• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Sony: geohot is altering evidence and fleeing to South America, Geohot: No I'm not

Zoe

Member
test_account said:
I thought the bill for getting the harddisks checked was at around $10.000.

It's $1500 per image, 2 images per drive. That's not including any costs of imaging the PS3's (for which I haven't seen any documentation) or billable hours.

The first $7000 of all TIG costs will be split between Sony and geohot, and then Sony will foot the remainder of the bill.

test_account said:
What is the worse thing that can happened to him if he loses this case?

Monetary hardships.
 

dogmaan

Girl got arse pubes.
Ultimoo said:
3Fjrd.gif

Get this shit out of these threads, the forced horse memes are very annoying.
 

Niblet

Member
Please tell me someone called out fellow GAF members for their bullshit? Some of you people seem to be on a damn witch hunt. The biases both for and especially against Hotz are really damn apparent in this thread. This has been the case in the previous threads as well. Many of you jumped on a weak enough piece of information and took to the streets with lit torches.
Layton says "Critical thinking is the key to success."
 

Curufinwe

Member
Niblet said:
Please tell me someone called out fellow GAF members for their bullshit? Some of you people seem to be on a damn witch hunt. The biases both for and especially against Hotz are really damn apparent in this thread. This has been the case in the previous threads as well. Many of you jumped on a weak enough piece of information and took to the streets with lit torches.
Layton says "Critical thinking is the key to success."

Be specific, instead of making bullshit blanket statements.
 

Niblet

Member
Curufinwe said:
Be specific, instead of making bullshit blanket statements.
What is not specific? Many people hold a bias for or against Hotz. This thread started with enough information for people to extrapolate upon, but not enough information for people to make informed, reasoned evaluations. Which is why we have statements such as this in the OP
chubigans said:
What a complete tool. Guess all those donations paid off for him! :p

It's easy to see why this would be the case, but it doesn't mean we can't hope for a higher level of evaluation and discourse. That is presuming that anyone is interested in useful discussion. Some people may just come in and look for any reason to post MLP gifs, so I'm not too sure.
 

Lain

Member
Ultimoo said:
http://i934.photobucket.com/albums/ad187/spyder2x/3Fjrd.gif

Adding anti-pony gaf to this thread ongoing debate can only raise the comedy factor. I hope more of these gifs will get in here.
 

toff74

Member
As much as a few of you here are 'after his head' i still pity the guy. And WTH is Sony actually trying to do to him? Prove a point?Scare the rest of his community? Whatever it is, its about time they just called it a day and give Geohot a quite a stern slap on the wrists (or offer him a job).

Sony is boring me now!
 

test_account

XP-39C²
Zoe said:
It's $1500 per image, 2 images per drive. That's not including any costs of imaging the PS3's (for which I haven't seen any documentation) or billable hours.

The first $7000 of all TIG costs will be split between Sony and geohot, and then Sony will foot the remainder of the bill.
Ah ok, i see, thanks for the info :)


Zoe said:
Monetary hardships.
I wonder how much money it could be.


plagiarize said:
and Doctor Acula is Dr Acula!
Lol, according to Whitepages.com there is actually one guy that is called Acula, would be cool if he was a doctor :)
 

Cheerilee

Member
test_account said:
When you say that Geohot has given up 2,000 sandwiches by himself, in what way do you mean? Just wondering :)
I meant he's already out-of-pocket $10,000 and climbing (roughly equivalent to 2000 x $5 lunches, whether it comes from one person or 2000 people). If someone donated $5 and wants to feel that Geohot is pulling his own weight, they can either already feel that, or they simply won't feel it unless Geohot never spends money on himself again.
 

darkpower

Banned
Well, Geohot may have just gotten a break from a rather awkward source.

Remember Melchiah's link about that quote concerning the OtherOS removal?

Well, so do the people in the class action lawsuit about OtherOS: http://ps3.ign.com/articles/115/1157475p1.html

An amended class action complaint filed against Sony Computer Entertainment America this month is claiming the company removed the 'Other OS' feature from the PlayStation 3 to save money and not for security reasons.

In March 2010, SCEA removed the Other OS feature due to "security concerns." The complaint says the statement is a "fabrication," saying SCEA gave those reasons as a pretext so it could argue the Warranty and Terms of Service allowed for the removal of the feature.
In reality, SCEI and SCEA removed this feature because it was expensive to maintain (as they previously admitted when the feature was removed from the "slim" models – but which they conveniently removed from SCEA's website); they were losing money on every PS3 unit sold (due to poor decisions in the planning and design of the Cell chip as noted above and given the PS3's extra features); SCEA needed to promote and sell games to make their money back on the loss-leading PS3 consoles (and there was no profit in users utilizing the computer functions of the PS3); and IBM wanted to sell its expensive servers utilizing the Cell processor (users could cluster PS3s for the same purposes much less expensively).

The complaint also says it's "virtually impossible" to use the 'Other OS' for piracy.

When the 'Other OS' feature is enabled, the software prevents the proper operation of the gaming feature to avoid allowing the features to interplay. In order for a hacker to pirate a game, it is necessary to perfectly emulate the operating system for which the game is designed, including the API, which is the interface for the game OS that supports all of the features of a game.

However, when the Other OS is in use, the API and other hardware features are blocked, including the graphics chip in the PS3, which makes it impossible to run a pirated game on the Other OS. As of January 2011, Sony had yet to identify a single instance in which someone used the Other OS to pirate protected content.
Last month, the court dismissed all but one claim from the original complaint filed in April 2010. The judge still allowed the plaintiff's "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act" claim because Sony could not show that its use of the firmware update to remove the 'Other OS' feature was authorized.

"Sony's actions are like a car manufacturer telling a buyer that it is going to remove the engine because it does not want to service the part anymore and then telling the consumer, 'tough luck, we are not going to give you a refund,'" said Co-Lead counsel James Pizzirusso of Hausfeld in a statement.

"This type of activity is exactly what our country's consumer protection laws were designed to protect against."

SCEA has until this Monday, March 28 to issue a response. A copy of the amended complaint can be seen here.

I was going to post this as a new thread, but I don't think I have enough posts to be able to make one just yet, so I'll just post this here since OtherOS was brought up here.
 

Canova

Banned
test_account said:
Ah ok, i see, thanks for the info :)



I wonder how much money it could be.



Lol, according to Whitepages.com there is actually one guy that is called Acula, would be cool if he was a doctor :)

at least Sony's legal bill that's one thing for sure PLUS a portion or the whole monetary damage that Sony asks (judge has to determine how much Sony deserves if they win)

that's on top of his own legal bill
 

mclem

Member
"Sony's actions are like a car manufacturer telling a buyer that it is going to remove the engine because it does not want to service the part anymore and then telling the consumer, 'tough luck, we are not going to give you a refund,'" said Co-Lead counsel James Pizzirusso of Hausfeld in a statement.

GAFfer confirmed.
 

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
There's a class action lawsuit over the removal of OtherOs? Really? I don't even know how to respond.
 

test_account

XP-39C²
ruby_onix said:
I meant he's already out-of-pocket $10,000 and climbing (roughly equivalent to 2000 x $5 lunches, whether it comes from one person or 2000 people). If someone donated $5 and wants to feel that Geohot is pulling his own weight, they can either already feel that, or they simply won't feel it unless Geohot never spends money on himself again.
Ah ok, like that, i understand :)


darkpower said:
Well, Geohot may have just gotten a break from a rather awkward source.

Remember Melchiah's link about that quote concerning the OtherOS removal?

Well, so do the people in the class action lawsuit about OtherOS: http://ps3.ign.com/articles/115/1157475p1.html

I was going to post this as a new thread, but I don't think I have enough posts to be able to make one just yet, so I'll just post this here since OtherOS was brought up here.
I dont know about the "due to cost" reason. I mean, Sony did indeed admit that they removed OtherOS from PS3 Slim due to costs, that is true, but i belive that is was due to new hardware design. I dont see how it would be a cost issue on older PS3 models.

About piracy and OtherOS, it was not about running pirated games through OtherOS as this article mentioned, it was about that OtherOS could be used to hack the PS3. Even Fail0verflow said in their presentation that they used Linux for hacking the PS3.
 

poppabk

Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
darkpower said:
Well, Geohot may have just gotten a break from a rather awkward source.

Remember Melchiah's link about that quote concerning the OtherOS removal?

Well, so do the people in the class action lawsuit about OtherOS: http://ps3.ign.com/articles/115/1157475p1.html
A lot of this doesn't make sense with respect to removing OtherOS from old PS3's though. There is no requirement for them to maintain otherOS so there would be no expense for them. As the update is optional there is no need for PS3's used in super computers to be upgraded anyway, so removal would not effect them at all.
The only two options I can see are that Sony were afraid of possible security breaches or they were just being dicks for the sake of it. Rolling out the patch would be more expensive than just leaving previous otheros installations alone.
 

test_account

XP-39C²
Canova said:
at least Sony's legal bill that's one thing for sure PLUS a portion or the whole monetary damage that Sony asks (judge has to determine how much Sony deserves if they win)

that's on top of his own legal bill
Yeah, it can be quite some money indeed. I wonder exactly how much we are talking about though, $50k? $100k?
 

heyf00L

Member
poppabk said:
A lot of this doesn't make sense with respect to removing OtherOS from old PS3's though. There is no requirement for them to maintain otherOS so there would be no expense for them. As the update is optional there is no need for PS3's used in super computers to be upgraded anyway, so removal would not effect them at all.
The only two options i can see are that Sony were afraid of possible security breaches or they were just being dicks for the sake of it. Rolling out the patch would be more expensive than just leaving previous otheros installations alone.
Maybe they were hoping some research assistant would invite some friends over for a PS3 LAN party in the PS3 cluster room, update all the PS3s, and therefore force the University (or whatever) to buy IBM servers instead.

I dunno, but the University I went to did buy a number of PS3s for Linux HA-OSCAR research.
 

itsgreen

Member
poppabk said:
A lot of this doesn't make sense with respect to removing OtherOS from old PS3's though. There is no requirement for them to maintain otherOS so there would be no expense for them. As the update is optional there is no need for PS3's used in super computers to be upgraded anyway, so removal would not effect them at all.
The only two options i can see are that Sony were afraid of possible security breaches or they were just being dicks for the sake of it. Rolling out the patch would be more expensive than just leaving previous otheros installations alone.

Well, no.

There are bound to be people who play games and use other OS.

If you want to continue playing (online) games u have to update the firmware.

And you can still play the games you own, but I don't buy a console for the games I own, but also for the games I will own. I can play in the future...
 

Ploid 3.0

Member
hayguyz said:
Did you know that Alucard is Dracula backwards?

Ok that just blew my mind kinda. I saw the Alucard name on people using Castelvania avatars and such but I never thought about reversing the name. With Castelvania SoTN having a reverse castle that's a nice touch.
 

darkpower

Banned
poppabk said:
A lot of this doesn't make sense with respect to removing OtherOS from old PS3's though. There is no requirement for them to maintain otherOS so there would be no expense for them. As the update is optional there is no need for PS3's used in super computers to be upgraded anyway, so removal would not effect them at all.
The only two options I can see are that Sony were afraid of possible security breaches or they were just being dicks for the sake of it. Rolling out the patch would be more expensive than just leaving previous otheros installations alone.

The problem extends from a few issues.

1. There was a guarantee that the fats would still have the OtherOS function (not sure if it was Sony or Red Hat that made that guarantee). It could've been Sony's way of getting out of that.
2. There could've still been evil costs there that Sony might've not wanted to pay up on.

All this leads up to them needing a way out of OtherOS, and them seeing what Hotz and co. did led them to the idea of making them out to be the scapegoats so they can get out of something that would've been, to them, too expensive to do while grandstanding for those that would never question Sony on anything they do.

That's what this lawsuit is saying, anyway. I think they have a case now, if they didn't before. That quote is going to be hard to try to explain off because it seemed as though their reasons changed between when they launched the slim to when they removed it from the fats.
 

Zoe

Member
Finally found the TIG protocols for his drives:

http://groklaw.net/pdf2/SonyvHotz-98-3.pdf

So the PSN access they're looking for is logging into the Playstation website. Eh... I'm sure there are plenty of PS3 owners here who have never done that.


poppabk said:
A lot of this doesn't make sense with respect to removing OtherOS from old PS3's though. There is no requirement for them to maintain otherOS so there would be no expense for them. As the update is optional there is no need for PS3's used in super computers to be upgraded anyway, so removal would not effect them at all.
The only two options I can see are that Sony were afraid of possible security breaches or they were just being dicks for the sake of it. Rolling out the patch would be more expensive than just leaving previous otheros installations alone.

Well they did say it was for security reasons.

If they had left in OtherOS, they would have had to keep patching up any holes hackers would find. Sony would have to prove that the costs of maintaining future security patches would be too burdensome.
 

darkpower

Banned
Zoe said:
If they had left in OtherOS, they would have had to keep patching up any holes hackers would find. Sony would have to prove that the costs of maintaining future security patches would be too burdensome.

According to the dockets, though, the "cost" was "too high" for them to begin with. The guarantee to keep off the fat OOS seemed to be hard to get out of without a clever excuse.

Thing is, though, Sony is trying to get this case completely dismissed as a frivolous suit or something. They've tried every trick in the book to do so.

I read somewhere that Sony is having a hard time keeping their stories straight between the OOS class action and their own suit on Hotz. They say one thing in one case, then in the other case, say the exact opposite thing ( http://www.groklaw.net./article.php?story=20110218181557455 ).

So yeah, they should think about being careful here about painting themselves into a corner.
 

test_account

XP-39C²
darkpower said:
The problem extends from a few issues.

1. There was a guarantee that the fats would still have the OtherOS function (not sure if it was Sony or Red Hat that made that guarantee). It could've been Sony's way of getting out of that.
2. There could've still been evil costs there that Sony might've not wanted to pay up on.

All this leads up to them needing a way out of OtherOS, and them seeing what Hotz and co. did led them to the idea of making them out to be the scapegoats so they can get out of something that would've been, to them, too expensive to do while grandstanding for those that would never question Sony on anything they do.
I know that one guy in Sony said in some interview (i think) that OtherOS wouldnt be removed from the PS3 Phat models, is this the guarantee you're thinking of?

I dont know about the scapegoats. I see the reasoning behind it, but what if someone had never attempted to hack the PS3 using OtherOS? I dont think that Sony sat around waiting for someone to do this. If they needed a reason, i think that they could have came up with something around the same time when PS3 Slim came out. But it is just speculations, we will probably never know the true answer to it.


darkpower said:
That's what this lawsuit is saying, anyway. I think they have a case now, if they didn't before. That quote is going to be hard to try to explain off because it seemed as though their reasons changed between when they launched the slim to when they removed it from the fats.
There were 2 different reasons given for why OtherOS was removed from the PS3 Slim and the PS3 Phat though. For the PS3 Slims the reason given was due to costs issues, Sony themself confirmed that. But for the PS3 Phats the reason given was due to security issues. Seeing that OtherOS was used for hacking attempts after it was removed from the PS3 Slim, personally i dont think that it should be too hard to explain this quote. I think it would be much more difficult to explain it if there were no evidence of hacking and they used 'security issues' as a reason for the removal.
 

mclem

Member
darkpower said:
I read somewhere that Sony is having a hard time keeping their stories straight between the OOS class action and their own suit on Hotz. They say one thing in one case, then in the other case, say the exact opposite thing ( http://www.groklaw.net./article.php?story=20110218181557455 ).

So yeah, they should think about being careful here about painting themselves into a corner.
How exactly does that work, anyway. Can a legal team put into evidence citations from a *different* case? Even if said different case is ongoing?
 

mclem

Member
test_account said:
There were 2 different reasons given for why OtherOS was removed from the PS3 Slim and the PS3 Phat though. For the PS3 Slims the reason given was due to costs issues, Sony themself confirmed that. But for the PS3 Phats the reason given was due to security issues. Seeing that OtherOS was used for hacking attempts after it was removed from the PS3 Slim, personally i dont think that it should be too hard to explain this quote. I think it would be much more difficult to explain it if there were no evidence of hacking and they used 'security issues' as a reason for the removal.

The thing that bothers me most about that claim is that nothing really happened, despite removing OtherOS. Presumably those who were still interested in it kept OtherOS on their system and continued to tinker with it, yet there was no real talk of major security breakthroughs; I recall quite a few people here deliberately not upgrading in the hope of some exciting new development coming along, but nothing came.

So I find it hard to believe that the security issues were all that huge given the fact that security didn't actually get broken until something completely unrelated came along.
 

test_account

XP-39C²
mclem said:
The thing that bothers me most about that claim is that nothing really happened, despite removing OtherOS. Presumably those who were still interested in it kept OtherOS on their system and continued to tinker with it, yet there was no real talk of major security breakthroughs; I recall quite a few people here deliberately not upgrading in the hope of some exciting new development coming along, but nothing came.

So I find it hard to believe that the security issues were all that huge given the fact that security didn't actually get broken until something completely unrelated came along.
You're right that nothing really came out of it and when the useful PS3 hacks (the USB dongle and later on custom firmware) came, they didnt need OtherOS to function. But proof of concept using OtherOS to hack the PS3 was shown though, and i guess that is what scared Sony.

Sony could have waited to see what happened in the hacking developement or removed it in advance hoping it would stop the development. Unfortunately for those who used OtherOS, Sony chose the latter solution.

But it is often very hard to know what the next day will bring, so who knew back then which solution that was the smartest to do, to wait or take pre-caution for bigger breakthroughs in PS3 hacking using OtherOS. As you mention, some people didnt upgrade, so i think that it was fair to belive that there could be some more development happening usingOtherOS for further PS3 hacking, and maybe this is what Sony also belived and therefor they took pre-caution instead of waiting.

Today we know that waiting might have been a better solution though. But who knows if some people would have worked further on OtherOS hacking even to this day if Sony didnt remove it about a year ago. Maybe it would be easier to fully unlock all hardware limitation in OtherOS (especially since the decryption keys were posted) and maybe this would have lead to easier hacking of future PS3 firmware updates? But i have no idea, i'm just thinking out loud :)

And who knows what would have happened if the USB dongle and/or custom firmware came out before Geohot showed proof of concept hacking using OtherOS. Would Sony still remove OtherOS from the PS3 Phats then? Who knows.
 

Curufinwe

Member
Zoe said:
Finally found the TIG protocols for his drives:

http://groklaw.net/pdf2/SonyvHotz-98-3.pdf

So the PSN access they're looking for is logging into the Playstation website. Eh... I'm sure there are plenty of PS3 owners here who have never done that.

That's true, but from that transcript posted earlier in this thread (I think by you) geohot's lawyer was arguing that you could only log in to PSN thru a PS3. Which is false.
 

mclem

Member
Not sure if this is different enough news to warrant a new thread, but Geohot's lawyers have posted an extensive rebuttal to the jurisdiction issues.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110327185437805

Forgetting all the talk of precedents regarding modifying your own software for a moment, the jurisdiction question is interesting, too; a lot of T&Cs talk in terms of 'all transgressions will be tried in x state', and that's getting increasingly dubious in the light of the mass internationality of the internet.
 
mclem said:
Not sure if this is different enough news to warrant a new thread, but Geohot's lawyers have posted an extensive rebuttal to the jurisdiction issues.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110327185437805

Forgetting all the talk of precedents regarding modifying your own software for a moment, the jurisdiction question is interesting, too; a lot of T&Cs talk in terms of 'all transgressions will be tried in x state', and that's getting increasingly dubious in the light of the mass internationality of the internet.

So he claims to not know of and have never heard of SCEA prior to this litigation? What a load of crap!
 

mclem

Member
ichinisan said:
So he claims to not know of and have never heard of SCEA prior to this litigation? What a load of crap!
Er, no. His lawyers are claiming that there was no indication that any of the agreements SCEA are claiming he broke were ever made with SCEA.

Edit: Ah, I've seen the line in the declaration. Yeah, that's... questionable. Although I also don't think it's particularly relevant to the case.

Edit2: On a similar note:
I believe the used Playstation I purchased from Gamestop may have come with instruction manuals, which I never opened or read. I believe I threw the manuals out when I threw away the ugly box that the used Playstation came with. The reason I kept the slim box (for the Playstation I purchased new) was because it was pretty.
 
mclem said:
Er, no. His lawyers are claiming that there was no indication that any of the agreements SCEA are claiming he broke were ever made with SCEA.

Edit: Ah, I've seen the line in the declaration. Yeah, that's... questionable. Although I also don't think it's particularly relevant to the case.

Edit2: On a similar note:

I can imagine SCEA noodling around and looking for any evidence, pre-litigation, of Geohot talking/referring to SCEA. If so it makes him look bad.

Yeah ridiculous comment on the slim box. Mine certainly isn't beautiful.
 

mclem

Member
ichinisan said:
I can imagine SCEA noodling around and looking for any evidence, pre-litigation, of Geohot talking/referring to SCEA. If so it makes him look bad.

Perhaps, but it would only be character assassination (which, let's be honest, seems to just happen if you leave Geohot to his own devices rather than actively trying to seek it), rather than proving any actual facts relating to the case. Whether he knew of SCEA is irrelevant; if they have the right to jurisdiction, they have the right to jurisdiction whether or not he was aware of the fact.
 
Geohot said:
On the other hand, SCEA, which is not even a subsidiary of Sony Japan, focuses on the sales of products and video games[, ...] develops, markets and distributes video games, and speaks extensively about video games in its pleadings. [..] However, Mr. Hotz' actions have nothing to do with video games and the [jailbreak] Code does not provide users the ability to run pirated video games or any other pirated software, as SCEA claims. [...] Presumably, had one of Sony Japan's hundreds of affiliates initiated a lawsuit in a different forum, such affiliate would modify the discourse to argue that Hotz focused on music (e.g., Sony Music Entertainment, Inc.), movies (e.g., Sony Pictures Classics, Inc.), electric components (e.g., Sony Corporation, Inc.), or some other aspect tangentially related to the Playstation Computer in an attempt to confer jurisdiction in such forum. The Playstation Computer provides for many functions-- in fact, it's slogan is that “It Only Does Everything”. The fact that Mr. Hotz purportedly impacted the Playstation Computer does not mean that all of these affiliates, including component manufacturers in China, can suddenly claim that Mr. Hotz directed his activities toward them.

Oh. Bravo
 
Date: April 8, 2011
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Place: Courtroom 10, 19th Floor

_____________________________

I, George Hotz, declare:

1. I am of required age and competent in all respects to testify regarding the matter set forth herein. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein and know them to be true.

2. Prior to January 11, 2011 when plaintiff Sony Computer Entertainment America,

LLC ("SCEA") sued me, I had no knowledge of SCEA. Further, prior to that date I had no knowledge of SCEA's relationship to the Playstation Computer. I did not know that SCEA was located in California.


3. Prior to January 11, 2011, I had no knowledge of the location of SCEA's state of organization, the location of its headquarters, or the location of its principal place of business. In short, I had never heard of SCEA until they sued me.

4. While creating the code that achieves interoperability between computer programs ("the Code"), I believed the Playstation and its firmware were owned by the Japanese company Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. I still believe this to be true.

5. The impounded hard drives and calculator were and are the only storage devices in my possession, custody or control, containing the Code that achieves interoperability between computer programs at the time of the the impoundment order.

6. The Blue USB Stick did contain the Code shown in my YouTube video but no longer contains such Code. I deleted the Code from it prior to this litigation.

7. The Code was stored on the web server for geohot.com but was deleted from the server on January 27, 2011 to comply with the Temporary Restraining Order [Docket No. 50]. The Code was also posted on Pastie. org and Github.com. Originally, it did not occur to me that these locations counted as within my custody or control. However, seeing as the Code was stored there, and in the interest of openness and completeness, I am now identifying those locations.

8. Other than the above-identified, I have not stored the Code anywhere else.

9. I did not receive any money, and specifically stated on my website that I did not want any money for the Code. I did not track users who accessed my website.

10. I never opened the instruction manual and related documentation that came with the Playstation3 that I purchased new. The instruction manuals were included in a sealed plastic bag that remains sealed, as I have not ever opened it. I placed all of my Playstation 3 consoles and the instruction manual in the custody and care of my attorney Mr. Stewart Kellar.

11. The Playstation 3 consoles I received used did not include any instruction manuals or other accompanying literature whatsoever. I believe the used Playstation I purchased from Gamestop may have come with instruction manuals, which I never opened or read. I believe I threw the manuals out when I threw away the ugly box that the used Playstation came with. The reason I kept the slim box (for the Playstation I purchased new) was because it was pretty.

12. Examining my Playstation computer only lists Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. Nowhere on the Playstation computer does it list SCEA.

13. I downloaded the Playstation firmware version 3.55 via direct link and not from the Playstation network or us.playstation.com. During installation, the firmware only listed Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. and did not refer to SCEA.

14. Although I have a blog, the number of responses to my posts is overwhelmingly large. I do not, and it is not feasible for me to, read all the comments. Nonetheless, I have never read any posting on my blog that alleges the existence of SCEA.

15. I could not have sought employment with SCEA because I did not know of SCEA's existence.


16. Communicating with my attorneys across the country has been difficult. Because SCEA has been actively pursuing me, I have had to communicate with my attorneys nearly every day, often numerous times each day, at all hours.

17. I believe SCEA is a huge company with comparatively limitless resources. I, in comparison, have very limited resources to devote to this lawsuit. At this time, New Jersey is clearly a more convenient forum for me.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on March 25, 2011.

signature
George Hotz

Wtf am I reading.
 

itxaka

Defeatist
phosphor112 said:
Wtf am I reading.


He is basically denying any connections with SCEA.

He knew Sony but didn't know SCEA. He didn't even open the manuals (Like me) and throw the box out (like me).

And he downloaded the fw from other site than the original source, which plenty of gaffers do to avoid slowness on release day (Which I have also done as well)

I don't see what you think is strange there. Plenty of people don't know what is SCEA, SCEE or SCEJ but know Sony as a brand :/
 

test_account

XP-39C²
Geohot's laywer also says that the PSN account 'blickmaniac' could have been created by everyone:

It is important to recognize the dubious nature of creating a PSN account. Just as someone can enter a false name or fake e-mail when entering personal information on a sweepstakes card, someone can enter the same false information when registering for a PSN account. Gillil- and Dec. Ex. A.4 Similarly, an individual can also use a fake serial number or an improperly obtained serial number to create a PSN account.
http://www.ps3-hacks.com/2011/03/28/scea-vs-geohot-anyone-couldve-registered-the-psn-account/

I thought the case was that the PSN username 'blickmaniac' had been created and/or connected from the PS3 with the same serial number of Geohot's PS3. You dont use a serial number when creating a PSN account.
 
I like how some people here can't understand that it doesn't matter if the guy is being an asshole because what sony is pulling there is still some serious 1984 bullshit.
Also I wonder if all the sony employees stopped taking vacations during this lawsuit (or maybe they're having their vacation on neogaf, for some corporate astroturfing).
 
Top Bottom