Yes, you find that by teading over personal property rights, ANYONE can make more money, not just Sony. The right question is, what right do they have to do this in the first place? Nintendo and Microsoft both abide by personal property laws, why can't Sony? Are you really that much of a fanboy to say that Sony deserves a legal upper hand in making a profit? This is supposed to be a level playing field here. What you're defending is corporate cherrypicking.

Okay. Define "being reasonable". Would you sacrifice BluRay playback if Sony said the next day that they have to remove it, as hackers found a way around that? What if they disabled your USB ports?

They don't tell you how to use anything, but they give you a path in which you lose either way. In the car scenario, that's like giving them the option to drive however you like, but doing so means the transmission no longer works. Yeah....you're free to choose. Sony is giving you what I call a "childish hypothetical".

"Would you prefer to have your teeth smashed in with a hammer or get rusty nails stuck in your hands or feet?"

Hurry up and make a decision, already! You're free to choose, after all...

so its justifiable for nintendo to make promises  ( that as you say may sway customer interest ) and then never deliver on them... 

so if i went into a shop tommorow and bought a wii expecting that the peripheral that i saw in a big nintendo announcement would eventually add to my gaming experience but it never happens

is comparable to sony not mentioning other os in any ads or announcements except on a few sites affilitated with linux and a couple interviews lol

edit: the thing is i don't even get how i got this far into a discussion about other os advertising as there actually wasn't any give me a sticker on the console or the box or a tv announcement and i'd agree with you but i don't consider stuff like siny's slogan for their time in the industry and a couple interviews to qualify as advertising for a major feature

Hence the "lack of evidence" conclusion. Sony weren't found innocent. They were found "not guilty".

So with this in mind (that it was only PSN they were defending), why is Sony defending a roundabout way of enforcing security on it's online service? Why not just enforce more security measures on the online service?

That could be discuss, the judge even said that on a consumer service basis it wasnt necessarily a good decision, I agree. But, its obviously not as bad as some want it to be ;).

As far as its concerned the case was thrown out. Sony isnt teading on personal propierty rights thats the way you take it.

1. OtherOS was a rarely used feature and blueray playback/usb ports are not. 2. Sony has to face the reaction for removing a feature that everyone uses. Would I be pissed if they removed a feature like that? Yes  Is it the same as removing a underused feature in order to protect themselve? No and thats the relm of reason. People blew this issue out of the water even if they didn't use linux on ps3. Legit users have a right to be pissed but they had a choice to keep it. 

2. Accutally they gave you the choice to keep your oh so important feature or use there FREE service that they dont have to offer in the first place and since its obv. the better choice people picked it instead and then complained about OtherOS.

Your expression is that of 2 negatives. This is a situation of picking OtherOS or a free service. 

"just enforce more security measures on the online service?"

hackers can't find a way around that right?

wasn't the gaming network thought of as the best and most secure ( steam ) hacked just a short while ago?...

furthermore you're forgetting to mention that one of the issues involved here wasn't just PSN but also the exploits allowing for piracy that were spread by geohot, that is an unrelated issue to PSN that had to be dealt with

Nope. I'd call you stupid for buying a console before the release of the peripheral you were seeking.

Once again, OtherOS was THERE. It had already released. Had this been a peripheral that Nintendo put on the market and took away later, I;d be equally as pissed.

Also, the whole advertising thing does come with conditions. One of those prohibits "misleading" but that's only on the case that, in terms of Kinect features, they never released a press statement that the features were taken away, so you bought it expecting those features to be included.

See how it works?

Fordy, do all of us a favor by fighting the "good fight" by suing Sony. Keep up posted, and let us know what happens.

If you really believe that ANY system is hack-proof, you're living in a dreamland.

The rule is "nothing is hack-proof, but we can't make it a damn sight harder for them TO hack it"

Therefore, this whole defending trampling of personal property rights is moot in itself. You can bolt a system down as much as you want on both sides. It still wont be hack-proof. Sony could do a damn sight more in terms of server-side security, but they prefer to trample on personal property rights because it's cheaper. That's how the corporate machine works!

The spreading of the new firmware by geohot is a completely seperate case, but are you implying that without OtherOS, Geohotz firmware CAN'T be installed? I'm pretty sure all you need is a brand new PS3 and an IP entry in your hosts DNS resolution file on a PC. OtherOS is not needed, so disabling it is not going to stop anything.

No. At the root of the matter we're still talking about circumventing DRM for the purposes of redistribution, which is not the case in homebrew cracking. That is merely the matter of hobbyists utilizing their private property as they see fit. Now, if they end up pirating materials because of that, it's on the rightful owner of the material to take action against them for that infraction, but Sony can't just take shortcuts in that matter. Not when consumer rights are at stake