Once again, that's why you should read the whole article.  They mention a shitload of things he's done outside of jailbreaking, including being named one of the "Top 10 overachiveing people under 21" by PC World Magazine and winning a bunch of programming contests.  Invented a brain wave reader lots of stuff that people would/and have celebrated, and reasons to be a role model.  He's basically a super genius.

Though you know, reading the whole article will actually you know, let you know what the author is talking about and understand his point of view too, instead of not reading the whole thing because you want to cling to your beliefs rather then actually have a rationale conversation.

In general, the hackers that are really good at stuff, are nothing more then the next generation of people who will drive the industry forward... because people who build, also like to take things apart to see how things go together.

A) Maybe because no one has thought of it yet. Sony might not be sueing for it at this time however they could in the future. Also you and the other supporters keep saying he has done nothing wrong which is my whole reason and purpose for reply i dont really care about any other dynamics of this situation. Negligence (i also said carelessness)can be sued for so technically that makes it wrong. Also you can be sued for something someone else does its called remoteness and its under the umbrella of negligence one example. For instance,

The idea of legal causation is that if no one can foresee something bad happening, and therefore take care to avoid it, how could anyone be responsible? in Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road Co.[6] the judge decided that the defendant, a railway, was not liable for an injury suffered by a distant bystander. The plaintiff, Palsgraf, was hit by scales that fell on her as she waited on a train platform. The scales fell because of a far-away commotion. A train conductor had run to help a man into a departing train. The man was carrying a package as he jogged to jump in the train door. The package had fireworks in it. The conductor mishandled the passenger or his package, causing the package to fall. The fireworks slipped and exploded on the ground causing shockwaves to travel through the platform. As a consequence, the scales fell.[7] Because Palsgraf was hurt by the falling scales, she sued the train company who employed the conductor for negligence.[8]

The defendant train company argued it should not be liable as a matter of law, because despite the fact that they employed the employee, who was negligent, his negligence was too remote from the plaintiff's injury. On appeal, the majority of the court agreed, with four judges adopting the reasons, written by Judge Cardozo, that the defendant owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, because a duty was owed only to foreseeable plaintiffs. Three judges dissented, arguing, as written by Judge Andrews, that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, regardless of foreseeability, because all men owe one another a duty not to act negligently.

i am sure there are more but i really dont need to show every case do i?

B)  Theres only one way to have your info stolen?

C) I do think it is a problem. However you say its some big deal and then later saying its still better than pc and 360 is a little flippy floppy.

D) Me being tired of hearing the same drivel means im making stuff up?? what, lol. The only thing i do is give factual info, im not goingto going to make someone look like a bad guy they can do thay themselves i dont need to do that for them. And the reason why i keep saying he is negligent is because he has been and he can be proved that and that would make him in the wrong, which is my whole point he is wrong. And as for the negitives they far outweight the positives. You can seperate the hackers from the homebrewers and if the hackers are decent ones you apparently can ban them.

A) Hotz isn't an employee of Sony?  Again, the only people who can be sued for negligence in this case is.... Sony.  You can't sue someone for negligence because someone else might do something illegal with the product of your work.

Also, you REALLY think Sony's entire team of lawyers didn't think of something a random forum poster did?

B) On the PS3?   Yes.

C)  I didn't say that?  I said YOU said it was a big deal.  It very much isn't a big deal, though Sony could be sued for negligence for not taking a very simple precaution that EVERYBODY takes.

D) You aren't giving factual information though... everything you said has either been outright wrong "negligence" or an opinion.  Sony didn't seperate the hacker from the homebrews. They coded their system so they were one in the same.  If you want to blame someone... it's sony.

A) Hotz isn't an employee of Sony?  Again, the only people who can be sued for negligence in this case is.... Sony.  You can't sue someone for negligence because someone else might do something illegal with the product of your work.

Also, you REALLY think Sony's entire team of lawyers didn't think of something a random forum poster did?

B) On the PS3?   Yes.

C)  I didn't say that?  I said YOU said it was a big deal.  It very much isn't a big deal, though Sony could be sued for negligence for not taking a very simple precaution that EVERYBODY takes.

D) You aren't giving factual information though... everything you said has either been outright wrong "negligence" or an opinion.  Sony didn't seperate the hacker from the homebrews. They coded their system so they were one in the same.  If you want to blame someone... it's sony.

A) Do i have to find an example for every situation you come up with? First it was "You can't be sued for negligence for something someone else does" i show you an example now its someone might do something illegal with your work use your imagination.

"The basic rule may be stated positively or negatively. If the damage

would still have occurred, even if the defendant had not broken the

duty of care, then the breach did not cause the damage. If the

damage would not have occurred

but for the defendant’s breach of

duty, then the breach of duty is a cause of the damage. For this

reason, the basic rule is often referred to as the ‘but for test’. Its

main purpose is to exclude things that have no bearing on the

damage. It is for the claimant to show that the breach of duty was

the cause of the damage, and not for the defendant to show that

the breach of duty was not the cause of the damage."

Granted the exploit was there but he showed it off and is the direct cause of the damage no one else is responsible. Also he can be charged with Accessory.

An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal.

B) so i cant hack into the servers where the infomation is and get it that way? i am done with this subject it has nothing to do with my point.

C) Not everybody and yes they can, also your the one that brought it off to hold over my head the fact that i said he can be charged with negligence. Again i am done with this it isnt part of my point.

D) Almost everything that has been stated by you or i has been opinion. I atleast insert actual quotes for factual information you on the other hand art trying to belittle or say that actual cases wouldnt apply when they would.

That's not the ruling you know... that's the last exemption run anwyay, it's not related to the Iphone suite.

Here is it explained.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20011702-260.html

Aside from which, as for the PS3 jailbreaking to be legal or not, hasn't been ruled on yet.  However assuming things go to normal precedent it will be ruled legal.

Right now it's a big pile of "who knows, probably."

It'd be like if somebody Jailbreaked their cars firmware to run a free GPS system that works for cellphones.  Would it be legal?  Dunno, probably.

Now I know what your saying "User agreements!"

A) The Useragreement for this happens when you sign up for a PSN account... which Geohot never did.

B) User agreements themselves are seen as largely unenforceable outside of voiding someones warranty.  Hence why even if you said Sony a clearly modified chipped PS2, all they would do is send it back at your expense.  EULA's have pretty mcuh never been argued in courts because well... companies pretty much accept they would LOSE.  EULA's are more reasons to let people void warranties and try and scare people.

A) Do yourself  a favor look up "Duty of Care".  In particular, California.  You will see why Sony can't sue for this.  Not only would Sony lose, but they would look exremely bad doing it.

The biggest loss would be "the feasability of alternate conduct".  Since there was no way to unlock the features outside of this, there would be no "feasability of alternate conduct", and in general other alternate conduct issues.

Also, sony would have to definitivly prove they were harmed.  Which you can't, because most studies tend to show that even piracy has no discernable effect on the industry.

They'd have to prove without a shadow of a doubt it was done for immoral reasons. Likely a loss since most college proffesors and the like are on Hotz side and more then willing to talk about it, and all anyone has to believe is that HE thought it was the right thing to do.

They would have to prove that punishing him will prevent future harm. (tough when you can't find past harm.)

Also, that they would have to prove he could of done it safer.  Which you really can't argue with hacking because he doesn't have completel knowledge of the subject.

Prove that reasonable people wouldn't do the same in his place... again with over half the gaming community behind him, most academics and most tech people... not going to do.

So no... he can't be sued for that, nor can most if not all people be sued for something someone else does, without very very very specific guidelines being followed.  In general it is a VERY specific crime, otherwise everybody would get sued for it.

B) You can, it has nothing to do with Gehot though.

C) No, he can't.

D) No, i've actually corrected quite literally your mistaken comments.