Post: [UPDATE:]► Sony vs. Geohot
02-03-2011, 10:41 PM #1
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
You must login or register to view this content.


The legal action between Sony and PlayStation 3 hacker George Hotz (Geohot) continues, with Hotz' lawyer Stewart Kellar fighting for jurisdiction in New Jersey, not California.

His latest motion seeks a dismissal of the temporary restraining order due to improper venue and lack of personal jurisdiction.

Originally posted by another user
The legal arguments are thick on both sides, but Sony may face an uphill battle claiming that Hotz was aiming his actions towards California, or that his tenuous links to businesses and services residing in the state require California courts to have jurisdiction. In a case where much of the "action" in question took place virtually, with so many parties in play, there is no easy way to sort this out.
The case for California

Hotz' lawyer notes that a three-pronged test must be applied for personal jurisdiction, with all being satisfied in the eyes of the court. This is the concept of "purposeful direction" that came from Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co. What needs to be proved?

* The nonresident defendant must do some act or consummate some transaction with the forum or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws;
* The claim must be one which arises out of or results from the defendant's forum-related activities; and
* Exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable.

"Under the first prong of a specific jurisdiction test, SCEA must demonstrate that Mr. Hotz 'purposefully availed' himself of the privilege of conducting activities in California, or purposefully directed its activities toward California," Kellar argued. That may be hard to prove on Sony's part. "Mr. Hotz maintains a passive website... The site merely makes information available and does not allow users to interact with the host computer or exchange information." Was the information included aimed specifically at California? Sony may have to prove that it was.

Kellar drives the point home. "In the present case, SCEA cannot demonstrate that Mr. Hotz's activity could even arguably be construed as expressly aimed at California. To the contrary, the sole alleged activity in this action involves Mr. Hotz—who is located in New Jersey—purportedly improperly accessing portions of his own Playstation computer—which is also located in New Jersey," he said. "The Playstation computer is not made by SCEA. It is made by Sony Inc. which is a Japanese corporation."

There is also the publication of a quote where Hotz allegedly extorted Sony by saying he should be contacted to help make future consoles more secure. Kellar stated that this quote was edited and taken out of context. The full quote, as presented in this latest motion, was: "If you want your next console to be secure, contact me, any of you."

The omission of the last section by Sony made it seem as if the comment was meant for them, when the unedited quote is more broadly meant for any business creating hardware. "The double-hearsay quote, derived from a screenshot within a forum post within a website... omits the full statement, which undermines SCEA's claim that Mr. Hotz directed any statement toward SCEA," Kellar wrote.
Trying the case in California would help Sony

George Hotz does not have the resources of Sony, and trying the case in California would be another way to increase his costs. Hotz is merely one defendant in the complaint, with multiple groups and individuals listed—many from outside the US. It's a tricky case, and Sony can definitely try to grind Hotz down with lengthy and costly litigation far from his home.

Sony's arguments for California-based jurisdiction rest entirely on the existence of Hotz' PayPal account and a line in the PlayStation Network's Terms of Service. Kellar is attacking those links to California on multiple fronts. Others are skeptical of Sony's tactics.

"The playing field is already stacked against an individual being attacked by an international corporation. For that reason, given the financial disparity, it is disturbing to see Sony trying so hard to keep the playing field so gravely tilted in its own direction," Groklaw noted. "If Hotz has done something illegal, Sony can crush him in New Jersey just as well as in California. But it would be a shame if they win simply by being able to sustain the expense of litigation until this kid gives out."


You must login or register to view this content.
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

The following 3 users say thank you to NextGenTactics for this useful post:

game1231, KuSH_SM0kE, Mr.Houston
02-04-2011, 12:29 AM #20
iTruceFret
[move]From now on, call me DRAGON.[/move]
Make it more appealing...who's got the win? Sony, or Geohot? (In your honest, outmost opinion, of course.)
02-04-2011, 12:30 AM #21
The Open Minded
☮✌Peace Maker✌☮
Originally posted by Truce View Post
Make it more appealing...who's got the win? Sony, or Geohot? (In your honest, outmost opinion, of course.)

I've got my money on GeoHot.
02-04-2011, 12:30 AM #22
You forgot something

You must login or register to view this content.
02-04-2011, 12:32 AM #23
iTruceFret
[move]From now on, call me DRAGON.[/move]
Me too. He's too intelligent, and bottom line? Sony's just using his court case as an outcry for other 'reverse engineers' to stop what they're doing, when in return, all it's doing is pissing 'em off, and will cause more trouble for Sony's ambitions of the 10 year old EPIC GAMERS WHO PLAY THE SONIC DEMOS. lololol
02-04-2011, 12:34 AM #24
-Skyline
Anonymous
I really hate Sony for this instance.

They're trying to use their £Multi-Billion's to play a scare tactic hoping geohot will break, but as geohots lawyer said, Sony are only holding on a couple of very fine bits of string.

As they're trying to get the case to California is bullshit, they know they have full jurisdiction in California so they'll just sue the pants off of him if that happens.

F*** OFF SONY!

P.S. it's 0:33am here and I'm grouchy. Smile
02-04-2011, 12:36 AM #25
The Open Minded
☮✌Peace Maker✌☮
Originally posted by Truce View Post
Me too. He's too intelligent, and bottom line? Sony's just using his court case as an outcry for other 'reverse engineers' to stop what they're doing, when in return, all it's doing is pissing 'em off, and will cause more trouble for Sony's ambitions of the 10 year old EPIC GAMERS WHO PLAY THE SONIC DEMOS. lololol

I have my money on him because I've done my research and read all the laws and done research about previous court cases pertaining to hacking video games. Technically GeoHot has done nothing illegal and nothing that they can charge him for.

---------- Post added at 06:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:35 PM ----------

Originally posted by TrueSkyl1n3 View Post
I really hate Sony for this instance.

They're trying to use their £Multi-Billion's to play a scare tactic hoping geohot will break, but as geohots lawyer said, Sony are only holding on a couple of very fine bits of string.

As they're trying to get the case to California is bullshit, they know they have full jurisdiction in California so they'll just sue the pants off of him if that happens.

F*** OFF SONY!

P.S. it's 0:33am here and I'm grouchy. Smile

I second that one mate.
02-04-2011, 01:14 AM #26
Thats not even the source. I saw this a few hours ago on a website. WORD FOR WORD copied and pasted NGT.
02-04-2011, 01:36 AM #27
GeoHot wins umm cos he is cooool :], but seriously i think geo will win and cant wait for it to happen
02-04-2011, 01:59 AM #28
meyamuppet
Do a barrel roll!
Its a shame really when you think about it, he is being stalked by a multi billion pound company with a bottomless pit of money. They are just trying to prolong this case until his funding runs out. Leaving him with no other options but to admit defeat. If and i say IF, he loses this will be a great win for Sony against this young prodigy. But the result of the case will cause a Massive wave of mixed emotions throughout the PSN community. Some will say he got what he deserved others i think Winky Winky will stand by him in what he tried to prevent, and that was letting Sony have control over a product that you and i have bought but have no control over what we can or cant do with it what we want. Resulting in a majority of his followers trying to set the Playstation FREE. With no strings attached.

But the Biggest can of worms in this case comes down to jurisdiction the boundary of authority, this is a strong point in his lawyers case i think. What Geohot done to the Ps3 was done in his home state of New Jersey, Sony reside in California. So he cant be convicted across state for his actions because of jurisdiction law, this is why the first judge Susan Illston kicked it out. Now what Sony was trying to do was convict him across state in court which i think falls under the Universal jurisdiction law, this covers things like war crimes, torture,murder and theft to hijacking and hostage-taking! Not hacking a Playstaion 3 console! Hence why Sony want the case to continue in California.

Just my thoughts :rolleyes:

Copyright © 2026, NextGenUpdate.
All Rights Reserved.

Gray NextGenUpdate Logo