There isn't much to add here, I completey agree; SONY should withdraw from this case and restore functionality that was unjustly taken from consumers who invested their money into the PS3.
I should also add, hoping someone reads this post, I would recommend using Aristotle & Thomas Aquinas's views to defend Hotz actions; in which the interior and exterior acts of this situation were both good. The intentions in which Geo Hot committed his action were towards a noble cause, restoring core functionality of the PS3. The end in which he achieved was the release to the public of extending the limitations of their hardware for the happiness of others. Are we not allowed to buy after Market parts for our vehicles do get features that the stock manufacture don't provide? Can our parents prevent us from being who we want to be (assuming you're not a child)? Can the constitution not be made against Britain's wishes? The logistics of SONY's views are troubling, and sadly they're not alone in their mode of thinking. I believe it was not too long ago where Apple filed a court motion order against the legality of jailbreaking/unlocking "their" iDevices. Too what extent do the things we purchase we actually own?
I want to help in this trial and support Geo Hot in any way I can. If for some reason Geo Hotz' layers or Geo Hot himself reads this, contact me @ email@example.com I will help in anyway I'm capable.