I don't even think it was going to go to the employees.

Yeah. PS2 for the disc read error defect and Vita for false advertising.

I loved my phat version :D

Why would they "owe" me $65? I don't even remember a feature getting cut.

If a company learns not to go back on it's word, the lawsuit is a good thing. I was thinking about getting a PS3 because it could run linux and somewhat supported instead of having to hack the system. That said, I didn't want to spend that much for a PS3 at the time and waited until I could get a good price for a used one on ebay.

When Sony decided to do this, I am sure they weighed the possible costs of a lawsuit vs. the potential of lost sales because continuing to allow Linux to work would of also left the console with an open back door for pirates. I think the industry overestimates how much they loose to pirates (and much of the pirated games would of never been purchased), but I am sure the quality of a DRM impacts a manufacturer's ability to attract publishers for their platform, and to put it simply, having an open system compromised their DRM.

I'm glad Sony took it on the chin here. The internet has allowed companies to reach into our fucking living rooms and do whatever the hell they want while we're totally unaware. Removing features is probably the least of the offenses imo. The data mining that they all do is far more disgusting for me.

In order to file a claim, you need have done a few things:

"Be willing to attest under penalty of perjury that you used or intended to use the Other OS feature"

Ehh...

I know one could lie about that if some court business DID come up, regardless of how small the chance of you actually being put in front of a court for such a small settlement...but nah.  Not worth it.

It is annoying when a product claims to have a feature or claim it will have an upcoming feature and then it doesn't materialise or is taken away. I guess that is the issue with licensing and firmwares being constantly updated. However I don't get why they should get this cash value. I would of thought if a feature never materialises they should be able to return it for a refund and when the feature is taken away they should have the right to return it within perhaps 3 months. Any damage or heavy wear to the unit or missing parts would reduce the value of the refund. If you take away a feature after 2 years of use then that 2 years of use you have already had should be partly taken off the value of the product. I.e. if it has an expected life of 7 years then you'd get 5/7ths of the original price paid etc.