Aussie Gamer Loses PS3 Court Case Over 'Other OS' 206
dotarray writes "An Australian man who took Sony to court over the company's decision to remove Linux functionality from the PS3 console has now lost his claim, with the court clearing the manufacturer of any wrongdoing regarding the upgrade."
Facepalm (Score:2, Interesting)
Okay I am really confused over all of these attempts to sue the manufacturers, maybe I'm missing something here. In the UK, if a product is not as described/fit for purpose among other things, the seller is liable (providing they're a business etc.). It's the same thing EU-wide (1999/44/EC), surely it's the same with Australia and North America?
Or am I wrong about the UK, and the manufacturer is also liable? Any British IANALs got some case or statute law that says that a buyer can sue a manufacturer for false advertising?
Re:Is this any surprise? (Score:2, Interesting)
maybe if linux users were not just all anti-copyright thieves and pirates, [...]
Hi, I am a Linux user and I am anti-copyright and anti-"Intellectual Property" in general. But I have never stolen anything nor raided any ships. Oh, you mean illegal copying of software... Well, since I use Linux I do not need to make illegal copies, nor do I have the time for that because free software is released at such a fast rate that I have no hope to learn to use all of it in my lifetime. (Apologies for feeding the troll.)
Re:Why do people even trust Sony anymore? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Is this any surprise? (Score:1, Interesting)
That is quite shifty and probably illegal.
"Congratulations on buying your new car! If you want our permission to move your car from our property you will have to sign this contract that allows us to take the car back at any time."
May be a GOOD decision (Score:1, Interesting)
If the person did not suffer any 'loss' by this disablement/amputation of functionality, then it follows Sony would also not suffer any equivalent 'loss' for the newish PS3 USB Jailbreak R4 chips etc.
Now we are dealing with 'sold' units. Extending this to the unlocking or jail breaking of say the iPhone so it can do other things supports this premise. As long as the law is applied fairly and evenly.
To use a car analogy (Score:4, Interesting)
Customer: I bought this Sony Car because it had headlights. I need headlights so I can drive my car at night.
Sony: We removed the headlights feature at your last service because headlights can be used to flash oncoming drivers. But removing headlights has made your Car lighter, so it can go faster and use less fuel. We hope you like the changes.
Customer: I can't use my Car any more because you took the headlights away, thus it's no longer roadworthy and it would be illegal for me to drive it. Give me back my headlights, and pay $800 for the rental car I've had to use in the meantime.
Sony: No.
Judge: No.
Rest of the world: Dumb-asses.
Re:Analogy (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, very much in so. An EULA is a blatant attempt to turn a business-to-consumer transaction (which in many countries has all sorts of legal protections) into the legal equivalent of a business-to-business transaction (which in many countries has very few legal protections - if you're a business you're meant to have the good sense to exercise due diligence and hire a lawyer if necessary).
What the world really needs is a judgement in a first-world country in a court which makes binding decisions acknowledging this and telling the big company in no uncertain terms where to stick their EULA. Though very few individuals have the money to chase something all the way to such a court, and any director with half a brain will settle out of court as soon as it becomes apparent that something like this may happen.
Re:Is this any surprise? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a non-issue as the vast majority of the users simply dont care that an obscure and little used piece of functionality was removed. It was simply not cost effective for Sony to keep supporting it.
This lawsuit was ridiculous in that the guy was bound to lose since Sony did nothing wrong legally.
So, if "vast majority" of Toyota owners no longer use cassette tape players, it would then be OK for Toyota to single-handedly rip them out when such cars are taken into scheduled maintenance? After all, it's a "non-issue" to most people, right?
The fact is - it was advertized and sold as a feature of PS3. Certain people bought it, in part, because it had that feature. It's unfair to remove it after sale. Just because you may not care, doesn't make it OK or legal to do. In fact, with that logic, they can remove other features like their Internet browser, or image gallery, or CD player, or disable USB ports just because they no longer see it as "cost effective" to keep it for you. How many of those features would they have to remove before you notice something is wrong?