Why would medical scientists add themselves to the case?  I'll answer that.  They wouldn't.  If anyone was using the PS3 in a cluster, why would they upgrade?  Again, I'll answer, they wouldn't.  That's why Sony isn't getting sued by the US gov't for removing OtherOS, even when the Navy is using the PS3 in a cluster. 

The OtherOS case probably won't go anywhere.  You know why?  Sony didn't force you to remove the OtherOS in the first place.  They even put out announcements about what the new FW would do and even had you confirm it twice before it would even install.  In the end, YOU chose playing newer games and the PSN over PS3 Linux.  It was YOUR choice.

Er.  There is a thing called PS3's breaking down.

This is why the US Airforce said Sony removing Other OS was "Very disapointing" and they were aware of the lawsuit.

As for the "your choice"... ever hear of "Hobson's Choice."

Such a choice is actually illegal under consumer laws.

To quote the Other OS Lawsuit....

MR. PIZZIRUSSO: I am, Your Honor. It was a Hobson's choice. Either way, you lose functionality. You are going to lose features either way. And we said that's not a real choice.

Er.  There is a thing called PS3's breaking down.

This is why the US Airforce said Sony removing Other OS was "Very disapointing" and they were aware of the lawsuit.

As for the "your choice"... ever hear of "Hobson's Choice."

Such a choice is actually illegal under consumer laws.

To quote the Other OS Lawsuit....

MR. PIZZIRUSSO: I am, Your Honor. It was a Hobson's choice. Either way, you lose functionality. You are going to lose features either way. And we said that's not a real choice.

You can't sell someone an apple and an orange.  Then tell them they have to give one back.  Then claim it's ok because "It was their choice."

Hence why Sony isn't even trying to argue that.  They are trying to argue that the defendents shouldn't of had the expectation to play games that came out after their warranties were up, because after your warranty is up you can't even expect your console will work.

Its not that simple. Its fairly obvious that given how vocal Hotz and those in his corner have been, i mean the kid made a rap video and posted it on the internet, blogged about it had Anonymous making attmpts to hack and destroy all things Sony, that the "hacker community" was outraged, ready to fight, this was a violation of rights etc. on and on.....yet when push came to shove, when little George was facing the music he caved. End of story.

Youre talking about a huge multinational corperation that set out to show this hacking will not go unnoticed, they didnt set out to ruin this kids life or destroy him like you are leading on.

It seems  alot of people here get lost in the epeen pissing match of all or none from these forums. Like MUGEN ( I think) said they never intended to bury this kid, settling out of court is a "win" for Sony because it shows how quickly the vocal hacking community will crumble when push comes to shove, when they cant hide behind their forums and youtube videos, when they have to face grown ups in court, the legal system and be held accountable for their actions.

Its a "win" for Sony because now we have public record of a hacker who "did no wrong" in a lot of peoples eyes settling out of court because he knows damn well he did wrong, Sony wins because the point was made regardless of litigation precedent, now they dont come off as a huge corperation ruining a kids life over a matter which could be portrayed as "the man" hustling a kid. They got what they wanted, sans bad publicity, Hotz settling is admitted guilt in the court of public opinion......

Just like those aqful lawsuits of record companies sueing people who illegally download music for obscene amounts of money to "make a point" like you want....its not smart, it rubs people the wrong way and Sony gt what they wanted, they wanted him to back off, send a message they are paying attention and they were very succesful without looking like a trolling huge corperation coming down on some punk.

Its fairly obvious why this is a one sided settlement actually the more i type about it, some people just will not admit it because of the parties involved though, sadly.

Actually, I believe that would be called a Morton's Fork.  I don't claim to be a legal scholar, so what does the law say about those?

I don't think for a second that Sony's only objective was to stop one guy from hacking.

They wanted to prevent set precedent where if you hack, you will be punished. The problem with this settlement is that nobody got punished, unless you consider not using Sony products a punishment. I guess that's pushishment or a blessing depending on how you look at it.

But this case will do nothing to stop people from hacking in the future, so IMO the case is a loss for Sony.

Sony did not win

Geohot did not win

Consumers did not win

Nothing has changed really. Until the next case comes up it may or may not be legal to hack your own console.

Plus, the laywers pocketed the money.