They tried to flex their monetary might in the face of consumer rights and failed. He can still use their products by the way. He also had nothing do with piracy or with releasing sony trade secretys, noth of which are criminaly illegal. The case sony brought was not a criminal case but a civil suit, very different. If sony cared about piracy they would go after pirates not someone completely unrelated to it.

He agreed to numerous terms relating to Sony products.  He was tried civilly as what he did to acquire the trade secrets isn't necessarily criminally illegal (Though Civil action can be brought down, and it was).

How exactly did they fail?  He agreed to their terms, not the other way around.   Saying he had nothing to do with piracy is so naive it's laughable.   Because he said so right?  

Smart business would have been to keep otherOS and not have it gimped by by not letting people have access to all the hardwware they bought. Than the only hacks that could happen would be illegal ones that imvlolved breaching the PSN wich consumers do not own, or piracy wich is illegal. Instead sony went the other root and tried to close out their sytem and force ordinary consumers to hack their own equiptemnt if they want to use for other purposes besides ps3 gaming.

Smart business dictated that keeping OtherOS was a mistake.  They removed it,  I could careless.  Maybe they pissed off the hornets nest of hackers, but that's only because they tried to 'stop' their system from being hacked.

Every company tries to protect itself from these things, failing to ignore that is retarded. Like many of the posters here, it's all about motive in the ongoing 'Fanboy War'. 

by that logic, sony releasing the ps3 caused piracy on the ps3. I mean there would be no piracy pronlem on the ps3 if sony did not release it. we are getting back to the should we hold gun companies responsible for shooting victims? Knife companies for stabbing victims? PC makers for making PC's?

Thats the problem with lumping all hackers as one goup when they are not. Why not pursue those break laws instead of those that dont like most sane people/countries/corporatons?

edit: you seem to be at odds with some points, i suggest you re read some of we have talked about and research the geohot case some more.

"From what I heard"...exactly you do not know you heard it indirectly and you're making assumptions

gamefront.com/call-of-duty-multiplayer-now-unplayable-thanks-to-ps3 -hack

edit : its funny that according to some people here the average consumer must suffer so that an extremely small minority can be happy... sounds like the good old days of the feudal system

"sony releasing the ps3 caused piracy on the ps3" true i can't disagree there

"Why not pursue those break laws instead" because regardless of whether what he did was unlawful or not the bottomline is that it had an extremely adverse effect on services they were trying to provide for their customers

www.gamefront.com/call-of-duty-multiplayer-now-unplayable-thanks-to-ps3 -hack

and also on the work provided by their devs

www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2011/02/14/killzone-3-leaked/1

And there was piracy before Geohot... why do people forget that? 

"From what I heard"...exactly you do not know you heard it indirectly and you're making assumptions

gamefront.com/call-of-duty-multiplayer-now-unplayable-thanks-to-ps3 -hack

edit : its funny that according to some people here the average consumer must suffer so that an extremely small minority can be happy... sounds like the good old days of the feudal system

And there was piracy before Geohot... why do people forget that? 

before geohot this never happened :

www.gamefront.com/call-of-duty-multiplayer-now-unplayable-thanks-to-ps3 -hack/