Sony faces legal challenge over Linux block

Anybody know if this has a valid legal claim?

Since when does validity have to do with the court room? IANAL but on the face it seems reasonable, it would be like buying a truck for hauling firewood, going in for service, then getting your truck back without the bed. It was bought for a specific supported purpose and then having it removed.

@chalbersma: In the US, anyone can try to sue anyone else for any reason. No matter what. It's the Great American Dream!

But I agree with azerthoth. The claim is likely valid. the PS3 was pitched with Linux support. People bought it specifically for that. They can't just remove it.

I read about this. On some other website, people were comparing with a case that resembled this case. It was about some other manufacturer that 'decreased' functionality of some product, and those who sued won.

So there is some jurisdiction, but I don't know which case it was anymore.

One of the threads I was reading about this was talking about the possible slippery slope if Sony wins this.

First they disable the Other OS option on old consoles for "security reasons".

Then they disable the backwards compatibility option for running PS2 games.

Then they disable the ability to play certain "older" PS3 games (i.e. force people to buy the latest version).

...

"First, they came for the Hitler videos..."

There is a legal concept called implied contract.

The classic example (probably used in ever law school that ever was or ever will be) is the house painter who gets a wrong address and paints the wrong house while the home owner watches.

The home owner claims that he is not obligated to pay the painter because there was not agreement between them, that, legally, the paint job was a gift.

However, a contract is implied because the home owner knew about the error and did not inform the painter. The painter, relying on the home owner's acquiescence, paints the house. It would be unjust to let the painter invest that time, effort, and material when the home owner could easily have corrected his error.

The key in the Sony case, it seems, would be to establish that people really did buy PS3 consoles in reliance on the "Other OS" feature. If so, and especially if Sony promoted that feature in any way at all, there would seem to be a basis for action -- UNLESS explicitly disclaimed in the end user agreement and the disclaimer does not fall into a category that cannot be legally disclaimed.

One potential problem for Sony is that the PS3 is a hardware/software combination, and courts are very big on recognizing a right of first purchase -- ie, once you buy a thing, that thing is yours to do with as you please.

Quoting:If so, and especially if Sony promoted that feature in any way at all, there would seem to be a basis for action -- UNLESS explicitly disclaimed in the end user agreement and the disclaimer does not fall into a category that cannot be legally disclaimed.

But again, like M$ tried not very long ago, the EULA that can't be read without accessing the Device to which it pertains, is hardly enforceable. "Using this Device implies acceptance of this License. Woops! Looks like you're already using this Device! Gotcha!" And since many retail outlets won't allow a return once the box is opened, even opening the box to read a printed EULA is a trap.

Plus, if Sony advertised the PS3 as being capable of booting other OS's, and sold them with that capability, but then removed that capability as part of their "we can revise the EULA terms anytime, at our whim," wouldn't that be either False Advertisement or Bait-and-Switch?

No, neither false advertising nor bait and switch.

Those are concepts that apply at time of purchase.