Originally Posted by Vhati
there is a slight problem with that though. eula is not valid if you are forced to purchase the product first.
When you buy something, if they want to restrict what you do with it, it must be written and displayed prior to purchase.
Mmmmm actually, the PS3's terms of agreement are certainly on many Sony pages and are very easy to find. If you disagree with them, don't buy a PS3. In addition, when you sign up for a PSN account, you agree to a totally different agreement, being for the use of PSN.
I completely agree with the MOBILE PHONE jailbreak exemption, and it doesn't even benefit me as I use Android and can install any third party app I please thanks to Android being open source. I completely DISAGREE with the PS3 "jailbreak" (it's not a jailbreak) and it DOES benefit me because I can pirate apps. I still lol so hard when I see so many people defending this. You folks are so blind at the differences between jailbreaking a measly phone and tearing up the security encryption of a PS3. The strongest argument everyone had against Apple's defense is that the iPhone was locked to only one carrier, which "we" (Apple sheep) should not be forced to be on as that is monopolistic. We should have the ability to unlock the phone to be activated with any carrier we please, especially if the phone is sold unsubsidized. The PS3 isn't the same situation AT ALL. You can use any valid qualified internet provider to use the PS3's online capabilities.
That being said, the iOS jailbreak exemption needs to be reviewed and re-approved every 3 years. Don't be too comfortable that Geo succeeded; the exemption isn't permanent.Edited by Stealth Pyros - 2/21/11 at 7:37am