OSNews

I don't have much knowledge about the US laws, but the little understand I have is that you can't go to jail in a civil case, only in a criminal case, and this is a civil case.

As for the rest: I doubt this 'blickmanic' is really Hotz, but I suppose it remains to be really confirmed one way or the other. If it is then it might seriously undermine Hotz's defence, and if it isn't then it will again place some mistrust towards Sony's claims and will undermine their credibility.

I just wish this was over with already, it is such an important court case and a whole LOT of US consumer rights hang in the balance. The precedent set will have very far-reaching consequences and given how little faith I have in the US courts I fear the result.

They do make some nice hardware, apart from a few models in the Vaio laptop series over the years. In years past I was particularly fond of their consumer stereo equipment.

But how is it stupid to choose not to buy from a company that has proven over and over that they will attack customers who dare exercise full ownership of their hardware?

No, I'd say it's quite smart to avoid buying from such a company, since they are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to go after one man for having the gall to try and restore features they had previously marketed and then removed from the system.

As others have said, companies like Apple, Microsoft and Oracle have done some crappy things, but nothing like Sony is doing by directly targeting their own customers for daring to want their device to work as well as it did at purchase time. It's preposterous and bordering on insane, and hopefully the courts will realize that.

In the meantime, I and others like me will continue to buy products from Sony's competitors, as is our right.

So far, the unpleasant consequences appear to be for Sony.

For the most part, George has been experiencing a huge amount of public support from hackers, copyright reform organizations, and consumer advocates alike.

Sony has gotten little more than "Yeah, go get him!" from a bunch of teenagers whining about PSN cheaters, and negative publicity from tech blogs everywhere.

At least, that's how it seems to me, but maybe that's just my semi-biased experience

Blah... for every piece of Sony hardware you would argue is "very nice" there are likely several examples of "truly excellent" hardware in the same class by Sony's competitors. And their competitors have so far demonstrated that they will not sue you for using their products as you see fit after buying it from them and having it in your own possession.

It's not like I have to go out of my way to avoid Sony. Their competitors have *always* left me with better choices in products; even if you took the brand name off of everything to remove all traces of bias against Sony, the choice would be clear.

Edited 2011-03-24 21:31 UTC

This is just a sign to others what messing with big corporations business could lead to unpleasant consequencies [sic].

And we should be comfortable with this and ignore it, how? Not giving Sony money is the only way we can signal to Sony that we don't like what they are doing right now.

I bought a Playstation 3 Slim, well before this farce began. I knew what I was signing up for, but I wasn't planning on using the machine for anything else than singleplayer gaming and streaming media to it. So I wasn't hit with the OtherOS debacle. (I use a very nice AMD rig for my Linux needs.)

Given the recent crusade Sony has made against hacker Geohot, who just had the mere audacity to expose Sony's dirty laundry in security design, I'll have to consider if I'll be morally able to buy a PS4.

I might just cut my losses and reinvest in a next-gen XBox, when PS3 reaches EOL. As despicable as MS has acted at times, they never fried their own customers.

"Sony does some very nice hardware and it is really stupid to ignore it just because you hate Sony legal practices."

What do you think funds the legal practices?

Buying Sony products, supports and premotes their legal actions. It's voting with your wallet. "hurray Sony.. go sue your comter base, i'm with you.. here's more of my money to put towards your consumer hostile efforts.

The purpose of a boycot would be to show dis-satisfaction with the company's products and/or policies. In this case, the issue is not a dangerous product being boycotted until the company delivers a safe product but a company's revenue stream being boycotted until they deliver more rational corporate policy and behavior. At minimum, until they recognize and respect valid consumer rights of ownership.

I personally don't like how Apple does business and won't premote how they do business by buying their products. The products are well done and the company policies are indirectly related to the product but buying the product premotes and supports the undesirable policies. I'll vote with my wallet and reward companies who are less consumer hostile (ie. show more respect for owner's property rights).

Edited 2011-03-25 13:33 UTC

What good is quality hardware if I can't use it the way I want?