Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Encryption Sony The Courts Your Rights Online Games

Sony Wins Restraining Order Against Geohot 397

Posted by timothy
from the do-you-defend-him-to-your-death? dept.
tekgoblin writes "The courts have just issued a temporary restraining order against George Hotz (Geohot). Sony filed this lawsuit because they were unhappy that Geohot had released the Playstation 3 decryption keys so other people could play unsigned games on it. [Geohot is prohibited from] 'offering to the public, creating, posting online, marketing, advertising, promoting, installing, distributing, providing, or otherwise trafficking' in any software or methods for circumventing the PS3's protection methods. No longer can he 'provide links from any website to any other website' relating to such matters, or publish any information obtained by hacking the PS3. And more to the point, he can no longer 'engage in acts of circumvention of TPMS in the PS3 System to access, obtain, remove, or traffic in copyrighted works.' Pretty much he can't talk or think about the PS3 for some time."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sony Wins Restraining Order Against Geohot

Comments Filter:
  • by intellitech (1912116) * on Thursday January 27, 2011 @06:13PM (#35025214)
    This just means he won't be attaching his name to anything PS3-related for quite some time.

    (something he likely should have just done in the first place)
    • by TENTH SHOW JAM (599239) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @06:27PM (#35025412) Homepage

      If I were Geohotz, I wouldn't even be doing that. I might do some research on the PS3 in my spare time, but nothing would be published until the court case is over. Then, once the cheque comes form Sony paying his legal bills, release that research. His lawyer is probably telling him (for his own good) to STFU for a bit.

      Having had a read through the court docs that have come to light thus far, I'd say Geohotz has this case in the bag if his legal representation can stand up.

      • What makes you think he will get a check? Sony is a global behemoth. They will tie him up in the court system/s for a decade or until we either forget about him, he gets tired of it, or he goes broke. The court systems of the world these days are far removed from reality and instead based on manipulating laws and precedent to one's advantage. Really, this case should be about the fundamental principal of what he did rather than what it "could possibly do one day". After all, we don't sue the blacksmith beca
    • by cpu6502 (1960974) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @06:28PM (#35025428)

      Modification of your OWN property is not a crime. (Searches US Constitution.) I can not lay my hand on any part of this document which gives Congress the right to block you or Geohot from making mods.

      On the contrary part 10 of the Bill of Rights reserves that power to the Member States of the union. And part 9 reserves to the People the right to make said modifications.

      • by Moryath (553296) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @06:59PM (#35025814)

        The answer is "interstate commerce clause."

        No, seriously. Our fucked-up senile delinquents on the Supreme Court have ruled that everything under the goddamn sun falls under the "interstate commerce clause."

        Want to grow your own wheat to feed to your own chickens, which means you didn't have to buy someone else's wheat? Sorry. ""Interstate Commerce." [google.com]

        The same crap comes up in just about any argument. Want to regulate guns? Well sure, they might conceivably be sold across state lines. Even if the original factory won't sell them out of state, a rebuyer might, or someone might buy one and ship it to someone later or someone from out of state could buy it and transport it themselves or or.... yeah. You get the picture. Regulate food, regulate clothes, everything under the damn sun can be regulated under the "interstate commerce clause"... a clause originally intended to merely stop the various states from erecting tax stations and charging "import tariffs" on each other's borders, as was happening under the Articles of Confederation....

        • by whoever57 (658626) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @07:07PM (#35025930) Journal

          I've wondered if a criminal defendent could use the interstate commerce clause against a state law.

          For example, someone is prosecuted under state law for some offence. Criminal defendent says: "but this affects interstate commerce, hence it is the province of the federal governement to regulate it -- and, by the way, there isn't a federal law prohibiting this offense". Since the Supremes have completely gutted any limit to the interstate commerce clause, it's hard to imagine any activity that could not be described as affecting interstate commerce. Unless there is a federal law that specifically allows the states to regulate that activity, it seems like it would be an interesting tactic.

        • by jdpars (1480913)
          I've thought for a while now that we need to get rid of the interstate commerce clause, and put in its place more specific rules. Even if it didn't change anything, it would help settle Congress's power into what it is now and prevent future expansion. If it needs toned down from there, that can be done afterwards.
        • by cpu6502 (1960974)

          >>>Want to regulate guns? Well sure, they might conceivably be sold across state lines.

          Well here's some good news: The Supreme Court recently over-turned the Central Government's gun ban near schools. They said that calling it interstate commerce was a step too far, and that proper jurisdiction for local schools belongs to the Member State government, not the Congress.

      • by exomondo (1725132)

        Modification of your OWN property is not a crime.

        Like this hasn't been covered a billion times before...you don't own the software, you own the hardware. You can modify the hardware all you want but the catch is that it's pretty much useless without the software.

      • by MooseTick (895855)

        The constitution doesn't say anything about it being illegal to travel in a vehicle greater than 30mph, but try it in a school zone and that can also land you in jail.

      • by techoi (1435019) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @08:18PM (#35026684)

        How dare you think that silly, old piece of paper called the US Constitution should somehow be allowed to slow (or God forbid stop) any corporation from being able to extract every last penny from their victims (errr customers)???.

        This is America, bitches! This is were you only *think* you can own something. Where you can "buy" a PS3 knowing you can load another OS (until they decide otherwise).

        This is America, where you can "buy" a DVR at Best Buy for $199.00 only to have to return it to DirecTV after you cancel service or they will charge you another $250.00 for that thing you already "bought".

        This is America, where odds are you can punch your local taxi driver right in the face and steal his wallet and get less of a penalty than if you, GOD Forbid, share that song that you already "bought" on vinyl, then "bought" on cassette, and maybe "bought" CD. Fuck those stupid hold-up victims, the real victims are the music and media companies and the fines imposed on those caught sharing prove that out.

        And, finally, this is America, where you can be punished for pointing out that the security of the product you "bought" was designed by ass clowns. Of course if one of those corporations ever fucks up and breaks a law or two (Sony root kits anyone?), well, tough shit...that YOUR problem...That's what all you stupid-fucking-morons (oh, sorry we mean victims, er, no that not it...we mean "customers"). Yeah that's the funny word we corporations call you - customers. Anyhow, yeah, tough shit, customers, that is what you get by not being able to afford an army of lobbyists yourselves.

        This is AMERICA bitches! The best fucking government (Democrat or Republican lead - it don't matter) that money can buy. Stupid Constitution wavers....

    • by camperslo (704715)

      Perhaps the next-generation products will get a new name, like NGP, giving him a loophole? If they really are launching a quad-core ARM-based product later this year, some might like to run unrestricted Linux on it.
      Chances are it'll be expensive. And if Sony gets quad core CPUs / GPUs, others most likely will also.

      http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sony-computer-entertainment-announces-its-next-generation-portable-entertainment-system-114703879.html [prnewswire.com]

      (admittedly I'm biased against Sony at this point; no

      • (admittedly I'm biased against Sony at this point; not a serious gamer and not too quick to forgive Sony for the rootkit fiasco)

        No kidding.

    • by westlake (615356)

      This just means he won't be attaching his name to anything PS3-related for quite some time.

      Listening to advice like this explains why the bank foreclosed on your mortgage and your divorce papers were served in the county lock-up.

      It is a mistake to be too clever. To try to sneak around a court order. Because someone will be watching.

    • by nospam007 (722110) *

      He can still do it on websites located in 193 other countries.

  • This makes me sad (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Octopuscabbage (1932234) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @06:17PM (#35025274)
    Coporations should not be able to do this...
    • by MozeeToby (1163751) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @06:34PM (#35025528)

      Why not? He's doing something that may, or may not be illegal. Asking the court to knock it off until the status of his actions is quite reasonable. Now, IMO there isn't much question and what he's doing should be legal, but the court obviously thinks it isn't that obvious.

      It's not as if Geohot makes his living hacking PS3s to run pirated games (which is all the restraining order prevents him doing). This is costing him his hobby, and only temporarily if what he's doing is determined to be legal.

      Don't like it? Find a politician who will fight to have the law overturned or clarified. Can't find one? Then make one. The Tea party didn't exist 3 years ago. If that particular group of people can become a political force overnight I would hope the geeks of the nation could manage as well.

      • Your opinion may or may not be illegal. I'll prohibit it while I check. How does that make any sense?

        • Your opinion may or may not be illegal. I'll prohibit it while I check. How does that make any sense?

          Replace "opinion" with "actions". This is fairly common in civil cases.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by billcopc (196330)

        It's a lot easier to find tens of thousands of stupid people to form a "political" party, than fill a courtroom with intelligent and non-corrupt lawmakers.

      • Re:This makes me sad (Score:5, Informative)

        by StikyPad (445176) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @07:06PM (#35025910) Homepage

        It's not as if Geohot makes his living hacking PS3s to run pirated games (which is all the restraining order prevents him doing). This is costing him his hobby, and only temporarily if what he's doing is determined to be legal.

        That would be true if the TRO didn't have an order of impoundment attached:

        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within ten (10) business days of this Order, Defendant Hotz shall deliver...for impoundment any computers, hard drives, CD-roms, DVDs, USB stick, and any other storage devices on which any Circumvention Devices are stored in Defendant Hotz's possession, custody, or control. http://www.scribd.com/doc/47676627/50-Order-GRANTING-TRO [scribd.com]

        ...and I'm pretty sure that those devices are his trade tools which means this TRO places a significant and disproportionate burden on him as the defendant.

    • by afidel (530433)
      Actually this move is counterproductive for Sony since the information is already too widely distributed for it to go back in the bag.

      /TLDR
      streisand effect
  • by seebs (15766) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @06:18PM (#35025288) Homepage

    So other people will invite him to work on their products, which he'll do, and that'll generate buzz and excitement for those products. And they'll win, and Sony will lose. This is awesome! I really have to say, I am amazed at the skill and precision with which Sony has managed the PS3. They've got some kind of dream team working on this. There's a cycle. First, identify the largest clearly identifiable remaining demographic. Second, piss them off. Repeat.

    PS3: Buy it for the Other OS feature, keep it because no one will take it off your hands. (No, really. I have a launch 60GB which I bought entirely for the Other OS feature. It's now useless for playing games because games require "updates" that disable the only functionality I got it for, but no one's gonna buy the old loud monster to play video games...)

    • So other people will invite him to work on their products, which he'll do, and that'll generate buzz and excitement for those products.

      Sure if he wants to face contempt of court and legal issues. Did you fail to read the part that said:

      he can no longer 'engage in acts of circumvention of TPMS in the PS3 System to access, obtain, remove, or traffic in copyrighted works.'

      • by sqlrob (173498)

        Did you fail to read the part that said:

        he can no longer 'engage in acts of circumvention of TPMS in the PS3 System to access, obtain, remove, or traffic in copyrighted works.'

    • The original 60GB with the EE chip? I know several people who would buy it just for that. I've often thought about getting a PS3 but at this point i'd only buy a used one to get the EE chip.

      If the price is right I might even take it off your hands.

    • by CTU (1844100)

      So other people will invite him to work on their products, which he'll do, and that'll generate buzz and excitement for those products. And they'll win, and Sony will lose. This is awesome! I really have to say, I am amazed at the skill and precision with which Sony has managed the PS3. They've got some kind of dream team working on this. There's a cycle. First, identify the largest clearly identifiable remaining demographic. Second, piss them off. Repeat.

      PS3: Buy it for the Other OS feature, keep it because no one will take it off your hands. (No, really. I have a launch 60GB which I bought entirely for the Other OS feature. It's now useless for playing games because games require "updates" that disable the only functionality I got it for, but no one's gonna buy the old loud monster to play video games...)

      I would, but then again I like the backwards compatibility and I want a blue ray player :)

    • Where do we send our bids?

    • by Maestro4k (707634)

      So other people will invite him to work on their products, which he'll do, and that'll generate buzz and excitement for those products.

      Going to be kinda hard for him to work on anything for a while, since the court order also requires him to turn over his computers and hard drives to Sony. He's unlikely to get them back for months, if ever, and it's going to take yet more lawyer time to get them back. Which is exactly what Sony wanted. This is all about making life difficult for Geohotz because he dared to publish the PS3 root key. It's harassment, plain and simple, and so far, Sony is winning.

  • by FictionPimp (712802) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @06:19PM (#35025304) Homepage

    It is very hard to stuff a cat back into a cat carrier. It is even harder to stuff a cat back into a bag.

  • 'Pretty much he can't talk or think about the PS3 for some time.'

    I wasn't aware that the only things one could say about the PS3 were related to cracking its protection schemes and pirate! (or, okay, 'traffic in copyrighted works'). He can talk about the games, he can talk about the OS, he can talk about the hardware, he just can't, y'know, talk about how to circumvent any of it. Really, this seems like a relatively reasonable restraining order all around, at least by the metrics for such things; it stops

    • by AK Marc (707885)
      You say he can talk about the OS. But there's precious little he can say about the OS other than a list of adjectives. Even describing how the OS interfaces with hardware could be seen as contempt of court, even if there isn't any direct or indirect reference on how that could be used for an exploit. I'm sure his lawyers gave him the same advice as the summary, "just don't say anything about it at all for any reason." It's much easier to follow that than to talk about it extensively and be 100% sure tha
  • by Daniel Phillips (238627) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @06:21PM (#35025330)

    Just don't buy anything from Sony for some time. Like forever.

    The way Sony treated me over the faulty PS3 hardware they sold me makes this decision easy, never mind the other horrible things Sony does on a regular basis.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Dayofswords (1548243)

      At one point I wanted a PS3... Then this crap that has been coming from them since other OS removal

      • by jack2000 (1178961)
        Same, Sony actually changed my mind after I had committed to buying a ps3, I was just waiting for a good time to get one. After the other OS and the related shenanigans( I wanted to play ps1/2 games on it ) screw em!
    • by TheSpoom (715771)

      Frankly, the initial $599 price for the PS3 was enough for me to avoid them in the first place.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      The rootkit wasn't enough?

      The better solution is to actually stick to your boycott. Don't buy anything Sony, ever. Making it only "for some time" makes it clear that Sony can do whatever they want so long as they're willing to take a short-term financial hit, and that's assuming there are enough people to even make that point.

      • Sony made pretty good portable cassette players, so I'll buy those (though as I already have two I probably won't buy another one for quite some time). However, as Sony does not make them anymore (and I am buying them used), Sony still sees none of my money.

    • by Dan541 (1032000)

      I stopped buying from Sony after they started installing rootkits into their products.

    • I just bought a 46" LCD TV a few days ago. I made *sure* it wasn't a SONY branded TV because of their involvement in suing downloaders.
      • But did Sony make the actual panel?

      • by Narishma (822073)

        Did you also make sure the TV doesn't use any component made by Sony? Or that the company making it didn't license some technology from Sony? It's practically impossible to not pay them directly or indirectly if you buy any complex electronic product.

    • by Fry-kun (619632)

      Easy for you to say if you don't want to play a game that's only available for PS3, for instance MGS4.

    • by Thing 1 (178996) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @08:06PM (#35026578) Journal
      Yeah, the proprietary "memory sticks" was the first shot across my bow; the rootkit on music CDs that to this day are still infecting people who frequent used CD stores, was the last straw. No Sony in this household.
  • by sunjay (1536185) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @06:25PM (#35025372)
    It baffles me that this is not protected like jailbreaking of mobile devices. It is near identical, Full hardware access in order to add features, which some low-lifes use for piracy. You cant blame him for thinking he was within the law on this one, since he is when he does the same thing on his iPod.
    • Where people earn like 200-400 buck per month? Exactly how do those evil "would never buy it if I had to pay for it" "pirates" harm Sony please?
      Oh, and by the way, try to find out how many of the hackers out there have actually payed for IDA license. Someone on #ps3test already tried, quite fun to read:

      http://pastie.org/1476525 [pastie.org]

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Mad Leper (670146)

      I see this question come up quite often by people who haven't taken the time to actually read up on the jail-breaking exemptions.

      Here's a list of the exemptions granted for jail-breaking your devices. Could you please point out the one that would allow breaking the encryption on the PS3 to play cracked games or add functionality?

      Thank you.

      - Computer users may now bypass external security devices if they do not longer work and cannot be replaced..

      - Phone owners may break access controls on their phones to s

  • I can't believe it took this long.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      It's more surprising that they think this will accomplish anything other than harassing this one guy. The damage is done -- everyone who wanted the keys has them, and there's nothing Sony can do about that.

      This is worse than the MPAA trying to stop 09 F9.

  • So now companies just have to put in minimal protection and the rest is legal protection?

    • by Saxophonist (937341) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @06:55PM (#35025756)

      So now companies just have to put in minimal protection and the rest is legal protection?

      Yes, it's been that way since 1998. See this [wikipedia.org] and, more generally, this [wikipedia.org].

    • I would hardly call the PS3 restriction system "minimal" -- just take a look at the combination of hacks that was needed to finally crack it. Frankly, the way Sony screwed up ECDSA signing was just dumb luck -- had they not screwed up (i.e. had they implemented ECDSA signing correctly), it would have been significantly harder to crack the PS3.

      I do not agree with the DMCA or the way it is abused by companies like Sony, but this is not a case of minimal effort.
  • the rest which is distributing those keys like there's no tomorrow as of this moment ?
  • by StikyPad (445176) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @06:48PM (#35025694) Homepage

    From TFO [psx-scene.com]:

    Paintiff has submitted substantial evidence showing that defendant George Hotz has violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(A), 120(b)(1). Plaintiff has also submitted evidence demonstrating that plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief, and that the balance of hardships favors plaintiff.

    Once the keys were out there, the irreparable harm was done. There is no "relief" whatsoever provided by this order. It's vindictive intimidation, plain and simple.

    I'm also disappointed that the judge decided to assert jurisdiction despite the obvious fact that it's well within SCEA's means to file suit in New Jersey, and clearly places a significant burden on the defendant to appear in California. The fact that SCEA wanted this case heard in Northern California has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that it's the "proper venue" and everything to do with forum shopping. I can only surmise that the judge was rationalizing her decision to participate in what will undoubtedly be a precedent setting case should it go to trial, which doesn't speak highly of either her integrity or judgement. Signing her name to a paper stating that the plaintiff's case is "likely to succeed on the merits," shows either a bias in favor of SCEA, ignorance of the facts, or both. Mr. Hotz has repeatedly stated that he does not condone piracy, none of the PS3 tools he has released directly facilitate piracy, and in fact, none of the tools he's ever released on any platform has directly facilitated piracy. Sony's keys, while ostensibly a trade secret, are not subject to IP law protections, and even if they were, they were obtained through lawful reverse engineering of property sold to the defendant(s).

    In summary, we have some really crappy laws, and those charged with upholding them don't seem to be much better.

    • by Hatta (162192)

      In summary, we have some really crappy laws, and those charged with upholding them don't seem to be much better.

      He who enforces an unjust law is no better than he who breaks a just one.

    • by KeithIrwin (243301) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @11:35PM (#35028280)

      I agree with most everything in the parent post and would also like to add that it's pretty clear that the ECDSA signing keys do not, in fact, compromise a "circumvention device or technique". Suggesting that a set of secret numbers, unto itself, forms a device or technique is stretching the meaning of the words past the breaking point. Further, the part of the order which requires him to turn over to Sony all computers, hard drives, etc. which contain circumvention devices presupposes that he actually has software which would legally be considered a circumvention device. It is not at all clear from the publicly known facts that he possesses anything which would qualify. All of the stuff which he has released has been about gaining access to the hardware without gaining access to any of Sony's software, firmware, etc. The PS3 is not, itself, a copyrighted work. The best that they can argue is that the firmware and OS which run on the PS3 are. That is a silly, but potentially successful legal argument (as the courts have previously held the communicating with running copyrighted software or firmware is a form of "gaining access to a protected work" in several cases, including the Bnetd case despite that being an idiotic interpretation of the language of the DMCA). So that would work as an argument, unless, of course, the keys you've released are the keys used to sign boot loaders and bypass loading any of Sony's firmware or software at all, which, as it happens, are exactly those keys which Geohot released.

      So the question is what happens if he complies with the last part of the order by giving them an empty box and saying "I don't have circumvention devices"? Presumably, more legal fun would ensue. I'm curious if that's the tack he'll take. I probably would in his case, since turning anything over to them is tantamount to an admission of violating the DMCA.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 27, 2011 @06:52PM (#35025720)
    I want the "Other OS" feature back that was stolen! erk: C0 CE FE 84 C2 27 F7 5B D0 7A 7E B8 46 50 9F 93 B2 38 E7 70 DA CB 9F F4 A3 88 F8 12 48 2B E2 1B riv: 47 EE 74 54 E4 77 4C C9 B8 96 0C 7B 59 F4 C1 4D pub: C2 D4 AA F3 19 35 50 19 AF 99 D4 4E 2B 58 CA 29 25 2C 89 12 3D 11 D6 21 8F 40 B1 38 CA B2 9B 71 01 F3 AE B7 2A 97 50 19 R: 80 6E 07
  • Can he file a counter restraining-order for Sony to not apply the protection to any new releases untill the case is over? Or in some other way be prevented from persuing their interests?
  • This order really doesn't say much about the ability of courts in the US to follow even basic procedures.

    "Hotz is ordered to appear before the court at 10:00am on January __ 2011."

    There's a scribble about parties arranging their own hearing date after that, but this is simply unacceptable. Hotz is supposed to engage with a team of Sony legal sharks and the court expects them to act honestly? They could arrange one date with the court and give him another.

    I don't know where courts get off sending things like

    • I don't know where courts get off sending things like this out.

      From reading the document, it appears to have been a proposed order submitted by plaintiff's counsel. This is typical in motion practice. To save time, the Court can just use it.

      IANAL, etc.

  • The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. ... John Perry Barlow

    When will these people figure that out?

    Sony have gone to great expense to prove that they still don't get it!
  • Doesn't matter. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by thisisauniqueid (825395) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @07:02PM (#35025848)
    Doesn't matter. With the root key, his job is done.
  • by coolsnowmen (695297) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @07:04PM (#35025884)

    Sony should have left the "Other OS" feature on and just "unsupported." There was a link on /. last time this came up to a black hat conference on the trend of gameOS hacking. Sony PS3 enjoyed the longest time in recently history from launch till being compromised to be able to run custom "home brew" and pirated software (3.16 years). If you date it from when they removed the "Other OS" feature, it falls right in line with every other hacked game system (Xbox/360, game cube, wii, ps2, dreamcast...). Bottom line, if you don't allow people to install linux, enough people will be motivated to break your system to do just that, also opening the can-of-worms that is pirated software.

    • by roc97007 (608802)

      > Bottom line, if you don't allow people to install linux, enough people will be motivated to break your system to do just that, also opening the can-of-worms that is pirated software.

      In other words, don't mess with the penguin!

  • Sorry Mr. Stringer, the cat seems to have escaped.
  • by Zelgadiss (213127) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @07:12PM (#35025988)

    Let's get something straight.

    Geohot was the one who threw the first punch, he broke through the hypervisior using "other OS" and "bus glitching", Sony removed "other OS" in response.

    Regardless whether you think that was the right response, it's not unexpected and unprovoked.

    PS: This is the end of my karma I suppose.

    • by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @07:56PM (#35026468)
      Not the end of your karma, but I'll burn some of mine by saying that your opinion is twisted. Even if Geohot threw the first punch, Sony's reaction was completely over-the-top and illegal. One person attempting to hack your system does not give you the ethical right to screw over your entire customer base. In all fairness to both of us, Sony has burned a lot more karma.
    • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @08:08PM (#35026594)

      Geohot was the one who threw the first punch, he broke through the hypervisior using "other OS" and "bus glitching", Sony removed "other OS" in response.

      Regardless whether you think that was the right response, it's not unexpected and unprovoked.

      Why should we disregard whether or not it was an appropriate response? That matters a great deal. Taking away features from everyone is an extreme overreaction. It could be expected since consumers seem to have no rights, but that doesn't justify it.

      It's kind of like saying "Those people currently protesting against their governments threw the first punch. Regardless whether you think it was the right response, police cracking down with lethal force was neither unexpected nor unprovoked." I'd say it's still unprovoked.

      Expected, sure, but so what? It's still wrong.

    • Geohot was the one who threw the first punch,

      I think it takes a certain viewpoint to describe it as a "punch".

      If you think about the computing world today I don't think it is overstating things to say that it would be very different if not for the fact that reverse engineering of the original IBM PC bios was permitted by law.

      Geohot's tinkering may not lead to such change but his freedom to tinker with his own equipment and talk about his tinkering should nonetheless be supported. I have had Playstation

  • Ex Parte. Very nice (Score:4, Interesting)

    by russotto (537200) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @09:30PM (#35027188) Journal

    So Sony sends one of their expensive lawyers to court against an individual, and gets a broad temporary restraining order against him "ex parte"... meaning he didn't even get a _chance_ to fucking respond.

    Oh, and despite this being a "temporary" restraining order, it's actually indefinite.

    Fuck Sony and fuck the honorable rubberstamp Susan Yvonne Illston.

The more cordial the buyer's secretary, the greater the odds that the competition already has the order.

Working...