> Lets just say, I want the settlement terms to include OtherOS on all PS3s and an apology on the PlayStation blog for ever removing it. It'd be good PR for Sony too, lord knows they could use it. I'm also willing to accept a trade, a legit path to homebrew for knowledge of how to stop new firmwares from being decrypted.
This still looks like a win for geohot though. Unless there is something missing from the agreement, a 'permanent injuction' on one person hosting information that has already spread virally is basically worthless to sony.
I'm sure his idealism faded sitting on the wrong side of a table of lawyers, though.
Trials are never a sure thing, especially when the other side has deeper pockets, and especially when the laws at issue are so messed up.
Hotz gets out of this with his fame and bank account intact, his hack is already out there, and Sony's still defending against a class-action lawsuit that has the potential to restore OtherOS functionality for everybody else and force Sony to pay damages. The only limitation on Hotz is that he can't do it again to the same company, but he probably won't need to since he's already got root for his PS3.
This settlement is a cease-fire that neither side will want to violate, and Sony didn't get any of what they wanted. (They didn't even make an example of Hotz to scare off other hackers!) It's definitely a win for Hotz, and it's not a loss for the rest of us.
The RIAA at least demands money (albeit only a few thousand dollars). If the agreement here is as the announcement seems to suggest (injunction only), it'd be as if the RIAA settled for just an injunction directing the person not to pirate their songs in the future, with no exchange of money. Most RIAA suit targets would probably take that settlement offer without complaint, and it wouldn't have much deterrent effect.
They probably showed Hotz just how much he was about to get reamed and he folded. Not commenting on the legality or rightness of either side, just the fact that Sony probably has a lot more money and lot more lawyers dedicated to stuff like this.
If that were the case, why would Sony be willing to drop it? It's not like the case was ever about just Hotz, because Sony knew from the start they would never get any significant damages out of him. It was about publicity and precedent.
In trying to establish personal jurisdiction, Sony got to dig up basically all the dirt on Hotz. Even though they claimed several times to have found a "smoking gun", they never did, and they could tell that they weren't going to in the full discovery process.
Neither side could risk a trial, because it would have been solely about nuanced interpretations of laws that weren't written with modern technology in mind. The outcome of a bench or jury trial would have been essentially random, and a long appeals process would have been necessary to truly settle things.
Settlement is cheaper than litigation. Regardless of the side. Not to mention if Sony can get everything they want out of Hotz without going to trial, why should they go to trial?
That doesn't make sense.
Please stop acting like this is a win for Hotz in any capacity. He got exactly zero of the things he wanted. Well, I guess he got one thing, Sony not breathing down his neck. But all of the conditions he placed on settlement (OtherOS, etc) were not met. But he settled anyway.
You only go to trial when you have nothing to lose. Both parties stood to lose in a trial regardless of the outcome. Sony would have maybe gotten what the settlement netted them minus the cost of the trial. Maybe less, maybe more. Maybe damages Hotz could never pay. They stood to lose in trial even if they won the verdict. Hotz was inconvenienced for a few months and probably can't even think about talking about the PS3 indefinitely. Trial could have essentially cost him his life. Trial costs and damages alone could have placed Hotz in a crippling financial situation.
Considering that the blog post made no mention whatsoever of OtherOS, I would suspect not.
My guess is that the settlement agreement is basically exactly what they said, that he'll stop distributing the code or any future modifications of that code. I'm sure Hotz lawyer came to realize that a protracted battle, even if he would win, would cost far more than Hotz would be able to pay.
The law is not clear. Not on this matter, anyway. There's a lot of legal precedent in favor of Hotz, but not enough to conclusively say that what he did is, strictly speaking, legal or illegal.
The fact of the matter is that because they settled, that question will not be answered. It won't be, until someone stands their ground and forces the issue all the way to the Supreme Court.
> What if SCEA tries to settle?
> Lets just say, I want the settlement terms to include OtherOS on all PS3s and an apology on the PlayStation blog for ever removing it. It'd be good PR for Sony too, lord knows they could use it. I'm also willing to accept a trade, a legit path to homebrew for knowledge of how to stop new firmwares from being decrypted.
I wonder if any of those terms were met?