Latest news |
---|
Sony 'OtherOS' lawsuit dismissed in U.S.Dela @ Dec 14, 2011 02:37 | 8 comments
A Judge in Northern California has dismissed the remaining charges in a class-action lawsuit against Sony over the removal of the OtherOS functionality from the PS3 console. The Japanese firm cut the OtherOS feature through a system update, citing security concerns.
The lawsuit sought to include all PS3 owners who purchased the console between the launch day, and March 27 of last year. However, most of the initial charges it made against Sony were dropped quickly by the judge.
The lawsuit argued that Sony breached its sale contact by disabling OtherOS.
The judge had allowed the plaintiffs to argue that Sony broke the law by effectively forcing users to choose to install the firmware update and lose OtherOS, or decline the update and lose access to the PlayStation Network, but the judge's decision shows the plaintiffs failed to argue this point successfully.
"The flaw in plaintiffs' analogy is that they are claiming rights not only with respect to the features of the PS3 product, but also to have ongoing access to an Internet service offered by Sony, the PSN," the judge wrote.
"A somewhat fanciful, but more apt, analogy would be if Toyota sold hybrid vehicles with an advertisement campaign touting that Toyota owners would have access to a recreational driving facility, a no-speed limit amusement park for cars. Then, at some time thereafter, Toyota instituted a rule that its hybrids would not be permitted in the park unless the owners allowed the battery feature to be disabled.
"In those circumstances, Toyota hybrid owners who declined to authorize disabling of the battery feature would still have fully-functional hybrid vehicles, capable of running on an electric motor or a gasoline engine, as appropriate under the conditions. Similarly, PS3 owners who declined to install Firmware Update 3.21 still have fully-functioning devices, capable of either being used as game consoles to play games on optical disks, or as computers, with the Other OS feature." |
![]() |
Comment by: POGK (Dec 14, 2011 02:56) So, they fail to argue their case successfully and the judge throws it out but, admits if they would have placed their argument in a different context (complete with example), that he would have heard the case? BS. Is this similar to courts preventing say Samsung from selling their products because another company, say Apple, claims they are infringing on a patent? All before hearing the argument? Someone is on the take... |
Comment by: Mysttic (Dec 14, 2011 03:05) doesn't matter now, the case can never go back to trail. So game over for OtherOS, time to move on. |
Comment by: KillerBug (Dec 14, 2011 04:15) The case was argued from three angles...the judge ignored 2 of the when making is ruling, and didn't even bother to mention them because Sony didn't even bother to deny the claims. Dirty judge, dirty system.
|
Comment by: jrp696 (Dec 14, 2011 17:00) They should have judges who know about technology working on these type of cases. I bet the bastard has never turned a ps3 on.
|
Comment by: LordRuss (Dec 14, 2011 17:01) Even the example the judge gave was lame. The car wasn't disabled or unable to go on this wonder course they described, nor was it said that the battery pack could be re-enabled. Obviously, something that you can't do with Sony products with any ease.
http://onlyinrussellsworld.blogspot.com
|
Comment by: snardos (Dec 14, 2011 18:20) They should have pointed out some of the games that can only be played online. In the case of those games, PSN is not an added bonus, but a feature required to play the game. |
Comment by: dEwMe (Dec 14, 2011 18:49) And aren't newer firmware versions required to play newer games too?
Just my $0.02,
dEwMe |
Comment by: brockie (Dec 15, 2011 03:54) done Move on. |
