Mr Khan said:
What do you mean, "good?" It was immoral, in the legal opinion of the judge it was immoral, he simply didn't find it legally actionable due to the plaintiff's failure of articulation Sony shouldn't abuse their position as sole content provider to simply force people to give up functionality in one area to gain functionality in another, if the earlier functionality was something they paid for as part of the purchase of the initial device itself and not related to the network service, which is discrete from the purchased device. Despite the legal fantasies and fairy-stories Sony attempts to weave, claiming that they own your copy of the operating firmware on the device and have the right to alter it at will is just that: fairy stories and contrived bullshit in an attempt to circumcede established consumer law Why do you think they bullied geohotz into submission, and screamed like mad to try and twist that case to their favor at every step? This disputes the same underlying principle, whereby they know that if they were actually brought to trial on any of this, they would get their asses handed to them so hard that Stringer wouldn't be able to sit down for a year. |
I mean "Good" Sony did nothing illegal, and anybody who thought these lawsuites would result in anything different were jsut hoping for it becasue they have blind hate for a company who did nothing wrong in taking away a feature almost nobody used and not exactly a "key" feature of a gaming console. Anybody who bought one purely for the use of Linux had 4 years of good use, sell the playstation and move on.







