forest-spirit said:
From the first article: "For example, when discussing the motion to strike, Sony spoke first, and here's the interchange with the judge: MS. SACKS: Nothing that is alleged anywhere in the complaint says anything about the duration, the longevity of the time in which the other OS function or, for that matter, any particular aggregate of features of the PS3 would be available. THE COURT: Why then are we making the assumption that it must terminate at a certain point? They're saying it's an ongoing representation; that without any termination date that you will always have the OS function. You're saying, well, they are not saying one way or the other what the time period is. Why do we assume that it terminates? MS. SACKS: Well, Your Honor, a manufacturer's obligation for anything having to do with a product itself is only defined by its express warranty, its express promises. If SCEA, Sony, had said, "We guarantee that the other OS function would be supported," if they said, "We guarantee PlayStation Network access will always be available," anything about the duration, plaintiffs might have an argument. The only thing that Sony told anyone about the duration of any feature of the PS3 is what it said in the one year express limited hardware warranty. It said "one year." And as the Daughtery case, as the Bardin case, and as subsequent federal court authorities have noted, where something arises after the duration of that promised one year, the purchaser can have no expectation. So, Your Honor, if the purchaser can have no expectation of the PlayStation 3 functioning at all after the expiration of that one-year warranty, how can it somehow have a greater expectation about the availability of one feature? If SCEA cannot have liability under California law for the PS3 completely failing to perform after one year, how can it have liability for the fact that it does 99 percent of what it was advertised to do, and just not one?"
Did I read this wrong or are they saying that after 1 year you can no longer expect any feature to be available? So after 1 year I actually have no right to expect my PS3 to play games? The hell? What am I missing??? |
Nothing. Well, except you'd hope that the court wouldn't be stupid enough to buy that arguement when it comes to playing games.
Hence, why the court case was kinda a big deal.
I mean hey, stopping your PS3 from playing games certaintly would cut down on piracy.
