Sony & Geohot settle

[herkulease]

Well that was anti-climatic.

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/04/11/sony-and-playstation-3-jailbreaker-george-hotz-settle-out-of-cou/

They settled out of court.

I wonder what's the motivation behind this?

I mean one is obvious in that there's really no way Hotz or any person can take on sony or a large corporation. they'll just drag out the court case and bleed them dry.

Still Sony doesn't necessarily have to agree to any settlement if they feel they have a strong case. Granted it was civil court but i'm sure they'd love to be able to nail him for violating DMCA. Probably helps them go after others too.

For the lawyers, so what happens to some of the requests Sony "won". I remember the host, youtube and others were ordered to provide the IP of those who visited. Do they still have to provide the logs(or can sony still request them) or with the case settled its done and sony has to start over if they want the logs.

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

Well Sony got a lot of bad pr out of this and maybe they were just tired of it.

I think the following is more likely though.

Sony didn't think they could win and the DMCA would be invalid for consoles from now on. Now they don't have that problem....and if they won, what would they really get any way?

 

[Queasy]

If you go to Geohot's geohotgotsued.blogspot.com site, he compares the settlement to Napster losing its court case but the record industry losing in the long run.

We'll see.

 

[Corporate Thug]

All things considered, I don't see what sony had to gain from this case.

 

[Ross Ridge]

For the lawyers, so what happens to some of the requests Sony "won". I remember the host, youtube and others were ordered to provide the IP of those who visited. Do they still have to provide the logs(or can sony still request them) or with the case settled its done and sony has to start over if they want the logs.

As I understand most of those requests were related to whether the court in California had juristiction in the case Hotz, so with that no longer being an issue they wouldn't have to provide any more information. However Sony is still pursuing other people, and I'm sure they've already collected most, if not all, of the logs involving Hotz they were looking for anyways.

 

[Corporate Thug]

For the lawyers, so what happens to some of the requests Sony "won". I remember the host, youtube and others were ordered to provide the IP of those who visited. Do they still have to provide the logs(or can sony still request them) or with the case settled its done and sony has to start over if they want the logs.

If it was for jurisdictional purposes, as Sony claims, then its a moot point. The records will likely not be turned over at this point, assuming they already haven't been.

 

[Bman123]

This was stupid, Sony should know better then to piss off nerds now

 

[a123456]

Yeah, it might not the reason but I wouldn't be surprised if Sony settled for PR reasons and to stop the hacking. They could have easily bankrupted Geohot but they have to pay the lawyers too. The more it drags out, the more people know about the custom firmware, etc.

Besides, the settlement agreement probably was worded so that it would be illegal for Geohot to release the real root keys. For Sony, spending a little money to keep the real root keys private is completely worth it versus maybe Geohot blackmailing Sony with the keys during some sort of trial.

AFAIK, Geohot never released the real keys. He hacked the firmware so it would accept his own custom keys and never released the real keys so "it couldn't be used for piracy" seeing as how he wanted a job at Sony before this whole thing started. So now Sony patched the new firmware to probably blacklist the Geohot root keys.

There's also not much to be gained by Sony from winning a civil trial. Whee, they get a huge settlement for 100M. It's obviously not collectible. What are they going to do? Garnish 25% of his 0 wages? Then get an injunction against him hacking it further. Future hackers may not be as stupid as Geohot and release the stuff anonymously so getting court precedent may not help that much anyway.

By paying him off and hiring him, Sony gets what they wanted from the start.

 

[blurredvision]

I saw this whole thing more as Hotz backing down rather than Sony backing down. I don't understand why everybody goes against Sony anyway. For some reason, if the property being tampered with is digital, everybody sides with the little guy. I wish Sony would've stuck Hotz to the wall and made an example out of him. Not that it would've done anything in the long run, but I don't blame Sony one bit for trying to protect their system from cheating, hacking, and whatever else bad could come from it.

 

[purbeast0]

I saw this whole thing more as Hotz backing down rather than Sony backing down. I don't understand why everybody goes against Sony anyway. For some reason, if the property being tampered with is digital, everybody sides with the little guy. I wish Sony would've stuck Hotz to the wall and made an example out of him. Not that it would've done anything in the long run, but I don't blame Sony one bit for trying to protect their system from cheating, hacking, and whatever else bad could come from it.

i think it is more the principle of the whole thing. we should be able to purchase products and do whatever the hell we want to do with them and the person we bought the product from should have no say in it.

there are very VERY legitimate reasons to put a CFW on your PS3 that does not have to do with piracy. i believe recently there has been a media player released that can flat out play media files that a stock ps3 cannot play. also, people want to run emulators or Other OS on there as well. it may be a very very select few, but it is a very legitimate claim.

going onto PSN with modified firmware however, I am all for Sony banning and think they have ever right to, especially since we agree to terms when using their service.

personally, i had CFW on my ps3 but went back because I wasn't really getting any benefit of it at the time and I couldn't get onto PSN. but I can understand why some people would want to do it.

 

[Corporate Thug]

I saw this whole thing more as Hotz backing down rather than Sony backing down. I don't understand why everybody goes against Sony anyway. For some reason, if the property being tampered with is digital, everybody sides with the little guy. I wish Sony would've stuck Hotz to the wall and made an example out of him. Not that it would've done anything in the long run, but I don't blame Sony one bit for trying to protect their system from cheating, hacking, and whatever else bad could come from it.

Can you tell me what Sony would have gained by sticking Hotz to the wall? More bad PR? An unenforceable judgment? More attorney's fees?

 

[blurredvision]

i think it is more the principle of the whole thing. we should be able to purchase products and do whatever the hell we want to do with them and the person we bought the product from should have no say in it.

While I generally agree with this sentiment, I'm more in the camp of simply saying that if you don't like what a company lets you do with their product, then don't buy it. To me, it's quite obvious what you can and can't do with a PS3 before you buy it, yet people will buy it and then bitch to no end that they can't do the stuff they want to with it. That's what I hate about this stuff more than anything. It's like paying for a hooker that tells you up front that she won't kiss you on the mouth, then you get pissed later because she won't kiss you on the mouth. :sneaky:

Can you tell me what Sony would have gained by sticking Hotz to the wall? More bad PR? An unenforceable judgment? More attorney's fees?

The only "bad PR" that exists is for the net nerds who complain about it in the first place. Whey is it even bad PR to begin with? There are clear-cut rules on what this machine can and can't do. You guys can type all you want about how circumventing Sony's software isn't condoning piracy, but that's what happens. You can stick your head in the sand all you want, but this is why Sony wants to go after people like Hotz. Unenforceable judgments and lawyer fees aside, they have to do something to try and stem the harm that could be done to their industry. Whether they actually can or can't do something is an entirely different discussion.

I support Sony 100% on going after those who attempt to circumvent the protection on their console.

 

[Ross Ridge]

Thinking about this some more and I beggining to suspect Sony had to pay Hotz money as part of this settlement. Otherwise there's not a lot of reason for Hotz to keep quiet about the terms of the deal. The permanent injunction may prevent him talking about the PlayStation 3 hacks, but it wouldn't prevent him from disclosing the terms of settlement itself.

 

[Anteaus]

Can you tell me what Sony would have gained by sticking Hotz to the wall? More bad PR? An unenforceable judgment? More attorney's fees?

Legal precedent. By sticking Hotz to the wall they would have sent a message that there are legal barriers that can't be toyed with without reprecussions. The problem is that Sony underestimated the bad publicity that came with it.

Hotz had his legal defense covered as well as strong popular support. As to the settlement, in my view the only way he would have settled is if Sony finally found their "smoking gun" of sorts and was able to directly link Hotz with damages resulting from his illegal activities. Much of the earlier evidence was circumstancial at best.

I'm willing to bet that as part of the settlement, other than the obvious NDA, he was required to provide Sony with detailed information related to his hacks as well as potentially provide information on his methods of distribution (websites, personal contacts, etc). In exchange, Sony may or may not have provided money. This is complete speculation of course.

Something has to be said about how abruptly he rolled.

 

[Ross Ridge]

I'm willing to bet that as part of the settlement, other than the obvious NDA, he was required to provide Sony with detailed information related to his hacks as well as potentially provide information on his methods of distribution (websites, personal contacts, etc).

Sony already had this information. Hotz wasn't keeping his hacks a secret and they subpoenaed every WWW site they could connect to him. I suspect having obtained that information, Sony lost most of it's motivation to continue persuing him. He was the most visible of the PlayStation 3 hackers, but not the most important. He wasn't the one that exposed the flaw the root signing key that made Sony look incompetent, nor was he the one that was making and distribuiting the piracy tools. With their fishing expedition over, Sony would have been much more keen to settle and move on to the bigger fish.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Legal precedent. By sticking Hotz to the wall they would have sent a message that there are legal barriers that can't be toyed with without reprecussions. The problem is that Sony underestimated the bad publicity that came with it.

Hotz had his legal defense covered as well as strong popular support. As to the settlement, in my view the only way he would have settled is if Sony finally found their "smoking gun" of sorts and was able to directly link Hotz with damages resulting from his illegal activities. Much of the earlier evidence was circumstancial at best.

I'm willing to bet that as part of the settlement, other than the obvious NDA, he was required to provide Sony with detailed information related to his hacks as well as potentially provide information on his methods of distribution (websites, personal contacts, etc). In exchange, Sony may or may not have provided money. This is complete speculation of course.

Something has to be said about how abruptly he rolled.

Legal precedent would be taking the thing to trial having a Court of law rule that the DCMA applies to the PS3. You know, like the opposite of what happened in the iphone jailbreak case...If Sony had a "smoking gun" or even a viable case, they would have went forward with the case. The "deep pockets" is never nearly as concerned about costs and the little guy in litigation.

 

[Corporate Thug]

While I generally agree with this sentiment, I'm more in the camp of simply saying that if you don't like what a company lets you do with their product, then don't buy it. To me, it's quite obvious what you can and can't do with a PS3 before you buy it, yet people will buy it and then bitch to no end that they can't do the stuff they want to with it. That's what I hate about this stuff more than anything. It's like paying for a hooker that tells you up front that she won't kiss you on the mouth, then you get pissed later because she won't kiss you on the mouth. :sneaky:



The only "bad PR" that exists is for the net nerds who complain about it in the first place. Whey is it even bad PR to begin with? There are clear-cut rules on what this machine can and can't do. You guys can type all you want about how circumventing Sony's software isn't condoning piracy, but that's what happens. You can stick your head in the sand all you want, but this is why Sony wants to go after people like Hotz. Unenforceable judgments and lawyer fees aside, they have to do something to try and stem the harm that could be done to their industry. Whether they actually can or can't do something is an entirely different discussion.

I support Sony 100% on going after those who attempt to circumvent the protection on their console.

I still don't see what Sony accomplished...there is no putting the Genie back in the bottle. Hotz releasing the jailbreak cannot be undone, no matter how the case ended.

 

[Queasy]

I still don't see what Sony accomplished...there is no putting the Genie back in the bottle. Hotz releasing the jailbreak cannot be undone, no matter how the case ended.

It's basically a warning shot to others who may think about releasing jailbreak or root key. Compared to individual citizens, Sony has near unlimited resources to sue the pants off of anybody. Even though the company settled, it still put Geohot in a financial bind and he had to solicit donations. I'm sure part of the reason that Geohot settled was because he saw the financial writing on the wall that he wouldn't be able to pay his lawyers to go the distance in the trial.

 

[tommo123]

yeah, a warning to not be a douche like george hotz and post anon - don't point a big neon sign at yourself like he did. a proxy, or upload via local library etc etc etc and your files are online.

he's a smart guy clearly, but not the brightest bulb if he thought sony would just thank him and hire him

 

[Anteaus]

Legal precedent would be taking the thing to trial having a Court of law rule that the DCMA applies to the PS3. You know, like the opposite of what happened in the iphone jailbreak case

The iphone jailbreak case is quite different. In that case, the ruling was specific to point at that jailbreaking is legal with phones because no carrier can arbitrarily restrict through software which carrier you can and can't use a phone with once you own it, assuming it has compatible tech. The jailbreak is legal, but only within the scope of that ruling. This applies to all phones, not just iphones.

Since there is no reasonable expectation that you should be allowed to use your PS3 with Xbox Live, that ruling wouldn't be applicable. Most would agree that Sony acted in bad faith when they removed the "Other OS" and they should definitely be judged for it, but Hotz took it to another level. Personally I think Sony should have seen it through because at least it might hopefully answer some questions, but a settlement is beneficial to both parties in the long run.

Sony is still in a class action lawsuit in Europe over the "Other OS" removal, so we still might see a tangible resolution to all this over the next year or so.

 

[blurredvision]

Most would agree that Sony acted in bad faith when they removed the "Other OS" and they should definitely be judged for it, but Hotz took it to another level.

I agree with this.

 

[mmntech]

Sony going after Geohot was like them lighting a cigarette with a flame thrower. He didn't do anything illegal exactly, at least since last Year's LofC ruling. Sony is a very litigious company though so I'm not surprised. I'm not surprised he settled either. What lawyers get away with these days amounts to legalized extortion. Geohot is a smartass kid but his case shows what's wrong with tort law in America. It's not a fair and blind system based on innocence until proven guilty. Big companies win by simple attrition.

Anyway, the genie is out of the bottle now. His code is out there for good and bad. Personally I'd love to jailbreak my PS3. Not to pirate but to add some badly needed functionality. FLAC support, high speed scrubbing for music, the return of Other OS, and a better browser.

 

[Anteaus]

Sony going after Geohot was like them lighting a cigarette with a flame thrower. He didn't do anything illegal exactly, at least since last Year's LofC ruling. Sony is a very litigious company though so I'm not surprised. I'm not surprised he settled either. What lawyers get away with these days amounts to legalized extortion. Geohot is a smartass kid but his case shows what's wrong with tort law in America. It's not a fair and blind system based on innocence until proven guilty. Big companies win by simple attrition.

But then again people pass judgement on a case simply by what the media supplies us and not be the merits of the evidence. You say he "didn't do anything illegal exactly", but aren't you doing the exact thing your accusing them of doing? Your declaring innocence/guilt based on your gut/interpretation of the law and small amount of information that is spoon fed us by the lawyers through media.

You're absolutely allowed your opinion, but without an actual trial and unless Sony actually comes forward with the evidence that their legal team has compiled (not including what they voluntarily provided) there is no way to know for sure how it would have gone or why they ultimately settled. Admissibility is always a challenge based on how information is gathered, and since this is a civil suit things operate a bit differently than criminal law.

This is what aggravates me about this whole thing. There are no winners in this. Sony loses, Hotz loses, we lose. Bottom line, none of us have enough knowledge of the case from top to bottom to speak with any real authority on it, yet most people seem to be content with passing sweeping judgements on the whole case.

I apologize mmntech, I used you as a quote reference, but I'm not directing this at you specifically.

 

[Soundmanred]

I know there's alot of talk of "bad press" and such for Sony, but I honestly don't know a single person who cares about it, and that's if they even know about it. Nobody I've spoken with even knows about the whole Geohot ordeal (non-nerd types, but do play games). If they want to buy a PS3 they will or they won't and it has nothing to do with their legal battles.
I'm in the camp that agrees with not buying something if you don't like the way it's supposed to be used.

 

[Corporate Thug]

The iphone jailbreak case is quite different. In that case, the ruling was specific to point at that jailbreaking is legal with phones because no carrier can arbitrarily restrict through software which carrier you can and can't use a phone with once you own it, assuming it has compatible tech. The jailbreak is legal, but only within the scope of that ruling. This applies to all phones, not just iphones.

Since there is no reasonable expectation that you should be allowed to use your PS3 with Xbox Live, that ruling wouldn't be applicable. Most would agree that Sony acted in bad faith when they removed the "Other OS" and they should definitely be judged for it, but Hotz took it to another level. Personally I think Sony should have seen it through because at least it might hopefully answer some questions, but a settlement is beneficial to both parties in the long run.

Sony is still in a class action lawsuit in Europe over the "Other OS" removal, so we still might see a tangible resolution to all this over the next year or so.

I'm not arguing that its exactly the same thing. All I'm saying is that confidentiality settling a case is far from setting a precedent. If they wanted to set an enforceable legal precedent, they would have tried the case.