Updating firmware is not an option the consumers can make. It's mandatory, in order to be able to play future/new games/movies.

This is an US Lawsuit. Wonder if someone sues them in Europe they would 100% loose without a doubt its not even interpretable they violated consumer laws.


Its not about if Linux on PS3 was good or not or if someone could use its other Computer its about what can companies do. Can they save taxes and make advertisment with a feature which they are going to remove a couple of years later ?

EULAs are not that important there is just one thing important. The Laws and they could wirte in the eula you give us your House when you use PSN and you can agree and they still wouldnt get your House.


Companies make the consumer believe their Eulas are like Laws but they are not 99% of all EULAS are not guilty in all places where they sell their product.

Sony never had the right to remove a feature its definetly against the Law (in Germany atleast) no matter what they wrote. If you just couldnt use PSN but you wont be able to play future game releases (less RAM Consumption with 3.30) and eventually even Blurays.

Sony made lose you an advertised feature, even if it isnt used by many customers such things dont matter at all. Just the facts matter. Its definetly wrong. And Sonys image was actually damaged.

I wonder if thats all. Some days ago I said its not over yet people are very very upset. Even if its just 1% thats still 340000 people around the world. I am upset not because I lost a feature but because they just must not do it. Noone is above the Law even my favorite Console manufacturer.

An Sony is not in this case:

the consumer Law is not a blanket the consumer can hide behind to use as a lever in claiming no fault. When the consumer has or will do in commiting of a crime. in this case you may not have but the hacker that did commit a crime, it only take One to ruin it for the rest of the Consumer's and through his Negligence caused a Reaction to his Action's.

thus Sony action's were done in reaction to a crime!

look up the Reasonable person standard of Law

By Sony following that right there the judge is going to be hard pressed to rule in favor of the consumer in this case

if Sony had done this before hand that could be seen as breaking consumer protection laws

but the problem is thinking that Sony broke consumer protection law's in this case, has to be done to show Sony was using no prudence and a

disreguard of the Law and prove they broke the law.

Since Sony Indeed has already complied

1) full disclosure

2) you or I as the consumer can keep existing XMB function of "INSTALL OTHER OS" if we want

3) You  or I as the Consumer Can still update our machine's in the future if need be to make the machine security compliant with the new PSN     and PS3 software of game's compatability.

4) the product still function as advertised with FW 3.15, and every new FW does disclose the changes to the term's of service and the Term's of USE is attached to every firmware so it's another agreement everytime we install the new Firmware.

This is Sony's system, Sony's network, surely they can do what they want.

A suggestion to Xbox 360 owners who bought the HD-DVD add-on, probably you guys can get some pocket money from Mr. Gate too since M$ used to advertise HD-DVD as the next gen media and ask you to buy the add-on, and now the thing had just gone to oblivion with no M$ support.

but did they make the consumer loose the function?

Q: can you as the consumer refuse the new firmware update ..yes or no?

Q: if yes you can refuse the new firmware update can you still use and access Linux?

Q: Does your Install Other OS function still there in the XMB?

Q: when you bought the Machine was it still there when you first bought the machine?

now did your machine have more function's added to your machine's firmware throughout your PS3 with New firmware Update's that did not come with the Machine when you bought it?

would you be against all the added stuff because it did not come with the machine in the first place but was added later?

you cannot have it both way's those new function's were not there when you first bought your machine, So what Sony is doing is inorder to be security and software compatability compliant you have as an option to update if you want to keep getting those update's. It just so happen's in the XMB that.

the new XMB.

that's a key this is a new XMB because the old XMB is not the same as the new one

 if Sony states there is a security breach to the security of the system with Linux installed PS3 accessing PSN than if sony changed the XMB and is telling you before hand how are they removing it from your system. it cannot be removed unless you tell it to install the new update.

every new Ver. of the FIRMWARE changes the XMB.

that's a big point. 3.15 XMB is not the same as the 3.21 XMB by changeing the XMB they change the software on your PS3 if you have updated your PS3 even once. you already have agreed before to an update to your PS3's XMB. this is nothing  of any deception or unfair consumer practice you can refuse this update. and your were told what happen's before hand if you do.

it's sony's software, and sony's network. the system is the consumer's when he purchases the system with some stipulation's in operation of that said  ps3 system on Sony's network though.

one thing with all of those PS3's that the govt. purchased and yet this is the only law suit being taken up!

one must wonder indeed.

I am not going to argue a lot since I dont have the time.

But the points you listed are not valid. I will explain you why (short).

Q: Yes you can but that doesnt matter 

Q: Yes you can but it doesnt matter:

Sony sold you a product which is able to Play videogames Online ! And offline. Sony sold you a device to play Bluray Movies and Sony Sold you a device which can be used as Linux PC. But after the update you are not able to do all those things together but Sony advertised it as a device which is able to do all those things. 

Q: Doesnt matter

Q: Doesnt matter Sony has to guarantee you the functionality of said item for 2 years in the EU:

http://www.wak-tt.com/tt/2yearwarranty1.htm

Directive 1999/44/EC, May 1999 from the European Parliament stipulates that by 1^st January 2002 all member states must have altered their legislation to comply with new consumer laws. These new laws will ensure that all new consumer goods, including cars, carry at least a two-year warranty and used consumer goods have a minimum of a one-year warranty.

The Directive applies to

·       any seller, that is to say any person who, under a contract, sells consumer goods in the course of their trade, profession or business

• a producer, meaning the manufacturer of consumer goods, the importation of goods or any other person who purports to be a producer by virtue of their name, brand or other distinctive sign

The directive calls for:

  a guarantee of at least 2 years for new goods (or longer if the Member State wishes) where the seller will undertake without extra charge to reimburse the price paid or to replace and/or repair consumer goods if they do not meet the specifications set out in the guarantee statement or relevant advertising.

The goods must

    ·       comply with the description given by the seller and posses the same qualities and characteristics as other similar goods

• be fit for the purpose which the consumer requires them and which was made known to the seller at the time of purchase.
• are fit for the purpose for which goods of the same type are used

After the last Fat PS3s was sold Sony would have to wait 2 years and then they could remove the feature.  Sony would have to pay Millions to check all country Laws, where they are officialy selling their PS3s. They knew they would act against laws in a lot of countries but they just close their eyes and hope the whole story will be over soon. They actually decided to do it this way because it will end up still cheaper then checking all laws. There are probably even way more ways how you could sue them in different aspects of tranding laws and so on. I have studied this for (thank god ) just 1 1/2 years.  

I have learned atleast a few things and one thing is that the extreme complexity of laws around the world make it almost impossible for companies to pay attention to them all. And they speculate a lot of time on the lazyness of the customer that they wont sue them. Most of the time the companies just check the US laws and make sure they wont get sued there. In Europe people are not too willing to spend time and money for such things. 

I dont know the Us laws. But I just cant imagine that such actions are legal in the US. I hope that someone sues them in Europe so we get Linux back.

Its not about the Linux its about Companies shouldnt be too powerful nowadays they are too powerful but someone has to show them their limits or they will treat the customer worse and worse in the future. 

Its just not the right way. to punish hundreds of thousend because of one person which  BTW still has no acheived something big.

Take it as it is Sonys behaviour is illegal in EU. Your arguments are worthless in front of a jugde and I am absolutely sure Sony wont use this tactic they will try definetly another way.

I am not mad at Sony nor am I too emotionally involved but this is a showcase for the future development of consumer rights. I dont care about the Linux, I just think Sony should solve the problem differently.

After reading everything carefully, I come to a conclusion that people who wants them to lose are most likely those who pirate games. Or hoping to make it rich.

Personally, I don't see what the fuss is about. I'm trying very hard to understand the need for other OS function. I don't need it to play games. I have a pc, laptop and I still don't use Linux etc. This is my personal opinion, and I believe only a small minority of people want other os.