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

[JDKJ]

In what way is this surprising really? As soon as the guy hired a lawyer it ended being a moral question, and started being a legal fight. There is no moral high ground in a court room, just winning, and losing.

One of his strongest cards is the whole freedom fighter thing - after all it's paying his legal bill. But I'd be really surprised if he wasn't just hacking because he could, and is now fighting Sony because otherwise his own ass would be fried.

And that's why he's not anybody's tragic hero. What's common to all the great tragic heroes is their willingness to sacrifice their own lives for the principle in which they believe -- even though that belief may be thoroughly misguided. But you can't be the tragic hero and at the same time resort to ass-saving tactics like lying through your teeth and having your neighbors lie through their teeth in order to avoid the consequences of your belief in a principle. Nope, that ain't how it works. The tragic hero must fall on his own sword, if need be. And if you ain't prepared to bravely fall on your own sword, you're not a tragic hero. You're just a punk-ass *****.

Both Nelson Mandela and Fidel Castro, to cite but two examples, used their trial courtrooms not as a place to fight for the salvation of their own asses but, rather, as a place to take the moral high ground and speak out against what they both saw as oppression of their countrymen. And both willingly paid the price for doing so: both got locked up in prisons for a long-ass time.

And I'll tell you why I suspect that Mr. Hotz and his attorney aren't prepared to fight the good fight on behalf of gamers and modders everywhere: they've long ago concluded that to challenge Sony on any of the fronts that could have some beneficial effect to gamers and modders, like trying to establish the unfairness of EULAs that prohibit software modification and allow for the unilateral removal of advertised console features and forum selection clauses that favor the console makers and disfavor anyone who would attempt to sue them and the many others ways in which the console makers sacrifice the consumer at the altar of profits, is a losing endeavor and an effort in futility. They know that they'll lose their asses on any and all of those fronts. So for them it all boils down to saving Mr. Hotz' ass and extracting him as best they can and by any means necessary from the shit puddle in which he currently sits. Which is fine. I'm not hating on anyone trying to save their own ass. But don't try to sell me on the "freedom fighter" bullshit at the same time. I ain't throwing not a plugged nickel in your Legal Defense Fund hat. You're on your own.

 

[brainslurper]

Im trying to decide if I was in his position whether would attempt to use a valid argment or just troll sonya incompetent lawyers like he is now. He could win this, I'm not sure why he hasn't used the argument of whether when you pay 300 dollars for something you actually own it, or the fact that while he has enabled others to break us laws, I'm not sure Sony can prove that he has. You don't exist, thereof your argument is invalid

 

[JDKJ]

If George keeps up this obvious bullshit act, he might actually win (or at least get an acquittal). Who woulda thought?

What's more likely to happen is that the next time he passes his Legal Defense Fund Hat around, all those folks who thought he was some sort of gallant defender of consumer rights willing to take on the evil Big Corporation will by then finally realize that he's nothing more than a complete bullshit artist and his hat will contain nothing more than a quarter, two dimes, three nickels, and forty-seven pennies.

I think you'd be surprised. I didn't give the guy a cent, but this is pure entertainment at it's finest. This lawsuit is basically Sony throwing a hissy fit with George taunting them. Until Sony stops throwing a hissy fit, it serves them right to have some bullshit served up.

Besides, jurisdiction is important to establish. Depending on the state laws, one could be harsher than another. I don't know so I can only assume California has some pretty strict IP laws since that's where Hollywood is and all. I also assume if jurisdiction isn't established in California, it will be established in New Jersey, which again assuming, they have less strict IP laws. Don't let the sheer stupidity of George's argument fool you. If he's willing to risk perjury for it, you have to know his lawyers have pretty concrete backing. This type of shit happens all the time.

If California is in fact a more favorable forum for SCEA, it probably has more to do with Silicon Valley (which is located in the same county where the case currently resides) than Hollywood. At the same time, California has some of the most pro-consumer and anti-corporation courts in the country. Certainly more anti-corporation than the courts of New Jersey. It may well be nothing more that SCEA being conveniently located a short drive away from the courthouse. Who knows?

And, yes, I am well aware that litigants can and often do bend the truth to fit their own selfish needs, even under risk of perjury. But there's a point at which the bending begins to work to their disadvantage. Hotz' feigned ignorance comes close to that point, if you ask me. But it's his nuts in SCEA's ViseGrips, not mine. If he and his attorney think that having him play the role of a retarded moron works well for them, then more power to them.

Actually I can tell you why they want the case in California so badly. Historically, California seems to be the only State in the United States to take video game related cases seriously. If the case were heard in New Jersey, the court would have a jury that would be less educated about the way video game companies or hacking, or the laws pretaining the aformentioned. It's just a more fair trial in California because the Judge will go through the case evidence more precisely.

It may not even be about desperately wanting the case to be heard in California. SCEA's EULAs and TOSs contain clauses requiring that disputes arising from those EULAs and TOSs be brought in San Mateo County (one of those infamously unfair "forum selection clauses"). They could have concluded, and perhaps rightly so, that they had no choice but to file in San Mateo County. To do anything other than to file in San Mateo County would conceviably be setting themselves up for the counter-claim that they themselves weren't abiding by their own EULA and TOS terms.

Valid point. It's good so have an intelligent conversation on the internet for once.

Your point is no less valid and, indeed, is raised by SCEA's counsel in their Motion in Opposition. They spent quite a bit of white space making the argument that the Northern District, by dint of its proximity to Silicon Valley, has most likely heard more software related cases than any other jurisdiction in the country and, as such, is better qualified than most to exercise jurisdiction over the SCEA v. Hotz case.

 

[Sentox6]

SCE isn't Japan based. It's parent company Sony is. SCE is the named of a subsidiary that has HQs in Japan, Europe, America, Australia, and S.Korea. And the EULA doesn't have to say which country it represents because it applies to all of the countries it covers, not different versions for the same EULA. And it's not like all that matters because, as I had to explain to another Escapist member, SCEA is a wholly owned subsidiary which by law can act as it's own autonomous company for legal purposes. Which means they can sue without needing to consult their parent company.

Exactly. If they can act as an autonomous legal entity, and they are not named as such, then apparently there's some leeway for the claim that GeoHot didn't know of their existence. I don't understand why his lawyers would bother with this tactic otherwise, unless they're just trying to obfuscate the process.

Also, you don't have to explain anything to other members. That's your choice, not some obligation to enlighten those apparently less informed than yourself.

P.S.: "its", not "it's", in both cases.

 

[JDKJ]

SCE isn't Japan based. It's parent company Sony is. SCE is the named of a subsidiary that has HQs in Japan, Europe, America, Australia, and S.Korea. And the EULA doesn't have to say which country it represents because it applies to all of the countries it covers, not different versions for the same EULA. And it's not like all that matters because, as I had to explain to another Escapist member, SCEA is a wholly owned subsidiary which by law can act as it's own autonomous company for legal purposes. Which means they can sue without needing to consult their parent company.

Exactly. If they can act as an autonomous legal entity, and they are not named as such, then apparently there's some leeway for the claim that GeoHot didn't know of their existence. I don't understand why his lawyers would bother with this tactic otherwise, unless they're just trying to obfuscate the process.

Also, you don't have to explain anything to other members. That's your choice, not some obligation to enlighten those apparently less informed than yourself.

P.S.: "its", not "it's", in both cases.

"Obfuscate the process." That's the fancy term of art they teach you in law school. Then you pass the bar and start to actually practice law in the trenches where you discover that everyone calls it "throwing shit on the walls just to see what'll stick."

And if I had a dime for every time I saw a "your" where a "you're" more properly belonged, I'd be rich.

But all jokes aside, I'm not seeing what dividends they think the "SCEA who? SCEA what?" ploy pays, either. Unless there's some crafty plot afoot that requires making Hotz looks as if he's borderline retarded.

 

[Sentox6]

And if I had a dime for every time I saw a "your" where a "you're" more properly belonged, I be rich.

You and me both -_-

But all jokes aside, I'm not seeing what dividends they think the "SCEA who? SCEA what?" ploy pays, either. Unless there's some crafty plot afoot that requires making Hotz looks as if he's borderline retarded.

I'm tempted to insert some joke here about that requirement being quite easy to fulfil, but truth is, I don't want Sony to triumph in this case. I don't really see any way in which it will benefit the consumer.

 

[JDKJ]

And if I had a dime for every time I saw a "your" where a "you're" more properly belonged, I be rich.

You and me both -_-

But all jokes aside, I'm not seeing what dividends they think the "SCEA who? SCEA what?" ploy pays, either. Unless there's some crafty plot afoot that requires making Hotz looks as if he's borderline retarded.

I'm tempted to insert some joke here about that requirement being quite easy to fulfil, but truth is, I don't want Sony to triumph in this case. I don't really see any way in which it will benefit the consumer.

And it would be nothing more than a joke. The more serious reality is that George Hotz is smarter than your average bear and by far. Unless, perhaps, he's one of those idiot-savant types, a genius in technology and technical matters but just don't ask him to tie his own shoelaces.

 

[Sentox6]

And it would be nothing more than a joke. The more serious reality is that George Hotz is smarter than your average bear and by far. Unless, perhaps, he's one of those idiot-savant types, a genius in technology and technical matters but just don't ask him to tie his own shoelaces.

My life is empirical evidence of a negative correlation between intelligence and common sense, that's for sure

 

[JDKJ]

And it would be nothing more than a joke. The more serious reality is that George Hotz is smarter than your average bear and by far. Unless, perhaps, he's one of those idiot-savant types, a genius in technology and technical matters but just don't ask him to tie his own shoelaces.

My life is empirical evidence of a negative correlation between intelligence and common sense, that's for sure

I have an uncle who graduated from a prestigious university with a Ph.D. in organic chemistry. But he couldn't ever learn how to knot a necktie. He has someone else knot a new tie for him and thereafter loosenes it just enough to slip it over his head to take it off and then slips it over his head and cinches it back up the next time he wears it. All his neckties are permanently knotted. True story.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Having been a PS3 owner for sometime around release, I haven't ever felt screwed. You only feel screwed if you're trying to cheat the system and do things with your console you aren't supposed to.

Or, you know, if you regularly use a feature on your console that is suddenly removed by an update required to use a separate feature on said console.

That seems kind of like being screwed as well. But I'm guessing the removed feature wasn't important to you, and therefore no one else should be upset either. Obviously.

But if you've ever bought a PS3 console and bothered to read the license agreement that comes in the box, you would have been aware of the existence of Sony Computer Entertainment because the opening paragraphs of that agreement state:

"PLEASE READ THIS SYSTEM SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT CAREFULLY TO UNDERSTAND YOUR RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS.

ACCESS TO OR USE OF THE SYSTEM SOFTWARE IN THE SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT INC. ("SCE")'S PlayStation®3 COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEM UNIT ("PS3? system") IS EXPRESSLY CONDITIONED UPON ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT.

THIS AGREEMENT IS A CONTRACT WITH SCE."

Now, if you wanna be like Hotz and claim that you never bothered to read the agreement or any of the other documents that came with your PS3 and which make countless references to Sony Computer Entertainment, then fine. I guess that's your choice to make. But don't thereafter try to blame anyone but yourself for not being aware of the existence of Sony Computer Entertainment.

Assuming that's an accurate reproduction, I don't see SCEA mentioned anywhere in there. SCE is Japan-based.

SCE isn't Japan based. It's parent company Sony is. SCE is the named of a subsidiary that has HQs in Japan, Europe, America, Australia, and S.Korea. And the EULA doesn't have to say which country it represents because it applies to all of the countries it covers, not different versions for the same EULA. And it's not like all that matters because, as I had to explain to another Escapist member, SCEA is a wholly owned subsidiary which by law can act as it's own autonomous company for legal purposes. Which means they can sue without needing to consult their parent company.

You may want to double check that position. A subsidiary corporate has no inviolable autonomy of its own. It is 100% subject to the will of its parent corporation. The parent may, in its own discretion, give its subsidiary "loose rein" but the parent may take over those reins at any time it sees fit to do so. This reality of corporate governance was clearly articulated by the Supreme Court's decision in Copperweld v. Independence Tube, wherein the Court stated:

A parent and its wholly owned subsidiary have a complete unity of interest. Their objectives are common, not disparate; their general corporate actions are guided or determined not by two separate corporate consciousnesses, but one. They are not unlike a multiple team of horses drawing a vehicle under the control of a single driver. With or without a formal "agreement," the subsidiary acts for the benefit of the parent, its sole shareholder. If a parent and a wholly owned subsidiary do ?agree? to a course of action, there is no sudden joining of economic resources that had previously served different interests, and there is no justification for [Sherman Act] § 1 scrutiny. Indeed, the very notion of an "agreement" in Sherman Act terms between a parent and a wholly owned subsidiary lacks meaning. A § 1 agreement may be found when "the conspirators had a unity of purpose or a common design and understanding, or a meeting of minds in an unlawful arrangement.? American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U.S. 781, 810, 66 S.Ct. 1125, 1139, 90 L.Ed. 1575 (1946). But in reality a parent and a wholly owned subsidiary always have a ?unity of purpose or a common design.? They share a common purpose whether or not the parent keeps a tight rein over the subsidiary; the parent may assert full control at any moment if the subsidiary fails to act in the parent's best interests.

If this was not the legal reality of the parent-subsidiary relationship, then that hack Hotz has an attorney would succeed in his attempt to build a huge Chinese Wall between SCEA and Sony Corporation (Japan). But the argument fails because, as a legal matter, SCEA can't do a damn thing that it's parent twice-removed, Sony Corporation (Japan), doesn't want it to do.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/w/wholly-owned-subsidiary/

That link clearly states that for the purposes of legal acttion such as lawsuits that a susidiary is an autonomous company. I understand that the parent company can controll most aspects of a wholly owned subsidiary but I know for a fact that when it comes to lawsuits a wholly owned subsidiary acts alone. It's to make sure that when going up against a company in a lawsuit you don't have to go against the parent company's resources backing up it's subsidiary, giving the person or persons going against the company a chance of winning. For example.
http://www.marylandaccidentlawyerblog.com/2009/01/lawsuit_against_sams_club_lead.html

The article above shows a lawsuit against Sam's Club, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wal-Mart. Now the woman suing in this article would not have stood a chance suing Wal-Mart as a company. Now I get where you're coming form but for the purposes of legal action the subsidiary is considered it's own company. Otherwise this case would just be Sony Corp. vs George Hotz rather than SCEA vs George Hotz.

 

[FamoFunk]

I wold love to see some film about this guys life during the war with Sony.

 

[Optimystic]

Geohot: Problem, Sony?
Sony: FFFFUUUU-

Sony trolled in round 1, and now they're being trolled back. Seems fair to me.

Thank you. Someone gets it.

 

[Sion_Barzahd]

This is, in fact, the first time i've ever heard of SCEA. Though it wasn't surprising that they'd have an office in america, i'd bet money they have one in europe too.