darkpower said:Here's Ars' story on this: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/...matched-serial-numbers-and-sealed-manuals.ars
One of the major parts of THIS is that it shows the picture that was presented in the documents:
Of course, this is a story link I found on N4G, and we all know how bad THAT site has become about this story:
Have no idea how he got all that from a WIKIPEDIA article!
But, to one of MY posts there:
And...
I think I provided a link to this N4G page. ALL of the comment sections there have been like this....nearly EVERY! SINGLE! COMMENT! Without actually LOOKING at what they're citing, or knowing what they are talking about. I mean, I know I'm not the most knowledgeable person in the world, but c'mon.
As for the serial numbers, the fact that it was SONY that provided the EXACT serial number without any clear indication that a few numbers might be off or that the last few digits wouldn't matter is a sign that you tried to pull one over on people, provided that it holds up.
Also, I read that ENTIRE PDF document that the OP linked. Yeah, it's lawyer talk, but they really sound convincing, and they seem to be saying things that make a ton of sense. There was no way Hotz could've controlled where the CFW went to. He created it in NJ, and Sony, according to them, tried to be dodgy and go behind their backs and exaggerate stuff, and say things that they cannot prove with admissible evidence in court.
I think Sony needs to be quick to answer these charges, because those charges are pretty damning.
squatingyeti said:I love how I can comb through and post so much shit that SCEA is trying to pull and yet, rather than say a bunch of people shouldn't have jumped on Hotz, we get stuff like this. That's not personally against you chub I just know there will be many more posts repeating and have been two already now.
It really doesn't matter if he knew they existed, the argument that he wouldn't be directing the statement at them, as they have nothing to do with the actual PS3 OR the firmware, still stands.
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.darkpower said:As for the serial numbers, the fact that it was SONY that provided the EXACT serial number without any clear indication that a few numbers might be off or that the last few digits wouldn't matter is a sign that you tried to pull one over on people, provided that it holds up.
Zizbuka said:Yeah, not like you have blinders on or anything. Hotz wasn't happy just offering an alternative to people, he wanted to be famous. This is what he gets.
godels rotating universe said:As a general rule of thumb, if it's corporation vs. a single person, I'd never support the corporation. If only because the stakes are not fair going in.
squatingyeti said:For the last time, I don't think Hotz has gone about stuff the right way. He is socially abrasive and has some other issues. However, that doesn't mean I don't support CFW. That doesn't mean what he has done is fundamentally different than when he was explaining exactly how the iPhone was hacked (which was illegal when he did it). Who was jumping all over him for being an ass then?
In fact, ignore Hotz, what about Fail0verflow? Keep ignoring this is NOT about the keys being released as Sony will keep trying to convince people. Fail0verflow is named in the suit as well.
jurisdictionally yes.ichinisan said:Also amusing is how quiet this thread has now gone. It seems that George's lawyers leapt before they looked on this one. So this would imply that the PS3s match which greatly increases the chance that Geo=BlickManic or whatever it is.
If this is true he's completely stuffed.
You asked about this, got the answer, pointed out that this was addressed in the filing, and then ignored it all to fill in your own bullshit. He was, at first, receiving pro bono work. He did pitch in some of his own money and did ask for donations to help. None of that is wrong. Then, you insinuate he used his "legal fund" to go on a vacation. Amazing.marlborored said:You're right, Sony seriously needs to get some pro-bono legal counsel, ask for donations for their "legal fund" and go on a vacation to South America booked "back in November", silly corporations, when will they ever learn?
ichinisan said:B-b-b-b-but you were so keen to support him, now he's been cast loose? So callous!
Even if they can show that he created a PSN account and on the balance of evidence show that he knew that SCEA existed and were based in California, Sony still need to demonstrate minimum contact with California. They would probably need at least one instance where Geohot directly dealt with someone from California.ichinisan said:Also amusing is how quiet this thread has now gone. It seems that George's lawyers leapt before they looked on this one. So this would imply that the PS3s match which greatly increases the chance that Geo=BlickManic or whatever it is.
If this is true he's completely stuffed.
plagiarize said:jurisdictionally yes.
but here's the thing, why do sony want to contest this in CA? couldn't Sony go after George in his home state (that's an honest question... i don't know that they can)?
if they could go after him at home, and they're trying to make him come to CA, then they're doing that to try and make the case as expensive as possible for George.
again, i don't know that they could go after him in his home state... but all this reeks of SLAPP to me. they don't want people modding their equipment, and so they want anyone who tries to know that Sony is prepared to drag them through the courts at great personal expense.
gokieks said:Are you sure that making the document in a non-OCRable format is tampering with evidence? (serious question). If so, then I assume the judge will deal with it appropriately. But if not, then it strikes me as much the same as GeoHot removing the PCBs - becase again, I'm pretty much drawing a blank on legitimate reasons that he could've had for removing the HDD controller PCBs. So I'm viewing the actions of both in much the same way - a douchey move (that, personally, makes the case seem more comedic).
Because of the lightening of the file and the normal black text of the Bates stamps, I was unable to run optical character recognition software (OCR) on the file or any other file from SCEA that was produced in this form.
plagiarize said:jurisdictionally yes.
but here's the thing, why do sony want to contest this in CA? couldn't Sony go after George in his home state (that's an honest question... i don't know that they can)?
if they could go after him at home, and they're trying to make him come to CA, then they're doing that to try and make the case as expensive as possible for George.
again, i don't know that they could go after him in his home state... but all this reeks of SLAPP to me. they don't want people modding their equipment, and so they want anyone who tries to know that Sony is prepared to drag them through the courts at great personal expense.
18 year old kid vs sony, kinda not fare when one has billions at stash the other might have a burger king job. probably still living at home and goes on vacation with his family vs a huge team of lawyers from sony attacking him. whould I ask for donations, yesMalboroRed said:You're right, Sony seriously needs to get some pro-bono legal counsel, ask for donations for their "legal fund" and go on a vacation to South America booked "back in November", silly corporations, when will they ever learn?
plagiarize said:jurisdictionally yes.
but here's the thing, why do sony want to contest this in CA? couldn't Sony go after George in his home state (that's an honest question... i don't know that they can)?
ichinisan said: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?
mclem said:Don't they also need to show that it was *them* who was impacted by this? There's still the document which suggests that the full rights to the PS3 hardware and firmware belong to SCEI, not SCEA.
(Which, in turn, has interesting repercussions on the OtherOS class action suit, albeit in a negative direction)
squatingyeti said:Hey hey, someone that is getting this is about jurisdiction. If you read the end of the second link, which is the actual filing PDF, you can see some arguments against jurisdiction even if SCEA could prove he had an account or other things.
SCEI would have to sue in Delaware and is perfectly capable of bringing the suit. There is a reason SCEA was chosen to file the suit.
PSGames said:What is stopping geohot from claiming someone else created that account on his PS3?
I somehow don't think that will matter as SCEA is a wholly owned subsidiary of SCEI.mclem said:Don't they also need to show that it was *them* who was impacted by this? There's still the document which suggests that the full rights to the PS3 hardware and firmware belong to SCEI, not SCEA.
(Which, in turn, has interesting repercussions on the OtherOS class action suit, albeit in a negative direction)
ichinisan said:Honour, Decency and the American Way!
statham said:18 year old kid vs sony, kinda not fare when one has billions at stash the other might have a burger king job. probably still living at home and goes on vacation with his family vs a huge team of lawyers from sony attacking him. whould I ask for donations, yes
poppabk said:I somehow don't think that will matter as SCEA is a wholly owned subsidiary of SCEI.
ichinisan said:So just to confirm, this thread is now entirely over whether the jurisdictional nature of this case is correct?
Not my bag of beans really. I'm no armchair lawyer so for that reason, I'm out.
Lonewolf_92 said:Are we to assume that a company and/or the lawyers working for said, that can't even get a standardized part number correct from one filing to the next, correctly IDed an account using a lengthy alphanumeric? Beggars belief. Add to the fact that they claim it contains purchase information but haven't presented it and something starts to smell.
The preponderance of evidence would suggest that if the account was made on his PS3 then he made it.PSGames said:lol But seriously his mom, dad, brother, sister, friend, cousin, anyone could have created an account on his PS3.
kellar said:The sole way SCEA attempts to demonstrate that blickmaniac is Mr. Hotz is an unauthenticated and hearsay blog posting where an individual attempts to sell an unlocked cell phone
kellar said:Curiously, the exhibit proffered by SCEA regarding the purported blickmanic account indicates that there was some form of purchase or transaction relating to this account. Law Dec. Ex. A. Consistent with SCEA's general refusal to provide Mr. Hotz with its requested discovery responses, SCEA has not provided any information pertaining to this transaction to Mr. Hotz's counse
poppabk said:I somehow don't think that will matter as SCEA is a wholly owned subsidiary of SCEI.
kellar said:On the other hand, SCEA, which is not even a subsidiary of Sony Japan
SCEA has enacted in this lawsuit is its masquerade as Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. (Sony Japan), a Japanese corporation headquartered in Japan and duly incorporated in the state of Delaware. To be clear, Sony Japan-- not SCEA-- is responsible for manufacturing, distributing, and marketing the Playstation Computer. Sony Japan is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in, to and under the copyrights in the PS3 Programmer Tools...
squatingyeti said:Hey hey, someone that is getting this is about jurisdiction. If you read the end of the second link, which is the actual filing PDF, you can see some arguments against jurisdiction even if SCEA could prove he had an account or other things.
SCEI would have to sue in Delaware (which they'd have even more straws to grasp at on jurisdiction) and is perfectly capable of bringing the suit. There is a reason SCEA was chosen to file the suit.
Sony Japan-- not SCEA-- is responsible for manufacturing, distributing, and marketing the Playstation Computer.
I was just going by what it says on the SCEA website.squatingyeti said:Well, that may not be so...
kellar said:On the other hand, SCEA, which is not even a subsidiary of Sony Japan
squatingyeti said:Everything has been about jurisdiction. There is NO case yet. The only thing the court is SUPPOSED to be hearing about is jurisdiction. Hotz's lawyers have pointed out that Sony has used jurisdictional discovery in an attempt to do more. Even introducing evidence that has nothing to do with jurisdiction.
Everyone was quick to make some magic connection that since Hotz went on vacation and asked for donations, he stole people's money and fled the country. However, twice (originally with the Geo1Hotz account) SCEA has stated they have information which proves it is Hotz. They did not turn over the Geo1Hotz "proof" at first and it ended up being an IP that was not Hotz. Then, they claim blickmaniac is him and they have purchase information (information that would definitively tie it to Hotz) and have not provided said information to the court OR the defense.
I believe they reorganized after this case, or are in the process of such. Their agreements at the time of the filing and before, as apparently shown in the evidence, says they are/where not.poppabk said:I was just going by what it says on the SCEA website.
Which has nothing to do with why SCEA is filing this case. They are merely a marketing and distribution channel for the PS3.SCEA is responsible for the Playstation operations in this market. The business is still affected in this jurisdiction because SCEA is the legal representation for SCEI in this country regarding the playstation. Eula, warranties and all other agreements or issues, you take to SCEA not SCEI.
Correct, marketing and distribution. I'll need to go back and address your post when I have more time, but if you look over the full PDF, you'll see the legal arguments brought by Kellar for why SCEA has no business bringing this case.Which isn't entirely true. If I am not mistaken even though SCEI (a subsidiary of Sony Japan) manufactures the PS3's, SCEA are the ones responsible for marketing and distribution of the PS3 in the United States, Canada and Latin America.
MalboroRed said:Fact #1: George Hotz went on vacation in South America in the middle of being sued by a multi-billion dollar corporation.
Fact #2: George Hotz solicited donations for his "legal defense fund".
What is not clear and cannot be proven at this point is whether he spent money from the "defense fund" on his vacation, one can speculate that he did, the same way that one can speculate that he did not, but if you believe that he did not and somehow magically came up with his own money to spend on the trip, then you are basically taking George Hotz's word at face value, not everybody would do that given George Hotz has not behaved like an honest, responsible person.
plagiarize said:if they could go after him at home, and they're trying to make him come to CA, then they're doing that to try and make the case as expensive as possible for George.
obonicus said:Maybe that's part of the motivation, but I think that it's because CA is friendlier to IP lawsuits. Hotz will probably lose if it goes to CA. But this probably will be settled out of court in any case, so I think it's moot.
squatingyeti said:It is illegal to misappropriate donations. His lawyer would certainly be upset about not getting paid the money he should be getting. His lawyer agrees the trip was planned and paid for before this case was brought. His lawyer, in his filing, also stated no funds were misappropriated. Guilty until proven innocent, exactly how Sony has been fighting this whole case and some people going right along with it.
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.staticneuron said:SCEA is responsible for the Playstation operations in this market. The business is still affected in this jurisdiction because SCEA is the legal representation for SCEI in this country regarding the playstation. Eula, warranties and all other agreements or issues, you take to SCEA not SCEI.
Which isn't entirely true. If I am not mistaken even though SCEI (a subsidiary of Sony Japan) manufactures the PS3's, SCEA are the ones responsible for marketing and distribution of the PS3 in the United States, Canada and Latin America.
Kellar said:SCEA 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 Code does not provide users the ability to run pirated video games or any other pirated software, as SCEA claims.
Kellar said: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.
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.Kellar said:This is despite the fact that the Playstation Computer packaging, the Playstation Computer itself, and the click through agreements one has to accept when upgrading the Playstation Computer all indicates they are the products and property of Sony Japan, which is incorporated in Delaware. This is also despite the fact that all of the agreements put forth by SCEA indicate that Sony Japan is the owner and manufacturer of the Playstation Computer
Kellar said:As its last saving grace, SCEA tries to use the Playstation Network ("PSN) and its Terms of Service (TOS) as a method of establishing jurisdiction over Mr. Hotz. Even assuming arguendo that Mr. Hotz acquiesced to the PSN TOS, it alone would be incapable of establishing jurisdiction over Mr. Hotz.
Kellar said: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 (his emphasis)or in connection with" the Playstation Network and a service known as Qriocity.
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.Whether a forum selection clause applies to tort claims depends on whether resolution of the claims relates to interpretation of the contract. Manetti-Farrow v. Gucci America, Inc., 858 F.2d 509, 514 (9th Cir. 1988). In the present case, none of the claims SCEA has asserted in any way relate to the PSN-- nor could they be since the alleged torts involve Mr. Hotz's alleged circumvention outside the scope of the PSN.
The question is, does anyone think he did actually direct that comment at SCEA and not Sony itself?Kellar said:It defies reason that Mr. Hotz "directed" his comment at a company that does not create the hardware or the firmware that he is alleged to have hacked
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.Kellar said:compare Bricker Dec. filed with Court with Bricker Dec. produced to Mr. Hotz
MalboroRed said:Nobody is saying he's "guilty" of misappropriating donations and should go to jail or get sentenced to the iron maiden, it's not like we're talking about an official charitable organization here with tax receipts and everything, it's just a bunch of guys sending money to George Hotz for a supposed "legal fund", even IF he used some of it to pay for his South American trip or used the money to buy gum drops, we'll never know and won't be able to prove either way, the point is we don't know how he's using the money and whether the money actually goes towards his legal defense, we DO know that George Hotz went on vacation in the middle of the current law suit and removed parts of the hard drive he was supposed to turn over, it's not about being "guilty", people can have a negative opinion of him, we're not sentencing him here, merely speculating.
squatingyeti said:I'll have to check, but did the give over the PSN log showing that an account actually WAS created using that serial? Sony knew all the serial numbers Hotz possessed before trying to make this claim to the court. They have also shown they will state things they cannot actually back up with real evidence hoping it doesn't get pointed out.
Massa said:In this case you're basically accusing Sony of fabricating evidence.
squatingyeti said:No, I'm not saying the fabricated evidence and I don't think that's what they have done. I AM saying SCEA has stated they have something proving their side and either not provided it (the blickmaniac purchase that could show who it is) or when they did provide it, the evidence did not support their claim.
Now, SCEA has stated a particular PS3 with a particular serial# created a PSN account. However, they did not provide the evidence that proved such. Just stated, they could show. They also stated they could show an IP attached Geo1Hotz to George Hotz and the evidence did not actually support that. Do you see the difference?
Zoe said:The documents with that evidence exist but are filed under seal.
squatingyeti said:The IP address associated with the PSN Geo1Hotz never matched up and that's why they moved on to now say he is blickmaniac. Apparently, the evidence that a PS3 with a particular serial# created a PSN account is made, but that is not filed under seal (from what I can tell) as Kellar identifies each piece of evidence he references that is under seal in his filing and that was not one of them.
The serial number utilized by SCEA, however, is different from the serial number proffered by Mr. Hotz's attorney. Compare Law Dec., Ex. A, with Kellar Dec., Ex. L.
DOCUMENT E-FILED UNDER SEAL re [109] Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal -- Exhibits H, L, M, N, P and T to [104] Declaration of Ryan Bricker by Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit Bricker Exs. H, L, M, N, P and T_Part 2, # (2) Exhibit Bricker Exs. H, L, M, N, P and T_Part 3, # (3) Exhibit Bricker Exs. H, L, M, N, P and T_Part 4, # (4) Exhibit Bricker Exs. H, L, M, N, P and T_Part 5, # (5) Exhibit Bricker Exs. H, L, M, N, P and T_Part 6, # (6) Exhibit Bricker Exs. H, L, M, N, P and T_Part 7, # (7) Exhibit Bricker Exs. H, L, M, N, P and T_Part 8, # (8) Exhibit Law Exs. A and B, # (9) Exhibit Pierce Ex. A)(Smith, Mehrnaz) (Filed on 23-Mar-2011) Modified on 24-Mar-2011 (ysS, COURT STAFF).
squatingyeti said:Furthermore, in that evidence, they make the claim of a purchase or transaction tied to the blickmaniac account, but do not provide the details which could definitively prove or refute that it is indeed Hotz. A curious move wouldn't you say?
Curiously, the exhibit proffered by SCEA regarding the purported blickmanic account indicates that there was some form of purchase or transaction relating to this account. Law Dec. Ex. A. Consistent with SCEA's general refusal to provide Mr. Hotz with its requested discovery responses, SCEA has not provided any information pertaining to this transaction to Mr. Hotz's counsel.
squatingyeti said:Also, did you see above where the copy of documents Hotz was given are different than what the court received (shaded grey) in what they argue is an attempt to stop OCR. SCEA also avoided providing the documents in TIFF.