Well he did agree to not hack other Sony products.  Or not hack sony products without there permission anyway.  Who knows, maybe he got permission.  Rest of the terms are private.

Hence why he's joining the boycott i'd imagine.  Why buy something you can't fully utliize.

Though yeah, nothing would stop him from buying a sony product.

Oh, and here is one where it shows the conflict of interest.

http://exophase.com/22299/sony-believes-otheros-plaintiffs-involved-in-hacking-conspiracy-wants-to-inspect-hard-drives/

Baffling is why Sony is interested in "Air Force"... and Immigration?

Didn't he donated all that left overs to charity?

With out this going to trial nothing has changed though. Sony did not get away with bulltying the little guy. In fact it was the opposite. They showed how weak their hand was. They showed they knew they would not win, why else would they settle. It makes no sense for them to settle unless they thought they would of lost and set a precednt that would of hurt them. If anything this encourages the next hacker to push it farther (assuming they can raise the funds). I stand at my point, nothing has changed for anyone. We will see a similar case to this with another device. Apple tried they lost. Sony tried they settled. who is next? MS, nintendo, nokia? Could be anybody. And Geohot did not win either.

I was being sarcastic sorry. All of the sony supporters seem to think he is just having a party with the donation money. I thought you were being sarcastic too. Maybe my meter is broken :)

Edit: after rereading i guess you probably meant the lawyers of each side made out with big pay checks. I agree they did!

Put it this way:

You can cheerfully put a bullet through your PS3. (as long as it's done in a proper, safe environmet preferably one designated as a shooting range or similar)

However, you're not allowed to shoot someone elses PS3 unless you're entitled to do so.

The software on the PS3 does not belong to the buyer of the PS3 system (it only contains a licenced copy of the software for limited use).

As the software does not belong to the buyer, are they not entitled to "put a bullet" through it as GeoHot did?

That is, I think what the courts were going on about, and from what I've seen of the settlement, it turns out that (in that jurisdiction where the court was held at least) the buyer is not entitled to do what GeoHot did to the software. (that would probably have been the finding so Hotz folded)

but yeah, I agree that the lawyers actually scored more than anyone else from this

From the first article:

"For example, when discussing the motion to strike, Sony spoke first, and here's the interchange with the judge:

MS. SACKS: Nothing that is alleged anywhere in the complaint says anything about the duration, the longevity of the time in which the other OS function or, for that matter, any particular aggregate of features of the PS3 would be available.

THE COURT: Why then are we making the assumption that it must terminate at a certain point?

They're saying it's an ongoing representation; that without any termination date that you will always have the OS function. You're saying, well, they are not saying one way or the other what the time period is.

Why do we assume that it terminates?

MS. SACKS: Well, Your Honor, a manufacturer's obligation for anything having to do with a product itself is only defined by its express warranty, its express promises.

If SCEA, Sony, had said, "We guarantee that the other OS function would be supported," if they said, "We guarantee PlayStation Network access will always be available," anything about the duration, plaintiffs might have an argument. The only thing that Sony told anyone about the duration of any feature of the PS3 is what it said in the one year express limited hardware warranty. It said "one year."

And as the Daughtery case, as the Bardin case, and as subsequent federal court authorities have noted, where something arises after the duration of that promised one year, the purchaser can have no expectation.

So, Your Honor, if the purchaser can have no expectation of the PlayStation 3 functioning at all after the expiration of that one-year warranty, how can it somehow have a greater expectation about the availability of one feature? If SCEA cannot have liability under California law for the PS3 completely failing to perform after one year, how can it have liability for the fact that it does 99 percent of what it was advertised to do, and just not one?"

Did I read this wrong or are they saying that after 1 year you can no longer expect any feature to be available? So after 1 year I actually have no right to expect my PS3 to play games? The hell?

What am I missing???

I believe you read that correctly. Makes you wonder why so many people want Sony to own the products in their homes after they purchase them.

nope, your entirely right. Sadly people are blind and will think its a good thing PS3 owners get features removed.

Trophies, in-game menus, home, and the friends list can be removed now I guess. They are all over a year old now, so by Sony's logic they can expire and no one will care. I want them to test this theory.

After 1 year, it's just Sony being nice that your PS3 may continue to work. You should be nice to them in return :)