[japsander]

I see they avoided the subject of games not being able to work as well as psn

I wasn't surprised they won, I don't think anyone is.
The thing to remember though, and the thing that Sony already do know is that just because their actions have been deemed as legal doesn't make them any less wrong.

No different than a self confessed burglar getting off on a technicality. He is legally let off without being classed as a criminal but it doesn't change the fact that he is a criminal.

[kian2002]

The problem with cases like this is that most judge's are quite old and don't understand the technical **** sony use.

it should have been put to the judge in a way he she understands

like

judge if you brought a very expensive bmw with satnav and stereo then after three years some one from bmw rings you up.
sir we noticed you don't use the seats in the back
so we decided that you don't need them
so if you don't remove them
your satnav (PSN) will no longer work
and your stereo will no longer play cd (NEW GAMES) ether

Its in the terms of serves that we can make you remove what we want so we are
As we don't care about our customers

[KillerBug]

Originally Posted by kian2002 The problem with cases like this is that most judge's are quite old and don't understand the technical **** sony use. it should have been put to the judge in a way he she understands like judge if you brought a very expensive bmw with satnav and stereo then after three years some one from bmw rings you up. sir we noticed you don't use the seats in the back so we decided that you don't need them so if you don't remove them your satnav (PSN) will no longer work and your stereo will no longer play cd (NEW GAMES) ether Its in the terms of serves that we can make you remove what we want so we are As we don't care about our customers

The judge understood the case perfectly fine...they even used a car analogy for him (Judge Richard Seeborg). He was bribed by Sony, so he ruled their way. This is why I am trying to get Toyota involved. The courts will always rule against the citizens who they claim to represent, and in favor of the corporations that pay for their summer houses.

The only way to get justice is if one corporation fights another corporation.

So, if someone is "on the fence" about buying a hybrid and they hear about this ruling, they will be "off the fence" right away...let's use that! Get the word out that Toyota can disable the electric motor if you drive on new or repaired roads, or if you listen to new CDs in the stereo. Toyota will of course issue a statement saying that they would never do that, and we will meet that with a copy of the statement from Sony saying they will never remove OtherOS. The worst case scenario is that Toyota is forced to put their refusal into a very official and binding form that actually might prevent them from doing this in the future...the best case scenario is that they might try to get this overturned as it is a blight on the technology that drives their entire company.

[republicano]

exactly, its good faith, there should of been some remedy to those genuinely affected.
ps3 requires their intellectual property in future development ,sony has the ball but should not abuse its position.

so now with the next device - vita, do you think sony knows they may lose their next court battle or win again ?. either way customers will lose faith in them............. till there's a better revision of vita lol

[Cypherous]

Originally Posted by AFI420 I think the case should have been that we cannot play games requiring >3.21

^this

PSN access always was a freebie and could be discontinued at any time, being stuck on 3.15 meant you couldn't use your console to play any newer games or watch any newer blu-rays, PSN should never have been the focus at all :/

[n2neee]

Let the games begin!


When did we ever sit and wait till the courts did something in Our favor?


How dare WE beg for our Inalienable Rights to those who are Our Servants.

[buckylovin]

To be honest the decision is fair and justified by the judge very well. Half the people on this site are blinded by their hatred of Sony. Im not a massive fan of them but I'm a fan none the less, Sony was well within its rights here.

[KillerBug]

Originally Posted by buckylovin To be honest the decision is fair and justified by the judge very well. Half the people on this site are blinded by their hatred of Sony. Im not a massive fan of them but I'm a fan none the less, Sony was well within its rights here.

He basically said that they could not remove OtherOS, but that they had not, and then said that they could remove PSN access...but he ignored 2/3 of the arguments (the removal of new game support and new movie support being the other 2 arguments)...he didn't even dismiss them; he simply ignored them. How is that fair?

[Pawsed]

Why is the entire argument PSN? They do touch upon the game aspect as an either/or issue, but to me PSN is not the issue. The device was sold as a game system, and should not require you to agree to removing features in order to play games made after a certain date. They fail the Toyota analogy, because even if you stay off PSN (the Toyota no-speed limit park), you still cannot use your PS3 (Toyota Hybrid) as both a computer and a game system (gas/battery hybrid). You can only play games that do not require FW 3.21 or higher. So going by the analogy, it would be like a bunch of new roads being built, and you can only drive on them ever by permanently disabling your battery portion of your hybrid. You can still drive on all the roads you use, but your car must have the hybrid battery removed to use any of the new roads. That IS limiting functionality, when other cars sold as hybrids (computers that play games) can go on any road, and still work as advertised.

[NeoNetGen]

man this sucks.