I think the lawyers representing the plaintiff were paid off by the defendent to throw the case on a class action so that nobody could ever sue again on this issue.
Sony's true victory is whipping up a lovely FUD laced batch of koolaid that the gaming crowd drank down that plastered the hacker crowd as nothing but a pack of cheaters and pirates that flat out DESERVES to get screwed by Sony.
Defending folks like Geohot is the fastest way to make your own name absolute mud.
This is covered by the "bend over and take it in the ass" clause that says that rich corporations are immune to all accountability for their actions unless taken to task by another rich corporation.
An 800 pound gorilla is only going to be stopped by a 900 pound gorilla.
And thanks to a combination of res judicata and the fact that it was a class action lawsuit, now NOBODY can sue over it later because the plaintiffs screwed up by not bringing it up at trial when they could have.
The reasoning used was that the PSN TOS gave Sony the right to unilaterally exclude them from it from the getgo which in turn makes the so called Hobson's choice a non issue.
Unfortunately the issue of losing access to new games was something that the plaintiffs could have raised at trial and failed to do so, so by CFR they can't ever do so in the future.
And since it was a class action suit, the plaintiffs shot *everyone* in the foot.
I love how the judge only cited the fact that you lose access to Sony's PSN, and conveniently leaves out the loss of play of blu-ray and new games that require OtherOS shunning firmware versions.
The judge pretty much applied the PSN TOS to everything else that keeping your firmware will stop.
Hint: New games and new blu-ray movies aren't subject to the PSN TOS
Economic darwinism favors companies that can gain an advantage and not get punished for it.
Honest companies don't survive long, and the so called regulators have more to gain by colluding with the private sector than they do with doing their job.
If you want stronger regulation you have to beef up government enough to stand up against the companies you want them to regulate.
1) Your competitors want you at least as dead as you want them, considering that big egos are usually the ones to rise to leadership positions in a business. 2) Corporations have an obligation to maximize profits for their shareholders, and if that means throwing you under the bus to do it, so be it. Any corporation that fails to stab you in the back will get nailed by its shareholders 3) Harmony is illegal under federal anti-trust regulations
Slashdot Mirror
The sad thing is that if EVERYONE gave up their secret sauce you'd have an army of chefs improving it into perfection.
The problem with utopias is that they are fragile.
All it takes is one maverick defecting against everyone else to turn a utopia into an oppressive monopoly.
And yet trade secrets are just like patents and copyrights in that their main purpose is to keep the competition out in the cold.
Companies that reject the GPL are doing so out of spite for end user freedom, or fear of same from competitors.
It might if said third party qualified as an agent of youtube.
I'd say it's evil to be too nice to survive and let nastier companies take your place in the market.
If it targets classified information it won't.
I think the lawyers representing the plaintiff were paid off by the defendent to throw the case on a class action so that nobody could ever sue again on this issue.
Sony's true victory is whipping up a lovely FUD laced batch of koolaid that the gaming crowd drank down that plastered the hacker crowd as nothing but a pack of cheaters and pirates that flat out DESERVES to get screwed by Sony.
Defending folks like Geohot is the fastest way to make your own name absolute mud.
This is covered by the "bend over and take it in the ass" clause that says that rich corporations are immune to all accountability for their actions unless taken to task by another rich corporation.
An 800 pound gorilla is only going to be stopped by a 900 pound gorilla.
And thanks to a combination of res judicata and the fact that it was a class action lawsuit, now NOBODY can sue over it later because the plaintiffs screwed up by not bringing it up at trial when they could have.
You must be part of the other 99 percent.
They were jerks for making a promise and then using legal wrangling to cover up their blatantly ass covering clawback.
Saying "Screw the 1 percent because they don't even matter" is very clearly a case of tyranny of the majority.
The reasoning used was that the PSN TOS gave Sony the right to unilaterally exclude them from it from the getgo which in turn makes the so called Hobson's choice a non issue.
Unfortunately the issue of losing access to new games was something that the plaintiffs could have raised at trial and failed to do so, so by CFR they can't ever do so in the future.
And since it was a class action suit, the plaintiffs shot *everyone* in the foot.
I love how the judge only cited the fact that you lose access to Sony's PSN, and conveniently leaves out the loss of play of blu-ray and new games that require OtherOS shunning firmware versions.
The judge pretty much applied the PSN TOS to everything else that keeping your firmware will stop.
Hint: New games and new blu-ray movies aren't subject to the PSN TOS
It's difficult to cater to us smart folks when the idiots outnumber us a hundred to one.
Which is probably why the phrase "you get what you pay for" applies so well.
Being good is a competitive disadvantage in an environment full of crooks.
Getting stabbed in the back or kicked in the nuts is pretty nasty but it's also very effective.
I think the so called child might be rightly pissed that he's the only one that gets punished for it
Especially if his big brother gets off the hook because he bribed daddy to look the other way.
Economic darwinism favors companies that can gain an advantage and not get punished for it.
Honest companies don't survive long, and the so called regulators have more to gain by colluding with the private sector than they do with doing their job.
If you want stronger regulation you have to beef up government enough to stand up against the companies you want them to regulate.
Sparking a constitutional debate about the Posse Comitatus act: priceless
Giving your own work away for free wouldn't really hurt you that much if your competition followed suit.
Look up Hawk-Dove in game theory to see what I'm talking about.
If you use GPL at the least you get to copy it back again once *they* have improved it.
In theory anyway.
In reality, good luck surviving in court long enough to make a copyright infringement suit stick.
And then they make so much money raping your code that you go bankrupt before you can sue them for copyright infringement.
In theory the law is supposed to keep the GPL enforceable.
In practice if you're too broke to sue you're too broke to defend yourself.
The reason it makes good business sense to abuse copyrights and patents is in large part due to the fact that if you don't your competitors will.
The pie is going to be stolen by someone, and it may as well be you.
Unless of course you want to starve from lack of market share.
There are three reasons that harmony won't work:
1) Your competitors want you at least as dead as you want them, considering that big egos are usually the ones to rise to leadership positions in a business.
2) Corporations have an obligation to maximize profits for their shareholders, and if that means throwing you under the bus to do it, so be it. Any corporation that fails to stab you in the back will get nailed by its shareholders
3) Harmony is illegal under federal anti-trust regulations