[sorghum]

This bit in particular disturbs me:

>> First, the PS3 System consists of a “protected computer” because it is used in interstate commerce (e.g., the Internet.) Second, without SCEA’s authorization, Defendants intentionally accessed certain levels of the PS3 Systems by circumventing SCEA’s TPMs in the PS3 Systems. Defendants’ access to such levels in the PS3 Systems is not authorized; to the contrary, the PlayStation Network Terms of Service and User Agreement (“PSN User Agreement”) prohibits the circumvention of security features in the PS3 System.

It looks like there is a legal definition of a "protected computer" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_computer), but I can't imagine it was ever intended to apply to one's own computer. Furthermore, how is the PlayStation Network user agreement relevant here? You don't have to agree to anything to buy a PS3, only to use the optional PSN service.

[pyre]

It sounds like they are grasping for straws with that claim. I think that it's likely to get thrown out. If it doesn't get immediately tossed out, or at least defeated in court, then it would be time to worry.

[allwein]

They're also failing to grasp that "protected computer" is an instance attribute, and not a class attribute.