GeoHot and Sony Settle PS3 Jailbreak Case

[Weaver]

Hotz was probably just tired of dealing with all of this crap every day.
I know I would be.

 

[DTWolfwood]

we still have Activision vs EA at least...right?

man what a let down. all the fuss leading up to nothing.

 

[Baresark]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

Well, he said he would only settle with Sony under terms X and Y and has, in fact and indeed, settled with Sony on terms that don't at all include terms X or Y. And there you have the false statement required by the elements of a claim for fraud in New Jersey. No?

I still disagree. He didn't say he would settle ONLY if terms X and Y are met. He said he wanted terms X and Y. Also, as of now, no one knows the terms of the settlement. It could be either way, and I would imagine that no side is going to release what exactly the terms and conditions were, so we may never know. I bet you could file a motion in the terms of your potential class action lawsuit compelling the release of the terms of the settlement, but that could go either way depending on the judge who oversees the case.

I'm sure I don't have to explain to you how bargaining in any situation works, perhaps he got a piece of what he wanted, but he couldn't have to it all, that would be the same thing as an overall victory to him. I look forward to seeing what news is released about settlement though.

 

[HerbertTheHamster]

And people donated money for this, hahaha oh wow.

Corporations gonna corporate. If you don't like not being able to crack your PS3 to play pirated games, tough shit. There's this thing called PC.

 

[Auxiliary]

Goddammit...that's so fucking boring. I was really hoping that SOMEONE would get screwed in this case...

The paying customer always gets screwed over.

 

[Veritasiness]

How about the point at which, when asked if he will ever settle with Sony, he categorically and arrogantly and, as it turns out, falsely states that he will not settle with Sony but on his terms which include that Sony "[restore] OtherOS on all PS3s and apolog[ize] on the PlayStation blog for ever removing it?" I'll bet $1,000,000 that the terms of his settlement with Sony say nothing of the sort. Legally, that make him a fraudster. But in my 'hood, we just call that "a fucking liar."

How much money did you give him, anyway? Are you willing to spend that much on a legal case which will probably be thrown out on the grounds that nowhere on his site which I can see does it say explicitly what donations will be used for - it only implies with lots of rhetoric. Additionally, technically the court case was never solved either way in the American legal system; it was settled outside of court.

In other news: Successful troll is successful.

I didn't give him not a red fucking cent. I'm a lot a things, but stupid ain't one of 'em.

The thing is, in the American legal system you need to be able to prove you have actually been damaged by someone's harmful actions. If I do something illegal that doesn't hurt you in any way, you cannot sue me for it. If you did not donate, you can still file suit, but it will be dismissed faster than you can say "they see me trollin'."

 

[jpoon]

Bummer, I was wating for hotz to win this one...

 

[Veritasiness]

Technically nobody lost or won. They settled

 

[2xDouble]

Honestly folks, how did you expect this case to end?

It was a stupid case to begin with, and it ended anticlimactically because the people involved decided to behave like adults (finally).

 

[JDKJ]

How about the point at which, when asked if he will ever settle with Sony, he categorically and arrogantly and, as it turns out, falsely states that he will not settle with Sony but on his terms which include that Sony "[restore] OtherOS on all PS3s and apolog[ize] on the PlayStation blog for ever removing it?" I'll bet $1,000,000 that the terms of his settlement with Sony say nothing of the sort. Legally, that make him a fraudster. But in my 'hood, we just call that "a fucking liar."

How much money did you give him, anyway? Are you willing to spend that much on a legal case which will probably be thrown out on the grounds that nowhere on his site which I can see does it say explicitly what donations will be used for - it only implies with lots of rhetoric. Additionally, technically the court case was never solved either way in the American legal system; it was settled outside of court.

In other news: Successful troll is successful.

I didn't give him not a red fucking cent. I'm a lot a things, but stupid ain't one of 'em.

The thing is, in the American legal system you need to be able to prove you have actually been damaged by someone's harmful actions. If I do something illegal that doesn't hurt you in any way, you cannot sue me for it. If you did not donate, you can still file suit, but it will be dismissed faster than you can say "they see me trollin'."

Thanks for telling me that of which I was already perfectly aware. I'm the big, bad-ass, Wall Street attorney. I never meant to say I would sue him in any personal capacity. I said I would class-action him (i.e., as lead counsel for a class of plaintiffs who did donate to him and believe, quite rightly so, that they should have their money returned to them). As a big, bad-ass, Wall Street attorney, I've always got my eye out for a good class action. Particularly one where the defendant is a complete schmuck.

 

[JDKJ]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

Well, he said he would only settle with Sony under terms X and Y and has, in fact and indeed, settled with Sony on terms that don't at all include terms X or Y. And there you have the false statement required by the elements of a claim for fraud in New Jersey. No?

I still disagree. He didn't say he would settle ONLY if terms X and Y are met. He said he wanted terms X and Y. Also, as of now, no one knows the terms of the settlement. It could be either way, and I would imagine that no side is going to release what exactly the terms and conditions were, so we may never know. I bet you could file a motion in the terms of your potential class action lawsuit compelling the release of the terms of the settlement, but that could go either way depending on the judge who oversees the case.

I'm sure I don't have to explain to you how bargaining in any situation works, perhaps he got a piece of what he wanted, but he couldn't have to it all, that would be the same thing as an overall victory to him. I look forward to seeing what news is released about settlement though.

Disagree all you want. But you may wanna try a lil' harder to occasionally bet on a horse that'll come in somewhere other than dead last in the race. After all, your track record around here for picking winners ain't exactly impressive.

 

[Something Amyss]

Yay! This means that Sony can continue to treat hardware purchased by their customers as company property! A great day for us all.

I feel...So empty inside.

Damn.

 

[Asehujiko]

What was obvious was that Hotz said he was going to fight Sony all the way and he was going to win. When his begging-ass was soliciting money for his Legal Defense Fund, he never said a word about the possibility that he was ever going to settle with Sony. He said he was going to prevail against Sony and, in so doing, set a legal precedent from which his donators would also benefit. He hasn't made good on that promise. Ergo, he needs to hurry up and return the donations.

You do realize that it was probably his lawyer who decided to settle at the first available opportunity for something utterly trivial like removing an old blog post and not Geohot himself? And that a draw was the closest thing he's ever going to get to that goal if sony is allowed to spout bullshit constantly and nobody calls them out on it?

 

[Antari]

Considering how soft they've gone on him, I wouldn't be entirely shocked if they've hired him in the background.

 

[Baresark]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

Well, he said he would only settle with Sony under terms X and Y and has, in fact and indeed, settled with Sony on terms that don't at all include terms X or Y. And there you have the false statement required by the elements of a claim for fraud in New Jersey. No?

I still disagree. He didn't say he would settle ONLY if terms X and Y are met. He said he wanted terms X and Y. Also, as of now, no one knows the terms of the settlement. It could be either way, and I would imagine that no side is going to release what exactly the terms and conditions were, so we may never know. I bet you could file a motion in the terms of your potential class action lawsuit compelling the release of the terms of the settlement, but that could go either way depending on the judge who oversees the case.

I'm sure I don't have to explain to you how bargaining in any situation works, perhaps he got a piece of what he wanted, but he couldn't have to it all, that would be the same thing as an overall victory to him. I look forward to seeing what news is released about settlement though.

Disagree all you want. But you may wanna try a lil' harder to occasionally bet on a horse that'll come in somewhere other than dead last in the race. After all, your track record around here for picking winners ain't exactly impressive.

I didn't know there was a competition. The last back and forth you and I had was about this same overall subject. And I don't concede anything to you on the specifics of this subject or the last. By my reckoning, you didn't win a thing here. Your track record is notable somehow? As if anyone but you is keeping track. You haven't even shown a clear and concise understanding of the language you use all the time. Your opinion is that it's conceivable to get him for fraud. My opinion is different than yours. And you seem to be only one who harbors your opinion. I would daresay, I question your claims as to your profession. I am no expert, but you have shown little expertise in the only realm that matters here, which is debate. You have stated again and again he has made guarantees he didn't deliver on, but you are the only one who has seen these guarantees, even in the context of the information in question.

I'm pretty happy with my track record, if for no other reason that admitting that you err'ed is not a shortcoming. But, I never claimed to be an attorney, and your claim is far from substantiated at this point. The citation of a few laws doesn't prove anything.

 

[JDKJ]

What was obvious was that Hotz said he was going to fight Sony all the way and he was going to win. When his begging-ass was soliciting money for his Legal Defense Fund, he never said a word about the possibility that he was ever going to settle with Sony. He said he was going to prevail against Sony and, in so doing, set a legal precedent from which his donators would also benefit. He hasn't made good on that promise. Ergo, he needs to hurry up and return the donations.

You do realize that it was probably his lawyer who decided to settle at the first available opportunity for something utterly trivial like removing an old blog post and not Geohot himself? And that a draw was the closest thing he's ever going to get to that goal if sony is allowed to spout bullshit constantly and nobody calls them out on it?

You're trying to tell me that the client's attorney can make a decision to settle a pending lawsuit independent of his client's position on the matter and without any consultation with or agreement from his client? If that's what in fact happen, then Hotz needs to contact me so I can represent him in a malpractice suit against his attorney.

 

[Baresark]

What was obvious was that Hotz said he was going to fight Sony all the way and he was going to win. When his begging-ass was soliciting money for his Legal Defense Fund, he never said a word about the possibility that he was ever going to settle with Sony. He said he was going to prevail against Sony and, in so doing, set a legal precedent from which his donators would also benefit. He hasn't made good on that promise. Ergo, he needs to hurry up and return the donations.

You do realize that it was probably his lawyer who decided to settle at the first available opportunity for something utterly trivial like removing an old blog post and not Geohot himself? And that a draw was the closest thing he's ever going to get to that goal if sony is allowed to spout bullshit constantly and nobody calls them out on it?

I couldn't agree more with this post. Remember when he "fled" the country and ran off to hide in south america? Everyone who previously supported him jumped all over him because Sony filed a motion. People definitely need to learn to objectively read something and get actual information out of it, and not just here-say of one side of the lawsuit.

 

[Baresark]

What was obvious was that Hotz said he was going to fight Sony all the way and he was going to win. When his begging-ass was soliciting money for his Legal Defense Fund, he never said a word about the possibility that he was ever going to settle with Sony. He said he was going to prevail against Sony and, in so doing, set a legal precedent from which his donators would also benefit. He hasn't made good on that promise. Ergo, he needs to hurry up and return the donations.

You do realize that it was probably his lawyer who decided to settle at the first available opportunity for something utterly trivial like removing an old blog post and not Geohot himself? And that a draw was the closest thing he's ever going to get to that goal if sony is allowed to spout bullshit constantly and nobody calls them out on it?

You're trying to tell me that the client's attorney can make a decision to settle a pending lawsuit independent of his client's position on the matter and without any consultation with or agreement from his client? If that's what in fact happen, then Hotz needs to contact me so I can represent him in a malpractice suit against his attorney.

I'm sure he is trying to say that a persons attorney can strongly suggest that settling is in his best interest, and the client, not having a law degree, might just listen to them.

 

[JDKJ]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

Well, he said he would only settle with Sony under terms X and Y and has, in fact and indeed, settled with Sony on terms that don't at all include terms X or Y. And there you have the false statement required by the elements of a claim for fraud in New Jersey. No?

I still disagree. He didn't say he would settle ONLY if terms X and Y are met. He said he wanted terms X and Y. Also, as of now, no one knows the terms of the settlement. It could be either way, and I would imagine that no side is going to release what exactly the terms and conditions were, so we may never know. I bet you could file a motion in the terms of your potential class action lawsuit compelling the release of the terms of the settlement, but that could go either way depending on the judge who oversees the case.

I'm sure I don't have to explain to you how bargaining in any situation works, perhaps he got a piece of what he wanted, but he couldn't have to it all, that would be the same thing as an overall victory to him. I look forward to seeing what news is released about settlement though.

Disagree all you want. But you may wanna try a lil' harder to occasionally bet on a horse that'll come in somewhere other than dead last in the race. After all, your track record around here for picking winners ain't exactly impressive.

I didn't know there was a competition. The last back and forth you and I had was about this same overall subject. And I don't concede anything to you on the specifics of this subject or the last. By my reckoning, you didn't win a thing here. Your track record is notable somehow? As if anyone but you is keeping track. You haven't even shown a clear and concise understanding of the language you use all the time. Your opinion is that it's conceivable to get him for fraud. My opinion is different than yours. And you seem to be only one who harbors your opinion. I would daresay, I question your claims as to your profession. I am no expert, but you have shown little expertise in the only realm that matters here, which is debate. You have stated again and again he has made guarantees he didn't deliver on, but you are the only one who has seen these guarantees, even in the context of the information in question.

I'm pretty happy with my track record, if for no other reason that admitting that you err'ed is not a shortcoming. But, I never claimed to be an attorney, and your claim is far from substantiated at this point. The citation of a few laws doesn't prove anything.

It certainly beats relying on "The Books of Laws I Made up in My Head and Pulled from out of My Ass," dont it?

 

[JDKJ]

What was obvious was that Hotz said he was going to fight Sony all the way and he was going to win. When his begging-ass was soliciting money for his Legal Defense Fund, he never said a word about the possibility that he was ever going to settle with Sony. He said he was going to prevail against Sony and, in so doing, set a legal precedent from which his donators would also benefit. He hasn't made good on that promise. Ergo, he needs to hurry up and return the donations.

You do realize that it was probably his lawyer who decided to settle at the first available opportunity for something utterly trivial like removing an old blog post and not Geohot himself? And that a draw was the closest thing he's ever going to get to that goal if sony is allowed to spout bullshit constantly and nobody calls them out on it?

You're trying to tell me that the client's attorney can make a decision to settle a pending lawsuit independent of his client's position on the matter and without any consultation with or agreement from his client? If that's what in fact happen, then Hotz needs to contact me so I can represent him in a malpractice suit against his attorney.

I'm sure he is trying to say that a persons attorney can strongly suggest that settling is in his best interest, and the client, not having a law degree, might just listen to them.

He might of been "trying" to say that but saying "it was probably his lawyer who decided to settle . . . and not Geohot himself" comes nowhere close to actually saying that.