Take them down Sony!

True, but that's not what the defendants here are accused of.  Reading through Sony's motion, they are not accusing the defendants of stealing Sony's intellectual property in any way.  They are merely accusing them of "circumventing" (their word) some protections that Sony put in place to ensure its monopoly over the system.

Isn't the system software inside the ps3 that is distributed from the hack copyrighted and confidential?

They provided a method for distributing the code without sony's consent, and can't that be considered a crime?

Just a guess, i dont really know.

I agree in the essence of hackers suck. Though on the other hand most companies have tried and most have failed

This is why they have detectors at doors, it does that for them so they dont have to.

So heres a real analogy for you If i make a nifty gadget that charges my cell phone wirelessly while in my pocket and it also allows any nonscanned electronical device to not be detected at the front of bestbuy through their shoplifting detectors by your accord this product, since this product which i most certainly made for the latter, also includes a legal and legit application, my intent and illegal use of it is rendered irrelavent?

I cant believe people are acting like this wasnt developed for the the sole purpose of pirating things.

Wow, well im done, i wasted too much time typing thought out responses and then i hit refresh and am hammered with this nonsense, later guys good luck.

Guns don't kill people.

People kill people.

How hard is it to understand?

There are many users on this very site who have installed homebrew onto their other videogame systems.  I won't speak for them, but I'd venture to guess that many of them will be happy to tell you just how wrong you are in accusing them of only doing so to pirate games.  Whether you like it or not, there ARE several legal uses for homebrew,and I'm willing to bet the people here who've used them feel a little insulted by your accusation.

Can you prove this in any way, shape, or form?  Keep in mind that "I would only use this to pirate games!" is not evidence in any sense of the term.  If you can offer me anything to support the idea that the defendants had the intent which you ascribe to them, then I will join you in condemning him.  Don't keep me waiting.

Yes.

Yes you can.

Unless the state proves that you provided those materials with the intent of furthering a crime (i.e. manufacturing meth), then the jury would have to find you Not Guilty of the crime of conspiracy.  In light of how all of that equipment has several legal uses, even when used in tandem, the state can not simply convict you for someone else's criminal use of your property.

Again, you're walking into a court of law and ascribing an intent to someone without bothering to offer evidence to support your assertion.  If you can offer such evidence, I am willing to hear it.  But neither you nor Sony has done so yet.  Sony may ultimately do so: that's what the discovery process is all about.  But while I'm only halfway through their motion, they haven't offered a shred of such evidence yet.

I think the question is more along the lines of "did he ever log onto the PSN?" If he did, I would imagine that somewhere in there wall of text it states that you will not modify hardware/software. I can't believe they wouldn't sneek it in somewhere. Noone reads those things. Everytime you update your firmware there is something you must agree to.  I actually think Sony could win. Directv and Dish won. People got busted for hacking their cards and boxes. It's their equipment yet they were found guilty.

I'm assuming that you are not familiar with the definition of the word "monopoly," and that you only know its negative connotation.  Allow me to educate you:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monopoly