Quote:
Originally Posted by streetfighter 2
Here's the tl;dr from Groklaw.
Sony is being charged with violating § 1030(a)(5)(A)(i):
Pursuant to subsection (B) that damage must also result in:
The court's ruling states:
Sony then made a motion to strike because they did not believe plaintiff defined an appropriate class (AKA the group of people negatively effected by 3.21 firmware). The motion will not be granted.
I did a quick google search and the statue of limitations is either 2 or 5 years for the section of the CFAA in question. |
Even if it turns out that removing a feature from PS3 WAS in fact covered by the license agreement, I think there are still limits on what sorts of provisions can be enforced.
IIRC, you can put pretty much whatever you want in a contract's "boilerplate" language (what most would call the fine print). However what provisions are enforceable is another matter - especially when you have a so-called agreement that is for all intents and purposes one-sided. It's one thing to enforce a provision in a negotiated contract and quite another to enforce one in a consumer contract that is really a take it or leave offer. I know that in NJ this makes a difference (on due process grounds IIRC) but not so sure about the feds.