Re: Odd judgment
Not really, the court is saying you can't sue someone for not doing something in the future. You have to wait until they have failed to do the thing you want to sue them for. This seems reasonable to me. All the judge has said is wait for a required update to not be provided, and then we can discuss suing companies or people.
The other thing I think the court is saying, which is also I suspect is reasonable, is that security updates should be provided, but not "feature updates". Now, due to the way the ecosystem works, it may well be easier for a provider of updates to simply provide everything then it would be to separate the two, but that's not relevant to the legal principles.
I'm also curious as to who, technically, is on the hook for the updates anyway. It's quite possible that Samsung have no contract with the end users so are an uninvolved third party as far as the law is concerned.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
