Just to clarify, I mean the Lawsuits against Sony for removing the PS3's ability to use the Linux Operating System: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/99499-Sony-Removes-Other-OS-Option-for-PS3
I am going to break this down into a couple of sections, if you don't want to read a wall of text, leave now, because nobody is going to value your input if you don't bother to read the topic of the thread:
[HEADING=3]PART I: Why These Lawsuits Are Important[/HEADING]
It's not about about the money, it's about the precedent
There is a lot more at stake here than a few bucks, as digital media and online services expand, the need for clear legal precedents on the limits of an EULA and their interaction with the law is VITAL. These cases will set precedents on what companies are and are not allowed to do concerning EULA's and online services for years to come. If you EVER plan to click "agree" to ANY EULA in the future (believe me, you will) then this concerns you and your rights, whether you give a rat's ass about the "other OS" feature or not.
[HEADING=3]PART II: Irrelevant Arguments[/HEADING]
Lets not waste our time with anything irrelevant
Before we start the thread, let's take a moment to point out a dead end or two so that we don't waste time trudging through them.
1.) Advance Notice of Removing Linux.
A lot of debate has been going back and forth about how much advance notice Sony gave consumers. This is LEGALLY IRRELEVANT. If removing the Linux was legal, advance notice does not make it illegal. And if removing Linux was Illegal, advance notice does not make it legal, so don't waste your time arguing about how much notice Sony gave consumers, because it has no legal relevance.
2.) Sony is a Mega Corporation, they have too much power to lose this lawsuit.
A load of crap. If Mcdonald's (which is a bigger company than Sony) can lose a lawsuit involving a cup of hot coffee, then Sony is in no way immune to lawsuits or the law. Whether or not you think Sony did something illegal, don't for a second believe that their "power" will influence the decision.
3.) Who cares about the Linux functionality?
This is by far the most annoying legal argument I have heard about this case. It is as irrelevant as it is stupid. Sony either committed false advertising or they didn't, and whether you think the feature they claimed to have was important is completely irrelevant legally.
4.) Sony did it for a Good Reason
This is simply irrelevant legally, but I will indulge the users of this argument for a moment and offer my opinion.
In my opinion there is NO WAY that the ONLY way to plug this security hole was to completely remove Linux, absolutely no way. Recently people found they could find some credit cards from Google from the site Blippy: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100216-Blippy-Blabs-Credit-Card-Numbers-All-Over-the-Internet
How did Google respond? Did they shut down the search engine? Did they remove Blippy completely from their database? Hell no, they plugged the security hole, as Sony could have with a patch if they were willing to spend the resources figuring out how to fix it.
The fact of the matter is, it is in Sony's best interest to scrap this feature even if there WASN'T a security risk, I think the hack attempt was simply an excuse. Sony loses money on every PS3 sold, but they gain it back in game sales. When groups like the United States Air Force purchase a bunch of PS3's in order to use them as server clusters with Linux, Sony loses money, so they jumped at the excuse to scrap the feature.
That said, all of this is irrelevant legally anyway.
[HEADING=3]PART III: Why the EULA is Also Irrelevant[/HEADING]
EULA's are a contract, and are not immune to the law
It's actually very simple, an EULA is a contract and no contract can be made that allows any entity to legally break the law. In other words: THE LAW COMES BEFORE THE EULA!
Knowing that, the same argument as to why the advance notice is irrelevant applies.
Either removing Linux caused Sony to be guilty of False advertising, and in that case the EULA does not protect them because they broke the law, or removing Linux did not cause Sony to break the law, in which case they don't even need the EULA to back them up.
Either way, what was said in the EULA changes nothing, so don't bother quoting it.
[HEADING=3]PART IV: Why I Believe Sony Committed False Advertising[/HEADING]
Simple: Sony said the PS3 had both functions, and now it doesn't
When these people bought the PS3, they bought it under the pretense that it has Linux capability, it was advertised to have that ability.
Now if Sony wants to take those capabilities away from something they sell in the future and take those statements out of their ads, that is fine. But they CANNOT do it retroactively. That would be like a car company no longer offering leather seats on a car, so they visit every person they sold that car with leather seats to, and rip the seats out of the car with no compensation.
It's a lot more simple than people are making it. These people have a product that does not have both Playstation Network and Linux Capability, yet they had an ad for the PS3 that says claims they did when these people bought it. That my friends. Is bare bones false advertising.
[HEADING=3]PART V: If You Tell me to "grow up" I'm going to punch you in the face[/HEADING]
And yes, I can punch you in the face over the internet, it's a new feature
Like I said before, this is not about petty grudges, or about money. Well, it is, but neither of those are even the smallest bit important compared to the precedent these cases will set. So whether you think the feature was important or not, you should care about this case, and the people involved, because it sets an important precedent in the expanding world of EULA's. I don't even use my PS3, and could care less about the loss of functionality, what I DO care about however, is holding companies responsible for their actions, and setting important legal precedents.
And you should too!
EDIT: A lot of people seem curious about why the United States Air Force were purchasing PS3's and using the Linux feature, you can get the full story at the link below. The Air Force is being hurt badly by this removal.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100631-Air-Force-Might-Be-Troubled-by-PS3-Other-OS-Removal
EDIT2: Added a new irrelevant dead end argument to Part II
EDIT3: To avoid any further confusion, I am talking about the United States of America legal system and applicable laws, NOT the UK or any other country.
EDIT4:
[HEADING=3]Federal Trade Commission Policy Statement on Deceptive Advertising[/HEADING]
I. SUMMARY
Certain elements undergird all deception cases. First, there must be a representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer.4 Practices that have been found misleading or deceptive in specific cases include false oral or written representations, misleading price claims, sales of hazardous or systematically defective products or services without adequate disclosures, failure to disclose information regarding pyramid sales, use of bait and switch techniques, failure to perform promised services, and failure to meet warranty obligations.5
Second, we examine the practice from the perspective of a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances. If the representation or practice affects or is directed primarily to a particular group, the Commission examines reasonableness from the perspective of that group.
Third, the representation, omission, or practice must be a "material" one. The basic question is whether the act or practice is likely to affect the consumer's conduct or decision with regard to a product or service. If so, the practice is material, and consumer injury is likely, because consumers are likely to have chosen differently but for the deception. In many instances, materiality, and hence injury, can be presumed from the nature of the practice. In other instances, evidence of materiality may be necessary.
Thus, the Commission will find deception if there is a representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances, to the consumer's detriment. We discuss each of these elements below.
Let's break this up shall we?
1.) "First, there must be a representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer."
Well this is easy, the product was "represented" as having the ability to use Playstation Network and the ability to run Linux, and the "practice" of making the consumer choose between the two means that it was mis-"represented"
2.)"Second, we examine the practice from the perspective of a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances."
Obviously it was reasonable to assume that buying the PS3 under pretense that it had Linux and PSN capability was reasonable, it was ON THE FREAKING BOX!
3.)"Third, the representation, omission, or practice must be a "material" one. The basic question is whether the act or practice is likely to affect the consumer's conduct or decision with regard to a product or service. If so, the practice is material, and consumer injury is likely, because consumers are likely to have chosen differently but for the deception."
Just to clarify, they don't mean physical injury.
The United States Airforce bought PS3's solely for the linux capability for use as server clusters, so that covers #3, I cannot speak for each individual consumer, but I assume at least some of them would have acted differently if the PS3 never had Linux support in the first place (IE, Not bought it)
EDIT5:
[HEADING=3] Penalties for not allowing Sony to remove your Linux Feature:[/HEADING]
They aren't just not allowing you online
Some people are saying "Well, it's their online service, they can choose whether to let you use it" that's not the case, but for a moment let's say I agree.
But that's not all they are doing, they aren't just making you choose between an advertised Console feature and an advertised Online feature, they are making you choose between two advertised CONSOLE features. Check out this link:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/03/sony-steals-feature-from-your-playstation-3
That's right, if you don't allow them to get rid of Linux [HEADING=3]YOU CANNOT PLAY ANY PS3 GAMES RELEASED FROM THIS POINT ON![/HEADING]
There goes that argument!
EDIT 6:
[HEADING=2]Broken Promises[/HEADING]
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/goodbye-linux-on-the-ps3-sony-backpedals-on-install-other-os-support/7832:
This news comes a little more a month after Sony management confirmed to the PS3-Linux community that the company was committed to keeping this feature on systems sold with this feature:
>> The feature of "Install Other OS" was removed from the new
>> "Slim" PS3 model to focus on delivering games and other
>> entertainment content.
>>
>> Please be assured that SCE is committed to continue
>> the support for previously sold models that have the
>> "Install Other OS" feature and that this feature will
>> not be disabled in future firmware releases.
