joeorc said:
An which US law did Sony break? remember it is aledgeing Sony broke the LAW, it's not a fact. It isn't really sony's XMB once they sell you the product... it's as much the consumers as it is Sony's... if that was the case every copy of Windows OS would fall under what you just stated which is not true at all! and that is the reasoning like that some think that EULA's are not enforceable because i bought the software so i have just as much right's as i do with the machine. which is far from the truth. the Myth that EULA's are not enforceable because I am not in the state it was created on is a myth. this is going to come down to how the Judge will see it. the Consumer can argue the case before the judge , but the very fact that there is full disclosure and a disclaimer on the software update not only on the Web site but also before you install the New XMB thus there was no deception on Sony's part which the civil suit is claiming. you cannot claim foul on something you have a limited licence on if the judge deem's that the EULA fall's within it's right's to enforce part of it's contract and that you as the consumer would indeed be bound to that part. before you decide to update or not that's not force that is consumer's choice and while you can argue it's a case an example of Morton's fork the judge may see this as not a case of Morton's fork at all. notice: "such portion shall be deemed severable and shall not affect the validity and enforceability of any remaining portion. " thus within the contract the judge would have to rule did Sony's action force a part of the EULA to be severable? the Judge may not see that Sony is in any way doing such.
|
You aren't even reading my posts are you? What US laws did they break... how about reading the actual Lawsuit? You know... where it mentions what laws they broke?
