Support NeoGAF

[Zoe]

And they're the one in the first quote. The second, however, appears to be between lawyers.

All three groups are in the email chain. The last email from TIG is particularly snarky.

 

[darkpower]

There's been a few cases in the past (as ever, Bleem's the go-to example) where the larger company doesn't aim to *win* as much as to bleed the other party completely dry of cash.

Sadly, that might be the case here. It's painfully obvious, and what's worse, some of the fanboys (especially on N4G) are saying that they would be fine with that kind of win, and sometimes even ENCOURAGING it.

 

[mclem]

That doesn't stand in the way of the original claim that the communications that Geohot's lawyers made to the third party were amicable and resolved quickly (although I'm not clear on whether it *has* actually been resolved; not sure if http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110325001243875 is about the controllers or whether they have rights to do so in the first place)

 

[Curufinwe]

If they were amicable and it was resolved quickly, geohot's lawyers would have apologized and immediately made arrangement to send TIG the missing parts of the hard drive. That did not happen, which is why the neutral third party vendor had to resort to explaining to geohot's lawyers when a hard drive is not really a hard drive.

 

[mclem]

So have they recieved the controller cards or not?

 

[Curufinwe]

According to an IGN interview with geohot's lawyer six days after TIG originally complained about the missing components, they have been provided.

Stewart Kellar, Hotz's attorney, has responded saying the missing hard drive parts have now been delivered.

And they're the one in the first quote. The second, however, appears to be between lawyers.

Edit: Yasha Heidari is a lawyer for Geohot, and I believe that Mehrnaz Boroumand Smith is for Sony.

Michael Grennier of TIG was CCed on that email from Yasha Heidari, and he responded to it directly by explaining when a hard drive isn't really a hard drive, so the second quoted email was not just between lawyers.

 

[mclem]

Sadly, that might be the case here. It's painfully obvious, and what's worse, some of the fanboys (especially on N4G) are saying that they would be fine with that kind of win, and sometimes even ENCOURAGING it.

If a case just sort of expires due to lack of money, is it still regarded as having set a precedent, or does it go in the record as "insufficiently well-fought" or something?

(Bear with me on this; I have a Crazy Theory coming up)

 

[graywolf323]

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.

so his defense is that he's an idiot?

 

[Zoe]

so his defense is that he's an idiot?

Doesn't seem too far from the truth in some ways.

 

[chickdigger802]

I'm all for people fighting the corporation, but I kinda wish Geohot waged war with Sony when he is like... 5-10 years older?

It's kinda like in ZHP where the fate of the world is pretty much determined by a super baby.

 

[test_account]

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?"

I guess that the question is, in what way should they get along? To get along, they have to find some agreement. I agree that this would be the best thing, but what should this agreement be about?

There's been a few cases in the past (as ever, Bleem's the go-to example) where the larger company doesn't aim to *win* as much as to bleed the other party completely dry of cash.

I'm not so sure this is the case when it is not about a company. Lets say that Geohot wont have any more money to pay for the laywers, what will happened? Will he have to do all the legal work himself? What if he cant do that, does that mean that he automatically will lose the case? If he loses the case, what exact punishment will he receive? Or in other words, what will Sony achieve by "bleed him out of money"?

 

[hirokazu]

so his defense is that he's an idiot?

He is an idiot sometimes, but which layman cares to know where SCEA is based?

 

[Treefingers]

I'm not so sure this is the case when it is not about a company. Lets say that Geohot wont have any more money to pay for the laywers, what will happened? Will he have to do all the legal work himself? What if he cant do that, does that mean that he automatically will lose the case? If he loses the case, what exact punishment will he receive? Or in other words, what will Sony achieve by "bleed him out of money"?

The way I see it it's an attempt to send a message to hackers, to show what can happen to them if they start messing with their products.

 

[test_account]

The way I see it it's an attempt to send a message to hackers, to show what can happen to them if they start messing with their products.

Yeah, it is most likely also scare tactics indeed. But i wonder if there will be any difference if they bleed him out of money or if he has enough money to keep the case going to the end, and also what will happened with his case if he dont have enough money to pay for laywers. But keeping a trail going for a long time (which can cost more money) might be a stronger way of scare tactics though, that is true.

 

[Chinese Electric Batman]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/new...ard-of-Sony-Computer-Entertainment-of-America

 

[[Nintex]]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/new...ard-of-Sony-Computer-Entertainment-of-America

Holy shit, this has to be their april fools post

 

[Littlegator]

It's a sound legal argument.

 

[Chinese Electric Batman]

It's a sound legal argument.

Does this fall under "ignorance of the law doesn't make you immune to it"?

 

[Cheerilee]

Does this fall under "ignorance of the law doesn't make you immune to it"?

Sony is arguing (among other things) that the case should be tried in California because Geohot willfully and deliberately placed himself under the protections and penalties of California by hacking what he knew to be a Californian videogame console that he knew was owned by a Californian company.

What Geohot knew or didn't know is important.

Geohot thought he hacked a Japanese console, made by Sony, a Japanese company. He says he didn't know where SCEA's HQ is, and more than that, he didn't know anything about SCEA.

I would imagine that most gamers don't know where SCEA is located, and while it seems unthinkable to me for someone to not have heard of SCEA, I expect most non-gamers have never heard of them.

 

[hirokazu]

Does this fall under "ignorance of the law doesn't make you immune to it"?

Maybe you should read all the posts that already existed in here before you came in here posting nothing but a link like you're the king of information.

 

[Raistlin]

Can someone explain why his knowing of SCEA's existence is relevant to jurisdiction? Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but I'm confused how SCEA has a case to begin with. They have nothing to do with PS3 firmware nor PSN, etc. Aren't they acting as a proxy for SCE in this case? Shouldn't it be up to SCE to sue?

 

[RustyNails]

Sony is arguing (among other things) that the case should be tried in California because Geohot willfully and deliberately placed himself under the protections and penalties of California by hacking what he knew to be a Californian videogame console that he knew was owned by a Californian company.

What Geohot knew or didn't know is important.

Geohot thought he hacked a Japanese console, made by Sony, a Japanese company. He says he didn't know where SCEA's HQ is, and more than that, he didn't know anything about SCEA.

I would imagine that most gamers don't know where SCEA is located, and while it seems unthinkable to me for someone to not have heard of SCEA, I expect most non-gamers have never heard of them.

I don't understand why Sony wants CA jurisdiction so badly. Is there a legal trap in CA statutes that Sony wants to use?

 

[sonicmj1]

I don't understand why Sony wants CA jurisdiction so badly. Is there a legal trap in CA statutes that Sony wants to use?

Since they're based in CA, it's convenient for them. More importantly, since Geohot lives in New Jersey, it's extremely inconvenient for him if the case is tried in California.

He'll have an even harder time supporting a costly legal battle if it occurs 3,000 miles from where he lives.

 

[Cheerilee]

Can someone explain why his knowing of SCEA's existence is relevant to jurisdiction? Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but I'm confused how SCEA has a case to begin with. They have nothing to do with PS3 firmware nor PSN, etc. Aren't they acting as a proxy for SCE in this case? Shouldn't it be up to SCE to sue?

The American branch often has American rights to things. Like how the Fullmetal Alchemist anime is dubbed and sold by Funimation in America. If you pirate the DVDs, Funimation gets to sue you, not the Japanese companies that made it.

The Japanese companies could probably also try and sue internationally, but that's a headache.

I don't understand why Sony wants CA jurisdiction so badly. Is there a legal trap in CA statutes that Sony wants to use?

California has Hollywood and Silicon Valley, so their laws are slightly more tailored to protect computer entertainment companies (the state's residents) than some random place like New Jersey might be. Sony's lawyers are probably also more familiar with Californian law than New Jersey law. And Sony would probably like it if Geohot went bankrupt trying to pay the hotel bills and plane trips for his lawyers to stay in California.

 

[Dambrosi]

I don't understand why Sony wants CA jurisdiction so badly. Is there a legal trap in CA statutes that Sony wants to use?

Cheaper for them to hold the court case near to home, and more expensive for their opponent (they're trying to spend him to near-bankruptcy, a slimy tactic).

Besides, Sony is a Japanese company, or at least the part that actually owns all the rights to PS3 and its firmware (SCEI) is. The agreement between them and SCEA that's already been submitted as evidence to the court shows that quite clearly.

 

[RustyNails]

California has Hollywood and Silicon Valley, so their laws are slightly more tailored to protect computer entertainment companies (the state's residents) than some random place like New Jersey might be. Sony's lawyers are probably also more familiar with Californian law than New Jersey law. And Sony would probably like it if Geohot went bankrupt trying to pay the hotel bills and plane trips for his lawyers to stay in California.

Ah but he wont. What Sony didn't see is an anonymous army of internet donors ready to dole out buckets of cash to his legal fund. So that aim of Sony legal team is probably doubtful at this point.

 

[Raistlin]

The American branch often has American rights to things. Like how the Fullmetal Alchemist anime is dubbed and sold by Funimation in America. If you pirate the DVDs, Funimation gets to sue you, not the Japanese companies that made it.

The Japanese companies could probably also try and sue internationally, but that's a headache.

Where it gets less clear is the firmware though? He didn't hack the firmware that came with the system, but a later one. It isn't something he got from SCEA.


Regardless, let's say SCEA does have some sort of licensing right that gives them authority on the matter. Why does geohot's knowledge or lack there of have any say in jurisdiction?

 

[Cheerilee]

Ah but he wont. What Sony didn't see is an anonymous army of internet donors ready to dole out buckets of cash to his legal fund. So that aim of Sony legal team is probably doubtful at this point.

Right now, I think they'd be content with burning the wallets of anyone willing to side with Geohot. There's no downside to them for making things expensive for Geohot. Even if they somehow got reamed in court and had to pay him back his legal bills, they'd probably still say it was worth it. They seem to be really pissed off.

Regardless, let's say SCEA does have some sort of licensing right that gives them authority on the matter. Why does geohot's knowledge or lack there of have any say in jurisdiction?

IIRC, Schwartzenegger said that for someone to be tried in California, they had to have willingly put themselves in California's hands by doing business inside the state.

Geohot's obviously not willing, but Sony says that he did it.

 

[Raistlin]

IIRC, Schwartzenegger said that for someone to be tried in California, they had to have willingly put themselves in California's hands by doing business inside the state.

Geohot's obviously not willing, but Sony says that he did it.

Interesting.

Again though, I would think even if that weren't the case ... that SCEA would need to establish geohot received the firmware from them? And that appears to be something they are incapable of establishing.

 

[Cheerilee]

Interesting.

Again though, I would think even if that weren't the case ... that SCEA would need to establish geohot received the firmware from them? And that appears to be something they are incapable of establishing.

* The nonresident defendant must do some act or consummate some transaction with [California] or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in [California], thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws;
* The claim must be one which arises out of or results from the defendant's [California]-related activities; and
* Exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable.

Yeah, Sony is trying real hard to tie Geohot down to a PSN account, not because agreeing to the TOS is legally binding, but because it might be enough to convince the judge that Geohot is willing.

But even if they do that, then they'd probably have to prove that he got the firmware from PSN.

And even if they proved that, Geohot could argue that this fight is too expensive for him to afford without donations, making it unreasonable, which makes it go back to New Jersey.

Of course, you never know what the judge is going to do. Geohot's lawyers might prove for an absolute fact that PSN and the firmware aren't linked, and that Geohot is broke, and the judge might decide to bring it to California anyways. Judges are human and can be unpredictable. Or there might be some other laws that make these ones invalid.

 

[BobTheFork]

Ah but he wont. What Sony didn't see is an anonymous army of internet donors ready to dole out buckets of cash to his legal fund. So that aim of Sony legal team is probably doubtful at this point.

Yeah, they don't give a Shit if he wastes other people's money. It's the best option for them to have it in their state.

 

[Zoe]

And even if they proved that, Geohot could argue that this fight is too expensive for him to afford without donations, making it unreasonable, which makes it go back to New Jersey.

Sony already offered to cover the costs of his deposition in California.

 

[Cheerilee]

Sony already offered to cover the costs of his deposition in California.

Sneaky. That'll work for sure.

It's really amazing to think that the actual battle hasn't even started yet.

 

[VitaminApple]

I'm 26 years old and have been gaming my entire life and Ive never heard of SCEA until now.

Anyways, whether you agree or not that GeoHot is an asshole, just remember that this case can decide if what you spent $500 on is yours or not.

Think about that for a second. The PS4 will eventually come out and you plop down $500 for it and youo don't own it at all.

 

[squatingyeti]

Yes, even if Sony can show he has or had a PSN account, that wouldn't (I should say shouldn't as you never know with a judge) be enough under California rulings to impose jurisdiction. He has to have directed his actions at California. Having a PSN account, which has nothing to do with the cause of this action, is not directing his separate action of hacking the PS3 software at California.

Sony has even altered his statement of any of the 3 (Sony, MS, Nin) hiring him to protect their next systems so that it appears he is only talking to them. In their filing, they change the quote on two different filings. One, states it was clear he was directing it at SCEA when he said

If you want your next console to be secure, get in touch with me. Any of you.

The other says he said

If you want your next console to be secure, get in touch with me.

The real statement was obviously NOT directed at SCEA as it stated

If you want your next console to be secure, get in touch with me. Any of you 3.

Now, he hacked the PS3 system software, which has nothing to do with SCEA, so why would anyone think that statement is remotely directed directly at SCEA? Furthermore, even if they could somehow show he directed his actions at California, the court must consider the burden placed on the defendant. This is a huge international corp vs a 21yr old individual. The burden would be significant on the individual to afford to travel across the country for as long as court takes as well as paying for a defense.

 

[RyanDG]

Sony has even altered his statement of any of the 3 (Sony, MS, Nin) hiring him to protect their next systems so that it appears he is only talking to them. In their filing, they change the quote on two different filings. One, states it was clear he was directing it at SCEA when he said The other says he said The real statement was obviously NOT directed at SCEA as it stated

Yes Sony edited the quotations, but it doesn't change the implied 'you' in the original statement (which was Sony). Geohot's inclusion of the qualifer at the end was essentially a throw in after the main subject's 'you' and 'your' in the first sentence and was meant to show that he wasn't just interested in Sony (as his first sentence says). To say that the original statement wasn't directed at Sony though I believe is being dishonest at the plain english statement he was making there - which was the reason why the qualifier 'any of you 3' was needed at the end.

Edit - Furthermore (if you want to accept your argument), even if Geohot's statement of 'any of you 3' means the statement was directed at all 3 console manufacturer's doesn't change the fact that Sony was a part of Geohot's target for the statement. Just because Sony wasn't the sole target, doesn't mean they weren't a target and the implications for the editing of the quotes doesn't make it any less true about the target of Geohot's statement.




With that said, there is a ton that you can claim sony has done that is really shady in this whole situation, but this above claim that you are making is not one of them.

 

[faceless007]

Not a lawyer, but that seems like a pretty scary precedent. If you do something with a product made by a company, you're bound by the laws of the state the company is in?

Yet another reason EULAs need to be thrown out.

 

[Kusagari]

There is no way they can prove he was intending to attack California. I had no idea that SCEA was based in California until I read it in this thread. I'd guess that most of this forum didn't either.

 

[noise36]

The best outcome here is that Sony spends heaps of money on lawyers and loses the case so some super anti consumer precedent isn't established.

What’s next? Ford sues me because I modify my car?

 

[Cruzader]

Wow that's alot of bs. I think it's dumb to be stating, Sony that is, that Hotz was aiming specifically exploit a Californian system. Since when are ps3 from there? Im sure they are imported from jpn and Cali is just SCEA hq.

I mAy be against an idiot but trying to spin some stuff in here is fucking nuts. Ah well. Don't care who wins, just that it just ends already.

 

[Massa]

The best outcome here is that Sony spends heaps of money on lawyers and loses the case so some super anti consumer precedent isn't established.

What’s next? Ford sues me because I modify my car?

Ford would sue you for publishing information, not modifying your car.

 

[Cheerilee]

Quick quiz for American PSX/PSone owners (statistically the most likely to have heard of SCEA).

There are two main scenes in the console's startup, one white, and one black. Which ones mention SCEA?

A: The first
B: The second
C: Both
D: Neither


You don't have to clutter the thread by posting your answer. This is for personal entertainment value only.

The answer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ret564LSLw

 

[low-G]

If you do something with a product made by a company, you're bound by the laws of the state the company is in?

I'm not sure, but I don't think this is the first time such legal action has occurred. British libel laws don't even require the company OR the person being sued to be within the UK at all...

 

[tokkun]

Anyways, whether you agree or not that GeoHot is an asshole, just remember that this case can decide if what you spent $500 on is yours or not.

Think about that for a second. The PS4 will eventually come out and you plop down $500 for it and youo don't own it at all.

No, it really doesn't. The DMCA already specifies limitations on circumvention of security measures on devices we own. All this case will decide is if this particular act qualifies. The broader philosophy is already built in to the law, and there have been myriad instances of the DMCA being tested in court already.

 

[Slavik81]

Not a lawyer, but that seems like a pretty scary precedent. If you do something with a product made by a company, you're bound by the laws of the state the company is in?

Yet another reason EULAs need to be thrown out.

If that were the justification for having the trial in California, Sony wouldn't have spent all that time trying to show how people in California were impacted. They would have just been able to show that they were in California and be done with it.

I think your understanding of events is mistaken.

EDIT: I see the update. I think my understanding is pretty incomplete. There's not much information in that Escapist article...

 

[squatingyeti]

Yes Sony edited the quotations, but it doesn't change the implied 'you' in the original statement (which was Sony). Geohot's inclusion of the qualifer at the end was essentially a throw in after the main subject's 'you' and 'your' in the first sentence and was meant to show that he wasn't just interested in Sony (as his first sentence says). To say that the original statement wasn't directed at Sony though I believe is being dishonest at the plain english statement he was making there - which was the reason why the qualifier 'any of you 3' was needed at the end.

They "edited" the statement, which isn't even allowed in court. You must have the full statement for completeness. What SCEA did was intentionally try to mischaracterize the statement to indicate it was only directed at SCEA.

Edit - Furthermore (if you want to accept your argument), even if Geohot's statement of 'any of you 3' means the statement was directed at all 3 console manufacturer's doesn't change the fact that Sony was a part of Geohot's target for the statement. Just because Sony wasn't the sole target, doesn't mean they weren't a target and the implications for the editing of the quotes doesn't make it any less true about the target of Geohot's statement.

Yes, Sony (the part of Sony that makes the PS3 software he hacked and manufactures the PS3, not the part of Sony that has nothing to do with what he did) was a part of the statement, but it was not directed at SCEA. SCEA needs to show his actions were directed at them, in California. If he had done something to PSN, then they might not be grasping at straws.

You can believe Hotz is a tool, ass, jerk, or whatever, but to believe he directed his actions at California is ridiculous.

 

[Chrange]

...

With that said, there is a ton that you can claim sony has done that is really shady in this whole situation, but this above claim that you are making is not one of them.

They made obvious edits to a quote. How is that NOT shady?

 

[test_account]

Not a lawyer, but that seems like a pretty scary precedent. If you do something with a product made by a company, you're bound by the laws of the state the company is in?

Yet another reason EULAs need to be thrown out.

I really doubt that such wide precedent will be set in this case. If that was the case, then it would be illegal to hack cellphones as well (which today is legal). If a precedent is set, i think that it will be specifically about gaming consoles and not go for every product. And there will probably be very specific mentionings of what cant be modified, not just a general "no modification allowed".

Personally i'm not worried since this case is not the first one of it's kind. So regardless of who wins or loses, i think that people in general will notice no difference compared to how things are today. I have also never heard of anyone who have gotten jailed/fined over only doing modification to their own devices only and nothing more. For example, probably tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands people, hacked their iPhone before it was determained legal, but how many of these got jailed/fined? I have not heard of anyone at least.

 

[Zizbuka]

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.

We get zizbuka, you're a hotz groupie.... junior

 

[BobTheFork]

We get zizbuka, you're a hotz groupie.... junior

....Is someone trolling themselves with a spare account again?