By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Hynad on 16 December 2011
Edit Thread
fordy said:
Hynad said:

Anarchy isn't the world we live in either. 

Black and white much, eh? ha ha

In any case:

 

 

SYSTEM SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT (Version 1.4) FOR THE PlayStation®3 SYSTEM

 

December 10, 2009  (that's before April 2010, obviously, the month in which the firmware update removed the Other OS fonctionality ^_-)

 

3. SERVICES AND UPDATES

From time to time, SCE may provide updates, upgrades or services to your PS3™ system to ensure it is functioning properly in accordance with SCE guidelines or provide you with new offerings. Some services may be provided automatically without notice when you are online, and others may be available to you through SCE's online network or authorized channels. Without limitation, services may include the provision of the latest update or download of new release that may include security patches, new technology or revised settings and features which may prevent access to unauthorized or pirated content, or use of unauthorized hardware or software in connection with the PS3™ system. Additionally, you may not be able to view your own content if it includes or displays content that is protected by authentication technology. Some services may change your current settings, cause a loss of data or content, or cause some loss of functionality.

Here we go....are you the kind of person who believes that companies put disclaimers on things for common courtesy? Here's a hint. It's to protect their ass from going to court and paying an exhorbirant amount of fees to defend oneself. Play by the rules (and by which, I don't mean corporate created rules. Most of those have no legal leg to stand on). And please let's not bring race into this....

Oh, and the agreement that you posted would hardly be enforced by a court. Just because they put it in there doesn't mean that they're valid to do so. For instance, if Sony slipped in a clause "we reserve the right to reclaim any hardware purchased by the user", and then they try to enact that, how do you think the court would rule?


Ha ha ha!  Still in utopian world.  Those contracts that you agree on are written by their lawyers.  They're in fact valid, and just like you said, made to protect their own asses.  Which brings us to this here argument... For which all your silly points have been made moot. There was no case.   Now that all is said and done, you can complain all you want and find delusional reasons to think that the judge wasn't quialifed for that case and whatnot (like you know any better, ha ha).  In the end, as the judge concluded, and which was really easy to guess for most who followed the story a wee bit, Sony did win by default.

It doesn't go any simpler than that.