Sony's awesome freakout over folks "hacking" their PS3 product to return the functionality they originally advertised, but then retroactively took away, has been a long and often times hilarious saga. That said, all that freaking out occurred when the PS3 was still in its prime. Now that the console, while still the latest generation of Sony gaming console on the market, is clearly in its twilight years, it will be interesting to see how they react to what Sophos is reporting -- the Playstation 3 being "hacked for good".

The PS3 has been hacked before, but Sony was able to inhibit the hack with an update to its own firmware. This is much like the history of jailbreaking on Apple's iOS, where hackers typically uncover a security vulnerability and exploit it, whereupon Apple patches the hole and suppresses the jailbreak.

But the latest PS3 break is being dubbed unpatchable and the final hack. That's because this hack isn't giving you an exploit to use against a programming hole. It's giving you Sony's so-called LV0 (level zero) cryptographic keys.

If true, the war is over and Sony lost. Hacker collective, the Three Musketeers, reportedly figured this all out some time ago, but now the LV0 keys have been leaked and it's open season on jailbreaking your PS3 (assuming you're technical enough to implement it). And, while it would be very easy to sit back and comment gleefully on the wonderful spirit of curiosity that propels this kind of work, and to likewise point out the futility of stopping people from tinkering with the products they legally bought, I find a different point more compelling.

Quite simply, this war that Sony lost did not need to be fought. They advertised a feature and it was only the subsequent and unilateral removal of that feature, which many customers very much wanted, that created all of this controversy. Without that removal, how much litigation money does Sony save? Without being anti-consumer, how much ill-will do they avoid? And all of that to fight a battle that, not only did they lose, but that they had to know they were overwhelmingly likely to lose over the long haul. Sophos touches on this point in hoping for a different approach in the future.

Let's hope, when the PS4 comes out, that Sony will give up on trying to lock out jailbreakers permanently, and instead provide a way for those who want to run alternative software to do so in official safety.

When King Cnut famously ordered the tide back and failed, he wasn't an arrogant absolute ruler trying to show off. He knew he would fail, and thereby demonstrated that to hold back the tide was impossible - and, in any case, unnecessary - even for a king.

Once I got done snickering at the name King Cnut, I found the analogy perfectly fitting. Hopefully Sony will avoid this war entirely the next go around, though with their track record, I won't be holding my breath.

Last year, Sony removed the ability for all PS3 owners to install other operating systems onto its PS3 console. This came as a result of console modders attempting to use it as an avenue to jailbreak the console. As a result of the move, Sony received a lot of outrage from upset gamers. Part of this outrage was a class action suit brought on behalf of PS3 owners who felt they were cheated when they were forced to lose the OtherOS feature or lose the ability to access Sony's Playstation Network and the ability to play future games that require a connection and the latest firmware. Many gamers reacted as if this was little more than the gamer's version of 'Sophie's Choice'.

We now learn, via IGN, the presiding judge has dismissed the case against Sony. Back in February of this year, Judge Seeborg had dismissed all but one claim leaving the option for an amended complaint to be filed.

While it cannot be concluded as a matter of law at this juncture that Sony could, without legal consequence, force its customers to choose either to forego installing the software update or to lose access to the other OS feature, the present allegations of the complaint largely fail to state a claim. Accordingly, with the exception of one count, the motion to dismiss will be granted, with leave to amend.

The judge wasn't convinced by the latest amended complaint and has completely dismissed the case stating that the PS3 owners failed to convince him that they were entitled to the OtherOS feature or access to PSN outside the PS3's warranty period. That is an interesting point. Had the PS3's been within the warranty period, would this case have gone the other way? That is certainly something to consider. After all, the OtherOS feature was part of the whole PS3. However, even outside the warranty period, are we really to just accept it when a manufacturer deliberately disables a function?

Perhaps responding to just such concerns, Seeborg stated:

The dismay and frustration at least some PS3 owners likely experienced when Sony made the decision to limit access to the PSN service to those who were willing to disable the Other OS feature on their machines was no doubt genuine and understandable. As a matter of providing customer satisfaction and building loyalty, it may have been questionable.

A questionable move indeed. Sony may have dodged a legal bullet here, but the bullet of continued frustration that Sony customers have with this addition to many many questionable business decisions has hit it between the eyes. How much longer will Sony customers put up with this kind of abuse? What features will it cut next? While we don't know the answer to that, we do know one thing. Sony removed this functionality in order to prevent PS3 owners from jailbreaking it. However, if the EFF has its way this year, this dismissal will be moot.

The story of Sony suing Geohot for jailbreaking the PS3 got plenty of attention, and eventually ended in a settlement (with many people believing the press attention finally got to Sony). However, getting much less press attention is the fact that Sony continues to sue others who help people modify the Sony PS3. Sony has sued a guy in the UK for allegedly selling modchips, though the guy thinks it has more to do with the fact that he published a report highlighting technical problems with the PS3. After all, the lawsuit came just a day after a Sony exec wrote a memo complaining about the report. That seems like a pure case of a SLAPP suit, but the UK doesn't seem to have anti-SLAPP laws. For shame.

Meanwhile, a few folks have sent over news of Alexander Egorenkov, a German guy, also known as graf_chokolo, who published a guide to Sony's DRM system. Sony not only filed suit against him, but also had the police raid his home and seize his computers and electronics. Egorenkov claims he doesn't have the money for a legal fight and will likely end up in jail. All for what? For publishing info on Sony's PS3 so that buyers could make full use of the hardware they had purchased. Egorenkov recently commented on his own blog that even though he's probably going to jail, he's not going to be silenced, and plans to "continue" his work on such equipment after he gets out of prison.

In the meantime, what the hell is Sony thinking? Why is the company being so incredibly aggressive against anyone who wants to modify their (legally bought) hardware? Beyond the ridiculousness of the whole campaign, and the fact that it's pissing off tons of folks who might otherwise be fans of Sony equipment, doesn't Sony have better things to do these days? Its stock is falling. Its businesses aren't doing well. It can't seem to secure its own servers. And all it's doing is spending its time suing people for modding the PS3? Really?

There have been a bunch of stories about how Sony is finally bringing its PlayStation Network back online (though, the funniest headline I've seen is the BBC's which claims that Sony is "relaunching" the PSN, as if it's a marketing thing...). However, it appears that the gradual comeback is not coming to Japan just yet, as the government is not yet comfortable that Sony can really protect its users:

"We met with Sony on May 6 and 13, and basically we want two things from them," Kazushige Nobutani, director of the Media and Content Industry department at the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, told Dow Jones Newswires.

He listed two areas where it requires further explanation before approval will be given following the incidents regarding its PlayStation Network and Sony Online Entertainment videogame services.

"The first is preventative measures. As of May 13, Sony was incomplete in exercising measures that they said they will do on the May 1 press conference," he said, adding that he could not provide details on the outstanding issues for security reasons.

The second was in how Sony hoped to regain consumer confidence over personal data such as credit card information.

"There were similar cases in the past that were caused by other firms, and we are asking Sony whether their measures are good enough when compared to countermeasures taken in the past," he said.

As you may recall, Sony decided to delete its OtherOS feature on PlayStation 3 devices, despite it being a key selling point for many. It was a rude reminder that thanks to today's laws, sometimes you don't really own what you think you own. Of course this has also resulted in a class action lawsuit against Sony (and, less directly to Sony's legal attack on Geohot for restoring the feature). However, Slashdot points us to the news that the Finnish Consumer Complaints Board has said that Sony should pay 100 euros to a guy who complained about the deleted feature:

The CCB said that the removal of OtherOS crippled console features that were present at the time of purchase, and agreed that consumers should be compensated. It recommended that the manufacturer and seller of the console pay €100 jointly to compensate the man.

Unfortunately, it appears that the Consumer Complaints Board has no enforcement ability... but that its rulings are frequently used by courts in dealing with disputes. Thus, it seems that Finnish PS3 owners might want to see if they can start some sort of legal action to get their €100 back from Sony for taking away a key feature that was used in marketing the PS3.

When George Hotz (Geohot) settled the lawsuit Sony had filed against him for jailbreaking the PS3 in order to restore a feature that Sony had taken away (despite advertising it), many were upset. Part of the reason people were upset was that he had asked for donations, and insisted that he would fight Sony until the end. Those people wanted to know what would happen to the money they donated. Geohot has now said he's donating the remaining cash to the EFF, which hopefully will satisfy those who were upset over that aspect. As I said earlier, unless you've been subject to a lawsuit from a giant company, it's tough to sit there and criticize a guy for settling, rather than fighting to the end. The legal system is set up such that it's a stacked deck against the little guy, so as disappointing as it may be not to get a full ruling out of this, it's hard to fault Geohot.

Via Slashdot, comes the news that a bunch of George Hotz' (geohot) supporters are angry he decided to settle with Sony, as we recently discussed. Part of this is due to some of Geohot's own bluster during the lawsuit, including this statement:

"What if SCEA tries to settle? Let's just say, I want the settlement terms to include OtherOS on all PS3s and an apology on the PlayStation blog for ever removing it. It'd be good PR for Sony too, lord knows they could use it. I'm also willing to accept a trade, a legit path to homebrew for knowledge of how to stop new firmwares from being decrypted."

So, you can see why some may be upset that he didn't back that up. Others were more upset about the fact that they contributed money to his defense fund in the belief that he would fight the lawsuit. I can understand why some are angry, but I think it's tough for people who haven't faced a lawsuit to recognize the stress that being sued puts on a person. Even if I hope someone will often "fight the good fight" on a particular legal issue, it's usually difficult to fault an individual for settling if a reasonable opportunity presents itself. Yes, this will often prolong certain problems, but it's unfair to expect a single individual to take on a larger issue sometimes.

Sony has been getting widely slammed across the gaming and tech press for its bizarre and self-destructive lawsuit against George Hotz (Geohot), for jailbreaking the PS3 in order to re-enable a feature that Sony had long-advertised, but then deleted off of people's existing PS3s. The entire lawsuit made little sense, and Sony's quixotic attempt to continue to pursue it just got more and more bizarre, with the company even seeking and gaining access to the IP addresses of people visiting his website or watching the YouTube video he put up. However, it appears that the two sides have now settled their lawsuit, with Geohot agreeing to an injunction of some sort that apparently bars him from helping make PS3s more valuable in the future. Congrats, Sony, you've made your gaming devices less valuable. Quite a legal "victory" there...

Sony continues its crazy, pointless and damaging attack on George Hotz (Geohot), the guy who jailbroke the PS3 to add back in functionality that Sony itself used to offer, but disabled. The latest move is to accuse him of skipping the country to South America, implying he took money raised in donations to flee. Geohot has responded by noting that it's Spring break and he's on a vacation that he planned months ago. Sony also freaked out about the computer equipment that Hotz recently was forced to hand over, saying that it had been sabotaged by Hotz. The company claimed that Hotz had "removed integral components." However, Geohot's lawyer pointed out that Sony was completely overreacting, noting that the hard drives just didn't have the controller cards attached, which is hardly sabotaging the drives.

It looks like Sony's quixotic strategy of suing George Hotz (Geohot) for jailbreaking the PS3 is starting to cost the company in additional ways as well. Todd McDermid points us to the news of how another hacker, Koushik Dutta, who has quite a strong reputation in various circles, has rejected overtures from Sony PlayStation division for a job specifically because of Sony's attack on Geohot: It seems likely that the lawyers and execs at Sony who thought this whole legal strategy was a good idea didn't think through some of the consequences of their actions in terms of attracting new talent.