| Hynad said:
It doesn't go any simpler than that. |
So what exactly did Sony "win"? For those who ACTUALLY followed the story, the case was dismissed on base of lack of evidence, not for the fact that the judge took a look at this tripe of a license agreement.
The fact of the matter is, if evidence is found that keeping OtherOS on hinders the console's main ability to play newer games, then there will most likely be a retrial n this matter (see the ruling by the judge, that the conclusion was that Sony have every right to keep others off PSN, which I agree with. However, limiting purchased consoles from their main purpose of playing ANY games offline was something he didn't take into consideration).
Lawyers can write any old crap on paper and call it legal. Keep in mind that these are the same people who try to persuade judge/jury in their direction EVEN IF they know they're in the wrong. So using this ethos argument is pointless.
I fail to see the logic how you're cheering on how a big multinational conglomerate screws some of their legitimate buyers. Are you really THAT far behind such a company? What's your opinion on Lik Sang? What about the rootkit incident? Then again, I shouldn't be suprised. After all, I'm talking to someone who believes a good first contact involves spamming insulting messages on one's wall....







