Geohot Claims He's Never Heard of Sony Computer Entertainment of America

[qeinar]

He's not right. He's less wrong than Sony, however. So there you have it.

He might be less 'wrong' than Sony morally, from your perspective.
In terms of actual legality - despite the fact that both cases are pretty shaky - Sony have quite the upper hand.

???
How so?

+1

Sony is fucked. How exactly are they going to prove something intangible like prior knowledge of a company's existence?

Sony doesn't have to prove that he knew of the SCEA was a company. That's a very poor attempt at a loophole by his lawyers. That's not how the law works. All Sony has to prove is that he knew he was breaking the law. Not knowing that a company exists is not going to get a court case thrown out. I can tell you that from currently being a law student. What next? "Sorry, I didn't know Wal-Mart was a company when I torched the place."

Doesn't Sony's case rely on him breaching the ELUA(a form of contract)? If they cannot prove that he knew of the existance of SCEA then there is no way he could be found to have had a 'meeting of the minds'(Required for a contract in the US) with them. If no contract exists then no remedies will be available under contract, therefore, Sony will have to file for damages under torts. This would be alot harder for them to prove.

That's not really the thing, what they are doing is basicly saying that california does not have the jurisdiction over the matter. so if your going with the walmart thingy it would be more like he stole from someone elses shop in another country,so they can't sue him for stealing.

 

[qeinar]

He's not right. He's less wrong than Sony, however. So there you have it.

He might be less 'wrong' than Sony morally, from your perspective.
In terms of actual legality - despite the fact that both cases are pretty shaky - Sony have quite the upper hand.

???
How so?

+1

Sony is fucked. How exactly are they going to prove something intangible like prior knowledge of a company's existence?

Sony doesn't have to prove that he knew of the SCEA was a company. That's a very poor attempt at a loophole by his lawyers. That's not how the law works. All Sony has to prove is that he knew he was breaking the law. Not knowing that a company exists is not going to get a court case thrown out. I can tell you that from currently being a law student. What next? "Sorry, I didn't know Wal-Mart was a company when I torched the place."

Doesn't Sony's case rely on him breaching the ELUA(a form of contract)? If they cannot prove that he knew of the existance of SCEA then there is no way he could be found to have had a 'meeting of the minds'(Required for a contract in the US) with them. If no contract exists then no remedies will be available under contract, therefore, Sony will have to file for damages under torts. This would be alot harder for them to prove.

A claim based on SCEA's EULA and TOS is but one of numerous claims that SCEA's complaint against Hotz raises. They've also raised violation of the DMCA, the tort of conversion (conduct inconsistent with the property rights of another), etc., etc., etc.

But all that doesn't matter at this point in the litigation. The substantive issues raised by SCEA's claims aren't even being addressed at this point. At this point, the issue is one of personal jurisdiction (i.e., whether SCEA can properly sue Hotz in a California court). The whole "I've never heard of a SCEA and have no idea what it is" is Hotz' defense to the exercise of a California court's jurisdiction over him. This is because for personal jurisdiction to exist, SCEA must establish that Hotz' alleged conduct was purposefully aimed at the State of California and that SCEA has suffered injury in the State of California from the alleged conduct. Hotz is saying, in effect, that he could not have purposefully caused SCEA an injury in the State of California because at the time of the alleged conduct he'd never heard of SCEA (a dumb-ass defense if ever there was one, in my opinion).

Well it would give them better time to prepare a better defence.

 

[rickynumber24]

*snip*
Wow. That statement is impressive in the extent to which is 100% utterly and completely wrong. You haven't left yourself an inch of room in which to be more wrong.

I'm failing to find my source now, so I'm going to concede the point with the claim that I likely misread something.

 

[ChupathingyX]

Seriously? I've known about Song Computer Entertainment America since I was 5 years old, playing Spyro games.

My hate levels rise more whenever a new story about this guy is released.

And that picture of him doesn't help.

 

[rickynumber24]

Text

I will agree that it could make a good blue-ray player but as a DVD player it would be pretty expensive. There are cheap DVD player that cost a while lot less then a PS3. Blue-ray player though, yeah there up there so you could use it as a good blue-ray player. I think this whole thing would be far more interesting if he never intended to ever play a game on it actually. Although I'm not sure what kind of root key shenanigans he can get up to with a Blue-Ray/DVD player/multimedia center.

EDIT: whoops, messed up my tags, sorry dude or dudette.

You have to realize that a lot of these people do it for principle. Several of my friends from college are major contributors to unrEVOked, the HTC jailbreak project. They all believe that the owner of a device ought to have full control over its behavior, which can only be truly exercised when you have root control of the device. (In the spirit of full disclosure, I have to say that I agree with them.)

Actually, I caught a lot of flack from them when I went back to visit because I work for a company that makes cell phone modems and insists on only providing binary blobs for them with minimal documentation because it's considered a trade secret. (Worse yet, it actually produces a lot of extra work for us, because we end up having to write the drivers for the blobs because nobody else knows how they work without reverse-engineering it...)

Amusingly, this puts people like geohot who reverse-engineer drivers on good terms with companies like Google, although a lot of plausible deniability is involved, because, "Good heavens, Google would never try to reverse-engineer stuff that the providing company asked them not to reverse-engineer! "

 

[TipsyPeaches]

I don't know about America, but in the UK I'm damn sure that wouldn't fly. Ignorance doesn't shield you from the law. If Sony provided those manuals, it's his responsibility to read them.

Anyway, this guy seems like a right knob. Take the git down!

seconded. Total douchebag, he's ad enough atttention, just hand out a punishment now.

Though it is amusing how much of a muppet he looks in that picture. Can't help but laugh at it.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

He's not right. He's less wrong than Sony, however. So there you have it.

He might be less 'wrong' than Sony morally, from your perspective.
In terms of actual legality - despite the fact that both cases are pretty shaky - Sony have quite the upper hand.

???
How so?

+1

Sony is fucked. How exactly are they going to prove something intangible like prior knowledge of a company's existence?

Sony doesn't have to prove that he knew of the SCEA was a company. That's a very poor attempt at a loophole by his lawyers. That's not how the law works. All Sony has to prove is that he knew he was breaking the law. Not knowing that a company exists is not going to get a court case thrown out. I can tell you that from currently being a law student. What next? "Sorry, I didn't know Wal-Mart was a company when I torched the place."

Doesn't Sony's case rely on him breaching the ELUA(a form of contract)? If they cannot prove that he knew of the existance of SCEA then there is no way he could be found to have had a 'meeting of the minds'(Required for a contract in the US) with them. If no contract exists then no remedies will be available under contract, therefore, Sony will have to file for damages under torts. This would be alot harder for them to prove.

Again, no. Every single peice of electronics these days that can connect online has their own EULA. (Sony, Nintendo, Apple, Nokia, etc.) And again, this case isn`t entirely about Geohotz breaking the EULA. It`s about him hacking into their secutiry and distrubuting info that isn`t his. This isn`t even a trail yet so Hotz may be charged with more things.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

He's not right. He's less wrong than Sony, however. So there you have it.

He might be less 'wrong' than Sony morally, from your perspective.
In terms of actual legality - despite the fact that both cases are pretty shaky - Sony have quite the upper hand.

???
How so?

+1

Sony is fucked. How exactly are they going to prove something intangible like prior knowledge of a company's existence?

Sony doesn't have to prove that he knew of the SCEA was a company. That's a very poor attempt at a loophole by his lawyers. That's not how the law works. All Sony has to prove is that he knew he was breaking the law. Not knowing that a company exists is not going to get a court case thrown out. I can tell you that from currently being a law student. What next? "Sorry, I didn't know Wal-Mart was a company when I torched the place."

Doesn't Sony's case rely on him breaching the ELUA(a form of contract)? If they cannot prove that he knew of the existance of SCEA then there is no way he could be found to have had a 'meeting of the minds'(Required for a contract in the US) with them. If no contract exists then no remedies will be available under contract, therefore, Sony will have to file for damages under torts. This would be alot harder for them to prove.

A claim based on SCEA's EULA and TOS is but one of numerous claims that SCEA's complaint against Hotz raises. They've also raised violation of the DMCA, the tort of conversion (conduct inconsistent with the property rights of another), etc., etc., etc.

But all that doesn't matter at this point in the litigation. The substantive issues raised by SCEA's claims aren't even being addressed at this point. At this point, the issue is one of personal jurisdiction (i.e., whether SCEA can properly sue Hotz in a California court). The whole "I've never heard of a SCEA and have no idea what it is" is Hotz' defense to the exercise of a California court's jurisdiction over him. This is because for personal jurisdiction to exist, SCEA must establish that Hotz' alleged conduct was purposefully aimed at the State of California and that SCEA has suffered injury in the State of California from the alleged conduct. Hotz is saying, in effect, that he could not have purposefully caused SCEA an injury in the State of California because at the time of the alleged conduct he'd never heard of SCEA (a dumb-ass defense if ever there was one, in my opinion).

Well it would give them better time to prepare a better defence.

Not if he can`t afford it. If he`s paying that $10,000 to these laywers and this is the best they can do when trying to get the case tried in Jersey, he`s in trouble. I can tell you right now there is no reason for this case to go to New Jersey. SCEA is a subsidiary of Sony, this means the SCEA is already acting on behalf of their Japanese parent company. If he didn`t know they existed as SCEA but knew about Sony in Japan he can still get put in California due to Sony having a company there.

 

[James Raynor]

The amount of people without an understanding of how the law works is baffling.

 

[ProjectTrinity]

Oh man. There are so many burns in this thread, that the best way to top them off would be for the burners to randomly take a fine cigar and add to the smoke. JDKJ and AzrealMaximillion ranking among the favorite of posts. So I think I'll just post my original opinion:

Lol, Geo is in trouble. I'd feel sorry for him if his personality wasn't that of a....well...someone, think of something funny for me!

 

[Prof. Monkeypox]

Wow. Opinion on this case is divided pretty dead evenly.
I personally think it's just a case of consumer rights, and so Geo should win, but I can't deny that Sony has a point

 

[JDKJ]

He's not right. He's less wrong than Sony, however. So there you have it.

He might be less 'wrong' than Sony morally, from your perspective.
In terms of actual legality - despite the fact that both cases are pretty shaky - Sony have quite the upper hand.

???
How so?

+1

Sony is fucked. How exactly are they going to prove something intangible like prior knowledge of a company's existence?

Sony doesn't have to prove that he knew of the SCEA was a company. That's a very poor attempt at a loophole by his lawyers. That's not how the law works. All Sony has to prove is that he knew he was breaking the law. Not knowing that a company exists is not going to get a court case thrown out. I can tell you that from currently being a law student. What next? "Sorry, I didn't know Wal-Mart was a company when I torched the place."

Doesn't Sony's case rely on him breaching the ELUA(a form of contract)? If they cannot prove that he knew of the existance of SCEA then there is no way he could be found to have had a 'meeting of the minds'(Required for a contract in the US) with them. If no contract exists then no remedies will be available under contract, therefore, Sony will have to file for damages under torts. This would be alot harder for them to prove.

A claim based on SCEA's EULA and TOS is but one of numerous claims that SCEA's complaint against Hotz raises. They've also raised violation of the DMCA, the tort of conversion (conduct inconsistent with the property rights of another), etc., etc., etc.

But all that doesn't matter at this point in the litigation. The substantive issues raised by SCEA's claims aren't even being addressed at this point. At this point, the issue is one of personal jurisdiction (i.e., whether SCEA can properly sue Hotz in a California court). The whole "I've never heard of a SCEA and have no idea what it is" is Hotz' defense to the exercise of a California court's jurisdiction over him. This is because for personal jurisdiction to exist, SCEA must establish that Hotz' alleged conduct was purposefully aimed at the State of California and that SCEA has suffered injury in the State of California from the alleged conduct. Hotz is saying, in effect, that he could not have purposefully caused SCEA an injury in the State of California because at the time of the alleged conduct he'd never heard of SCEA (a dumb-ass defense if ever there was one, in my opinion).

Well it would give them better time to prepare a better defence.

Not if he can`t afford it. If he`s paying that $10,000 to these laywers and this is the best they can do when trying to get the case tried in Jersey, he`s in trouble. I can tell you right now there is no reason for this case to go to New Jersey. SCEA is a subsidiary of Sony, this means the SCEA is already acting on behalf of their Japanese parent company. If he didn`t know they existed as SCEA but knew about Sony in Japan he can still get put in California due to Sony having a company there.

That's the part that's amusing me. That Hotz apparently paid good money for his attorney to come up with the "I never heard of SCEA before now" defense. If that's the best they can come up with, then I suspect that he's in for a world of hurt. I'm not even seeing what that has to do with the legal standard for personal jurisdiction. It's kinda like the guy who manufactures a defective product in New Jersey and ships it to California where it blows up it Joe Schmoe's face saying that he shouldn't be sued in California because he'd never met Joe Schmoe and had no idea who Joe Schmoe was. As if a proper exercise of personal jurisdiction requires that the defendant know beforehand the party that will be injured by his product. That's some dumb shit.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

What bullshit, I havent read any of the manuals, dont live in America and havent even looked at the box for more than 5 seconds and I know about SCEA.

 

[James Raynor]

Oh man. There are so many burns in this thread, that the best way to top them off would be for the burners to randomly take a fine cigar and add to the smoke. JDKJ and AzrealMaximillion ranking among the favorite of posts. So I think I'll just post my original opinion:

Lol, Geo is in trouble. I'd feel sorry for him if his personality wasn't that of a....well...someone, think of something funny for me!

How exactly is he 'In trouble'?

 

[ProjectTrinity]

Oh man. There are so many burns in this thread, that the best way to top them off would be for the burners to randomly take a fine cigar and add to the smoke. JDKJ and AzrealMaximillion ranking among the favorite of posts. So I think I'll just post my original opinion:

Lol, Geo is in trouble. I'd feel sorry for him if his personality wasn't that of a....well...someone, think of something funny for me!

How exactly is he 'In trouble'?

Well this wasn't funny at all! D<

But to answer your question, there's a conversation above that I think spells it out pretty nicely~

 

[JDKJ]

Oh man. There are so many burns in this thread, that the best way to top them off would be for the burners to randomly take a fine cigar and add to the smoke. JDKJ and AzrealMaximillion ranking among the favorite of posts. So I think I'll just post my original opinion:

Lol, Geo is in trouble. I'd feel sorry for him if his personality wasn't that of a....well...someone, think of something funny for me!

How exactly is he 'In trouble'?

You mean other than the fact that he's being sued by a plaintiff with pockets deeper than the Grand Canyon and who has a small army of attorneys at its disposal and who seems more than willing to aggressively prosecute their case against him to its ultimate conclusion? If he ain't "in trouble," he's about as close as anyone can get. I wouldn't rush to trade places with him.

 

[James Raynor]

It's kinda like the guy who manufactures a defective product in New Jersey and ships it to California where it blows up it Joe Schmoe's face saying that he shouldn't be sued in California because he'd never met Joe Schmoe and had no idea who Joe Schmoe was.

That's a pretty bad analogy. As that's not how it works, he can be sued in either his home state or the state of his victim. However sony is based in JAPAN, which is not california; Yet they are trying to have the case held there.

You mean other than the fact that he's being sued by a plaintiff with pockets deeper than the Grand Canyon and who has a small army of attorneys at its disposal and who seems more than willing to aggressively prosecute their case against him to its ultimate conclusion? If he ain't "in trouble," he's about as close as anyone can get. I wouldn't rush to trade places with him.

Overall it doesn't matter how many lawyers you hire if you have a weak legal standing. Not to mention that geohot is also getting money from his supporters so basically either can last as long as possible.

 

[JDKJ]

It's kinda like the guy who manufactures a defective product in New Jersey and ships it to California where it blows up it Joe Schmoe's face saying that he shouldn't be sued in California because he'd never met Joe Schmoe and had no idea who Joe Schmoe was.

That's a pretty bad analogy. As that's not how it works, he can be sued in either his home state or the state of his victim. However sony is based in JAPAN, which is not california; Yet they are trying to have the case held there.

You mean other than the fact that he's being sued by a plaintiff with pockets deeper than the Grand Canyon and who has a small army of attorneys at its disposal and who seems more than willing to aggressively prosecute their case against him to its ultimate conclusion? If he ain't "in trouble," he's about as close as anyone can get. I wouldn't rush to trade places with him.

Overall it doesn't matter how many lawyers you hire if you have a weak legal standing. Not to mention that geohot is also getting money from his supporters so basically either can last as long as possible.

Hotz is not being sued by Sony Japan. He's being sued by Sony Computer Entertainment of America (Sony Japan's wholly-owned subsidiary responsible for PlayStation products in the United States), which is based in the very same California county (San Mateo) in which they've filed their suit. And if you think that Hotz can outlast SCEA's greater financial resources on the strength of passing a hat around, then you should advise him to pass the hat around again. It's gonna take a whole lotta hat-passing to do that.

And why is my analogy a bad one? SCEA could have sued him in New Jersey, the place of the alleged wrongful conduct. But they chose to sue him California, the place where they suffer alleged injury. The choice is theirs to make.

 

[jpoon]

Haha, man I really hope Hotz walks on this case. Even though I don't agree with the hacking stuff...

 

[JDKJ]

The amount of people without an understanding of how the law works is baffling.

As is baffling the amount of people without an understanding of the most basis facts of SCEA's lawsuit against Hotz. Like who the actual plaintiff is and where they are located. But I guess if given a choice between erring on the side of the law or on the side of the facts, it's better to err on the side of the law. The law can always change. The facts never change.