Sony and Geohot reach a settlement

[steverhcp02]

ssj12 said:

forest-spirit said:

Kasz216 said:

padib said:

 

@kasz  hey, do you have a link to the OtherOS case?

A few articles on it, that's it

http://groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110218181557455

http://groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110311112544990

http://groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110310172538157

 

Also one on the settlment

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110411173644425

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???

nope, your entirely right. Sadly people are blind and will think its a good thing PS3 owners get features removed.

Trophies, in-game menus, home, and the friends list can be removed now I guess. They are all over a year old now, so by Sony's logic they can expire and no one will care. I want them to test this theory.

Whats great about this post is the bulk of these things AND current features like netflix, huluplus, MLBTV the VidZone were all ADDED in subsequent firmware cases yet you act as if Sony goes around slashing features daily or weekly and sticking it to consumers. Seriously.

Taking away BC was hardware, nothing to do to EXISTING owners. The only thing removed via software was OtherOS no matter how you slice it or argue a very minute population cared/used, yet you continue to conveniently ignore the multitude of features added for FREE that the vast majority of us and users use frequently, like the aforementioned in my post.

Bottomline is yeah it sucks for the small percentage otherOS was removed but acting like its some earth shattering, PS3 ruining event is borderline insanity and a freaking joke of an argument.

Yeah we go out on a limb and trust Sony not to gimp our system but any consumer that feels damned this generation by losing OtherOS and gaining everything else is an idiot.