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.

Now Kevin Butler should definately do a cover version of "You can't touch this"

Yes cause clearly the ps3 has not been hacked. People can no longer hack their ps3's. And piracy is no longer a problem for Sony. You can't touch that.

no, because it would be funny

why didnt they just bury him?  He had already committed the "crime"...  

If their case was watertight there is no way they would have compromised...  why would they?  for what?

A private settlement can't make a ruling for anyone but the parties involved. Nor can they used any of collected data beyond the scope of what the courts allowed, which was only to establish location of alleged activity.

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???

Although I partly agree with what you're saying (removal of features sucks somewhat), don't you think it's unreasonable for a company to support and maintain something from purchase date to some unspecified date approaching infinity?