OUT OF THE XMB

it's all or nothing: since my ps3 did not come with background downloading on the PS3 does that mean I can sue because I was forced to get background downloading because a game i purchased required the new update to play the game and on that update just so happen to have background downloading.

 you do not have a claim on the ownership of the XMB , thus you cannot tell what Sony can and cannot offer in the XMB. you can request function's in the XMB but you cannot demand them. Because you do not own the XMB.

you do have the right of not updating, but on the same token you cannot cry foul if Sony's PSN requires or a game developer requires a new ver. of the XMB to play, because you can still update your PS3.

Sony gave the consumer the reason why the Install other OS function was removed out of the XMB of future ver's of the firmware.

before hand and it was not done just on the spur of the moment. sony even before Jan 2010 Sony was looking into the Hack. If Sony cannot find a work arround to the HACK OTHER THAN TAKING OUT Other OS install out of the XMB and can very well prove that to the judge that it was the only way to protect the product's security of the console when connecting online.

and if this case so happens to be thrown out than what?

 

 

And yet... that's completly irrelevent.  It's ONLY relevent if they offer TRUE dual options... which they aren't.

While the rest of what you said, is just wrong.  That's why, you know... software companies don't change it so that the last firmware update of a system just completly bricks it so you have to buy a new one.  You can't take out functionality.  You can add functionality, but not remove it.

offer TRUE duel option's: since when does the consumer get to say what's included in Sonys XMB and what is not?

for one:

The Open Platform feature is not available on CECH-2000 series or later models of the PS3™ system.

On PS3™ system models sold earlier than the CECH-2000 series models, the Open Platform feature will not be available if the system software is updated to version 3.21 or later.

"To use the Linux operating system, you must update the PS3™ system software to version 1.60 or later."

As Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. (SCE) does not develop or directly support a version of Linux for the PS3™ system, SCE is pleased to provide links for the following Linux distributions that support the PS3™ system:

Note that SCE does not provide any support for the installation and the use of Linux operating systems on a PS3™ system. For technical support, you must contact the Linux distributor or community that provided your Linux operating system.

(The Japanese version of this Terms and Conditions shall be prevailing; the English translation provided hereunder shall be for reference purpose only.)

Applicable Laws and Jurisdiction
This Terms and Conditions shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of Japan unless otherwise expressly provided. All controversies and disputes arising out of or relating to the Web Site and this Terms and Conditions shall be submitted to the Tokyo District Court in Tokyo, Japan as the Court of first instance.

This Terms and Conditions is not intended to limit in any way your rights under the consumer protection statutes. If any portion of this Terms and Conditions shall be deemed invalid, void, or for any reason unenforceable, such portion shall be deemed severable and shall not affect the validity and enforceability of any remaining portion.

http://www.playstation.com/ps3-openplatform/index.html

 

 



I AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.

Kasz216 on 01 May 2010

You answered you own question.

"This Terms and Conditions is not intended to limit in any way your rights under the consumer protection statutes. If any portion of this Terms and Conditions shall be deemed invalid, void, or for any reason unenforceable, such portion shall be deemed severable and shall not affect the validity and enforceability of any remaining portion. "


In otherwords... it doesn't apply when it's against the law.  Also, the whole "jurisdiction" thing doesn't really apply, because again, it's against said laws.


It isn't really sony's XMB once they sell you the product... it's as much the consumers as it is Sony's... hence why there are in fact laws that prevents Sony from just outright bricking everyones system whenever they want.


If sony were to release a new XMB that was to stop all functions and turn the PS3 into a paperweight... what do you think would be the legal ramifications?

Once Sony puts the XMB on the market... they lose full rights on how they can modify it and submit to the laws of the countries in which they sell their product.

 

Of course you know... you could also just... read the lawsuit.

http://ps3movies.ign.com/ps3/document/article/108/1086720/gov.uscourts.cand.226894.1.0.pdf



kibebr on 01 May 2010

EAZY case: When the update "contract" appear... they said: If you wanna keep OtherOS don´t do the update, if you need to keep the otherOS and login to PSN contact SCEA and they will analyze the "case".. .. I don´t see this as something intellignet.. will loose..



PSN: franco-br
MGS4, GH, MW2, GT5p, WipeoutHD, etc..etc..

Around the Network
irtz on 01 May 2010

@ everyone y dont u guys get it there is no cell pc available i was learning cell programming on it besides this they stole away feature on the product u bought 3 years ago their warranty is void now the product is our now not theirs hence they stole it n if sony says vr taking ur ps3 away from u vil u give them.The basic thing is they stole feature away by blackmailing simple



joeorc on 01 May 2010
Kasz216 said:

You answered you own question.

"This Terms and Conditions is not intended to limit in any way your rights under the consumer protection statutes. If any portion of this Terms and Conditions shall be deemed invalid, void, or for any reason unenforceable, such portion shall be deemed severable and shall not affect the validity and enforceability of any remaining portion. "


In otherwords... it doesn't apply when it's against the law.  Also, the whole "jurisdiction" thing doesn't really apply, because again, it's against said laws.


It isn't really sony's XMB once they sell you the product... it's as much the consumers as it is Sony's... hence why there are in fact laws that prevents Sony from just outright bricking everyones system whenever they want.


If sony were to release a new XMB that was to stop all functions and turn the PS3 into a paperweight... what do you think would be the legal ramifications?

Once Sony puts the XMB on the market... they lose full rights on how they can modify it and submit to the laws of the countries in which they sell their product.

 

Of course you know... you could also just... read the lawsuit.

http://ps3movies.ign.com/ps3/document/article/108/1086720/gov.uscourts.cand.226894.1.0.pdf

An which US law did Sony break? remember it is aledgeing Sony broke the LAW, it's not a fact.

It isn't really sony's XMB once they sell you the product... it's as much the consumers as it is Sony's...

if that was the case every copy of Windows OS would fall under what you just stated which is not true at all!

and that is the reasoning like  that some think that EULA's are not enforceable because i bought the software so i have just as much right's as i do with the machine. which is far from the truth.

the Myth that EULA's are not enforceable because I am not in the state it was created on is a myth.

this is going to come down to how the Judge will see it. the Consumer can argue the case before the judge , but the very fact that there is full disclosure and a disclaimer on the software update not only on the Web site but also before you install the New XMB thus there was no deception on Sony's part which the civil suit is claiming. you cannot claim foul on something you have a limited licence on if the judge deem's that the EULA fall's within it's right's to enforce part of it's contract and that you as the consumer would indeed be bound to that part. before you decide to update or not that's not force that is consumer's choice and while you can argue it's a case an example of Morton's fork the judge may see this as not a case of Morton's fork at all.

notice:

"such portion shall be deemed severable

and shall not affect the validity and enforceability of any remaining portion. "

thus within the contract the judge would have to rule did Sony's action force a part of the EULA to be severable?

the Judge may not see that Sony is in any way doing such.

 

 

 


 



I AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.

slowmo on 01 May 2010

What is the point putting the same arguments backwards and forwards just wait until the case is heard. At the end of the day everyone in this thread is wrong to some extent as the same evidence can produce two completely different results depending on a judges interpretation of the evidence.

The case being put forward here is really unprecidented so it could realistically go either way, those of you saying Sony are guaranteed to get off with Other OS removal are in exhinbiting crazy levels of denial, same to those who say Sony will get taken to the cleaners are displaying naiveity. Corporations get off with a lot in court due to technicalities despite being guilty as sin.



Kasz216 on 01 May 2010
joeorc said:
Kasz216 said:

You answered you own question.

"This Terms and Conditions is not intended to limit in any way your rights under the consumer protection statutes. If any portion of this Terms and Conditions shall be deemed invalid, void, or for any reason unenforceable, such portion shall be deemed severable and shall not affect the validity and enforceability of any remaining portion. "


In otherwords... it doesn't apply when it's against the law.  Also, the whole "jurisdiction" thing doesn't really apply, because again, it's against said laws.


It isn't really sony's XMB once they sell you the product... it's as much the consumers as it is Sony's... hence why there are in fact laws that prevents Sony from just outright bricking everyones system whenever they want.


If sony were to release a new XMB that was to stop all functions and turn the PS3 into a paperweight... what do you think would be the legal ramifications?

Once Sony puts the XMB on the market... they lose full rights on how they can modify it and submit to the laws of the countries in which they sell their product.

 

Of course you know... you could also just... read the lawsuit.

http://ps3movies.ign.com/ps3/document/article/108/1086720/gov.uscourts.cand.226894.1.0.pdf

An which US law did Sony break? remember it is aledgeing Sony broke the LAW, it's not a fact.

It isn't really sony's XMB once they sell you the product... it's as much the consumers as it is Sony's...

if that was the case every copy of Windows OS would fall under what you just stated which is not true at all!

and that is the reasoning like  that some think that EULA's are not enforceable because i bought the software so i have just as much right's as i do with the machine. which is far from the truth.

the Myth that EULA's are not enforceable because I am not in the state it was created on is a myth.

this is going to come down to how the Judge will see it. the Consumer can argue the case before the judge , but the very fact that there is full disclosure and a disclaimer on the software update not only on the Web site but also before you install the New XMB thus there was no deception on Sony's part which the civil suit is claiming. you cannot claim foul on something you have a limited licence on if the judge deem's that the EULA fall's within it's right's to enforce part of it's contract and that you as the consumer would indeed be bound to that part. before you decide to update or not that's not force that is consumer's choice and while you can argue it's a case an example of Morton's fork the judge may see this as not a case of Morton's fork at all.

notice:

"such portion shall be deemed severable

and shall not affect the validity and enforceability of any remaining portion. "

thus within the contract the judge would have to rule did Sony's action force a part of the EULA to be severable?

the Judge may not see that Sony is in any way doing such.

 

 

 


 

You aren't even reading my posts are you?  What US laws did they break... how about reading the actual Lawsuit?  You know... where it mentions what laws they broke?



Kasz216 on 01 May 2010
slowmo said:
What is the point putting the same arguments backwards and forwards just wait until the case is heard. At the end of the day everyone in this thread is wrong to some extent as the same evidence can produce two completely different results depending on a judges interpretation of the evidence.

The case being put forward here is really unprecidented so it could realistically go either way, those of you saying Sony are guaranteed to get off with Other OS removal are in exhinbiting crazy levels of denial, same to those who say Sony will get taken to the cleaners are displaying naiveity. Corporations get off with a lot in court due to technicalities despite being guilty as sin.

Really, the only reason Sony MAY get off cleanly is because a lot of judges don't really understand virutal technology.