Judge Dismisses 'Other OS' Class-Action Suit Against Sony

An anonymous reader writes "You may recall that in early 2010, Sony decided to roll out an update that would remove the ability for PlayStation 3 owners to install a different operating system on the console, citing security concerns as the reason. Geeks and Linux enthusiasts were outraged at the move, particular since the "Other OS" functionality had been advertised as a feature of the PS3. A class-action lawsuit was soon brought against Sony. Many of the initial claims were thrown out, and now, a federal judge in California has granted Sony's motion to dismissed the lawsuit, saying, 'As a matter of providing customer satisfaction and building loyalty, it may have been questionable. As a legal matter, however, plaintiffs have failed to allege facts or articulate a theory on which Sony may be held liable.' Here's the full text of the order (PDF)."

Comments

It could be corruption.

[syousef]

Sony advertised this as a specific feature of the platform. They then took it away (or took away other abilities if you chose to keep that one). How the hell could the case be dismissed?

It could be corruption. I'm not alleging it here, just speculating, for fear of being sued by Sony. Even though based on this judgement I should be able to allege whatever I like then take away that feature at a whim. Sony may or may not own one or more judges. Or alleged judges as the case may be.

Ipso facto ergo proctor hoc hoc dibildy do be do shebop. "Like a milking stool, my case rests on three legs". I am the law.

Re:And the USAF

[LocalH]

END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT ("EULA") FOR COMMENT POSTED BY LOCALH (SLASHDOT UID 28506)
By loading this comment into your computer's memory via any means, you agree to privately contact LocalH ("me") to arrange payment of $10,000,000 in unmarked bills or 99.999% pure gold (or any combination thereof), in person and by yourself, with no hidden surveillance devices or contact with any outside individual (children under the age of 5 are exempted, so that you may care for them if necessary during our transaction). Failure to do so is a violation of this EULA. The transaction shall be videotaped by me to ensure your compliance with the terms found within EULA. You shall also agree to waive your right and/or ability to initiate any recovery proceedings against me, including but not limited to arbitration, lawsuit, theft, and/or murder. You shall also agree to securely erase any evidence of our transaction from your possession in any form whatsoever, using industry-standard secure wiping technology. If you violate this EULA in any way, you shall be liable for an additional $10,000,000 for each individual violation, payable in unmarked bills or 99.999% pure gold (or any combination thereof). Violations of this EULA shall also entitle me to have sexual intercourse with any female related to you (females under the age of consent in your jurisdiction are exempt to prevent violation of the law), with or without protection, at my discretion. This may be waived if you are female, and if I desire sexual intercourse with you. Failure to comply with the sexual intercourse term of this EULA will entitle me to have a forcible orgy with all of your sisters (or cousins if you are an only child).

COMMENT
It's not illegal to flash CFW at all, certainly not if you're the USAF and Sony sends you official CFW.

Or are you one of the people who equate "EULA-violating" with "illegal"? If so, then it's illegal not to send me my ten million bucks, damnit. You better hope your sister's hot, for your sake (and your cousins' sakes).