decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Sony v. Hotz: The Parties Agree and Disagree on Jurisdictional Discovery Issues
Tuesday, February 22 2011 @ 06:11 PM EST

The parties in SCEA v. Hotz have conferred and now have sent a 17-page joint letter to the Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero, informing him that certain disputes about jurisdictional discovery have been resolved but others need his intervention.

I'll show you the letter, as text, and provide some details, but the bottom line is that Sony, technically Sony Computer Entertainment America or SCEA, is pursuing discovery more in the manner that large corporations do. They want as much as they can get, like wanting George Hotz to fly to California for a deposition, and they are even willing to pay Hotz's travel expenses. But Hotz is an individual, not a corporation, and he doesn't have endless money from international commerce, so he'd like SCEA to send interrogatories and other written methods of doing discovery. They aren't offering, he points out, to pay for a court recorder at the deposition.

And I'd have to say Hotz would like it if Sony didn't treat him like he is inclined to be dishonest. His lawyers say he has been above-board and forthcoming to date. But on Sony's side, they feel they'd like definite confirmation about the facts of Hotz's dealings with California, so Sony still wants things like the right to subpoena PayPal.

This is all about whether or not SCEA can sue Hotz in California or if it must start again in New Jersey, where Hotz resides. Hotz has a Motion to Dismiss filed, and unless SCEA can come up with a way to pin Hotz to California, it can't sue him there.

Here is the docket:

02/18/2011 - 85 - Letter from James G. Gilliland and Stewart Kellar [Joint] Re: Discovery Issues. (Gaudreau, Holly) (Filed on 2/18/2011) (Entered: 02/18/2011)

02/22/2011 - MOTION to Expedite MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY vacated off of Judge Illston's calendar - motion referred to Spero (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2011) (Entered: 02/22/2011)

Here's what they did agree about:
Pursuant to the Court's order, on February 14, 2011, counsel for the parties met and conferred in person for approximately three hours in an attempt to resolve any disputes on what jurisdictional discovery SCEA should be permitted to take in advance of its Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. The parties made significant progress during this meeting. SCEA agreed to narrow many of its Requests for Production, Interrogatories, its Inspection Demand, and third party subpoenas. SCEA also agreed to hold off propounding certain discovery altogether until a later date. Attached as Exhibit A is a list of the agreed upon jurisdictional discovery. The parties agreed to a deadline of March 7, 2011 for Mr. Hotz's responses to SCEA's discovery. The parties also the agreed to reschedule the Motion to Dismiss hearing for April 8, 2011, with SCEA's opposition and Mr. Hotz's reply being due on March 18, 2011 and March 25, 2011, respectively. The parties have filed a stipulation with the Court to this effect.
So SCEA is trying to be reasonable where it feels it can. But there are some remaining issues. They still don't agree about SCEA sending a subpoena to Paypal to get all of Hotz's records, as Hotz feels the subpoena is too broad; they don't agree that George Hotz should have to fly to California for a deposition regarding jurisdictional discovery; and they don't agree that the third-party neutral now holding on to Hotz's impounded computers should be allowed to search for "relevant" materials having to do with jurisdiction. They were impounded for another purpose, Hotz argues, and once they are returned to him on February 28, he can just provide answers to written discovery interrogatories and other requests.

If you were SCEA, you'd want it all, too. There is nothing inappropriate in asking. But if you are Hotz, you hope not to be bankrupted by a corporate-style litigation. And to be frank, a defendant always tries not to show its complete underwear drawer, so to speak, preferring to make the plaintiff ask for specific items and hoping that he won't know what to ask for. That's true for innocent defendants as well as those who know they did something they should not have done, by the way.

The discovery dance is just that, a dance. So each side is doing what it's supposed to do here, but there is the added detail that it's not an even field. SCEA has oodles of money it can spend on discovery. It can crush Hotz just by making it impossible for him to function in real life any more. It has apparently begun to show some consideration to Hotz, in recognition of the imbalance. But Hotz would like some more. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking, in that the motion to dismiss is filed. So the court will have to weigh the competing interests, and try to find the right line, so that SCEA gets what it needs to demonstrate whether or not it can tie Hotz to California, while also protecting Hotz from overbearing requests that punish him before he has even been found guilty of anything. Courts do consider such factors. If two corporate interests are in litigation, courts can be very strict about insisting on discovery to the Nth degree; but with individuals they will consider what is reasonable. For example, if the judge thinks a deposition is required, he could order SCEA to fly to New Jersey instead or to pay for everything.

And here is the letter, as text:

************************

February 18, 2011

VIA HAND DELIVERY AND EMAIL
AT JCSpo@cand.uscourts.gov

Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero
United States District Court
Northern District of California
[address]

Re: Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC v. Hotz, et al.,
Case No. C-L 1-00167 SI (N.D. Cal)

Dear Judge Spero:

Pursuant to the Court's February 14, 2011 Order (Docket No. 80), plaintiff Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC ("SCEA") and Defendant George Hotz respectfully submit this joint letter regarding the remaining outstanding disputes relating to jurisdictional discovery.

Á. Case Background

On January 11, 2011, SCEA filed a complaint against Mr. Hotz and others for alleged violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") (17 U.S.C. 1201), the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA") (18 U.S.C. 1030), the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. 501), California's Computer Crime Law (Penal Code 502), and other state laws with respect to SCEA's PlayStation3 computer entertainment system ("PS3 System") (Docket No. 1). SCEA also moved for a Temporary Restraining Order against Mr. Hotz based on its claims under the DMCA and CFAA. (Docket No.2). On January 27, 2011, the Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining such activity. (Docket No. 50). The parties also submitted limited briefing on the question of whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over Mr. Hotz. [Docket Nos. 32, 46, 47] On February 2, 2011, Mr. Hotz filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction ("Motion to Dismiss"). [Docket No. 51]. SCEA subsequently moved to take expedited, targeted discovery prior to the deadline for its Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. [Docket No. 62]. Among the discovery sought by SCEA for jurisdictional purposes are Requests


Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero
February 18, 2011
Page 2

for Production, Interrogatories, an Inspection Demand to inspect Mr. Hotz's PS3 System and computers, a Notice of Deposition, as well as third party subpoenas to ascertain Mr. Hotz's forum related contacts with California.

B. Meet and Confer On Discovery

Pursuant to the Court's order, on February 14, 2011, counsel for the parties met and conferred in person for approximately three hours in an attempt to resolve any disputes on what jurisdictional discovery SCEA should be permitted to take in advance of its Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. The parties made significant progress during this meeting. SCEA agreed to narrow many of its Requests for Production, Interrogatories, its Inspection Demand, and third party subpoenas. SCEA also agreed to hold off propounding certain discovery altogether until a later date. Attached as Exhibit A is a list of the agreed upon jurisdictional discovery. The parties agreed to a deadline of March 7, 2011 for Mr. Hotz's responses to SCEA's discovery. The parties also the agreed to reschedule the Motion to Dismiss hearing for April 8, 2011, with SCEA's opposition and Mr. Hotz's reply being due on March 18, 2011 and March 25, 2011, respectively. The parties have filed a stipulation with the Court to this effect.

C. Areas of Dispute

The parties were unable to reach agreement on the following issues:

1. Service of PayPal Subpoena

a) SCEA's Position

SCEA seeks to serve a subpoena on PayPal, Inc. regarding Mr. Hotz's PayPal account. See Exhibit B. In particular, SCEA seeks "Documents sufficient to show all credit and debit transactions, occurring on or after January 1, 2009, related to any PayPal, Inc. account corresponding to or associated with the email address." SCEA also seeks "Documents sufficient to identify the source of all funds deposited into any PayPal, Inc. account corresponding to or associated with the email address." PayPal, Inc. is a company based in the Northern District of California. Mr. Hotz's use of PayPal is relevant to establishing his forum related activities. SCEA is entitled to determine what financial benefits Mr. Hotz has received from individuals residing in California in relation to his circumvention of the technological protection measures in the PS3 System. The subpoena is not overbroad as it restricts the time frame from January 1, 2009 to the present, approximately one year prior to the time that Mr. Hotz initially hacked the PS3 System. SCEA has also propounded a Request for Production for Mr. Hotz's PayPal information pertaining to the PS3 Systems, but it is not clear whether Mr. Hotz currently has all of this information in his possession. Certainly, too, SCEA is entitled to verify the veracity of any information produced by Mr. Hotz by subpoenaing PayPal, a third party who possesses complete records. Such discovery poses no burden on Mr. Hotz.


Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero
February 18, 2011
Page 3

b) Mr. Hotz's Position

SCEA stated that it would seek to subpoena from PayPal "all credit and debit transactions, occurring on or after January 1, 2009, related to. . . geohot@gmai1.com." Mr. Hotz believes this subpoena is overbroad as it is not narrowly tailored to the issue of jurisdictional discovery. Because SCEA Request for Production of Documents No. 9 already asks for PayPal transactions related to PS3 systems, the PayPal Subpoena for "all credit and debit transactions" is cumulative, duplicative and unnecessary. Such discovery burdens Mr. Hotz's privacy interest in his financial records. A Request for Production of Documents or an Interrogatory regarding Paypal transactions to Mr. Hotz from individuals or businesses in California would be an appropriate alternative to an overreaching subpoena of Mr. Hotz's complete Paypal transaction records. SCEA has not put forth any evidence or other information that would lead to a conclusion that Mr. Hotz will not be completely forthcoming in his responses to written discovery.

2. Consent to Twitter

a) SCEA's Position During the meet and confer, counsel for Mr. Hotz agreed to obtain written consent to facilitate Twitter's production of copies of any Tweets posted by Mr. Hotz from January 1, 2009 to the present. Because of Twitter's policy, this consent must be in writing.

b) Mr. Hotz's Position

Counsel for Mr. Hotz does not recall agreeing to affirmatively facilitate Twitter's production of copies of any Tweets posted by Mr. Hotz, nor has counsel for Mr. Hotz objected to SCEA's desire to subpoena records of Mr. Hotz's Twitter posts. SCEA may subpoena those records without objection from Mr. Hotz.

3. Deposition of Mr. Hotz

a) SCEA's Position

SCEA is entitled to take Mr. Hotz's deposition for jurisdictional discovery. Mr. Hotz has already submitted two declarations on the topic of personal jurisdiction. His declarations are carefully worded in certain respects, particularly with regard to Mr. Hotz's use of the PlayStation Network ("PSN"). The use of the PSN is relevant because the PSN User Agreement contains a forum selection clause subjecting the user to jurisdiction in California. SCEA is entitled to cross-exam Mr. Hotz on his declarations and uncover Mr. Hotz's contacts with California.


Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero
February 18, 2011
Page 4

SCEA agreed to review Mr. Hotz's discovery responses and then decide whether it wishes to proceed with the deposition of Mr. Hotz for purposes of jurisdictional discovery.

Should SCEA decide to take Mr. Hotz's deposition, SCEA has agreed to cover any travel expenses for a deposition in California.

b) Mr. Hotz's Position

Counsel for Mr. Hotz has already demonstrated Mr. Hotz's willingness to be fully forthcoming in all written discovery and SCEA has not demonstrated otherwise. Mr. Hotz will be responding to Document Requests, Interrogatories, and will be submitting his Sony Playstation computer for inspection, which counsel for SCEA stated at the meet and confer session will enable their forensic investigators to determine whether Mr. Hotz has accessed the PSN or agreed to the PSN Terms of Service. Deposing Mr. Hotz would therefore be cumulative, duplicative, burdensome and expensive.

SCEA's counsel stated at our meeting that SCEA would pay for Mr. Hotz's travel expenses to be deposed in San Francisco but wil not pay for court reporter fees, including copies of the deposition transcript. The cost of a court reporter and the deposition transcript alone, regardless of travel costs, is burdensome and prohibitively expensive to Mr. Hotz, as SCEA has been made aware by Mr. Hotz's counse1. Written discovery in the form of Production, Interrogatories, and the above-referenced Inspection Demand is less burdensome and less expensive for all parties involved.

Counsel for SCEA states that SCEA would only seek Mr. Hotz's deposition upon review of Mr. Hotz's discovery responses. The review SCEA contemplates does not regard thoroughness of responses, but whether those responses provide information bolstering SCEA's jurisdiction claim. If the responses do not provide the "smoking gun," although Mr. Hotz has been fully forthcoming with written discovery, SCEA will seek to conduct a burdensome and expensive deposition, forcing Mr. Hotz to travel to the other side of the country. Because the taking of Mr. Hotz's deposition would be cumulative, duplicative, burdensome and expensive, and because SCEA has not demonstrated how a deposition would provide information that other forms of written discovery or inspection would not, SCEA should not be permitted to take Mr. Hotz's deposition for jurisdictional discovery.

4. Inspection Demand

a) SCEA's Position

Defendant Hotz agreed to allow Inspection Demand No. 1 (All PS3 System consoles in YOUR possession, custody or control) to go forward for purposes of jurisdictional discovery. SCEA agreed to temporarily hold off moving forward with Inspection Demand Nos. 2-4 relating


Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero
February 18, 2011
Page 5

to Mr. Hotz's computers. However, SCEA believes that the impounded devices are highly likely to contain evidence relevant to the jurisdictional dispute between the parties.

To date, the parties have selected a third party neutral to impound Mr. Hotz's devices. The impoundment took place today and the devices are currently stored at the neutral's facility in New Jersey. The parties and the third party neutral will work together to develop a protocol for the isolation, segregation and removal of information on the devices related to the circumvention of the technological protection measures in the PS3 System. Per the Court's order, the protocol will be agreed upon by Monday, February 28,2011 and executed at that time.

Because there is a high likelihood that other relevant information relating to jurisdictional issues is contained on the impounded devices, SCEA has proposed that the third party neutral segregate and capture any material related to jurisdiction as part of the impoundment protoco1. SCEA believes that it would be most efficient to have all of this material segregated and captured at once as par of the impoundment protocol so that the discovery is turned over in time for SCEA to oppose the Motion to Dismiss. For example, the impounded devices may contain emails related to jurisdiction and any PS3 System materials including any PS3 instruction or warranty manuals or other materials such as software, distributed by SCEA that would show contacts with SCEA in California. SCEA should then be allowed to review any jurisdictional material therein prior to its deadline for responding to the Motion to Dismiss. The details of the protocol wil need to be worked in the coming week for the appropriate search and capture of this materia1.

b) Mr. Hotz's Position

SCEA's request to allow the third party neutral to inspect Mr. Hotz' impounded drives for purposes of segregating and capturing "relevant material" is unacceptable. Inspection of Mr. Hotz's drives for "relevant material" is overbroad, and SCEA has already agreed not to demand jurisdiction discovery. The third party neutral is not in a position to determine what is or is not relevant to the current jurisdictional discovery inspection of Mr. Hotz's drives for purposes of matters and inspection of Mr. Hotz's drives is not the purpose of the Impoundment Order.

Further, this Court has stated that parties are to split the costs of impoundment. Costs of impoundment are already highly burdensome, with costs starting at $28S/h (up to $400/hr) for the neutral's services. The costs associated with the third party neutral performing further there are searches unrelated to the impoundment order would only increase that burden. If there are materials relevant to SCEA's written jurisdictional discovery requests found only on the impounded drives, and unavailable from any other source, Mr. Hotz will make such a statement in his discovery responses and those documents will then be accessed and produced by Mr. Hotz after the drives have been "promptly returned" to Mr. Hotz, per the Impoundment Order.

The search protocol for the impoundment process is scheduled to occur on February 28,


discovery responses that require access to the impounded drves, if any. SCEA's Opposition to Mr. Hotz's Motion to Dismiss is due March 18,2011 leaving SCEA's five attorneys of more than two weeks to draft a brief. Further, the combining of was rejected at our initial meeting. SCEA's request for a search of "relevant material" amounts to a third party inspection of Mr. Hotz's drives and should not be permitted for jurisdiction discovery.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.


  


Sony v. Hotz: The Parties Agree and Disagree on Jurisdictional Discovery Issues | 293 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections thread
Authored by: bbaston on Tuesday, February 22 2011 @ 07:33 PM EST
so PJ can find them:

---
IMBW, IANAL2, ICRN, IAVO
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, icantremembernow, iamveryold

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic here.
Authored by: dacii on Tuesday, February 22 2011 @ 07:33 PM EST
Please keep off topic comments here.
Thank you

[ Reply to This | # ]

News articles comments here.
Authored by: dacii on Tuesday, February 22 2011 @ 07:35 PM EST
Please provide the news headline in your comments so that we know which news
item you are referring to.
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Everything Comes here.
Authored by: dacii on Tuesday, February 22 2011 @ 07:37 PM EST
Thank you for your hard work and assistance.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sony v. Hotz: The Parties Agree and Disagree on Jurisdictional Discovery Issues
Authored by: crawdkenny on Tuesday, February 22 2011 @ 07:41 PM EST
luehost subpoena - SCEA agreed to narrow its requests under
paragraphs 3 and 4 ofthe .
subpoena to January 1, 2009 to the present. SCEA also agreed
to treat information
produced by Bluehost in response to these paragraphs as
Attorneys Eyes Only pursuant to
entry of a suitable protective order.


What does "Attorney's Eyes Only" mean exactly? What do you
think the chances are of Sony filing mass lawsuits for
downloaders of he Jailbreak?

[ Reply to This | # ]

I think I am in the wrong business.
Authored by: dacii on Tuesday, February 22 2011 @ 07:46 PM EST
"with costs starting at $28S/h (up to $400/hr) for the neutral's
services."

That is very expensive. $285 to $400 an hour? How many hours can they spend on
this? That is some serious money. I am assuming that they are not charging by
the hour to store equipment right? I mean a U-Store would be cheaper if they
were just housing the equipment. They must be charging that for pick up, filing
and delivery. But that could easily go over 10 hours. That's $4000+ right
there. WOW.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Remote deposition?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 22 2011 @ 08:22 PM EST
Is it possible/permitted to provide a "live deposition" via video
conferencing?

While this might well require court officers/recorders at both ends, a secure
link between the two offices would remove travel expenses.

... at up to $400/hour, the additional expense of duplicated recorders probably
outweighs the "stay at home benefit" for an individual. But possibly
not for head corporate officials.


... or do both parties need to have a court reporter during face-to-face
depositions anyway?

[ Reply to This | # ]

OK, so they are asking for his PS3 consoles
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Tuesday, February 22 2011 @ 09:19 PM EST

That was one of the things that had me confused before, that they didn't seem to
asking for the consoles, but here we see that they are.


---
Wayne

http://madhatter.ca/

[ Reply to This | # ]

End date on paypal transactions?
Authored by: pem on Tuesday, February 22 2011 @ 09:42 PM EST
"all credit and debit transactions, occurring on or after January 1,
2009"
<p>
I donated to geohot for the express purpose of fighting this lawsuit,
<i>after</i> he had taken everything down. What business of Sony's
is it who I am?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Would bankruptcy halt the case?
Authored by: arnotsmith on Tuesday, February 22 2011 @ 10:02 PM EST
If Hotz goes into bankruptcy, would that halt the case?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Revisiting the Lexmark case is enlightening
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 23 2011 @ 11:18 AM EST
IANAL (nor do I play one on tv) but my plain reading of the decision suggests
that there is a strong connection between that case and the current Sony v. Hotz
and that much of the logic in the decision is directly applicable. For example
in the concurring opinion Judge Merritt explicitly states that a 'key' fact is
the purpose of the circumvention.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Buy a Sony product - Get Sued
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 23 2011 @ 11:53 AM EST
If people stopped buing all Sony products including the enterainment, they would
go bankrupt.

[ Reply to This | # ]

That's a very interesting pattern...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 23 2011 @ 12:32 PM EST

In SCOG vs world + dog, pro-SCOG supporters came out of the wood works to lay claims in the voice of public opinion rather than letting the issues work their way through the Courts. So far, we've found SCOG to be wrong on one point - whether or not they actually own the Unix Sys V copyrights - and odds are strong SCOG will be woefully short of their mark against IBM (if that case ever starts up again). Additionally those supporters ended up being not very polite when faced with sound reasoning and Case Law + Law.

In Psystar vs Apple, pro-Psystar supporters came out of the wood works to do the same. Lay claims about how "in the right" Psystar was.... and eventually we saw the reverse. That Psystar really did infringe Apple's Copyrights. Again, the supporters ended up not being very polite with regards being faced with sound logical reasoning and the Law.

Now we - a collective Groklaw "we" - have a third case (loosely speaking of course) we're looking into: Sony vs PS3 customers. And we're starting to see the pro-Sony supporters coming out of the wood works claiming how in the right Sony is and how wrong Hotz is. There's at least one instance where a responder (I don't know if pro-Sony) has been rather impolite and I wonder if that's just the start.

Granted: the only thing that proves at this point is there are pro-Sony supporters very passionate about protecting Sony.

But it makes me wonder if it's a prelude to just how bad Sony's case really is.

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

Personal Jurisdiction
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 23 2011 @ 02:05 PM EST
Shouldn't Hotz avoid setting foot in CA at all costs, certainly not in a CA
courtroom? Would an appearance for a deposition in CA give the court
jurisdiction over him for this proceeding?

[ Reply to This | # ]

why is SCEA vs. Hotz moving so much faster than Ventura v. SCEA
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 23 2011 @ 06:21 PM EST
Why is the Hotz case moving so much faster? My understanding is that they are
both asking for injunctive relief.

Why is Ventura progressing so much slower? Is it because Ventura is a class
action? Is it because Ventura is only an unknown individual and Sony has more
has more juice and control the courts speed to their favor?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sony v. Hotz: The Parties Agree and Disagree on Jurisdictional Discovery Issues
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 23 2011 @ 08:55 PM EST
I have a question about the Personal Jurisdiction issue.

If Hotz was paid for services related to his iPhone hacks,
from people in California, could Sony use that to say that
he has contacts in California--and because of this, they
have proper jurisdiction?

I'm guessing that's why they want every transaction--not
just those directly related to this case.

Have a great day:)
Patrick.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lexmark and Chamberlain
Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, February 23 2011 @ 10:13 PM EST
Several people have mentioned that Lexmark v. Static Control Components sets a precedent that favors geohot in the current case. I found the Wikipedia article to be interesting. Here are some highlights:
With regards to the Printer Loading Program, Judge Feikens agreed with the majority opinion, but also noted his belief that the consumer had acquired the rights to access this program by purchasing the printer, and therefore the DMCA would not apply to attempts to access it.

... all three judges took pains to emphasize in their opinions that the DMCA must be interpreted consistently with the broader public purposes of the copyright statute, rather than as a grant of new powers to makers of technology products to impose additional restrictions not contemplated by copyright.

At first I didn't think Chamberlain v. Skylink was relevant but this part of the decision may well apply:
Chamberlain, however, has failed to show not only the requisite lack of authorization, but also the necessary fifth element of its claim, the critical nexus between access and protection. Chamberlain neither alleged copyright infringement nor explained how the access provided by the Model 39 transmitter facilitates the infringement of any right that the Copyright Act protects. There can therefore be no reasonable relationship between the access that homeowners gain to Chamberlain's copyrighted software when using Skylink's Model 39 transmitter and the protections that the Copyright Act grants to Chamberlain.
I still don't understand what specific copyrighted works geohot gave people access to, unauthorized or otherwise. But even if Sony can (honestly and correctly) specify copyrighted works that are accessed, these two cases seem to raise the bar even higher for Sony. The Lexmark decision seems to support the gut instinct many of us have that if it is our equipment then we can do pretty much whatever we want with it as long as we don't frighten the horses in the street. It implies that owning the PS3 and the software gives users the right to access that software which, in turn, means the DMCA does not imply. It also specifically says that the DMCA is not "a grant of new powers to makers of technology products to impose additional restrictions not contemplated by copyright". Sony's concerns seem to be exactly such additional restrictions.

The Chamberlain case implies that Sony will have to show that geohot facilitated copyright infringement above and beyond giving users access to software on the PS3 in a way that Sony does not like. That case also makes it clear that the circumvention (access) needs to be reasonably related to acts of copyright infringement covered by the Copyright Act. Circumvention that leads to access of copyrighted works is not enough, especially when the circumventor already has legal and authorized access to those works.

---
[ ] Obey DRM Restrictions
[X] Ignore DRM Restrictions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Poverty, bankruptcy and public subscription
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 24 2011 @ 04:17 AM EST
I haven't seen any threads on Hotz's successful appeal for funds, so let's kick
one off.

May I preempt anyone who might suggest that Hotz shouldn't be pleading hardship
in his submissions to the court when he has "all this support"? If
that argument were to be made, then the reply would IMO be two-fold:

1. Absent the support he's been given, Hotz would indeed be in dire straits
financially.
2. Having accepted support from well-wishers he has an even greater moral
obligation not to waste the resources those folk have made available, so he
should argue even more strongly for his costs to be kept down.

As for whether bankruptcy would save him (no doubt a satirical reference to SCO)
- that's beside the point. He does want the case to continue, and he wants to
win it. For that to happen, he will need resources.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sony v. Hotz: The Parties Agree and Disagree on Jurisdictional Discovery Issues
Authored by: Steve Martin on Thursday, February 24 2011 @ 06:41 AM EST

"For example, the impounded devices may contain emails related to jurisdiction and any PS3 System materials including any PS3 instruction or warranty manuals or other materials such as software, distributed by SCEA that would show contacts with SCEA in California."

Is SCEA seriously implying that, if I download something from a web site in California, this gives California Federal District Court personal jurisdiction over me?

That doesn't seem right.

---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sony v. Hotz: The Parties Agree and Disagree on Jurisdictional Discovery Issues
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 24 2011 @ 07:28 AM EST
IANAL, so can anyone explain why Sony would ever be allowed to
do discovery with regards to jurisdiction. Surely if they
believe they have jurisdiction, they will already have enough
evidence to prove it. Are you really allowed to just 'think'
you have jurisdiction and then ask the court to allow you to
search the defendant's property to find evidence to prove your
hunch? Doesn't that weigh too heavily in Sony's favour?

[ Reply to This | # ]

In related news
Authored by: MDT on Thursday, February 24 2011 @ 09:24 AM EST
Slashdot is reporting that one of the other guys involved in bypassing the DRM, Graf_chokolo, had his house raided by police in the last 24 hours.

The report also continues to say he released his entire database of HV information, including specifics on how he researched the HV (Hyper Visor).

I won't link to the original site of the story, as it's got postings of actual code keys (which PJ asked us not to post or post links to). However, the slashdot story is at this URL

---
MDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

The NPDRM keys on/for the PS3
Authored by: jbb on Thursday, February 24 2011 @ 04:43 PM EST
On his blog today (no link because of expletive content), geohot said:
To clarify something, I'm not opposed at all to companies or people using *technology* to control what you do. I'm for a law that says jailbreaking is legal, not Apple has to allow jailbreaking. If that controlling technology is broken, I don't believe the legal system should be recourse. And if you released the NPDRM keys, I think that's completely in your rights. But I don't see how I'm a hypocrite for releasing the metldr keys, which have many different noninfringing uses, while not releasing the NPDRM keys which don't really have uses outside piracy.
I'm not sure what the NPDRMs keys are exactly but it seems, from the name and the context, they are directly related to DRM, the encryption of copyrighted works. I've seen some sites say that they are for the digital rights management for Sony's PlayStation Network (PSN). A quick Google reveals that neither geohot nor fail0verflow have been working on obtaining or releasing NPDRM keys. If this is true, it seems to blow a big hole in Sony's argument that geohot and fail0verflow engaged in (or attempted to engage in or aid or abet) piracy.

In fact, this might explain why geohot released the metldr key without releasing the technique he used to obtain the key. Perhaps his technique could be used to get the NPDRM key(s) as well and he didn't want to release something that could be directly used for piracy.

---
[ ] Obey DRM Restrictions
[X] Ignore DRM Restrictions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sony v. Hotz: The Parties Agree and Disagree on Jurisdictional Discovery Issues
Authored by: pem on Friday, February 25 2011 @ 01:16 AM EST
I noticed a fascinating wikipedia page about personal jurisdiction in internet cases.

A careful reading about Zippo and its progeny explains why SCEA is so keen to get paypal information from Hotz.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )