Sony Computer Entertainment of America has moved to dismiss a class action lawsuit relating to the removal of the 'Other OS' functionality in a PS3 Firmware update.

The suit claims the company has deceived consumers by advertising the feature to customers and then later removing it.

However, Sony has responded by asserting its continued ownership over the hardware. According to Sony, the PS3 is simply licensed to consumers for use - which means it is free to modify the software capabilities of the console.

David Verner, the plaintiff, argues that the removal of the feature, repeatedly advertised as a key part of the console, was unlawful and forces users to pick between having the 'Other OS' functionality and the use of the PlayStation Network.

"(The)Plaintiff chose to purchase a PS3, as opposed to an Xbox or Wii, because it offered the Other OS feature... despite the fact that the PS3 was substantially more expensive than other gaming consoles"

Sony has maintained that there are no grounds for "restitution and disgorgement of all profits unjustly retained by Sony" since the firmware is under the system software licence and allows Sony to modify functionality, as stated in the warranty.

"...it may become necessary for SCEA to provide certain services to your PS3 system to ensure it is functioning properly in accordance with SCEA guidelines...You acknowledge and agree that some services may change your current settings, cause a removal of cosmetic stickers or system skins, cause a loss of data or content, or cause some loss of functionality." reads the warranty.

As of yet, the case has not reached a conclusion, the plaintiff and his backers have requested documentation detailing the reasons for why the 'Other OS' feature was removed.

Sony is also battling a recent wave of piracy on the PlayStation 3 and 'taking necessary action'.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/ar ... ?id=265662

It's a pity the guidelines in such matters will actually sap your will to live, isn't it?

I do think it's pretty scandalous that they've done this and I hope the people bringing the lawsuit win.

I don't remember signing or agreeing to a rental agreement when I got my PS3. And funnily enough, I expect British courts would agree that I own the thing, not Sony.

Sony own the software license, you own the physical hardware.
If they've advertised that fact that that hardware can run another OS and then they've done something to stop that, then these people have a case IMO.
But then Sony are allowed to change their software which you only have on license. It could go either way.

^^^True but if they had said "you can other OSes on it except we may in future disable it" would they still have bought it?

I think they could sue them for false advertising rather than blocking the other software.
Technically that way I think they would win.

You couldn't do them for false advertising. It wasn't as if you bought something you were told had a feature when it didn't. When you bought it, it HAD that feature. They just took it out later. It doesn't matter what they are or are not advertising after you've bought the good.
You could possibly sue for 'not of merchantable quality'. If it was me, I would say the 'of merchantable quality' argument would hold for the same term as the EU notion of reasonable term of use, which I think is three years. Essentially you would be arguing that the removal of the Other OS feature is the equivalent of the device developing a fault and you have the expectation that anything you buy will not develop a fault for a defined length of time.
I think they've got a much better chance of getting somewhere with that than with a 'false advertising' line - I'd say it would be a hard job to prove they ever actually advertised the Other OS feature in the first place.