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.
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.