The federal judge hearing Sony's copyright suit against PlayStation 3 jailbreakers declined to vacate a ruling that hacker George Hotz turn over his computer gear to the console maker, Wired.com reported. An attorney for Hotz, aka, GeoHot, argued during a hearing in San Francisco on Thursday that the ruling, issued two weeks ago …
Technically stunted judge reveals ignorance
You would have thought that judges would be embarrassed by some of the rulings and orders they issue.
George, on the other hand, should simply get an old clunker computer and load Sony's winnings on to the drive and let them go whistle Dixie.
“That’s the breaks,”
Welcome to America, where a multinational corporation has more rights than a person.
"Give me your money, your kickbacks,
Your campaign donations yearning to breathe free"
I can tell how much of a clue this judge has already. It's sad, especially given that the UK judiciary is proving with ACS:Law that you don't have to be ill-informed.
He has to hand over his PS3 so that the people suing him can hunt for evidence on it?
That's ridiculous. This should be done by an independent 3rd party.
Found a completely technically illiterate Judge! Did the judge suggest how the information can be retrieved? Should GeoHot go onto one of the miriad of boards and redownload what has been uploaded? Wouldn't that be technically "Retrieving"? Wouldnt that also be what Sony don't want?
Their hypocrisy seems awesome. For many many years they have sold kit that enables copyright theft (think twin-deck tapes and such) and they have profited from the sales of their own brand blank media but they argue that "allowing the possibility of copyright infringement" is enough to justify suing anyone who thinks of it. They are also lax in terms of legality when it comes to the whole root kit thing.
I have to say, if Sony are thinking this will protect revenue, then they have Epically Failed! I have no desire to ever own a Sony product again. Now downloading their films and music from "less thank kosher" websites, maybe i have a softer stance on that.
Anon due to the possibility that Sony are reading this!
@AC "I have no desire to ever own a Sony product again."
I am of like mind.
Sony, can you count the negative posts here? And the upvotes of same? Take a hint.
"When we hang the capitalists, they will sell us the rope we use." - Josef Stalin
And that's why you regularly back-up.
Because Sony will not rest until they have restored the PS3's virginity. D'Oh.
The lawyers do this to make money. Why Sony are doing it, spending pots of money on anti-advertising, is anyone's guess. There is no win scenario here. What part of that don't they understand?
Free advice for Sony, because I'm feeling generous.
1. Employ this guy. More like him and your next product may be on time.
2. You will piss money away on 3D TV. Just let it go.
3. Sack some lawyers. The world will be a better place and you will reduce your wage bill.
4. Pissing on the little guy is bad publicity. Invest in some good advice.
5. Lawyers do not give good advice. They are only thinking of their wage packets.
7. All of the above.
Don't own a PS3, and never will now
I don't own a PS3, or a PS2, I'll admit to owning an old PSOne but it was given as a used gift and honestly I never bothered to hook it up. Sony is going overboard here and it's completely turned me off from wanting to even use any of their products. The CD rootkit issue was bad enough a few years ago, but IMO they've gone too far now in trying to defend their security.
Shame on you
You really don't have to apologise for the PS1 you know - Sony weren't as blatantly evil back then and the PS1 totally redefined the console market. Before the PS1 consoles were for (predominantly) for kids - the top frigging franchises were probably Mario and Sonic FFS.
Along came the PS1 with Gran Turismo and Grand Theft Auto and it changed everything.
Despite being evil, Sony do make pretty decent clobber and just think, if Sony employed a truly great PR department, you'd never hear about how evil they really are ...
Thats a real tech-savvy judge there.
Good luck, its gonna be a long trial.
Gonna be interesting
When enough time has passed that judges ARE tech savvy. They are going to be more tech savvy that the lawyers in front on them in many cases I imagine. That should be fun.
"Xerox it" - come on, who actually says that?
I know that photo-copying was invented at Xerox Parc but I thought everyone had called it photo-copying since the 80's!!
Reminds me of the judge in that "Not the 9 O'Clock News" episode, that didn't know anything about technology (digital watch etc) but knew all about blowup dolls - "The one with the real hair!".
xerox as a verb.
the word passed into regular parlance to in the USA to the extent that Xerox actually have no rights to stop people using it when describing photocopying any more. It does seem a US thing though.
Everyone alive since the 70's "xeroxes". Because the Xerox Copier owned the market at one stage.
Young ones may not be aware that this was the case...
And there is also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RanXerox for those who read 70's Sci-Fi pulp mags.
Who says 'Xerox it' - pretty much everyone in the US, that's who! ;)
Very much like us Brits saying "I've got to hoover the carpet" instead of "I've got to vacuum the carpet".
From a famous comedy program......
Counsel: This receipt is for the digital watch...
Judge: ...a digital watch? What on earth is a "digital watch"?
Counsel: Sorry m'lud. A digital watch is a watch worked by microelectronics.
Judge: Oh! How fascinating. Proceed.
Counsel: The next receipt is for an automatic video recorder...
Judge: ..."automatic video recorder"?
Counsel: Yes, I'm sorry m'lud. It's a machine that records television programmes on special tape.
Judge: Oh, how fascinating. What will they think of next? Proceed.
Counsel: Thank you m'lud. And finally, a receipt for a "deluxe model inflatable woman", whatever that is.
Judge: The Deluxe is the one with the real hair...
"what would they do Xerox it and send it back".
I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt and assume she is being ironic. She KNOWS they can't do that
Exactly what I thought. She was being slightly sarcastic, knowing she can't just throw the whole thing out. She also used the popular U.S. parlance "xerox it", to suggest quick and easy copying of the information, regardless of the format the information is actually in. She wanted to make sure that anyone reading her words would know what she meant.
I might be wrong, but it seems like the massed might of the El Reg crowd is out in force today to have a pop at anyone who remotely displays less than Linux Kernel coding level of geekiness, when discussing tech issues!
I thought I was reading comments for a different article, it's clear she wasn't seriously suggesting that be done although the article is very vague on the whole "retrieve" part and what is actually meant by it.
Should make for an easy appeal
"The Judge demonstrated no competent understanding of the technical issues involved and was therefore insufficiently able to pass down an informed judgement"
"That's the breaks"
What on God's green earth does that even mean?
Re: That's the breaks
That's the breaks is similar to "too bad so sad"
Sony gets his kit???
Seems a bit odd to me that police evidence is turned over to a private company to look at when said company is the plaintiff. I would think the prosecution would be smart enough to have mirrored the HDD first and only hand that over to Sony to prevent any accusations of tampering at a bare minimum. I would also think this person was intelligent enough to encrypt anything of importance, given the type of work that was being done on that machine.
I did enjoy the bit about Sony and copying. Maybe a judge could reference that fair use ruling in the judgement.
It's not just odd, m8. It's enough to get the whole thing pushed into mistrial. First off, anytime a defendant's computer is called into evidence, it must be confiscated by a qualified 'digital forensics examiner', and a solid 'chain of evidence' must be maintained end-to-end, or it can invalidate the evidence entirely.
Personally, I hope that GeoHotz' attorneys read this posting, because it's something they could use. I've been extensively trained in digital forensics, incident handling & response, and ethical hacking (CPTS) within the USA, which has left me with a ton of knowledge about the way evidence is supposed to be handled in a digital crimes case. Granted, this isn't a criminal case, but rather is a law suite. The thing is, the moment that judge ordered that George's computer be entered as evidence, it brought about a need for that system (or systems) to be handled according to digital forensic standards, as established by the US-DoD and used by USSS (US Secret Service; holds dominion over all digital crimes cases that cross state lines) in every case since 1991 (search for 'The Hacker Crackdown', by Bruce Sterling; literary freeware). Any mishandling is considered tampering with evidence, and can cause the whole case to be thrown out, causing Sony to restart the whole process.