Sony PS3 'Other OS' dismissed, Judge cites no proof Sony violated ToS

[actuarial]

No, they have no such right. When you sign a contract to rent an apartment, are you forbidden from renting any other place for that year? As long as you pay your contract fee each month, what's done with the phone should be up to the user.

What does renting another place have to do with it? No phone company stops you from having two phones with different carriers.

When you rent an apartment, you may or may not be allowed to have pets. You may or may not be allowed to have additional roommates. You may or may not be allowed to make structural changes. All of those things should be outlined in your tenants agreement.

A seller can put any restriction they want on their product as long as they outline those restrictions before selling it to you. You don't have to purchase it. There should be some exceptions for things that can be considered utilities, though.

 

[Bateluer]

Fixed title.

And Linux use on the PS3 had nothing to do with piracy.

 

[Beev]

I really don't care if a manufacturer removes a barely used feature. You can say it "sets a bad precedent" all you want, but it's not like manufacturers are going to remove any sort of normal functionality from their products. People who bought a PS3 for Linux support bought a PS3 for the wrong reasons.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Yes, you could have declined the update, and then lost the ability to use PSN and PS3 games? Judge Seeborg doesn't seem very well versed on technology.

Well-versed in technology or not, the fact is that Judge Seeborg is well-versed in the law. Legally speaking, he made the only correct decision. The law as it stands affords no other answer. Full stop.

ZV