Geohot Hints at Plans After Sony Settlement

[Baneat]

I.. like this guy o.o

 

[ProjectTrinity]

I.. like this guy o.o

This has to be the most unique response in this thread. lol

 

[Macrobstar]

i never liked this guy. he's smart enough to jail break the ps3 but not smart enough to relise pirates will use it to pirate games?

so what if other people use it to pirate games?

It is his legally bought hardware, and he ought to do what he damn well please with it.
Which in his case is installing Linux on it.

Which was an advertised feature that Sony later removed.

Thank the gods I live in a country where my personal property is mine to do with as I see fit.

What you don't see sony in the right for trying protect there business from piracy? Also if you bought a PS3 just to run linux then you're a bit of an idiot

Sure they have the right to protect their buisness from piracy.

But that right does not in any way override the right I have to do as I see fit with my legally bought hardware.

And at no point does it give you the right to pirate games from game developers either, which is what most of these hackers are doing

Are you purpouslly missing my point here?

I never said anything about pirating games. Not once.

And no matter what hackers and others do, it does not give Sony, or any other hardware manufacturer, the right to determine what I can or cannot do with my hardware.

Well I disagree, for the safety of its userbase and its business sony has to control the problem

 

[Trippy Turtle]

If you donate to someone it becomes their money. its not up to you how they use it even in this situation the money he got was put towards the court case and now its over. it would be good of him to give it back but he doesn't have to.

Actually it is up to you. If you donate money to a guy with him promising to do 'X' with it and he does 'Y' instead, that is fraud good sir.

yeah sorry i just found out he actually said he wanted it for the legal thing. i have no idea why i thought people just assumed that was what the money was for.

 

[Cipher1]

Yeah I don't care what you say anymore your not in a battle with Sony anymore your just another run of the mill douchebag now.

 

[Dastardly]

Permalink

God, just go away.

I think people have honestly forgotten what it was Sony was suing him for, to hear people discuss this. Was he sued for jailbreaking the PS3? Was he sued for piracy? Was he sued for publishing the root key for the device on the internet? Do people honestly know, and have they looked into why a company would sue for such a reason?

This guy isn't the folk hero people (including himself) are trying to make him.

Is Sony in the wrong on some things? Sure. I think it's unfair practice to release a product with a particular feature and then remove that feature after the fact, especially given that this is a market that does not handle refunds well. Does that mean Sony doesn't have a right to defend another aspect of its property from someone willfully distributing information that should not have been released? Absolutely not.

The public response to this case is just so unbalanced. Because Sony got apples wrong, they're not allowed to sue about oranges. Because there was one corrupt cop on the police force in my town, I don't have to follow any of the laws. In debate/legal circles, it's called a tu quoque fallacy. In more common circles, it's called "Two wrongs don't make a right."

 

[GodKlown]

I've been following this story for a little bit, and I'm not sure where this kid gets this weird swag from. Precedent or not, this guy did do something that potentially hurt a major business for the fact that he could. For him to make these declarations that he is fighting the good fight for the rest of us doesn't seem to hold up to me. I personally don't care about cracking a PS3 or anything, so clearly this guy isn't fighting for anything I'm interested in. So far, it almost seems like GeoHot is trying to market himself as a modern day Robin Hood or something, except who is benefiting from what he's done? Are any of us richer in any way from his actions? And what exactly is this "war" he referenced?

But the real thing from this recent post that gets me is this guy is joining a boycott against a copy he attempted to harm. It's like robbing a bank, getting arrested, and then stating that you no longer want to do business with that bank because they caught you doing something you shouldn't be. Boycott Sony all you want, I am quite sure they are not losing any sleep over it. I'm just waiting to see what kind of other shenanigans this guy's actions are going to inspire.

 

[K_Dub]

This isn't a black and white issue. Whole lotta gray area in this case. Both Sony and Geohot have made points. It's tough to know who to root for. But Geohot isn't exactly helping his case by acting like a self-rightous hero for the people. 'Course Sony isn't helping their case either by being a giant corporate monster. Who to root for, who to root for...

 

[Arehexes]

Why the heck am I supposed to "trust" him if he can't even say what's going on?
It's not my problem he signed some gag-contract.
Good for him he "boycots" sony now though. That'll teach them. I care so much.

You indirectly raise an interesting point and one which I've been a-pondering: who leaked the confidential settlement stipulation to the psx forums?

By process of elimination, I'm inclined to first rule out both Stewart Kellar and Kilpatrick Townsend because, as attorneys, I can't readily see them putting their ability to practice law at risk by violating a slew of ethical rules.

That leaves SCEA and Hotz in the line-up. SCEA has motive because the terms are so favorable to them and represent a clear victory over Hotz and one which they may therefore want to publicize. Conversely, Hotz has less motive for the opposite reasons. I'm almost inclined to eliminate Hotz, but in the back of mind there's a nagging suspicion that, between the two of them, Hotz is far and away the dirt-bag of the two and the one more inclined, I think, to do some shady shit. Tough call. But if had to place some chips on the felt, my money's on Hotz. Which, if that's the winning bet, makes his conveniently asserted claims that he "can't talk that because it's confidential" nothing more than more of his patented and trademarked bullshit.

Anyway, it's certainly one o' things that make go, hmmm.

EDIT: After checking the docket, it appears that the stipulation that's been making the rounds wasn't filed under seal. There's "something" filed under seal that went along with the stipulation and order, but it doesn't appear to be the document that everyone has. Drat!! A perfectly good conspiracy theory down the drain!

What leak are you talking about? I would like me know more good sir.

 

[JDKJ]

Why the heck am I supposed to "trust" him if he can't even say what's going on?
It's not my problem he signed some gag-contract.
Good for him he "boycots" sony now though. That'll teach them. I care so much.

You indirectly raise an interesting point and one which I've been a-pondering: who leaked the confidential settlement stipulation to the psx forums?

By process of elimination, I'm inclined to first rule out both Stewart Kellar and Kilpatrick Townsend because, as attorneys, I can't readily see them putting their ability to practice law at risk by violating a slew of ethical rules.

That leaves SCEA and Hotz in the line-up. SCEA has motive because the terms are so favorable to them and represent a clear victory over Hotz and one which they may therefore want to publicize. Conversely, Hotz has less motive for the opposite reasons. I'm almost inclined to eliminate Hotz, but in the back of mind there's a nagging suspicion that, between the two of them, Hotz is far and away the dirt-bag of the two and the one more inclined, I think, to do some shady shit. Tough call. But if had to place some chips on the felt, my money's on Hotz. Which, if that's the winning bet, makes his conveniently asserted claims that he "can't talk that because it's confidential" nothing more than more of his patented and trademarked bullshit.

Anyway, it's certainly one o' things that make go, hmmm.

EDIT: After checking the docket, it appears that the stipulation that's been making the rounds wasn't filed under seal. There's "something" filed under seal that went along with the stipulation and order, but it doesn't appear to be the document that everyone has. Drat!! A perfectly good conspiracy theory down the drain!

What leak are you talking about? I would like me know more good sir.

It was reported by several different media outlets that the settlement stipulation signed by SCEA and Hotz and which has been widely circulated on the 'net was "confidential" but was "leaked" (see, e.g., http://www.vg247.com/2011/04/11/sony-and-geohot-settle-out-of-court/ ). But the document that was purportedly "leaked" isn't confidential and is, in fact, publicly available from the court (because it wasn't filed under seal). There is, among the set of settlement documents, a single document that was filed under seal and is therefore truly confidential (I assume this is the document in which Ego Hot agrees to wash the cars and clean the houses of all top-level Sony executives every weekend for the rest of his life), but that document has not been "leaked."

 

[Someone Depressing]

"And if you bought something Sony recently, return it."

I want to stick a Led Pipe up his ass and turn it 'till his rectum snaps.

 

[geizr]

I have to say, after reading GeoHot's responses in this article, my Bullshit Meter got pegged. While I definitely did not send money to this guy, I can empathized greatly with the anger and disappointment of those who did. If you are being honest and upfront about things, you could at least tell people of the ideas you have come up with for the money. Don't play coy and mysterious and then tell people they have to just trust you; they already trusted you, and you broke that trust by settling. I wouldn't be surprised if the truth is that he found out he could never win, which would lead to him just settling to avoid embarrassment, and that he really plans on just taking the money and running.

EDIT: removed my last sentence. It just sounded too...condescending.

 

[GamingAwesome1]

Honestly, putting the rootkeys for the system online wasn't a very bright move to begin with, I still going ahead a sueing the guy was a bit overkill, I think a polite "Can you please take this down?" would've sufficed.

Neither side here is truly justified. Hotz HAD to have known that Sony was going to react badly to that but the lengths to which Sony went to accomplish their goals was frankly, rude and invasive. Asking for the details of ANYONE who visited that website and the video? Yeah, fuck off Sony. Hotz, backing down after getting all that money to take it all the way? Yeah, fuck off.

Both sides are acting like spoiled brats.

 

[DTWolfwood]

all you poor suckers that "donated to the Cause" XD

what you do with your machine at home is fine by me, to this date i still have not heard a clear justification for what he did was the "righteous" thing to do.

Also y would anyone ever expect a "DONATION" to be returned? You've already decide to give the money away for free. So wanting it back now is retarded, you should have known this was a possibility when you sided with him.

As for SONY, yeh they make good products. Sorry if i don't look at technology as something for me to break into and figure out, and merely look at it as a means to an end.

 

[JDKJ]

all you poor suckers that "donated to the Cause" XD

what you do with your machine at home is fine by me, to this date i still have not heard a clear justification for what he did was the "righteous" thing to do.

Also y would anyone ever expect a "DONATION" to be returned? You've already decide to give the money away for free. So wanting it back now is retarded, you should have known this was a possibility when you sided with him.

As for SONY, yeh they make good products. Sorry if i don't look at technology as something for me to break into and figure out, and merely look at it as a means to an end.

Why wouldn't you reasonably expect your donation to be returned? If I, in response to the Red Cross soliciting donations to aid the quake and tsunami victims in Japan, cut a $1,000 check to the Red Cross, and some shiesty asshole at the Red Cross takes my money and uses it to finance a stripper-filled weekend in Las Vegas, why shouldn't I be demanding that my money be returned to me? So I can then use it to finance my own stripper-filled weekend in Las Vegas? That doesn't seem "retarded" to me. In fact, I'd be "retarded" if I sat on ass and didn't demand that my money be returned to me. Particularly because I thoroughly enjoy a stripper-filled weekend in Las Vegas.

"Shake it, Baby, shake it!! Shake it for ya Daddy!!"

 

[DTWolfwood]

all you poor suckers that "donated to the Cause" XD

what you do with your machine at home is fine by me, to this date i still have not heard a clear justification for what he did was the "righteous" thing to do.

Also y would anyone ever expect a "DONATION" to be returned? You've already decide to give the money away for free. So wanting it back now is retarded, you should have known this was a possibility when you sided with him.

As for SONY, yeh they make good products. Sorry if i don't look at technology as something for me to break into and figure out, and merely look at it as a means to an end.

Why wouldn't you reasonably expect your donation to be returned? If I, in response to the Red Cross soliciting donations to aid the quake and tsunami victims in Japan, cut a $1,000 check to the Red Cross, and some shiesty asshole at the Red Cross takes my money and uses it to finance a stripper-filled weekend in Las Vegas, why shouldn't I be demanding that my money be returned to me? So I can then use it to finance my own stripper-filled weekend in Las Vegas? That doesn't seem "retarded" to me. In fact, I'd be "retarded" if I sat on ass and didn't demand that my money be returned to me. Particularly because I thoroughly enjoy a stripper-filled weekend in Las Vegas.

"Shake it, Baby, shake it!! Shake it for ya Daddy!!"

Donate
transitive verb
1: to make a gift of; especially : to contribute to a public or charitable cause

Gift
noun
1: something voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation

If you are giving money expecting something out of it, its not a DONATION, but a TRANSACTION. In which case i hope you have a receipt from that douche.

 

[JDKJ]

all you poor suckers that "donated to the Cause" XD

what you do with your machine at home is fine by me, to this date i still have not heard a clear justification for what he did was the "righteous" thing to do.

Also y would anyone ever expect a "DONATION" to be returned? You've already decide to give the money away for free. So wanting it back now is retarded, you should have known this was a possibility when you sided with him.

As for SONY, yeh they make good products. Sorry if i don't look at technology as something for me to break into and figure out, and merely look at it as a means to an end.

Why wouldn't you reasonably expect your donation to be returned? If I, in response to the Red Cross soliciting donations to aid the quake and tsunami victims in Japan, cut a $1,000 check to the Red Cross, and some shiesty asshole at the Red Cross takes my money and uses it to finance a stripper-filled weekend in Las Vegas, why shouldn't I be demanding that my money be returned to me? So I can then use it to finance my own stripper-filled weekend in Las Vegas? That doesn't seem "retarded" to me. In fact, I'd be "retarded" if I sat on ass and didn't demand that my money be returned to me. Particularly because I thoroughly enjoy a stripper-filled weekend in Las Vegas.

"Shake it, Baby, shake it!! Shake it for ya Daddy!!"

Donate
transitive verb
1: to make a gift of; especially : to contribute to a public or charitable cause

Gift
noun
1: something voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation

If you are giving money expecting something out of it, its not a DONATION, but a TRANSACTION. In which case i hope you have a receipt from that douche.

donatio mortis causa n. (Latin, meaning "gift on the occasion of death") defined by American civil law as a gift under apprehension of death; as, when any thing is given upon condition that if the donor dies, the donee shall possess it absolutely, or return it if the donor should survive, or should repent of having made the gift, or if the donee should die before the donor. With respect to the nature of a donatio mortis causa, this kind of gift so far resembles a legacy, that it is ambulatory and incomplete during the donor's life; it is, therefore, revocable by him.

Not all, "gifts" are given with an understanding that the donor can't revoke the gift and seek its return from the donee. There are other examples. A gift given in contemplation of marriage (e.g., an engagement ring) reverts back to the donor if the marriage is called off and never occurs.

 

[DTWolfwood]

all you poor suckers that "donated to the Cause" XD

what you do with your machine at home is fine by me, to this date i still have not heard a clear justification for what he did was the "righteous" thing to do.

Also y would anyone ever expect a "DONATION" to be returned? You've already decide to give the money away for free. So wanting it back now is retarded, you should have known this was a possibility when you sided with him.

As for SONY, yeh they make good products. Sorry if i don't look at technology as something for me to break into and figure out, and merely look at it as a means to an end.

Why wouldn't you reasonably expect your donation to be returned? If I, in response to the Red Cross soliciting donations to aid the quake and tsunami victims in Japan, cut a $1,000 check to the Red Cross, and some shiesty asshole at the Red Cross takes my money and uses it to finance a stripper-filled weekend in Las Vegas, why shouldn't I be demanding that my money be returned to me? So I can then use it to finance my own stripper-filled weekend in Las Vegas? That doesn't seem "retarded" to me. In fact, I'd be "retarded" if I sat on ass and didn't demand that my money be returned to me. Particularly because I thoroughly enjoy a stripper-filled weekend in Las Vegas.

"Shake it, Baby, shake it!! Shake it for ya Daddy!!"

Donate
transitive verb
1: to make a gift of; especially : to contribute to a public or charitable cause

Gift
noun
1: something voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation

If you are giving money expecting something out of it, its not a DONATION, but a TRANSACTION. In which case i hope you have a receipt from that douche.

donatio mortis causa n. (Latin, meaning "gift on the occasion of death") defined by American civil law as a gift under apprehension of death; as, when any thing is given upon condition that if the donor dies, the donee shall possess it absolutely, or return it if the donor should survive, or should repent of having made the gift, or if the donee should die before the donor. With respect to the nature of a donatio mortis causa, this kind of gift so far resembles a legacy, that it is ambulatory and incomplete during the donor's life; it is, therefore, revocable by him.

Not all, "gifts" are given with an understanding that the donor can't revoke the gift and seek its return from the donee. There are other examples. A gift given in contemplation of marriage (e.g., an engagement ring) reverts back to the donor if the marriage is called off and never occurs.

He wasn't threatening you with death or marriage, at least as far as i know, he might have in your case. lol

Good luck using that clause in court.

 

[JDKJ]

all you poor suckers that "donated to the Cause" XD

what you do with your machine at home is fine by me, to this date i still have not heard a clear justification for what he did was the "righteous" thing to do.

Also y would anyone ever expect a "DONATION" to be returned? You've already decide to give the money away for free. So wanting it back now is retarded, you should have known this was a possibility when you sided with him.

As for SONY, yeh they make good products. Sorry if i don't look at technology as something for me to break into and figure out, and merely look at it as a means to an end.

Why wouldn't you reasonably expect your donation to be returned? If I, in response to the Red Cross soliciting donations to aid the quake and tsunami victims in Japan, cut a $1,000 check to the Red Cross, and some shiesty asshole at the Red Cross takes my money and uses it to finance a stripper-filled weekend in Las Vegas, why shouldn't I be demanding that my money be returned to me? So I can then use it to finance my own stripper-filled weekend in Las Vegas? That doesn't seem "retarded" to me. In fact, I'd be "retarded" if I sat on ass and didn't demand that my money be returned to me. Particularly because I thoroughly enjoy a stripper-filled weekend in Las Vegas.

"Shake it, Baby, shake it!! Shake it for ya Daddy!!"

Donate
transitive verb
1: to make a gift of; especially : to contribute to a public or charitable cause

Gift
noun
1: something voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation

If you are giving money expecting something out of it, its not a DONATION, but a TRANSACTION. In which case i hope you have a receipt from that douche.

donatio mortis causa n. (Latin, meaning "gift on the occasion of death") defined by American civil law as a gift under apprehension of death; as, when any thing is given upon condition that if the donor dies, the donee shall possess it absolutely, or return it if the donor should survive, or should repent of having made the gift, or if the donee should die before the donor. With respect to the nature of a donatio mortis causa, this kind of gift so far resembles a legacy, that it is ambulatory and incomplete during the donor's life; it is, therefore, revocable by him.

Not all, "gifts" are given with an understanding that the donor can't revoke the gift and seek its return from the donee. There are other examples. A gift given in contemplation of marriage (e.g., an engagement ring) reverts back to the donor if the marriage is called off and never occurs.

He wasn't threatening you with death or marriage, at least as far as i know, he might have in your case. lol

Good luck using that clause in court.

You seem to be conveniently avoiding the point of my giving you two examples of cases were a donation (i.e., a "gift") given on condition of "X" can indeed and in fact and by well-established law be revoked by the donor and its return sought from the donee if condition "X" is never satisfied.

Trust me, if I donate to a charitable organization or some other entity who solicits my donation on the condition of doing "X" with it and they then turn around and deliberately do other than "X" with it, knowing full well beforehand that they had no intention of doing "X" with it, you can bet your ass that I am entitled, under various principles of American jurisprudence, not the least of which are "fraud" and "obtaining property by false pretense," to the return of my donation.

 

[DTWolfwood]

all you poor suckers that "donated to the Cause" XD

what you do with your machine at home is fine by me, to this date i still have not heard a clear justification for what he did was the "righteous" thing to do.

Also y would anyone ever expect a "DONATION" to be returned? You've already decide to give the money away for free. So wanting it back now is retarded, you should have known this was a possibility when you sided with him.

As for SONY, yeh they make good products. Sorry if i don't look at technology as something for me to break into and figure out, and merely look at it as a means to an end.

Why wouldn't you reasonably expect your donation to be returned? If I, in response to the Red Cross soliciting donations to aid the quake and tsunami victims in Japan, cut a $1,000 check to the Red Cross, and some shiesty asshole at the Red Cross takes my money and uses it to finance a stripper-filled weekend in Las Vegas, why shouldn't I be demanding that my money be returned to me? So I can then use it to finance my own stripper-filled weekend in Las Vegas? That doesn't seem "retarded" to me. In fact, I'd be "retarded" if I sat on ass and didn't demand that my money be returned to me. Particularly because I thoroughly enjoy a stripper-filled weekend in Las Vegas.

"Shake it, Baby, shake it!! Shake it for ya Daddy!!"

Donate
transitive verb
1: to make a gift of; especially : to contribute to a public or charitable cause

Gift
noun
1: something voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation

If you are giving money expecting something out of it, its not a DONATION, but a TRANSACTION. In which case i hope you have a receipt from that douche.

donatio mortis causa n. (Latin, meaning "gift on the occasion of death") defined by American civil law as a gift under apprehension of death; as, when any thing is given upon condition that if the donor dies, the donee shall possess it absolutely, or return it if the donor should survive, or should repent of having made the gift, or if the donee should die before the donor. With respect to the nature of a donatio mortis causa, this kind of gift so far resembles a legacy, that it is ambulatory and incomplete during the donor's life; it is, therefore, revocable by him.

Not all, "gifts" are given with an understanding that the donor can't revoke the gift and seek its return from the donee. There are other examples. A gift given in contemplation of marriage (e.g., an engagement ring) reverts back to the donor if the marriage is called off and never occurs.

He wasn't threatening you with death or marriage, at least as far as i know, he might have in your case. lol

Good luck using that clause in court.

You seem to be conveniently avoiding the point of my giving you two examples of cases were a donation (i.e., a "gift") given on condition of "X" can indeed and in fact and by well-established law be revoked by the donor and its return sought from the donee if condition "X" is never satisfied.

Trust me, if I donate to a charitable organization or some other entity who solicits my donation on the condition of doing "X" with it and they then turn around and deliberately do other than "X" with it, knowing full well beforehand that they had no intention of doing "X" with it, you can bet your ass that I am entitled, under various principles of American jurisprudence, not the least of which are "fraud" and "obtaining property by false pretense," to the return of my donation.

He asked you for money for his Legal fees did he not? Since the conditions of this settlement are "confidential" can he not say he used all of that money to pay his lawyers, if so, what right do you have to say the conditions under which you donated was not satisfied? (assuming he didn't just straight out said "I didn't have to pay any legal fee" since i don't follow the jackass, if so you win)

the man never gave you the specifics as to what he was using the money other than its needed for "legal Fees" in which case he has made no false pretense. You didn't donate to him going to trial or having him settle, you gave him money willy nilly so he can pay for lawyers.