A California district judge has dismissed a class-action suit against Sony over the disabling of the "Other OS" feature in its PlayStation 3 console.
According to the ruling, purchasing a PS3 does not entitle a user to indefinite access to the PlayStation Network. Disabling the "Other OS" feature might have been disappointing and a questionable customer service move, but it was not illegal, Judge Richard Seeborg found.
When the PlayStation 3 launched in 2006, one of its features was the option to install another operating system, like Linux. As the original suit noted, "when running the Linux software system, the PS3 can serve as a fully functional home computer, loaded with more than 1,000 applications". In March 2010, however, Sony announced that the 3.21 update for the PS3 would disable the "Other OS" functionality for security reasons.
Ditching "Other OS" support will "ensure that PS3 owners will continue to have access to the broad range of gaming and entertainment content from [Sony Computer Entertainment] and its content partners on a more secure system," Sony said at the time.
Those who wanted to maintain the "Other OS" feature could opt not to upgrade to 3.21, but that would disable access to the PlayStation Network.
PS3 owner Anthony Ventura sued Sony over the move, arguing that Sony's decision "was based on its own interests and was made at the expense of its customers."
Ventura said the move was intended to thwart hackers like George "Geohot" Hotz, who had announced plans to reconfigure the PS3 to his liking. Indeed, Sony eventually sued Hotz over his tinkering; the two sides eventually settled.
Despite Sony's intentions, Judge Seeborg was not convinced that the company committed any crimes since the "Other OS" would remain intact for those who chose not to upgrade.
"PS3 owners who declined to install Firmware Update 3.21 still have fully-functioning devices, capable of either being used as game consoles to play games on optical disks, or as computers, with the Other OS feature," Seeborg wrote in his decision. "While plaintiffs would characterize the ability to access the PSN as a 'fundamental feature' of the PS3 itself, it cannot be disputed that the 'feature' is dependent on something outside the actual device—i.e., the continued existence of the PSN."
"The choice may have been a difficult one for those who valued both the Other OS feature and access to the PSN, but it was still a choice," Judge Seeborg continued. "Nothing in plaintiffs' factual allegations or their arguments is sufficient to support a conclusion that Sony has any obligation to maintain the PSN in operation indefinitely."
Earlier this year, the PlayStation Network was hit by a massive cyber attack, forcing Sony to disable the system for several weeks.