3 ms·
>submit some proof of their use of the Other OS functionality What proof would users even reasonably be able to furnish?
by pervycreeper 10y ago
>submit some proof of their use of the Other OS functionality
What proof would users even reasonably be able to furnish?
- csydas 10y agoThis 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.
- aeroevan 10y agoAll 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.
- ikeboy 10y agoSettlement 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.
- csydas 10y agoNo, 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.