Lawsuit States that Sony Fabricated PS3 Claims
OS removal was about cost not security
A class action suit filed against Sony Computer Entertainment America regarding to removal of 'Other OS' capability on the PS3 has been amended with the sentiment that SCEA's deletion is based on cost not security. And that this was based on losing money on each unit due to "due to poor decisions in the planning and design of the Cell chip..."
The wording is scathing using terms such as "fabrication" and "pretext". It is based on the following claim by Sony that the removal of 'other OS' was made:
"To protect the intellectual property of the content offered on the PS3 system as well as to provide a more secure system for those users who are enjoying games and other entertainment content on the PS3 system, we have decided to delete the feature to address security vulnerabilities of the system."
The suit claims that:
"This statement is a fabrication. SCEA gave these reasons as a pretext so that it could attempt to argue that the Warranty, SSLA, and/or TOS allowed for the removal of the 'Other OS' feature.
"In reality, SCEI and SCEA removed this feature because it was expensive to maintain (as they previously admitted when the feature was removed from the 'slim' models – but which they conveniently removed from SCEA’s website)...
"...they were losing money on every PS3 unit sold (due to poor decisions in the planning and design of the Cell chip as noted above and given the PS3’s extra features); SCEA needed to promote and sell games to make their money back on the loss-leading PS3 consoles (and there was no profit in users utilizing the computer functions of the PS3); and IBM wanted to sell its expensive servers utilizing the Cell processor (users could cluster PS3s for the same purposes much less expensively)."
It further claims that, "SCEA has never revealed how its “intellectual property” would be unprotected through the use of Linux on the PS3. Moreover, the utilization of Linux did not make the PS3 less “secure.”
"It is virtually impossible to use the “Other OS” for piracy because the PS3 is specifically designed to avoid allowing piracy through using the “Other OS” feature..."
Read the document yourself here - it's a PDF.
The wording is scathing using terms such as "fabrication" and "pretext". It is based on the following claim by Sony that the removal of 'other OS' was made:
"To protect the intellectual property of the content offered on the PS3 system as well as to provide a more secure system for those users who are enjoying games and other entertainment content on the PS3 system, we have decided to delete the feature to address security vulnerabilities of the system."
The suit claims that:
"This statement is a fabrication. SCEA gave these reasons as a pretext so that it could attempt to argue that the Warranty, SSLA, and/or TOS allowed for the removal of the 'Other OS' feature.
"In reality, SCEI and SCEA removed this feature because it was expensive to maintain (as they previously admitted when the feature was removed from the 'slim' models – but which they conveniently removed from SCEA’s website)...
"...they were losing money on every PS3 unit sold (due to poor decisions in the planning and design of the Cell chip as noted above and given the PS3’s extra features); SCEA needed to promote and sell games to make their money back on the loss-leading PS3 consoles (and there was no profit in users utilizing the computer functions of the PS3); and IBM wanted to sell its expensive servers utilizing the Cell processor (users could cluster PS3s for the same purposes much less expensively)."
It further claims that, "SCEA has never revealed how its “intellectual property” would be unprotected through the use of Linux on the PS3. Moreover, the utilization of Linux did not make the PS3 less “secure.”
"It is virtually impossible to use the “Other OS” for piracy because the PS3 is specifically designed to avoid allowing piracy through using the “Other OS” feature..."
Read the document yourself here - it's a PDF.
Read More Like This
Comments
DrkStr 25 Mar 2011 13:30
1/8
So when GeoHotz announced he used OtherOS to crack the PS3 he was lying? And the fact that his crack didn't work after it was removed was a coincidence?
Yea I noticed that 2 25 Mar 2011 17:27
2/8
I mean everyone wants to blame sony for their problems.
I would rather like to blame the hackers destroying my online gaming.
Let them remove the option, at least then I can get a good match into cod mw2 or mag........
I would rather like to blame the hackers destroying my online gaming.
Let them remove the option, at least then I can get a good match into cod mw2 or mag........
more comments below our sponsor's message
Yea I noticed that 2 25 Mar 2011 17:31
3/8
@Yea_I_noticed_that_2
Wurd dude, in fact hacking pays off so good that our dumb friend geohotz is now somewhere in south america LOL
GeoTardz should be his new hacker alias, who the heck hacks and then shows his face in a video doing it on youtube and does not expect legal action to be taken LOL!
Wurd dude, in fact hacking pays off so good that our dumb friend geohotz is now somewhere in south america LOL
GeoTardz should be his new hacker alias, who the heck hacks and then shows his face in a video doing it on youtube and does not expect legal action to be taken LOL!
derp 25 Mar 2011 19:20
4/8
@DrkStr Thats not quite right. The hack he did worked up until Sony's very last firmware update... without OtherOS. Infact, with his hack, you can actually bring back the OtherOS functionality.
Zippy 25 Mar 2011 19:42
5/8
Frickin A right! Probably went to work for that jackass Chavez. Gonna jailbreak his gas pumps.
Necromantik 25 Mar 2011 20:37
6/8
@derp No you aren't right.. The otherOS hack attempt was unsuccessful but enabled Geo to access the ps3 hypervisor.. That alone resulted in it's removal. The ATTEMPT not the jailbreak itself. Once the encryption key was accessed by fai0verfl0w that lead to the jailbreak you know now.
Sony 19 Apr 2011 17:39
7/8
@DrkStr
Typical, blame an entire group of people (linux users) who bought ps3's either specifically for linux, or for linux and games, because of the actions of one user?
Sony has admitted themselves that they did not remove otheros support for security reasons, that is bogus. They removed it because they had to spend money supporting it,and sell games to make a profit. Thats a bad planning strategy from their marketing team.
That doesn't give them the right to market a product with a list of features, and add those features to the cost of a product, and simply remove features when they see fit.
You go buy a car and then be told when and how you can drive it, then have someone say " I don't blame the car manufacturer, they did that for good reason"
Absolutely Absurd!
Typical, blame an entire group of people (linux users) who bought ps3's either specifically for linux, or for linux and games, because of the actions of one user?
Sony has admitted themselves that they did not remove otheros support for security reasons, that is bogus. They removed it because they had to spend money supporting it,and sell games to make a profit. Thats a bad planning strategy from their marketing team.
That doesn't give them the right to market a product with a list of features, and add those features to the cost of a product, and simply remove features when they see fit.
You go buy a car and then be told when and how you can drive it, then have someone say " I don't blame the car manufacturer, they did that for good reason"
Absolutely Absurd!
DrkStr 20 Apr 2011 08:01
8/8
Sony wrote:
Sony has admitted themselves that they did not remove otheros support for security reasons, that is bogus. They removed it because they had to spend money supporting it,and sell games to make a profit. Thats a bad planning strategy from their marketing team.
The only time they said mentioned cost was when they announced OtherOS wouldn't be available for slim PS3s, that was never mentioned for removing it from the old fat ones.
Sony wrote:
That doesn't give them the right to market a product with a list of features, and add those features to the cost of a product, and simply remove features when they see fit.
You know what? OtherOS wasn't there at the start of the PS3. It was added with firmware 1.60 and the price didn't go up when it was added! So when they remove the additional feature, you know the one that has nothing to do with the main use of the console, the price didn't go down. What a surprise!
Sony wrote:
You go buy a car and then be told when and how you can drive it, then have someone say " I don't blame the car manufacturer, they did that for good reason"
Have you heard of the term "street legal" at all? That means, yes you can do what you want to your car, but there are certain conditions you must meet before you can drive it on the public roads.
Tint the windscreen, can't go on the public roads. Put on wheels wider than the arches, can't go on the public roads.
Do you see a comparison with the PS3? You can do whatever you want with your PS3, but you can't take it onto Sony's network if you do some things.
Also, if you publish parts of the software that you don't own on the internet, you are illegally distributing. Also if the software you publish can be used to get around encryption, you broke the law in some places. GeoHotz did both of these in a place where the second is illegal (DMCA) so he got taken to court.
Try publishing unlimited use keys for Windows7 or Office on the internet and see how long it is before you get a cease and desist order from Microsoft's lawyers.