Lord Ciansworth said:
B) I don't know if things would work out quite as black and white as all that. C) Nobody, least of all me, is trying to argue it's a blanket legal defense. It certainly would not be a defence in the scenario you outlined. In the instance I referred to, however, it does offer them some legal protection. EULAs, after all, do exist for a reason and are not completely devoid of legal standing, as some would argue. |
B) Sony seemed to think so, regardless I think it pretty clearly disproves "no court would rule agains them." A lot of these areas of legal framework have no concrete precedents or rulings for a reason. Corporations don't want them to and will always settle because a judgement may help them in one case, but screw them in the next.
It's just like all the ridiculious patent jousting companies do.
C) Not in the way your thinking.
What saved them protection was that the changes were outlined and the person had the ability to click yes or no.
Had sony exercised their right to "change anything" by just changing it through an automatic patch... they probably would of lost.