-
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
- Thread starter chubigans
- Start date
Dr Frasier Crane
Member
BY2K said:
My point exactly. All the hoo-ha back with 3.15 and he still claims not to know when SCEA chap Patrick Seybold was commenting all over (and he's listed in his job title as SCEA Director of Corporate Communications & Social Media) about it.
Anyway, it just confirms him to be economical with the truth (which I think we knew anyway). This combined with the "HD controllers aren't part of a HD" malarkey doesn't bode well for dear George.
Oneiroscope
Member
What the hell is SCEA?
test_account
XP-39C²
Maybe that is why indeed. But i dont see how it matters since what he did wont change even if he knew about SCEA or not.daviyoung said:
Yeah, it is mentioned in that statement that Geohot has 4 PS3s, so if only two serial number has been mentioned, they can be different.mclem said:
ichinisan said:
It could be true. If I wasn't on gaf I wouldn't know what SCEA or SCEE is, and before knowing I was an avid gamer, just didn't care what was behind Sony as a brand.
Of course it sounds as "lol I didn't know SCEA duuuurrrr huuur" but sadly, half telling the truth is what justice is all about
I wonder, if he acceded PSN with 2 of them but then did the hacking on the other 2 the Sony PSN terms accusation is invalid as the terms are accepted on console basis instead of being accepted for all your ps3 when accepting it on one.
Also, I love how he says Playstation computer
I wonder if there's some stipulation in contract law relating to who a contract is *percieved* to have been made with, if that differs from who it was *actually* made with. If the contract is made with SCEA but there's reasonable grounds for Geohot to believe it had been made with SCEI, is the contract considered non-binding, perhaps?
I'm guessing, here. I'm no expert on contract law, but that strikes me as the sort of thing that might be the case.
I'm guessing, here. I'm no expert on contract law, but that strikes me as the sort of thing that might be the case.
Dr Frasier Crane
Member
itxaka said:It could be true. If I wasn't on gaf I wouldn't know what SCEA or SCEE is, and before knowing I was an avid gamer, just didn't care what was behind Sony as a brand.
Of course it sounds as "lol I didn't know SCEA duuuurrrr huuur" but sadly, half telling the truth is what justice is all about
I wonder, if he acceded PSN with 2 of them but then did the hacking on the other 2 the Sony PSN terms accusation is invalid as the terms are accepted on console basis instead of being accepted for all your ps3 when accepting it on one.
Also, I love how he says Playstation computer
Thing is yes you did know, or must've known. It's on the splash-screen at the start of every PS1, PS2 and PS3 game I believe, or certainly the first party ones. So unless you've never played any of these I respectfully disagree.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
ichinisan said:
Did you actually read the link provided?
Because SCEAs lawyers are providing more than their own share of 'malarkey' at every step and still haven't provided any clear evidence why they need to deal with this in California rather than New Jersey.
Dr Frasier Crane
Member
MrNyarlathotep said:
I wasn't really considering SCEAs actions all I was talking about was that George continues to not help his case by doing stuff like this. I've yet to comment on SCEA.
Graphics Horse
Member
itxaka said:
I could find you a bunch of people who are exactly the same. Some people actually buy these things to play a few games on, not to read splash screens and talk about them in forums.
test_account
XP-39C²
I would be very surprised if something like this held up in court since the devices are pretty much identical. Technically you can say that you didnt accept the terms on one of the devices indeed, but if you knew and accepted the terms on one of the devices, you should know that the same terms applies to the other one as well. But i'm no legal expert, so i dont know what the court will say about something like this.itxaka said:I wonder, if he acceded PSN with 2 of them but then did the hacking on the other 2 the Sony PSN terms accusation is invalid as the terms are accepted on console basis instead of being accepted for all your ps3 when accepting it on one.
Also, I love how he says Playstation computer
Yeah, that is true, they might have a stronger case then indeed.daviyoung said:
raphier said:
I actually do find it impossible and question people posting or lurking on this forum claiming to not know what SCEA is (or SCEE, or SCEJ, for that matter), because, you know, even thread titles have had that in it.
Claiming ignorance is really dubious and when it comes from a person like Geohot it feels simply laughable, since I'd expect a hacker to know a bit more than your "average" person.
ichinisan said:
Actually, part of the point of this phase is to establish that SCEA are responsible for games, *not* the hardware - so the splash screen appearing on a game doesn't necessarily tie them to the hardware.
Of course, it's also quite possible that Geohot has never played an (officially-released) game on his PS3s. Hackers can be like that. Odd people.
Graphics Horse
Member
Lain said:
I don't think they're very common, even this thread doesn't use it when it technically should.
Any in the last year?
True or not, it sounds like a plausible statement if there's no evidence to contradict it.
Graphics Horse
Member
Zoe said:
I had no idea of them being based in California. Without looking it up I couldn't tell you where SCEE are based despite development experience with their platforms in Europe.
Dr Frasier Crane
Member
mclem said:
Oh I don't disagree but I think that his comment that he didn't even know SCEA exists is disingenuous. Which continues that lack of trustworthiness that is becoming a small theme here. He's basically saying that he didn't know there was some entity SCEA which is associated with the PS3. I disbelieve him.
I think it's just about on the very limits of plausibility - his interest in the system begins and ends with the hardware and the firmware, both of which they are trying to prove are SCEI's doing.
That said, I don't actually believe him, but I have reasonable doubt. Not that reasonable doubt actually belongs here
Edit: Part of the point of this is that I don't actually think this is relevant to the case, directly (although see my musings earlier about whether they're going for a possible invalidation of contract thingie). Sony could accept it and move on, or they can spend money and time fighting it and get it proven invalid but to what useful end?
That said, I don't actually believe him, but I have reasonable doubt. Not that reasonable doubt actually belongs here
Edit: Part of the point of this is that I don't actually think this is relevant to the case, directly (although see my musings earlier about whether they're going for a possible invalidation of contract thingie). Sony could accept it and move on, or they can spend money and time fighting it and get it proven invalid but to what useful end?
ReBurn
Gold Member
geohot to SCEA: "Prove me wrong, bitches!"
SCEA to geohot: "k sec"
Rodney King: "I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we get along? Can we stop making it, making it horrible for the older people and the kids?"
This case is becoming boring.
And I didn't know where SCEA was located, either. I knew SCEA existed, and what they do. But I wouldn't have thought that SCEA itself would be the entity trying to seek damages in this case. I would think that Sony Corp. would have to take action considering some of the defendants in the case don't live in the country where the lawsuit was filed. I know, this is so 27 pages ago.
SCEA to geohot: "k sec"
Rodney King: "I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we get along? Can we stop making it, making it horrible for the older people and the kids?"
This case is becoming boring.
And I didn't know where SCEA was located, either. I knew SCEA existed, and what they do. But I wouldn't have thought that SCEA itself would be the entity trying to seek damages in this case. I would think that Sony Corp. would have to take action considering some of the defendants in the case don't live in the country where the lawsuit was filed. I know, this is so 27 pages ago.
As far as I know, right now, it's still in the "WHERE to sue him" stage, which in of itself is becoming far more than what I expected.
All of this just to establish jurisdiction. I would think that you would present this case in the ACTUAL trial, not during this phase.
Personally, I'm REALLY beginning to sense that Sony is really trying to play dirty here and trying to get out of having to prove anything by dragging Hotz everywhere to defend himself. What's Sony scared of that they have to resort to this?
All of this just to establish jurisdiction. I would think that you would present this case in the ACTUAL trial, not during this phase.
Personally, I'm REALLY beginning to sense that Sony is really trying to play dirty here and trying to get out of having to prove anything by dragging Hotz everywhere to defend himself. What's Sony scared of that they have to resort to this?
Dr Frasier Crane
Member
mclem said:I think it's just about on the very limits of plausibility - his interest in the system begins and ends with the hardware and the firmware, both of which they are trying to prove are SCEI's doing.
That said, I don't actually believe him, but I have reasonable doubt. Not that reasonable doubt actually belongs here
Edit: Part of the point of this is that I don't actually think this is relevant to the case, directly (although see my musings earlier about whether they're going for a possible invalidation of contract thingie). Sony could accept it and move on, or they can spend money and time fighting it and get it proven invalid but to what useful end?
I think that the best way geohot could have fought this, providing all his statements are correct around the downloading of the PUP file etc, would be to absolutely open and honest and let the facts shoot Sony down. Just hand over his HD. Admit he knew about SCEA. Just be available and answer all questions truthfully. If you've got nothing to hide then you have everything to win.
Personally I'd like someone to take EULAs on software all the way in court, then we could see who will be eating the crow on either side. Until someone steps up to the plate and does this then we're just internet warriors shouting into the darkness.
kurtrussell
Banned
ViralMarketingDrone said:
You should probably ask Zoe about that.....
kurtrussell
Banned
Oneiroscope said:
SCEA
http://www.whizlabs.com/scea/scea.html
SCEA!
http://www.sceaonline.org/
SCEA?
http://www.scea.org/
SCEA..........
http://www.thescea.org/
The reason they're talking about whether or not he knew SCEA, and knew they were a California company, is that the argument right now is about jurisdiction. SCEA is based in California, and wants to try the case there. They are trying to convince the judge that California is the appropriate location by using something called the "effects test", which comes from the case Calder v. Jones.
For the effects test to be applicable, Sony has to prove that Hotz's activities were purposefully directed at California. Hotz is arguing that he had no idea Sony was in California, and thus was not directing his activities to that state.
For the effects test to be applicable, Sony has to prove that Hotz's activities were purposefully directed at California. Hotz is arguing that he had no idea Sony was in California, and thus was not directing his activities to that state.
I think all it goes to show is the tactics that the lawyers are conjuring up. Sony isn't playing fair, so why should the defence?ichinisan said:
The HD controller thing is rather amusing, but we've mostly heard it from Sony's perspective in their filings, who know how that would roll in court.
It's an interesting case to follow.
kurtrussell
Banned
Curufinwe said:
An example of what?
mclem said:
That quote is bullshit. We have already seen in this thread the actual debate between the neutral third party vendor and geohot's lawyers, and it was far from amicable and initially geohot's lawyers refused to concede they had any obligations left to fulfill regarding the hard drives.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=26663445&postcount=4090
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/SonyvHotz-104-19.pdf
Kuchera is the one being deliberately misleading, which is par for the course where he's concerned.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked