Hacker News Reader

Comment by codys | Hacker News Reader

> To get the $55, a gamer "must attest under oath to their purchase of the product and installation of Linux, provide proof of their purchase or serial number and PlayStation Network Sign-in ID, and submit some proof of their use of the Other OS functionality." To get the $9, PS3 owners must submit a claim that, at the time they bought their console, they "knew about the Other OS, relied upon the Other OS functionality, and intended to use the Other OS functionality."

I seriously doubt very much money will be payed out to users if this settlement is approved.

I'm sure the lawyers would be happy with it though:

> The deal also provides up to $2.25 million in attorneys' fees for the lawyers who brought suit.

That payout is equal to around ~40909 users who are able to prove they used the Other OS functionality. I'm doubtful that many exist.

View on HN

What really pisses me off about this is I can't provide proof anymore that I made use of OtherOS. The later updates removed that functionality.

I remember at that time I was so excited thinking I'd get to use my PS3 as my main machine, my game console, and for bitcoin mining -- and a bluray player. I desperately wanted it to be my entertainment center for all purposes.

Sony didn't want me to be a happy customer.

You were planning on mining bitcoins in 2010 already? That's pretty early, hats off to you!

I had a few friends making money on it - I was a dreamer for sure...

At the time I remember there was a team working on hashing functions in hand-tuned assembly for the PS3's Cell processor that would take advantage of it's vector capabilities. I wanted to take their implementations and learn assembly well enough to write my own bitcoin miner. This was long before ASICs became a thing so the PS3 looked like a big money-making opportunity. :-)

You don't need proof as in mathematical proof.

You need proof as in legal proof, i.e. a paper saying "I used it".

Attestation ("I used it") and "proof" are used separately in the quote from the article, implying that the proof must be more that just attestation.

Maybe they should just give whatever remains unclaimed in the end to George Hotz.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hotz

Yeah, because the guy who consistently works the hardest at getting famous should get some dough? He kind of seems like an immature prick, to be honest.

Regardless of your opinion of him he really didn't deserve the hassle Sony put him through. And now they've admitted they were wrong about the very thing he cared about.

I don't know much about him, so I won't disagree with how you feel about him but I did follow the whole Sony/other OS mess and Sony was wrong. Wrong to get rid of those features and wrong to go after the people that tried to restore them.

Yup. How many people still have proof of things they did a decade ago?

Heck, most won't even have the PlayStation.

No kidding. I sold mine shortly after and because of the removal of OtherOS. I certainly don't have the serial number or proof that I used OtherOS (who possibly could?).

My PS3 had Yellow Dog Linux, but I hardly ever booted into it. Also, my fat PS3 died a few years ago (yellow light of death), and I don't even have it any more to look up serial numbers etc.

I'm sitting here giddy that I can claim my measly $55 dollars because I am a hoarder.

>submit some proof of their use of the Other OS functionality

What proof would users even reasonably be able to furnish?

This is just speculation, but since I think it was installed in a special partition, perhaps there's some logging at the OS that could help demonstrate it, and Sony can release a tool for the PS3 that users can run to get some special ID and submit.

Though, given the poor excuse for remediation, I don't have strong hopes for any such tool.

From a lay person's perspective, this is a ridiculous settlement - if there's a way to detect if it was used, Sony should be required to issue a refund for the full price at the time of sale. Putting aside people looking for an easy paycheck, the few who actually were tinkering with the OtherOS option (and the labs who used it, since there were a few iirc), deserve to have a refund. $55 is hardly just given the offense and the cost to the buyers.

All that I have is an email where I complained to one of my friends about not being able to update without wiping my Linux install, so hopefully that's enough. But I eventually did update after Netflix (which is all I was really using my PS3 for other than playing with PPC Linux) required the update.

Settlement means neither side gets what they want in full.

If you think you deserve better, you're free to opt out of this and sue them yourself.

No, understood, I see that I phrased it poorly.

My statement was to say two separate thoughts:

1. The settlement is ridiculous. 2. Instead of the settlement, Sony should be required to issue refunds.

Basically, I'm annoyed by the existence of the settlement itself, and suggesting that the legal team behind the suit is being negligent in favor of a hefty paycheck.

I mean, what's the alternative? It's almost certainly true that only a small fraction of the class cared about the "Other OS" functionality. Those that didn't suffered no damages when Sony removed the feature. Targeting the settlement proceeds to those people makes sense. One of the reasons you have those $2 coupon settlements is because you have overbroad classes where only a subset of members actually suffered harm, and the damages to the class are divvied up amongst class members who suffered no harm.

And $55 seems like a pretty good settlement for someone who used the Other OS functionality. Remember, that's a settlement value--the average loss of value of the PS3 to class members discounted by the probability of success at trial.

I understand the practical problems with providing the required proof, but this seems like a much more reasonable way of structuring a settlement than the potential alternatives.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest that a solution which results in the vast majority of true members of a class being unable to prove their membership is not really an improvement.

This seems like a ... sidegrade.

What's a better solution? Giving refunds to anybody who wants one, regardless of whether they cared about the "Other OS" functionality at all, would be totally unreasonable. Who wouldn't sign up to get their $500 back for a 10 year old system?

Giving refunds to anybody who wants one, regardless of whether they cared about the "Other OS" functionality at all, would be totally unreasonable.

Why? Maybe they didn't care at the time, but maybe they would later, or their kids would, or they would get a better deal when they resold it. Why should Sony get away with robbing their customers of advertised functionality with the excuse that they "didn't use it anyway"?

Maybe someday we'll see it with car manufacturers. "Your passenger door has been disabled. Please provide proof that you carry passengers with you to get a token reimbursement for the trouble."

Because the purpose of a civil suit is to make consumers whole for actual damages. This isn't about punishing Sony for misleading advertising. You measure the difference between what people paid, and what they would've paid without the removed functionality, summed up over the whole class. That's the damages to the class. And because very few people who bought a PS3 wouldn't have done so at the same price without that advertised feature, it's not a big number.

You're the lawyer, but how does Gore v. BMW of North America, Inc. fit into that? Even after the decision by the supreme courts, the plaintiff got $4k in actual damages and $50k in punitive damages, even after the SCOTUS found no evidence of bad faith. What makes this case different?

In fact, what's the point of punitive damages in general if not to punish the defendants in civil suits?

Umm, hmm... Somewhere I have my old hard drive with Linux on it, maybe, if I didn't wipe it and reuse it. Can I file a class action lawsuit against this one for having unreasonable terms?

You can object to the settlement, or you can remove yourself from the class and sue separately, like any class action.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com