Support NeoGAF

[squatingyeti]

The evidence is in Law Decl A.

Why didn't they file proof of them asking for additional information?

You're talking about Kellar, right? I think Kellar is stating to the court that SCEA made a statement in the evidence that there was a purchase or transaction associated with the blickmaniac account, but did not include it in that piece of evidence. Furthermore, they did not provide that information (the purchase or transaction information) to Kellar. It seems Kellar is pointing out that SCEA is insinuating said purchase or transaction information must be tied to Hotz, but not providing it.

If you read the actual PDF, Kellar believes SCEA has insinuated several things to prejudice the court, but either not proven them, or when they do provide the evidence (IP for Geo1Hotz) it doesn't match their insinuation or outright claim. He is also pointing out SCEA's (in his mind) continued efforts to ignore procedure. This being another instance of not turning over something they must to the defense or delaying doing such (like the SCEA SCEI agreements) until the defense does not have reasonable time to review it.

It looks like they converted that document to grayscale when printing it to PDF--that could easily be a mistake just as easily as it could be a stalling tactic. That said, shading such as that shouldn't have prevented any decent OCR client from parsing it. Additionally, the document is still completely legible.

Which would then mean there should be no difference between copies the court receives and copies the defense receives. There must be a noticeable difference as Kellar has asked the court to compare his copies with theirs.

Regarding TIFF vs PDF, because TIFF is a highly manipulative format, I can understand a preference for handing over documents (particularly sealed documents) as PDF. Unless they've been legally instructed to do so (and the lawyers don't cite anything on that), then providing documents in that format would just be a courtesy.

The court did order that they be provided in TIFF. (Let me track that down...LOL search a legal document for TIFF )

In contrast, SCEA's document production failed to comply with the instructions to produce TIFF files

It is likely he asked the court to instruct they be in TIFF format so he could better use OCR.

 

[squatingyeti]

It really only makes logical sense that SCEI would sue him and not SCEA since SCEA is only the games division and they do have a good point that SCEI has a presence in the US. SCEA has nothing do with with the system nor the firmware and are just a marketing arm of one division of Sony where as the hack affected all aspects of the system and not just those related to games in the US. But should each division of Sony sue him individually?

They are pulling (IMO) an end-around. They wish to sue him for circumvention of the firmware and hardware (wholly owned by SCEI and nothing to do with SCEA), but then claiming issues of the PSN (nothing to do with the case and the reason the case was brought) to show jurisdiction.

 

[poppabk]

Accessing PSN still would not bring his actions to be directed at SCEA. People keep wanting to talk about the overall case, but there is no case yet. This is all about jurisdiction and I'm wondering how people are seeing California have jurisdiction. I've yet to hear good discussion on this.

Accessing PSN would prove that he knew about SCEA or had at least agreed that he had read the TOS which identifies SCEA and even includes a California address for the customer service department. Then, if they have evidence that he had communication with someone in California especially if he supplied them with any code etc while knowing they were from California, that would be enough I think to establish jurisdiction (NB not a lawyer). If he emailed SCEA, and their defense of that is very strange - basically saying that he didn't know of SCEA's existence and therefore couldn't have emailed such an entity, rather than denying that he sent such an email to anyone at all - then he really helped them establish jurisdiction.

 

[squatingyeti]

Accessing PSN would prove that he knew about SCEA or had at least agreed that he had read the TOS which identifies SCEA and even includes a California address for the customer service department.

Which I'm not sure too many people would say that evn remotely brings you to the jurisdiction of California. Now, if he had done something regarding PSN and being the reason for the suit, then I would feel they have a point. As it stands, and as I pointed out just some posts above, PSN has nothing to do with the suit and merely accepting a TOS is grasping at straws for jurisdiction.

Then, if they have evidence that he had communication with someone in California especially if he supplied them with any code etc while knowing they were from California, that would be enough I think to establish jurisdiction (NB not a lawyer). If he emailed SCEA, and their defense of that is very strange - basically saying that he didn't know of SCEA's existence and therefore couldn't have emailed such an entity, rather than denying that he sent such an email to anyone at all - then he really helped them establish jurisdiction.

I think you might be confusing his lawyer talking about a case SCEA cited for support. Hotz's attorney pointed out that SCEA conveniently omitted that the reason jurisdiction was supported in that case is that the person wrote the plaintiff. Thus, acknowledging they existed AND they knew where they existed. (Not exactly what he says, but going from memory)

 

[staticneuron]

Ok, getting back to this, here are the responses to SCEA taking the action when SCEI is located in Delaware and could take the action in the US.






Remember, SCEA is asserting that Hotz targeted this action at them. In fact, they use the fact that he said "any of you 3", when saying any of the manufacturers could secure their next system by giving him a job, as targeting SCEA. Even knowing of SCEA's existence, that would still not be targeted at them as they do not make the firmware or the system.





I'd like to hear other arguments on this as SCEA has not alleged he broke PSN or circumvented PSN. SCEA's only claim to jurisdiction remains PSN and the TOS somehow tying Hotz to California. Hotz's actions were circumventing the security of the PS3 and that is the suit that Sony is trying to bring.

The question is, does anyone think he did actually direct that comment at SCEA and not Sony itself?

Regarding SCEA intentionally sabotaging the documents they provided to Hotz
If it was because of copying, as suggested previously in this thread, both copies would look similar due to adjusting to the black level on both. However, there is apparently a greying attempt on the documents provided to Hotz.

1. Like I said above SCEA is responsible for distributing and marketing the PS3 in those territories, not just the games.

2. In the EULA and TOS, since the start the wording used was SCE, not SCEI or SCEJ, that means it was used to be an encompassing term for SCEI and all the subsidiaries. The fact of the matter, is that the EULA is separated by region and each subsidiary acts as legal representation for the parent company.

3. When Hotz made the comment against sony as a whole, then somehow it cannot be construed as a comment toward the subsidiaries as well?

4. Sony isn't going after people who tampered with their hardware, this case is about software. CFW isn't custom hardware it is custom software. The EULA and the TOS are aimed against subverting the software. But the interesting thing is that they aren't going after hotz for contract violation but iirc they are taking after them through DMCA restrictions.

5. I am not sure what they are using for the OCR, but when I worked at a print shop the only thing that messed with the recognition tech was a particular blue color. Saying it a lighter shade of black really seems like something that shouldn't cause a fuss, but I am not in the legal field and I don't see how it can stop people from verifying things with the naked eye.

Personally in this whole thing, I have seen many sides to this debate. But I think it is simply Sony reacting to the public nature these guys handled the hacks. Sony's consoles have been hacked before. Sony has kept up with firmware updates for the PSP without trying to take certain members of the scene to court. I view this behavior as reactionary and I am not sure why people are on geo's side.

 

[Zoe]

You're talking about Kellar, right? I think Kellar is stating to the court that SCEA made a statement in the evidence that there was a purchase or transaction associated with the blickmaniac account, but did not include it in that piece of evidence. Furthermore, they did not provide that information (the purchase or transaction information) to Kellar. It seems Kellar is pointing out that SCEA is insinuating said purchase or transaction information must be tied to Hotz, but not providing it.

Or perhaps Sony's sole objective in providing that evidence was to show the existence of said account and at the time didn't think that providing transactional history was relevant.

The only thing claimed in Sony's legal briefing was that a user with a name similar to posts that could have been written by geohot was created on one of the systems surrendered by geohot, and said system was purchased and used within close proximity of his residence. No mention was ever made in the briefing with regards to any PSN purchases.

If you read the actual PDF, Kellar believes SCEA has insinuated several things to prejudice the court, but either not proven them, or when they do provide the evidence (IP for Geo1Hotz) it doesn't match their insinuation or outright claim. He is also pointing out SCEA's (in his mind) continued efforts to ignore procedure. This being another instance of not turning over something they must to the defense or delaying doing such (like the SCEA SCEI agreements) until the defense does not have reasonable time to review it.

So they're doing the exact same thing that his lawyers have been doing?

Which would then mean there should be no difference between copies the court receives and copies the defense receives. There must be a noticeable difference as Kellar has asked the court to compare his copies with theirs.

It's these two documents:
Filing by Sony
Evidence

It looks like the only difference (aside from grayscale) is a counter at the bottom of each page (SCEA#######). It's possible that's how they file their documents internally at the law firm.

 

[blu]

As he's the only one who has been collared on this so far it creates a lack of trust with the defenders (Geohot and Failoverflow included). Again if FailOverflow were sure they'd done nothing wrong and could prove it what do they have to hide?

Pray tell, what are Fail0verflow hiding?

 

[poppabk]

Which I'm not sure too many people would say that evn remotely brings you to the jurisdiction of California. Now, if he had done something regarding PSN and being the reason for the suit, then I would feel they have a point. As it stands, and as I pointed out just some posts above, PSN has nothing to do with the suit and merely accepting a TOS is grasping at straws for jurisdiction.


I think you might be confusing his lawyer talking about a case SCEA cited for support. Hotz's attorney pointed out that SCEA conveniently omitted that the reason jurisdiction was supported in that case is that the person wrote the plaintiff. Thus, acknowledging they existed AND they knew where they existed. (Not exactly what he says, but going from memory)

The claim for jurisdiction is based on his 'presence' in California and his knowledge of SCEA. Did he have active participation in distributing material in the state of California? Did he know that SCEA were based in California?
If the answer is yes to both then it would seem that the California courts have jurisdiction in this case.
The other argument, that SCEI is the wronged party, wouldn't decide jurisdiction as much as it would SCEA's ability to bring a case at all.

 

[squatingyeti]

2. In the EULA and TOS, since the start the wording used was SCE, not SCEI or SCEJ, that means it was used to be an encompassing term for SCEI and all the subsidiaries. The fact of the matter, is that the EULA is separated by region and each subsidiary acts as legal representation for the parent company.

SCEA was not and may still not be, a subsidiary of SCEI. The agreements between SCEA and SCEI are in evidence.

3. When Hotz made the comment against sony as a whole, then somehow it cannot be construed as a comment toward the subsidiaries as well?

So, are saying he made the comment toward Sony as a whole, right? Wouldn't it also make sense that he would be taking to the Sony that manufactures the PS3 and creates the firmware? As Kellar pointed out, your stance would mean that Sony music could now modify the argument and claim it was directed at them. Sony pictures could do the same, etc...

4. Sony isn't going after people who tampered with their hardware, this case is about software. CFW isn't custom hardware it is custom software. The EULA and the TOS are aimed against subverting the software. But the interesting thing is that they aren't going after hotz for contract violation but iirc they are taking after them through DMCA restrictions.

SCEA has no claim to the software on the PS3 and the TOS are ONLY related to PSN, which has nothing to do with this case, but is merely being used to end-around jurisdiction.

More important, however, the PSN TOS does not apply to any hardware-- namely, the Playstation Computer. To the contrary, the PSN TOS explicitly states it "applies to software, content and access to software, content and services provided through or in connection with" the Playstation Network and a service known as “Qriocity.”

5. I am not sure what they are using for the OCR, but when I worked at a print shop the only thing that messed with the recognition tech was a particular blue color. Saying it a lighter shade of black really seems like something that shouldn't cause a fuss, but I am not in the legal field and I don't see how it can stop people from verifying things with the naked eye.

See Zoe's post. It is hard to believe that happened on its own when the court received a perfectly normal copy.

Personally in this whole thing, I have seen many sides to this debate. But I think it is simply Sony reacting to the public nature these guys handled the hacks. Sony's consoles have been hacked before. Sony has kept up with firmware updates for the PSP without trying to take certain members of the scene to court. I view this behavior as reactionary and I am not sure why people are on geo's side.

I'm on CFW's side, not Hotz's. If it was bushing, graf, or any of the others, I'd be on "their" side. Which is not a personal support, but a support of the idea (CFW). Both the 360 JTAG hack and the Wii hacking have been publicly exposed and talked about.

It's these two documents:
Filing by Sony
Evidence

It looks like the only difference (aside from grayscale) is a counter at the bottom of each page (SCEA#######). It's possible that's how they file their documents internally at the law firm.

Yeah, a very obvious grayscale change. Why would the court copy be so drastically different and why did Sony not provide it in TIFF as instructed by the court?

Beyond just that, did anyone read the portions about (from case law they had and Kellar's view) why agreeing with PSN TOS still would not put you under California jurisdiction?

Zoe, look at 14 on the evidence document you posted. SCEA actually is going with"Hotz caused the cheating". Come now, that's laughable especially considering it was happening before his jailbreak and his jailbreak did NOT allow piracy.

 

[Zoe]

Why would the court copy be so drastically different and why did Sony not provide it in TIFF as instructed by the court?

Any luck finding that yet?

 

[squatingyeti]

Any luck finding that yet?

Yeah, I edited my post http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=26785567&postcount=301

check the bottom

 

[Zoe]

Yeah, I edited my post http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=26785567&postcount=301

check the bottom

That doesn't say whether it was the court's instructions or their instructions.

 

[squatingyeti]

That doesn't say whether it was the court's instructions or their instructions.

You may be correct, I will continue looking. However, it is quite obvious there is a noticeable difference between the grayscale of the file provided to Hotz and the court. Still circumstantial at this point, but there's no logical reason for that big difference between two copies.

 

[Alucrid]

Need Phisheep to weigh in on this.

 

[Zoe]

Need Phisheep to weigh in on this.

He opted out of the whole mess.

 

[phosphor112]

"Kiriller said...
Thanks GeoHot, substantial donations are coming to you, don't even think of sharing the info or taking any bribe from sony, people will offer far much greater aount and satisfaction than sony ever will Keep it on the download, so it dosnt get patched or f*cked with, we dont want to end up at ground 0 once again after so many years.
Cheers to you buddy.
January 23, 2010 9:02 AM"

Lmfao

Anyway, I was thinking, if this jurisdiction fails (for Sony), do you think SCEA will attempt to go after Geo in New Jersey or do you think SCE will try to extradite him to Japan? I'm not sure about legal issues in Japan regarding hacking these sort of things or how exactly extradition works...

 

[poppabk]

"Kiriller said...
Thanks GeoHot, substantial donations are coming to you, don't even think of sharing the info or taking any bribe from sony, people will offer far much greater aount and satisfaction than sony ever will Keep it on the download, so it dosnt get patched or f*cked with, we dont want to end up at ground 0 once again after so many years.
Cheers to you buddy.
January 23, 2010 9:02 AM"

Lmfao

Anyway, I was thinking, if this jurisdiction fails (for Sony), do you think SCEA will attempt to go after Geo in New Jersey or do you think SCE will try to extradite him to Japan? I'm not sure about legal issues in Japan regarding hacking these sort of things or how exactly extradition works...

Its a civil case, they won't be extraditing anyone. Plus the DMCA is a US law.

 

[phosphor112]

Its a civil case, they won't be extraditing anyone. Plus the DMCA is a US law.

What if it is a criminal case THERE? Once again, I'm just asking. I know some countries (like Germany) say security circumvention is a criminal law... not too sure about Japan.

Anyway, while Sony didn't provide TIFFs (though they were requested) it's easy to fix. A de-speckel and threshold change can fix it up to be legible enough for OCR. While it isn't perfect, from the looks of this specific document, results would be pretty solid. Also, we have yet to identify if the courts ordered the TIFFs or not.

 

[squatingyeti]

Anyway, I was thinking, if this jurisdiction fails (for Sony), do you think SCEA will attempt to go after Geo in New Jersey or do you think SCE will try to extradite him to Japan? I'm not sure about legal issues in Japan regarding hacking these sort of things or how exactly extradition works...

IF this jurisdiction fails, SCEA will most likely, not be involved anymore. SCEI may try to sue in Delaware, where they are incorporated, but the smart thing to do at that point, would be to go to NJ

Did you see this in 113-10.PDF Zoe? Sony is attempting to say that because Google and Twitter have TOS that can tie you to jurisdiction in California, this action has jurisdiction in California. FUCK! Anyone can be sued in California if they have twitter or google. Makes perfect sense lol.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

Anyway, I was thinking, if this jurisdiction fails (for Sony), do you think SCEA will attempt to go after Geo in New Jersey or do you think SCE will try to extradite him to Japan? I'm not sure about legal issues in Japan regarding hacking these sort of things or how exactly extradition works...

As stated SCEI has a presence in the US in Delaware so if the rightful owner of the PS3 and the firmware were to sue him, I'm guessing SCEI will bring the case in either NJ or DE.

 

[Curufinwe]

Anyway, I was thinking, if this jurisdiction fails (for Sony), do you think SCEA will attempt to go after Geo in New Jersey or do you think SCE will try to extradite him to Japan? I'm not sure about legal issues in Japan regarding hacking these sort of things or how exactly extradition works...

Sony are forum shopping for the best forum for them, which they obviously believe is CA. If they fail, then they'll have to try the case in NJ. I don't think there's any other state they could try... maybe DE, as OJG said.

Spoiler

DE would be great for me; I could try to go to the trial as a spectator.

There won't be any extradition going on in this civil case.

 

[Zoe]

Did you see this in 113-10.PDF Zoe? Sony is attempting to say that because Google and Twitter have TOS that can tie you to jurisdiction in California, this action has jurisdiction in California. FUCK! Anyone can be sued in California if they have twitter or google. Makes perfect sense lol.

They all say the same thing.

http://us.playstation.com/support/termsofuse/

Except as otherwise required by applicable law, this Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California applying to contracts fully executed and performed within the State of California. Except as otherwise required by applicable law, both parties submit to personal jurisdiction in California and further agree that any dispute arising from or relating to this Agreement shall be brought in a court within San Mateo County, California. In the event of litigation to enforce any part of this Agreement, all costs and fees, including attorney’s fees, shall be paid by the non-prevailing party to the extent permitted by applicable law.

http://twitter.com/tos

These Terms and any action related thereto will be governed by the laws of the State of California without regard to or application of its conflict of law provisions or your state or country of residence. All claims, legal proceedings or litigation arising in connection with the Services will be brought solely in San Francisco County, California, and you consent to the jurisdiction of and venue in such courts and waive any objection as to inconvenient forum. If you are accepting these Terms on behalf of a United States federal government entity that is legally unable to accept the controlling law, jurisdiction or venue clauses above, then those clauses do not apply to you but instead these Terms and any action related thereto will be will be governed by the laws of the United States of America (without reference to conflict of laws) and, in the absence of federal law and to the extent permitted under federal law, the laws of the State of California (excluding choice of law).

http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS

20.7 The Terms, and your relationship with Google under the Terms, shall be governed by the laws of the State of California without regard to its conflict of laws provisions. You and Google agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts located within the county of Santa Clara, California to resolve any legal matter arising from the Terms. Notwithstanding this, you agree that Google shall still be allowed to apply for injunctive remedies (or an equivalent type of urgent legal relief) in any jurisdiction.

That's standard for ToS's.

 

[squatingyeti]

SCEA is trying really hard to say this whole action was directed at them. Even changing quotes to make it seem that way.

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

The real quote is:

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

To even be remotely complete, SCEA's should at least end with "me..."

http://psx-scene.com/forums/attachm...l-real-blickmaniac-please-stand-up-113-10-pdf

from the 113-10.pdf

 

[squatingyeti]

They all say the same thing.

http://us.playstation.com/support/termsofuse/


http://twitter.com/tos


http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS


That's standard for ToS's.

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Because we might have twitter or google ANY other action, having nothing to do with them, can pull us to California. That's what SCEA is trying to claim.

 

[Zoe]

Let's do some more

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/Legal/LiveTOU

f this contract is with Microsoft Corporation, then claims for breach of this contract will be subject to the laws of the State of Washington, without reference to conflict of laws principles. If this contract is with a Microsoft affiliate, claims for breach of this contract will be subject to the laws of the place of incorporation for such Microsoft affiliate, without reference to conflict of laws principles. All other claims, including claims regarding consumer protection laws, unfair competition laws, and in tort, will be subject to the laws of your state of residence in the United States, or, if you reside outside the United States, under the laws of the country to which we direct your Service. If this contract is with Microsoft Corporation, you consent to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of state and federal courts in King County, Washington, USA for all disputes relating to this contract or the Service. If this contract is with a Microsoft affiliate, you consent to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the courts located in the place of incorporation for such Microsoft affiliate for all disputes relating to this contract or the Service. You cannot revoke this consent.

http://www.nintendo.com/consumer/systems/wii/en_na/privacyEULA.jsp

This agreement and any claims arising under it is governed by the laws of the state of Washington, without reference to conflict of laws principles. If you want to sue us with respect to a claim related to this agreement, your lawsuit must be brought in King County, Washington, and you consent to the jurisdiction of courts located there. You agree that if any part of this agreement is determined to be invalid or unenforceable, that part will no longer apply and will be considered deleted from the agreement, but all other parts of the agreement will remain in effect. You further agree that we may replace the invalid part by a provision which reflects or comes closest to reflecting the initial intention. If we choose not to enforce a provision of the agreement, you agree that we are not waiving our right to do so in the future.

 

[squatingyeti]

Let's do some more

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/Legal/LiveTOU


http://www.nintendo.com/consumer/systems/wii/en_na/privacyEULA.jsp

Zoe, are you missing the point of what I posted? Sony is using Twitter and Google's TOS to say Hotz, in this case is subject to California jurisdiction. My statement was that we are all pretty much subject to California jurisdiction then, no matter the issue at hand.

 

[Zoe]

Zoe, are you missing the point of what I posted? Sony is using Twitter and Google's TOS to say Hotz, in this case is subject to California jurisdiction. My statement was that we are all pretty much subject to California jurisdiction then, no matter the issue at hand.

Or you could see that I barely posted that after your reply.

Got a meeting, I'll look at it later.

 

[darkpower]

No this is a sign that they are not trying to 'pull one over on people' as they submitted exactly what they recorded and didn't remove the part number to make it a more obvious match. What this is a sign of is that, as was stated numerous times in this thread, you can't take what anyone's lawyers say at face value.

1. Everyone took Sony's lawyers at face value, even though Hotz' lawyers seem to be more plausible than Sony's was. So are we supposed to suddenly think that now when we weren't allowed to think that previously?
2. Sony provided a SPECIFIC serial, so the serial needs to match, EXACTLY, without any differences, what they said it was. It wasn't, so why is just some, or most of it, enough now? We can't change the rules here, which is what Sony has been doing throughout this whole process. You can't just say "oh, they match for the most part, so yeah, it's the same system he had", because it doesn't work that way. It's one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in a long time.

 

[squatingyeti]

More from the 113-10.pdf

You guys should really check it out. Almost every website SCEA used as evidence (you know, publicly accessible, no private info type forums) they labeled HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL and filed them Under Seal

Cut short a quote from Hotz to make it look like he was directly talking to SCEA, said Hotz's jailbreak allowed piracy (not that others modified his code, but that his directly), tried to assert that Twitter and Google's TOS can put California jurisdiction over an individual in a separate action, and people saying they would donate to Hotz is the same as him taking money for the jailbreak.

Good read lol.

http://psx-scene.com/forums/attachm...l-real-blickmaniac-please-stand-up-113-10-pdf

 

[Zoe]

You know, you could just use the original.

http://groklaw.net/pdf2/SonyvHotz-104.pdf

 

[squatingyeti]

You know, you could just use the original.

http://groklaw.net/pdf2/SonyvHotz-104.pdf

Sorry, I prefer extremely light grey to what one would normally expect

 

[faust666]

2. Sony provided a SPECIFIC serial, so the serial needs to match, EXACTLY, without any differences, what they said it was. It wasn't, so why is just some, or most of it, enough now? We can't change the rules here, which is what Sony has been doing throughout this whole process. You can't just say "oh, they match for the most part, so yeah, it's the same system he had", because it doesn't work that way. It's one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in a long time.

read paragraph 5 http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2011cv00167/235965/105/

 

[poppabk]

1. Everyone took Sony's lawyers at face value, even though Hotz' lawyers seem to be more plausible than Sony's was. So are we supposed to suddenly think that now when we weren't allowed to think that previously?
2. Sony provided a SPECIFIC serial, so the serial needs to match, EXACTLY, without any differences, what they said it was. It wasn't, so why is just some, or most of it, enough now? We can't change the rules here, which is what Sony has been doing throughout this whole process. You can't just say "oh, they match for the most part, so yeah, it's the same system he had", because it doesn't work that way. It's one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in a long time.

1. No-one had to take Sony's lawyers at face value because the third party and Hotz's own lawyers confirmed everything that they claimed.
2. If the discussion above is correct then the serial does match exactly and that the number they gave (serial + part number) would match exactly to a serial + part number somewhere on that machine.

 

[squatingyeti]

read paragraph 5 http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2011cv00167/235965/105/

It seems everyone is hung up on him having a PSN account. The problem I see is that even doing such, does not mean California has jurisdiction. He circumvented the firmware of his PS3.

Also, as pointed out by Kellar, this matter is not arising out of anything to do with PSN. Even the TOS of PSN say:

submit to personal jurisdiction in California and further agree that any dispute arising from and relating to this agreement...

SCEA hasn't even provided a copy of the correct TOS either apparently. They provided one that was created after the blickmaniac accounted would have been made.

 

[Curufinwe]

It seems everyone is hung up on him having a PSN account. The problem I see is that even doing such, does not mean California has jurisdiction. He circumvented the firmware of his PS3.

That isn't Sony's only legal argument for CA having jurisdiction, and Hotz has denied that he has a PSN account.

 

[darkpower]

read paragraph 5 http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2011cv00167/235965/105/

That's actually one of the "sealed" things that Hotz' staff is referring to as not needing to be concealed (look at all of the other things that seem to have their attached documents in that statement).

Seems like you're showing us what Hotz' lawyers are referring to when they say that Sony isn't exactly playing by the rules.

And where did the serial "CG221368477-CECH-4489" come from?

 

[RustyNails]

That isn't Sony's only legal argument for CA having jurisdiction, and Hotz has denied that he has a PSN account.

Somehow I find that hard to believe, and I also believe Sony's angle to get CA jurisdiction may not work out.

 

[poppabk]

It seems everyone is hung up on him having a PSN account. The problem I see is that even doing such, does not mean California has jurisdiction. He circumvented the firmware of his PS3.

A PSN account establishes a connection between SCEA and Hotz, one that includes a description of jurisdiction in California. If he made an account then he acknowledged that SCEA existed and was legally based out of California. The fact that what he did is outside the scope of that agreement doesn't mean it isn't evidence of his knowledge.

 

[Clear]

Its because when you create a PSN account, the party you are making an agreement with is with the regional operator, SCEA for NA, SCEE for Europeans, yada yada.

It basically locks in the TOS, and specifically in this case sets jurisdiction for legal action because it names SCEA specifically as the party with whom you are entering into an agreement with.

If they can persuade the judge that he created a PSN account, specifically the account linked with the PS3 he submitted for discovery...

Basically what Sony have submitted under seal is the smoking gun, but they can't prove Geohot's finger was actually on the trigger, ummm pad.

The stuff over the SDK and manuals is a secondary line of attack, and I'm not surprised Sony OCR-proofed them - they are going to want to keep their powder dry for the case proper, not to mention that its not the sort of information you want to make available easily.

Seems pretty cut and dried to me. But who knows which side the Judge will decide...

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

Somehow I find that hard to believe

Why is that so hard to believe?

 

[PSGames]

Can just having a PSN account on his machine make him culpable? I mean if it doesn't include his name or any pertinent information that references him than surely that wouldn't hold up in court?

 

[Curufinwe]

Can just having a PSN account on his machine make him culpable? I mean if it doesn't include his name or any pertinent information that references him than surely that wouldn't hold up in court?

Preponderance of evidence is the standard in civil court.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

Somehow I find that hard to believe, and I also believe Sony's angle to get CA jurisdiction may not work out.

Nothing he did required a PSN account nor a new system. A used system with the firmware already updated would work just fine for what he was using the system for and would allow him not to agree to any TOS.

 

[squatingyeti]

Its because when you create a PSN account, the party you are making an agreement with is with the regional operator, SCEA for NA, SCEE for Europeans, yada yada.

It basically locks in the TOS, and specifically in this case sets jurisdiction for legal action because it names SCEA specifically as the party with whom you are entering into an agreement with.

But, the agreement you are making is wholly related to PSN. The "software" (firmware) that he is charged with circumventing is wholly owned and created by SCEI. The TOS and software that SCEA is talking about is only dealing with PSN. Kellar has also asserted that SCEA is not (or was not at the time, they have IIRC restructured) a subsidiary of SCEI. I have no idea on that, but apparently Hotz's side have looked at something leading them to that belief.

We have no idea what they actually have under seal and whether it holds water, as SCEA has gone about putting anything they choose, including public forums, "under seal"

 

[squatingyeti]

Nothing he did required a PSN account nor a new system. A used system with the firmware already updated would work just fine for what he was using the system for and would allow him not to agree to any TOS.

Going beyond this, agreeing to the TOS on one machine, does not carry to each and every machine he would own. Kellar equated it to agreeing to (iirc) agreeing to MS Office TOS on one computer, doesn't mean you now agree to them on every computer you own.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

Going beyond this, agreeing to the TOS on one machine, does not carry to each and every machine he would own. Kellar equated it to agreeing to (iirc) agreeing to MS Office TOS on one computer, doesn't mean you now agree to them on every computer you own.

Hmmm, interesting point. So even if he agreed to the TOS on his new machine but bought 3 other used ones and hacked those machines and left the new one intact he's not covered under it. That is interesting.

 

[squatingyeti]

Further evidence that what Hotz circumvented has nothing to do with any SCEA TOS EULA or SCEA at all:

This warranty does not apply to any system software that is pre-installed in the PS3™ hardware, or Is subsequently provided via update or upgrade releases. Such system software is licensed to you under the terms and conditions of a separate end user license agreement at http://www.scei.co.jp//ps3-eula and such software is provided pursuant to its own warranty.

He may have agreed to the PSN TOS, but his actions have nothing to do with PSN. PSN is one "application" if you will that can run on the PS3. Agreeing to MS Office TOS would not be the same TOS you would be subject to for breaking something with say, Windows (wholly as an example not knowing if the TOS of Office and Windows are the same).

 

[Fularu]

Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as Twitter, Google, MS, Sony or Nintendo's TOS go, they say that if *I* want to sue them it has to be in their county.

Nowhere does it say that if THEY would be the ones to sue me, it has to be in their jurisdiction.

Or am I reading it wrong?

 

[poppabk]

Going beyond this, agreeing to the TOS on one machine, does not carry to each and every machine he would own. Kellar equated it to agreeing to (iirc) agreeing to MS Office TOS on one computer, doesn't mean you now agree to them on every computer you own.

But it would shoot a few holes in a defense that relied on you not knowing who Microsoft were or that they were based out of Washington State.

 

[squatingyeti]

Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as Twitter, Google, MS, Sony or Nintendo's TOS go, they say that if *I* want to sue them it has to be in their county.

Nowhere does it say that if THEY would be the ones to sue me, it has to be in their jurisdiction.

Or am I reading it wrong?

You're reading it wrong. If they bring a cause of actions that result from those TOS, you have subjected yourself to whatever jurisdiction was in the TOS. I think the issue and the debate is, does TOS from something you did not break, bring jurisdiction over you?