By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - Sony and Geohot reach a settlement

Xen said:
Kasz216 said:
Xen said:
ssj12 said:
pizzahut451 said:
ssj12 said:

things are far from over

http://www.techspot.com/news/43249-geohot-joins-anonymous-boycott-of-sony-asks-you-to-come-along.html


Should we expect massive drop in PS3 sales next week? Holy crap, Sony better apologize to the mighty hacker community which showed how mighty they are when taking Sony's corporatedick deep in there ass with no lube whatsoever


Probably not, but it should push away some sales. Could give TV and other electronics sales to other manufacturers. Video games tend to sell at walmarts and game stores, not Sony Style stores.

Lol, you grossly overestimate its possible impact. Most people don't give a damn. Did those EA/Activision boycotts hurt anybody? No. And as it stands, most Sony products are superior to their counterparts.

The PS3 hacker community has already showed that they're nothing to be afraid of.

Eh?  You could make the arguement videogame consoles wise... but consumer electronics wise Sony's generally seen as medicore and surviving on it's name.

Riiight. While their TV's are inferior to Samsung's and Panasonic's, the audio equipment (bar portable players), the Optiarc DVD/BD burners (the burning quality is fantastic with the right Taiyo Yuden/MCC Verbatim discs) and blu-ray players are brill. If Sony were selling mediocrity, people would've gotten around to that fact by now. The people buying products that are at prices always higher than their competitors' are not that stupid. At least not the ones I got around to seeing.

1. Even Visio has better TVs now.

2. Audio equipment is actually made by Crutchfield. So of course the audio is good. Its Crutchfield.

3. LG burners are better, and quite a bit faster.

4. Their best blu-ray player is the PS3 still. An Oppo Blu-ray player for the same price is 1000x better in quality and performance.

 

Their products aren't that great. Blu-ray would have been horrid if it wasn't for Phillips.



PC gaming is better than console gaming. Always.     We are Anonymous, We are Legion    Kick-ass interview   Great Flash Series Here    Anime Ratings     Make and Play Please
Amazing discussion about being wrong
Official VGChartz Folding@Home Team #109453
 
Around the Network
ssj12 said:
Xen said:
Kasz216 said:
Xen said:
ssj12 said:
pizzahut451 said:
ssj12 said:

things are far from over

http://www.techspot.com/news/43249-geohot-joins-anonymous-boycott-of-sony-asks-you-to-come-along.html


Should we expect massive drop in PS3 sales next week? Holy crap, Sony better apologize to the mighty hacker community which showed how mighty they are when taking Sony's corporatedick deep in there ass with no lube whatsoever


Probably not, but it should push away some sales. Could give TV and other electronics sales to other manufacturers. Video games tend to sell at walmarts and game stores, not Sony Style stores.

Lol, you grossly overestimate its possible impact. Most people don't give a damn. Did those EA/Activision boycotts hurt anybody? No. And as it stands, most Sony products are superior to their counterparts.

The PS3 hacker community has already showed that they're nothing to be afraid of.

Eh?  You could make the arguement videogame consoles wise... but consumer electronics wise Sony's generally seen as medicore and surviving on it's name.

Riiight. While their TV's are inferior to Samsung's and Panasonic's, the audio equipment (bar portable players), the Optiarc DVD/BD burners (the burning quality is fantastic with the right Taiyo Yuden/MCC Verbatim discs) and blu-ray players are brill. If Sony were selling mediocrity, people would've gotten around to that fact by now. The people buying products that are at prices always higher than their competitors' are not that stupid. At least not the ones I got around to seeing.

1. Even Visio has better TVs now.

2. Audio equipment is actually made by Crutchfield. So of course the audio is good. Its Crutchfield.

3. LG burners are better, and quite a bit faster.

4. Their best blu-ray player is the PS3 still. An Oppo Blu-ray player for the same price is 1000x better in quality and performance.

 

Their products aren't that great. Blu-ray would have been horrid if it wasn't for Phillips.


That's generally what i've read.

Not that it matters to me, the quality difference is never worth the money to me for most of that stuff....

and I don't pirate or anything, so I don't really see the need for a DVD/blu-ray burner.

I mean, data storage?  I'll stick with flash drives and external hard drives.



Hapimeses said:

Thst's not the case, he's far more tightly pinned down. Read the following:

 

II. ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by consent of the Parties that Hotz, whether as an individual or as a principal, officer, director or employee of any business entity, and his agents, servants, employees, distributors, suppliers, representatives and all other persons or entities acting in concert or participation with Hotz who receive notice of this Judgment, shall be and hereby are permanently enjoined and restrained from:

A. Engaging in any unauthorized access to any SONY PRODUCT under the law;

B. Engaging in any unauthorized access to any SONY PRODUCT under the terms of any SCEA or SCEA AFFILIATES' license agreement or terms of use applicable to that SONY PRODUCT, whether or not Hotz has accepted such agreement or terms of use, including without limitation:

(i) reverse engineering, decompiling, or disassembling any portion of the Sony Product;

 

(ii) using any tools to bypass, disable, or circumvent any encryption, security, or authentication mechanism in the Sony Product;

(iii) using any hardware or softare to cause the Sony Product to accept or use unauthorized, illegal or pirated softare or hardware; and

(iv) exploiting any Sony Product to design, develop, update or distribute unauthorized softare or hardware for use with the Sony Product.

If any term of such SCEA or SCEA Affilates' license agreement or terms of use applicable to that Sony Product shall be determined by Congress or by a court of law in a final non-appealable decision in an action to which SCEA or an SCEA Affiliate is a party to be illegal and unenforceable, then such term shall not be binding on Hotz.

C. CIRCUMVENTING any of the TPMs or security in any SONY PRODUCT;

D. TRAFFICKING in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that, at the time of Hotz's trafficking, circumvents any of the TPMs or security in any SONY PRODUCT, including but not limited to the Ellptical Curve Signature Algorithm ("ECDSA") Keys, encryption andlor decryption keys, dePKG firmware decrypter program, Signing Tools, 3.55 Firmware Jailbreak, andlor any other technologies that enable unauthorized access to andlor copying of the PS3 System andlor enable compatibility of unauthorized copies of other copyrighted works with the PS3 System.

E. Distributing or posting any SCEA or SCEA Affiliates' confidential or proprietary information relating to any SONY PRODUCT;

F. Knowingly assisting or inducing others to engage in any of the conduct set forth in A-E above solely directed at any SONY PRODUCT or that otherwise constitutes contributory liabilty under the law.

Now add this:

1. For purposes of the Order below, SCEA AFFILIATES shall mean Sony Corporation and all companies owned or controlled by Sony Corporation or SCEA, including but not limited to, Sony Corporation of America, Sony Electronics Inc., Sony Computer Entertainment Inc., Sony Computer Entertainment Europe, Sony Network Entertainment America, and Sony Ericsson. To the extent that a company is an SCEA Affiliate but is not listed in this definition and does not have Sony in its name, SCEA will provide Hotz with notice of the name of that company.

 

2. For purposes of the Order below, SONY PRODUCT shall mean any product or service of SCEA or SCEA AFFILIATES that bears the Sony, PlayStation or PlayStation Network ("PSN") name, mark or brand. SONY PRODUCT does not include those products or services created or sold by companies which have been acquired by SCEA or SCEA AFFILIATES, which products or services were on the market prior to acquisition by SCEA or SCEA AFFILIATES. However, once SCEA, SCEA AFFILIATES or the acquired company rebrands the product or service with the Sony, PlayStation or PSN name, mark or brand, then the product or service that bears the Sony, PlayStation or PSN name, mark or brand shall thereafter constitute a SONY PRODUCT. To the extent that there are any Sony products or services that do not bear the Sony, PlayStation or PSN name, mark or brand and that SCEA wishes to be treated as a Sony Product for purposes of this Permanent Injunction and Consent Judgment, SCEA wil specifically identify those products or services and provide notice to Hotz.

In short: All Sony products. That's Hotz sewn up pretty tightly.

 

 

 


"Ellptical"

lol.

Sony better get the court a dictionary for it's birthday...



Proud Sony Rear Admiral

ssj12 said:
forest-spirit said:
Kasz216 said:
padib said:

 

@kasz  hey, do you have a link to the OtherOS case?


A few articles on it, that's it

http://groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110218181557455

http://groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110311112544990

http://groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110310172538157

 

Also one on the settlment

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110411173644425

From the first article:

"For example, when discussing the motion to strike, Sony spoke first, and here's the interchange with the judge:

MS. SACKS: Nothing that is alleged anywhere in the complaint says anything about the duration, the longevity of the time in which the other OS function or, for that matter, any particular aggregate of features of the PS3 would be available.

THE COURT: Why then are we making the assumption that it must terminate at a certain point?

They're saying it's an ongoing representation; that without any termination date that you will always have the OS function. You're saying, well, they are not saying one way or the other what the time period is.

Why do we assume that it terminates?

MS. SACKS: Well, Your Honor, a manufacturer's obligation for anything having to do with a product itself is only defined by its express warranty, its express promises.

If SCEA, Sony, had said, "We guarantee that the other OS function would be supported," if they said, "We guarantee PlayStation Network access will always be available," anything about the duration, plaintiffs might have an argument. The only thing that Sony told anyone about the duration of any feature of the PS3 is what it said in the one year express limited hardware warranty. It said "one year."

And as the Daughtery case, as the Bardin case, and as subsequent federal court authorities have noted, where something arises after the duration of that promised one year, the purchaser can have no expectation.

So, Your Honor, if the purchaser can have no expectation of the PlayStation 3 functioning at all after the expiration of that one-year warranty, how can it somehow have a greater expectation about the availability of one feature? If SCEA cannot have liability under California law for the PS3 completely failing to perform after one year, how can it have liability for the fact that it does 99 percent of what it was advertised to do, and just not one?"

 

Did I read this wrong or are they saying that after 1 year you can no longer expect any feature to be available? So after 1 year I actually have no right to expect my PS3 to play games? The hell?

What am I missing???


nope, your entirely right. Sadly people are blind and will think its a good thing PS3 owners get features removed.

Trophies, in-game menus, home, and the friends list can be removed now I guess. They are all over a year old now, so by Sony's logic they can expire and no one will care. I want them to test this theory.

They are only using this argument for the removal of one feature.  They wouldn't dream of removing those other  features because it would lose them business.  However, OtherOS was used by maybe 1% of PS3 owners, and helped provide a gateway into the PS3 security, which Geohot was already starting to exploit to hack the PS3.  Sony weighed their options and felt removing it was the best option.  And obviously the majority don't care, or fear Sony will become some overbearing company, because the PS3 has been outselling both the Wii and the 360 so far this year.

And I may be wrong, but I don't think I've seen you on these boards blasting every company who shuts down the servers to their online multiplayer?  I mean that feature was promised on the packaging.  So a company should continue to support those servers, even if hardly anyone uses them or if it will cost them more than they make.  Or a developer should be boycotted if they change a gameplay feature/exploit through a patch that the majority wanted changed, but the minority liked, even at the cost of sales.  I mean it just wouldn't be "fair."  I guess we should be boycotting every single developer/company then.



Oh god, I want to archive this whole thread given the number of people who think that Sony won this and that GeoHot gave up because he knew he'd lose.  It'd be a crow banquent the next time a case like this comes up, given the  jailbreaking case that set precedent for users hacking devices they own. 

It's like some people can't imagine that Sony got the best deal they could have ever hoped for here and that they, based on precedent, would have actually lost the case if it ever went to the supreme court. 

Sure, they put some meaningless restriction on GeoHot so he couldn't hack their devices, and he proved that hackers can end up having way more power than Sony can actually tackle because legal precedent is against them.  It's not illegal to jailbreak your iphone by court order, just imagine if Sony lost this case and hacking a PS3 wasn't illegal by order of the court as well. 

Sony didn't have him by the balls, they offered him the chance to walk away without years of battling that would have ended up against their favor.  A compromise.  And one that isn't going to help Sony in the future.



You do not have the right to never be offended.

Around the Network
ChichiriMuyo said:

Oh god, I want to archive this whole thread given the number of people who think that Sony won this and that GeoHot gave up because he knew he'd lose.  It'd be a crow banquent the next time a case like this comes up, given the  jailbreaking case that set precedent for users hacking devices they own. 

It's like some people can't imagine that Sony got the best deal they could have ever hoped for here and that they, based on precedent, would have actually lost the case if it ever went to the supreme court. 

Sure, they put some meaningless restriction on GeoHot so he couldn't hack their devices, and he proved that hackers can end up having way more power than Sony can actually tackle because legal precedent is against them.  It's not illegal to jailbreak your iphone by court order, just imagine if Sony lost this case and hacking a PS3 wasn't illegal by order of the court as well. 

Sony didn't have him by the balls, they offered him the chance to walk away without years of battling that would have ended up against their favor.  A compromise.  And one that isn't going to help Sony in the future.

Whatever makes you sleep at night. Do you really think Hotz gave up because he was sure he would win? Really? And are you trying to tell me a jailbreaking case for iPhone based on understandable competition issues bears any similarity to a console where there are no similar competition issues at all? Do you know anything about the iPhone case at all? As it stands, it appears you do not. The PS3 case is in a completely different position, legally, than the iPhone. Or so I've read -- I'm certainly no expert, either.



Kasz216 said:
Xen said:
ssj12 said:
pizzahut451 said:
ssj12 said:

things are far from over

http://www.techspot.com/news/43249-geohot-joins-anonymous-boycott-of-sony-asks-you-to-come-along.html


Should we expect massive drop in PS3 sales next week? Holy crap, Sony better apologize to the mighty hacker community which showed how mighty they are when taking Sony's corporatedick deep in there ass with no lube whatsoever


Probably not, but it should push away some sales. Could give TV and other electronics sales to other manufacturers. Video games tend to sell at walmarts and game stores, not Sony Style stores.

Lol, you grossly overestimate its possible impact. Most people don't give a damn. Did those EA/Activision boycotts hurt anybody? No. And as it stands, most Sony products are superior to their counterparts.

The PS3 hacker community has already showed that they're nothing to be afraid of.

Eh?  You could make the arguement videogame consoles wise... but consumer electronics wise Sony's generally seen as medicore and surviving on it's name.

Isnt PS3's hardware vastly superior to Wii's and Xbox 360's from technical stand point? And just about any other console to date? Amazing next gen graphics and very small failure rate, with PS3 Phat being almost inderstructable? And isnt NGP cnsiderd a handheld marvel? I dont believe Sony would be a multi billion corporation with best selling handheld devices (Walkmans) and video games consoles (PlayStation) and best selling blu ray players (PS3s) on thier back by being medicore in electronics. Im jot saying Sony is awesome and the best at every electronics products,there are some devices where they are lacking behind the competition (like TVs) but to call them medicore is an overstatement



ssj12 said:
forest-spirit said:
Kasz216 said:
padib said:

 

@kasz  hey, do you have a link to the OtherOS case?


A few articles on it, that's it

http://groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110218181557455

http://groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110311112544990

http://groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110310172538157

 

Also one on the settlment

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110411173644425

From the first article:

"For example, when discussing the motion to strike, Sony spoke first, and here's the interchange with the judge:

MS. SACKS: Nothing that is alleged anywhere in the complaint says anything about the duration, the longevity of the time in which the other OS function or, for that matter, any particular aggregate of features of the PS3 would be available.

THE COURT: Why then are we making the assumption that it must terminate at a certain point?

They're saying it's an ongoing representation; that without any termination date that you will always have the OS function. You're saying, well, they are not saying one way or the other what the time period is.

Why do we assume that it terminates?

MS. SACKS: Well, Your Honor, a manufacturer's obligation for anything having to do with a product itself is only defined by its express warranty, its express promises.

If SCEA, Sony, had said, "We guarantee that the other OS function would be supported," if they said, "We guarantee PlayStation Network access will always be available," anything about the duration, plaintiffs might have an argument. The only thing that Sony told anyone about the duration of any feature of the PS3 is what it said in the one year express limited hardware warranty. It said "one year."

And as the Daughtery case, as the Bardin case, and as subsequent federal court authorities have noted, where something arises after the duration of that promised one year, the purchaser can have no expectation.

So, Your Honor, if the purchaser can have no expectation of the PlayStation 3 functioning at all after the expiration of that one-year warranty, how can it somehow have a greater expectation about the availability of one feature? If SCEA cannot have liability under California law for the PS3 completely failing to perform after one year, how can it have liability for the fact that it does 99 percent of what it was advertised to do, and just not one?"

 

Did I read this wrong or are they saying that after 1 year you can no longer expect any feature to be available? So after 1 year I actually have no right to expect my PS3 to play games? The hell?

What am I missing???


nope, your entirely right. Sadly people are blind and will think its a good thing PS3 owners get features removed.

Trophies, in-game menus, home, and the friends list can be removed now I guess. They are all over a year old now, so by Sony's logic they can expire and no one will care. I want them to test this theory.


Whats great about this post is the bulk of these things AND current features like netflix, huluplus, MLBTV the VidZone were all ADDED in subsequent firmware cases yet you act as if Sony goes around slashing features daily or weekly and sticking it to consumers. Seriously.

Taking away BC was hardware, nothing to do to EXISTING owners. The only thing removed via software was OtherOS no matter how you slice it or argue a very minute population cared/used, yet you continue to conveniently ignore the multitude of features added for FREE that the vast majority of us and users use frequently, like the aforementioned in my post.

Bottomline is yeah it sucks for the small percentage otherOS was removed but acting like its some earth shattering, PS3 ruining event is borderline insanity and a freaking joke of an argument.

Yeah we go out on a limb and trust Sony not to gimp our system but any consumer that feels damned this generation by losing OtherOS and gaining everything else is an idiot.



steverhcp02 said:
ssj12 said:
forest-spirit said:
Kasz216 said:
padib said:

 

@kasz  hey, do you have a link to the OtherOS case?


A few articles on it, that's it

http://groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110218181557455

http://groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110311112544990

http://groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110310172538157

 

Also one on the settlment

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110411173644425

From the first article:

"For example, when discussing the motion to strike, Sony spoke first, and here's the interchange with the judge:

MS. SACKS: Nothing that is alleged anywhere in the complaint says anything about the duration, the longevity of the time in which the other OS function or, for that matter, any particular aggregate of features of the PS3 would be available.

THE COURT: Why then are we making the assumption that it must terminate at a certain point?

They're saying it's an ongoing representation; that without any termination date that you will always have the OS function. You're saying, well, they are not saying one way or the other what the time period is.

Why do we assume that it terminates?

MS. SACKS: Well, Your Honor, a manufacturer's obligation for anything having to do with a product itself is only defined by its express warranty, its express promises.

If SCEA, Sony, had said, "We guarantee that the other OS function would be supported," if they said, "We guarantee PlayStation Network access will always be available," anything about the duration, plaintiffs might have an argument. The only thing that Sony told anyone about the duration of any feature of the PS3 is what it said in the one year express limited hardware warranty. It said "one year."

And as the Daughtery case, as the Bardin case, and as subsequent federal court authorities have noted, where something arises after the duration of that promised one year, the purchaser can have no expectation.

So, Your Honor, if the purchaser can have no expectation of the PlayStation 3 functioning at all after the expiration of that one-year warranty, how can it somehow have a greater expectation about the availability of one feature? If SCEA cannot have liability under California law for the PS3 completely failing to perform after one year, how can it have liability for the fact that it does 99 percent of what it was advertised to do, and just not one?"

 

Did I read this wrong or are they saying that after 1 year you can no longer expect any feature to be available? So after 1 year I actually have no right to expect my PS3 to play games? The hell?

What am I missing???


nope, your entirely right. Sadly people are blind and will think its a good thing PS3 owners get features removed.

Trophies, in-game menus, home, and the friends list can be removed now I guess. They are all over a year old now, so by Sony's logic they can expire and no one will care. I want them to test this theory.


Whats great about this post is the bulk of these things AND current features like netflix, huluplus, MLBTV the VidZone were all ADDED in subsequent firmware cases yet you act as if Sony goes around slashing features daily or weekly and sticking it to consumers. Seriously.

Taking away BC was hardware, nothing to do to EXISTING owners. The only thing removed via software was OtherOS no matter how you slice it or argue a very minute population cared/used, yet you continue to conveniently ignore the multitude of features added for FREE that the vast majority of us and users use frequently, like the aforementioned in my post.

Bottomline is yeah it sucks for the small percentage otherOS was removed but acting like its some earth shattering, PS3 ruining event is borderline insanity and a freaking joke of an argument.

Yeah we go out on a limb and trust Sony not to gimp our system but any consumer that feels damned this generation by losing OtherOS and gaining everything else is an idiot.


nvm...



PC gaming is better than console gaming. Always.     We are Anonymous, We are Legion    Kick-ass interview   Great Flash Series Here    Anime Ratings     Make and Play Please
Amazing discussion about being wrong
Official VGChartz Folding@Home Team #109453
 
steverhcp02 said:
 


Whats great about this post is the bulk of these things AND current features like netflix, huluplus, MLBTV the VidZone were all ADDED in subsequent firmware cases yet you act as if Sony goes around slashing features daily or weekly and sticking it to consumers. Seriously.

Taking away BC was hardware, nothing to do to EXISTING owners. The only thing removed via software was OtherOS no matter how you slice it or argue a very minute population cared/used, yet you continue to conveniently ignore the multitude of features added for FREE that the vast majority of us and users use frequently, like the aforementioned in my post.

Bottomline is yeah it sucks for the small percentage otherOS was removed but acting like its some earth shattering, PS3 ruining event is borderline insanity and a freaking joke of an argument.

Yeah we go out on a limb and trust Sony not to gimp our system but any consumer that feels damned this generation by losing OtherOS and gaining everything else is an idiot.

I don't think most people are even aware of this, but officially, Open Platform (OtherOS) is still supported on pre-CECH 2000 models running pre 3.21 firmware (1.6 to 3.15).

http://www.playstation.com/ps3-openplatform/manual.html

http://www.playstation.com/ps3-openplatform/index.html

What's not supported is any version of PS3 firmware that isn't the most current. That's one thing SCE isn't obligated to provide as long as they keep distributing current versions for free.

Of course anyone who already upgraded firmware to 3.21 or later already agreed that they were giving up OtherOS functionality, so this only pertains to pre-CECH 2000 models that were never updated past 3.15.

Naturally, the trade off for using unsupported (not current) firmware is that post 3.21 firmware games may not be supported, and naturally PSN is not supported on earlier firmware versions.

But if one had legitmate use for running Linux on a PS3 (cluster computing, CBE development, etc.) on their 1.6 to 3.15 firmware console, they still can. The loss in OtherOS support in post 3.15 firmware updates has no effect on consoles running firmware 1.6 to 3.15. They can still run Linux. 

You just can't have your cake and eat it too (ie. demand to be able to play a current game on an earlier version of PS3 firmware that doesn't support various functions added in later firmware versions).