What a coincidence, I don't know the existence of this GeoHot. Sounds like a cooking apparatus to me.
Geohot Claims He's Never Heard of Sony Computer Entertainment of America
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Not really here either. "I didn't know" is an excuse usually heard from children. Geohot will have some trouble using that as an actual excuse in court.Iwata said:
Unless you're here how exactly do you know how the law works since you live where ever "there" is.
Clever boy, and I agree, Sony Computer Entertainment of America doesn't exist. Sony is a Japanese company, you can't just open a small downtown office and hire one guy in another country and say you are a major company there. Beat it!
It doesn't.Canid117 said:
The nuances of jurisdiction are somewhat arcane and weird and the gaming news seems to be covering this in entirely the wrong or at least misleading fashion.
What's going on is this. Sony sues Geohot in California. Why California? I dunno, probably because being the home of Hollywood, their laws on copyright are more stringent than other states. Geohot, since he lives in New Jersey, would prefer that he gets sued in New Jersey, because it's more convenient for him, and also probably for the previously mentioned California laws being more favorable to copyright holders.
Ok good, so how do we decide what state to have the trial in, and thus whose state's laws we need to use? Well, the test is that normally we have the trial where the defendant lives. However, due to the inter-state nature of commerce lately, where a company based in Delaware can sell things anywhere in the country, it's been policy since the early 20th century to allow plaintiffs to sue in their own home state as long as the defendant could reasonably expect to be sued in that state.
So, how do we figure out if the defendant can reasonably expect to be sued in a state? The test is if his actions are "targeted" at that state. This part is where the question of whether Geohot knew about SCEA comes in. If he knew what SCEA was and where it was located, then by infringing upon their copyright, he is "targeting" the state of California, because that's where they are.
Now, the whole thing is a WHOLE lot more complex than that and requires literally a semester of law school to being to fully understand, but you get the idea. Most important in the whole thing is that none of this even touches on the merits of the case at all. It's all basically posturing for minor and often inconsequential benefits. This sort of fighting for in-state jurisdiction tends to happen more often with an individual plaintiff who wants to avoid the expense of having a suit in a different state.
p.s.
Why Sony cares so much about using California state law instead of New Jersey law or the federal copyright statutes is somewhat mystifying. I'm not exactly an expert in it, and I haven't looked at the pleadings at all so there's probably some legal nuance I'm missing. Certainly there's no way New Jersey is completely missing in copyright law, and Federal Copyright law is pretty comprehensive on its own, so even if they have to sue the guy in New Jersey it's not like they'll just walk away.
As has been pointed out in this thread, it is physically impossible to use a PS3 without encountering multiple references to SCEA.Xzi said:
And while it is nothing more than my own opinion, I don't think it rises to the level of what anyone should call a "strong opening gambit." I think it's patently unbelievable and doesn't even get past the giggle test.
I must concur; this is getting funny now.John Marcone said:
)Given the nature of the case (Sony Super Team vs. some guy), it's not that hard to cheer on the underdog.
ony wants to abuse the whole "California = better chance of winning" deal, fine, so it's only fair game for Geohot to pull every rabbit out of every hat he can find hanging about. Hell, I don't think that I have opened my PS3 manuals because it's not exactly difficult to figure out what to do to get the thing playing games and movies.
As for SCEA, personally I would assume Sony had an American branch-off, but I can understand how people could just as easily assume Sony was a Japanese corporation, and that's that.
Um...He trash talked them in a homemade rap earlier. I think he's getting plenty of giggles out of this whole mess.John Marcone said:
I keep manuals and boxes because I am a pack rat. I do not read them. Ignorance is plausible.
Anyone I plan to make an enemy, however, I study meticulously: knowing their many names would be a good start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corporation_shareholders_and_subsidiaries#Major_Holdings.2FSubsidiaries
and maybe
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/CorporateInfo/History/SonyHistory/1-10.html
Anyone I plan to make an enemy, however, I study meticulously: knowing their many names would be a good start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corporation_shareholders_and_subsidiaries#Major_Holdings.2FSubsidiaries
and maybe
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/CorporateInfo/History/SonyHistory/1-10.html
Why do I have the feeling that it doesnt matter if Sony or Geohot wins, things are going to suck for everyone...
You do know ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it right? Just because you chose not to read them does not make you any less liable if you break the rules.dietpeachsnapple said:
Despite the fact that the legal system is so fucked up that a case could hinge on whether a defendant knew a company exists I find the bolded part of particular overlooked importance.Andy Chalk said:
Why didn't they match up? Was Sony pulling their story about using CIA-like bullshit to show he agreed to the EULA out of their ass in hopes he would admit to something in response? Because I think there should be more of an explanation than "oops, didn't match, let's continue on and not wonder why"
