|
|
| SCEA and George Hotz Reach Settlement! |
 |
|
Monday, April 11 2011 @ 05:38 PM EDT
|
Here's the joint statement. There is a permanent injunction, but no admission of wrongdoing by Hotz, who, as he said from day one, was never trying to enable piracy. I commend SCEA for taking this step, and I mean that sincerely.
[Update: Now that I've read the stipulation, I retract that commendation, or at least amend it. It's rather heavy handed. I'll show you the documents.]
Here's the joint statement in full:
Joint Statement
Sony Computer Entertainment America (“SCEA”) and George Hotz (“Hotz”) today announced the settlement of the lawsuit filed by SCEA against Hotz in federal court in San Francisco, California. The parties reached an agreement in principle on March 31, 2011. As part of the settlement, Hotz consented to a permanent injunction.
Both parties expressed satisfaction that litigation had been quickly resolved. “Sony is glad to put this litigation behind us,” said Riley Russell, General Counsel for SCEA. “Our motivation for bringing this litigation was to protect our intellectual property and our consumers. We believe this settlement and the permanent injunction achieve this goal.”
“It was never my intention to cause any users trouble or to make piracy easier,” said Hotz, “I’m happy to have the litigation behind me.” Hotz was not involved in the recent attacks on Sony’s internet services and websites.
In the action, SCEA accused Hotz of violating federal law by posting online information about the security system in the PlayStation 3 videogame console and software that SCEA claimed could be used to circumvent the security system in the console and allow the playing of pirated videogames. Hotz denies any wrongdoing on his part. Hotz’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was still pending before the federal court in San Francisco but a preliminary injunction was issued requiring Hotz to take down the postings challenged by SCEA.
“We want our consumers to be able to enjoy our devices and products in a safe and fun environment and we want to protect the hard work of the talented engineers, artists, musicians and game designers who make PlayStation games and support the PlayStation Network,” added Russell. “We appreciate Mr. Hotz’s willingness to address the legal issues involved in this case and work with us to quickly bring this matter to an early resolution.”
A cynic might argue that SCEA saw the handwriting on the wall and preferred not to take its chances any more in court. But I don't believe in cynicism. Just in really careful and complete research that sometimes is sufficient to foreshadow what is likely to happen in a court of law.
: )
And here are some court documents:
127 -
Filed & Entered: 04/11/2011
Stipulation
Docket Text: STIPULATION TO FINAL JUDGMENT UPON CONSENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION by Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC. (Gilliland, James) (Filed on 4/11/2011)
128 -
Filed & Entered: 04/11/2011
Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
Docket Text: NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal OF DEFENDANTS HECTOR MARTIN CANTERO, SVEN PETER, AND DOE DEFENDANTS 1-100 WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC (Gilliland, James) (Filed on 4/11/2011)
Here's the meat of the stipulation:
On March 31,2011, Hotz met with SCEA representatives and the Parties entered a confidential Memorandum of Understanding, agreeing to settle the dispute between them. As a part of that settlement, SCEA and Hotz have agreed to the entry of this Final Judgment Upon Consent and Permanent Injunction ("Judgment" upon the stipulated facts. Each party has waived the right to appeal from this Judgment. Each party wil bear its own fees and costs in connection with this action. The Parties further agree that any violation of this Judgment by Hotz would cause irreparable harm to SCEA and, if such a violation occurs, SCEA wil be entitled to immediate relief....
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by consent of the Parties that Hotz, whether as an individual or as a principal, officer, director or employee of any business entity, and his agents, servants, employees, distributors, suppliers, representatives and all other persons or entities acting in concert or participation with Hotz who receive notice of this Judgment, shall be and hereby are permanently enjoined and restrained from:
A. Engaging in any unauthorized access to any SONY PRODUCT under the
law;
B. Engaging in any unauthorized access to any SONY PRODUCT under the
terms of any SCEA or SCEA AFFILIATES' license agreement or terms of use applicable to that SONY PRODUCT, whether or not Hotz has accepted such agreement or terms of use, including without limitation:
(i) reverse engineering, decompiling, or disassembling any portion of the
Sony Product;
(ii) using any tools to bypass, disable, or circumvent any encryption,
security, or authentication mechanism in the Sony Product;
(iii) using any hardware or softare to cause the Sony Product to accept
or use unauthorized, illegal or pirated softare or hardware; and
(iv) exploiting any Sony Product to design, develop, update or distribute
unauthorized softare or hardware for use with the Sony Product. If any term of such SCEA or SCEA Affilates' license agreement or terms of use applicable to that Sony Product shall be determined by Congress or by a court of law in a final non-appealable decision in an action to which SCEA or an SCEA Affiliate is a party to be illegal and unenforceable, then such term shall not be binding on Hotz.
C. CIRCUMVENTING any of the TPMs or security in any SONY PRODUCT;
D. TRAFFICKING in any technology, product, service, device, component, or
part thereof that, at the time of Hotz's trafficking, circumvents any of the TPMs or security in any SONY PRODUCT, including but not limited to the Ellptical Curve Signature Algorithm ("ECDSA") Keys, encryption andlor decryption keys, dePKG firmware decrypter program, Signing Tools, 3.55 Firmware Jailbreak, andlor any other technologies that enable unauthorized access to andlor copying of the PS3 System andlor enable compatibility of unauthorized copies of other copyrighted works with the PS3 System.
E. Distributing or posting any SCEA or SCEA Affiliates' confidential or proprietary information relating to any SONY PRODUCT;
F. Knowingly assisting or inducing others to engage in any of the conduct set forth in A-E above solely directed at any SONY PRODUCT or that otherwise constitutes contributory liabilty under the law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that any violation of this Injunction and Order by Hotz shall result in his payment of stipulated liquidated damages in the
amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per violation at the election of SCEA or SCEA's Affiliates. In the event that the violation involves distribution or TRAFFICKING by Hotz of softare, hardware, or any CIRCUMVENTION DEVICE, or knowingly assisting the same, each distribution of said softare (including downloads via the Internet), hardware, or CIRCUMVENTION DEVICE shall.constitute an independent violation, up to a cap of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000). Such liquidated damages shall be an optional alternative to demonstrating actual or, if relevant, statutory damages.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that any action or proceeding (other than a declaratory judgment action) that may be brought by SCEA or SCEA Affilates against Hotz arising out of, in connection with or by reason of the Parties' Settlement Agreement or this Judgment or to enforce the terms and conditions of the Parties' Settlement Agreement or this Judgment, shall be brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Parties further agree that any action or proceeding (other than a declaratory judgment action) that may be brought by Hotz against SCEA arising out of, in connection with or by reason of the Parties' Settlement Agreement or this Judgment or to enforce the terms and conditions of the Parties' Settlement Agreement or this Judgment, shall be brought in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey or the state in the United States of Hotz's current permanent residence. The Parties agree to waive any venue or jurisdictional challenges consistent with this paragraph. The Parties further agree that the laws of the state of California shall govern to the exclusion of the law of any other forum in any action or proceeding brought by any party arising out of, in connection with or by reason of the Parties' Settlement Agreement or this Judgment or to enforce the terms and conditions of the Parties' Settlement Agreement or this Judgment.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that entry of this Judgment shall conclude this action to the prejudice of any and all claims or cross-claims deemed merged and barred in accordance with the law.
The undersigned hereby stipulate to the above facts and conclusions and consent
to the entry of this Judgment, which may be signed in counterparts. Signatures can be obtained and exchanged by facsimile. IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Update: From the New Yorker, May 7, 2012:
Last May, engineers from Sony invited Hotz to a meeting at its American headquarters, a half hour’s drive north, in Foster City. (“We are always interested in exploring all avenues to better safeguard our systems and protect consumers,” Kennedy told me.) Nervous but curious, Hotz walked into the building eating from a box of Lucky Charms, dropping marshmallows across the lobby. “If there were going to be lawyers there,” he recalled, “I was going to be the biggest asshole ever.” Instead, he found a roomful of PS3 engineers who were “respectful,” he said, and wanted to learn more about how he had beaten their system. During the next hour or so, the man who had started the hacker wars described his methodology.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: BitWraith on Monday, April 11 2011 @ 05:46 PM EDT |
Hotz said he would only accept a settlement that includes some linux and/or
homebrew concessions. Does this mean he gave up? ... or could there be more we
haven't heard about yet?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ilde on Monday, April 11 2011 @ 05:50 PM EDT |
| Last ones = ( [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: joef on Monday, April 11 2011 @ 05:57 PM EDT |
It will take more than this to get Sony products off my personal "Do Not
Buy" list.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- BUT.. - Authored by: Wol on Monday, April 11 2011 @ 06:03 PM EDT
- ROOTKITS WERE ENOUGH - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 11 2011 @ 06:03 PM EDT
- BUT.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 11 2011 @ 06:10 PM EDT
- BUT.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 11 2011 @ 07:51 PM EDT
- Yep, you lost a camera customer, Sony - Authored by: macrorodent on Tuesday, April 12 2011 @ 12:44 AM EDT
- BUT.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 12 2011 @ 11:40 AM EDT
- BUT.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 12 2011 @ 11:55 AM EDT
- Each to their own,... But - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 15 2011 @ 10:00 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: joef on Monday, April 11 2011 @ 06:02 PM EDT |
| unxis completes purchase of sco unix assets.
LINK [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bugstomper on Monday, April 11 2011 @ 06:03 PM EDT |
| Heh, I just finished emailing PJ my suggestion for an article on this then came
here to see this article :)
Here is some more information, including the court
filing with the terms of the permanent injunction. I'll start with that. Three
documents posted in an
article on psx-scene:
They are:
"STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
RE: SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND
HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF
PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND IMPROPER
VENUE" (As far as I can tell this document is
made moot by the settlement which follows in the next filing)
126-Order.pdf [PDF 34.8 KB]
"FINAL
JUDGMENT UPON CONSENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION" (This includes the terms of the
permanent injunction)
127-Stipulation.pdf [1.23
MB]
"NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS HECTOR MARTIN CANTERO, SVEN
PETER, AND DOE DEFENDANTS 1-100 WITHOUT PREJUDICE" (dismissal of case against
the other defendants)
128-Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal.pdf [58.1 KB]
All George Hotz has said on his blog is to post
a call for people to join him in a boycott of SONY with the following
statements he posted in comments:
The terms of the settlement
agreement are "confidential" and the matter
requires that they be
"confidential".
By contract, I cannot discuss the
Action or my views regarding the Action.
I am not
allowed by the terms of the settlement agreement to discuss
the
Action(lawsuit)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: NigelWhitley on Monday, April 11 2011 @ 06:04 PM EDT |
Comments on and suggestions for Newspicks under here please. Kindly include
clickies for the stories so they can be accessed after they have scrolled off
the page.
----------------
Nigel Whitley[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Scott_Lazar on Monday, April 11 2011 @ 06:05 PM EDT |
Nice of Mr. Hotz and SCEA to wrap this up before the clock strikes zero on
Groklaw.
Talk about wielding a big stick PJ :-))
---
Scott
-------------------------
LINUX - VISIBLY superior!
--------------------------------------[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: NigelWhitley on Monday, April 11 2011 @ 06:07 PM EDT |
Please exclude elements pertinent to the current article.
-----------------
Nigel Whitley[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: NigelWhitley on Monday, April 11 2011 @ 06:11 PM EDT |
Please include the number of the document in the title to make it easier to
find. The best way to post is in "Plain Old Text" mode but with the
document presented as raw HTML so PJ does not have to do that herself. Thank
you.
----------------------
Nigel Whitley[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 11 2011 @ 06:20 PM EDT |
but based on early reports, this sounds a lot like "thanks to Sony for only
breaking Hotz's arms and legs, when they could have lopped off his head".
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eggplant37 on Monday, April 11 2011 @ 06:42 PM EDT |
So this basically says that when they sell me the product, I can't
tinker with it and find out what it does and what other uses I can
find for it. If that's the case, then they should be charging rent
for use of the item, and they can have the bloody thing back when
I'm done with it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, April 11 2011 @ 06:48 PM EDT |
| Link
Recently,
Righthaven has filed dozens of suits in Colorado over a Denver Post photo of a
TSA airport security pat-down. One of those suits targeted Brian Hill, a
20-year-old North Carolina man who ran an "alternative news" site. Hill is a
"mentally and physically disabled young man who has been unwittingly swept up in
this unforgiving 'business model,'" said his lawyer in a court filing. Hill has
"autism, as well as a rare and severe form of diabetes known as brittle type-1
diabetes, Attention Deficit Disorder, and hyperactivity." He is cared for at
home by his mother.
Judge John Kane, who is overseeing all the Colorado
Righthaven suits, last week weighed in on Hill's case. Righthaven asked for a
three-week extension of time to file a response in the case, hoping to settle
with Hill and to avoid drafting additional court briefs in the case. Such
extension requests are generally routine, but this one was opposed by Hill's
lawyer, David Kerr, who absolutely blasted Righthaven in his
lengthy filing (PDF).
"Neither The Denver Post nor
Righthaven attempted to mitigate any damages by simply sending a cease and
desist letter," wrote Kerr, "nor any other request to discontinue the alleged
infringement, prior to initiating this action. Instead, Righthaven has brought
this lawsuit (and apparently 251 others) against alleged infringers, further
exacerbating the Court’s overloaded docket. Righthaven’s motivation for avoiding
the simple act of requesting that Mr. Hill cease and desist is simple, it is
using these lawsuits as a source of revenue. Such abuse of legal process should
be rejected."
In both cases, things were not looking so hot
for Plaintiff,
and in both cases they drop the matter before looking more
stupid.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: maroberts on Monday, April 11 2011 @ 07:10 PM EDT |
That's the Consent Order, but it also appears there is a Settlement Agreement.
What did that comprise, one asks?
I'm not sure anyone won in this, personally, but I think that SCEA seems to have
got good terms in shutting Hotz out of further involvement in ensuring one can
unlock ones PS3...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 11 2011 @ 07:27 PM EDT |
| Shall I stop reading right there? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 11 2011 @ 09:47 PM EDT |
Hotz gets sued by Sony. Promises to fight the fight to the
end or until he gets a settlement with Sony that allows for
an authorized path to homebrew on PS3, OtherOS and an
apology from Sony to the scene.
Then, he proceeds to ask for donations. Many people donate
to him because of his promise and all the good that would
ensue.
Hotz settles with Sony, breaking his promise and letting
down all those people who donated to him.
That is the reason why people are so angry at him.
As for the court case itself and why he should NOT have
caved in:
It was a civil case, he couldn't have gotten into jail even
if he had suffered a complete, and total defeat in court.
The worst outcome would be that he would have had to pay
quite a large sum of money to Sony, in which the community
would most likely have helped simply out of respect for
going through the whole thing.
If he had won the case it would have set a very, VERY
powerful precedent and enforced general consumer rights in
that you are indeed allowed to modify electronics you have
legally bought without fear of facing legal difficulties.
Also, it would have created a large barrier for these large
companies for trying to bully consumers into submission, and
would have helped all consumers in general, not just PS3
owners.
Especially the fact that it would have had nationwide (in
the US, that is.) effect on consumer rights is the reason
why it was so god damn important to go through with the
whole thing.
As for the court case if he had settled as per his original
promise to the scene:
We would have an authorized way of using homebrew without
having to resort to hacks, and we would also be able to
enjoy OtherOS. While this is a LOT less important than the
precedent I mentioned earlier it would still have benefited
atleast the PS3 scene.
The result:
Well, people lost the money they donated to him, he broke
his promises, and there is no way of getting the donated
money back. Donations are not covered by the credit card
company rules and thus cannot be disputed.
Hotz can try to move to China if he wishes to continue
hacking, but no one will take him seriously anymore. Or he
can release stuff anonymously, but that will still not
change anything, the scene has gained absolutely nothing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, April 11 2011 @ 10:35 PM EDT |
Reading the stipulation I see Hotz agreed to not do things he denied doing and
Sony agreed to limit damages for any future infractions.
Seems crafted to look like Sony won, without disclosing what what Hotz got in
return.
It seems to me Sony was eyeball to eyeball with Hotz and Sony blinked. If Sony
was sure they would not have settled this easily.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 11 2011 @ 11:41 PM EDT |
This is a good move by SECA.
They already mostly suceeded in scaring off many of the Scene's
talented devs while leveraging their position over Hotz to make him stay
away from ALL Sony products.
As I understand it, if Hotz were to go after the Xperia Play he would
have been able to do so legally, but not now. I think this settlement is as
much about preventing him from doing that as anything.
Not to mention that Sony/SECA can now avoid dragging out the bad PR
that's come with this case. And as I understand it Hotz cannot talk about
the settlement or action (f his blog posts are anything to go by).
All in all I think this is a solid tactical win for SECA. Which is a crying
shame for us IMO.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 11 2011 @ 11:45 PM EDT |
1) He's out of court.
How many times has PJ said that's one place you don't want
to be. I think he would at least gotten it moved to a more convenient state, but
winning overall was a big chance to
take, considering the cost of losing.
2) In exchange, he promises to never work with another Sony
product. Fine; there are a lot of other systems out there.
Personally I would have jumped on this settlement.
Dennis H.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 12 2011 @ 12:24 AM EDT |
Remember, they're still on the receiving end of a the class action lawsuit due
to their actions in removing OtherOS.
This settlement applies only to George, and I'm sure he finds it more than
acceptable, because, after all, what are the odds that he was ever going to buy
or use another Sony product again?
I think the fact that bullying George really doesn't help their image as a
defendant in the other case played a significant role in encouraging them to
settle.
Regardless, their name is now mud, and whenever you see discussions, reviews, or
feedback on Sony's products, it's entirely appropriate make posting idly
wondering what features they'll remove after the warranty expires. It's already
happening on Woot.com, and I think I did it on gdgt.com.
bkd
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cward24 on Tuesday, April 12 2011 @ 12:26 AM EDT |
The Hotz case appears to be at a conclusion but there appears to be a discovery
issue on the ongoing OtherOS lawsuit. I have to wonder if Sony is thinking of
an end game here as well. Judge Chen's ruling to remove the reference to
hacking for one of the plaintiff's seems to go along with what happened in the
Hotz case. I think that the foreshadowing that PJ referenced is not very far
off of the mark.
By the way thank you for everything that you have done here
PJ.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, April 12 2011 @ 05:37 AM EDT |
| .... SCEA has LOST! When a corporation backs down so easily it is usually a
face-saving exercise, because they fear losing big time in court. It reminds me
of SCO vs Autozone, totally different legal issues but suddenly settled
in secret, which many of us seem to think meant that Cahn knew he would lose,
and so settled quietly. I have to wonder if this is another triumph for PJ and
Groklaw, because exposure of the facts here may well have generated so much
adverse publicity that it became clear that continuing the case would be a bad
thing to do commercially. I will still not be buying Sony products, as
although I don't care very much directly about this case (not a PS3 owner, but
if I had one I would be enraged!) I have not forgotten the sheer criminality of
the rootkit. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 12 2011 @ 06:00 AM EDT |
This is all about SCEA,
Hotz has probably been advised that this injunction doesn't stop him from
basically doing anything other than to a few particular computer games.
He may also choose to move to.. say London for example, where SCEA can go
swing.
Look at the first part of the injunction.
"I agree not to break the law"
Well thank you very much Mr Hotz, for agreeing to be an upstanding Citizen.
Remember also that George Hotz was only responsible for the very last step in a
complex and distributed research project.
This is nothing more than a splat of face saving legalese.
They might as well have given him a permanent injunction against going to Mars
while they were at it.
I can imagine something was found in discovery on one of Hotzs PS3s and they
went "Hah! Gotcha!", and Hotz lawyers went "Yabut! Nothing to do
with SCEA or California acshully!"
Then everybody sat down and tried to figure out how to extricate themselves
without looking like utter idiots.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 12 2011 @ 07:25 AM EDT |
So SEA gets it written into law that reverse engineering their product is
forbidden.
I know where my money is not going.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 12 2011 @ 08:04 AM EDT |
Hotz got hosed. The settlement was posted on Slashdot.
Google for 127-Stipulation.pdf. I cut-and-pasted it below
but it doesn't format well that way.
I can't believe his lawyer allowed some of the language in
this settlement.
4 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
JAMES G. GILLILAND, JR. (State Bar NO.1 07988)
TIMOTHY R. CAHN (State Bar No. 162136)
MEHRNAZ BOROUMAND SMITH (State Bar No. 197271)
HOLLY GAUDREAU (State Bar No. 209114)
RYAN BRICKER (State Bar No. 269100)
Two Embarcadero Center Eighth Floor
5 Telephone: (415) 576-0200
6 Email: jgilllandcækilpatricktownsend.com
1
2
3
San Francisco, CA 94111
Facsimile: (415) 576-0300
7 tcahncækilpatricktownsend .com
mboroumandcækilpatricktownsend .com
hgaudreaucækilpatricktownsend .com
8 rbrickercæ kilpatricktownsend .com
9
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA LLC
10
11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12 FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
14 SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT CASE NO. 11-cv-000167 SI
AMERICA LLC, a Delaware limited
15 liabilty company, FINAL JUDGMENT UPON CONSENT
AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Plaintiff,
16
17
Judge: Hon. Susan IIlston
v.
18 GEORGE HOTZ; HECTOR MARTIN
CANTERO; SVEN PETER; and DOES
19 1 through 100,
20
Defendants.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
~~
FINAL JUDGMENT UPON CONSENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 11-cv-000167 SI
1
I. STIPULATED FACTS
2 On January 11, 2011, Plaintiff Sony Computer Entertainment
America LLC
3 ("SCEA") filed its Complaint against Defendant George Hotz
("Hotz") and others. SCEA
4 alleges that Hotz and others have violated the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"),
5 17 U.S.C. § 1201, et seq., the Computer Fraud and Abuse
Act ("CFAA"), 18 U.S.C. §
6 1030, et seq., the California Comprehensive Computer Data
Access and Fraud Act, CaL.
7 Penal Code § 502, et seq., induced copyright infringement
and engaged in breach of
8 contract, tortious interference with contractual
relations, common law misappropriation
9 and trespass. (Docket No.1) Hotz denies these allegations.
Hotz and SCEA are
10
referred to collectively herein as lithe Parties."
On January 27, 2011, the Court entered a temporary
restraining order against
11
12 Hotz enjoining him from circumventing the technological
protection measures ("TPMs") in
13 the PlayStation~3 computer entertainment system ("PS3
System"), inducing others to do
14 so, and trafficking in circumvention devices. (Docket
Nos. 50 and 51) On February 28,
15 2011, the Court entered a preliminary injunction. (Docket
No. 87)
Hotz has disputed personal jurisdiction by this Court over
him in this action and on
16
17 February 2,2011, filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Personal Jurisdiction and
18 Improper Venue (Docket No. 57), which has yet to be
decided.
On March 31,2011, Hotz met with SCEA representatives and the
Parties entered
19
20 a confidential Memorandum of Understanding, agreeing to
settle the dispute between
21 them. As a part of that settlement, SCEA and Hotz have
agreed to the entry of this Final
22 Judgment Upon Consent and Permanent Injunction
("Judgment" upon the stipulated
23 facts. Each party has waived the right to appeal from
this Judgment. Each party wil
24 bear its own fees and costs in connection with this
action. The Parties further agree that
25 any violation of this Judgment by Hotz would cause
irreparable harm to SCEA and, if
26 such a violation occurs, SCEA wil be entitled to
immediate relief.
27 II. STIPULATED DEFINITIONS
1. For purposes of the Order below, SCEA AFFILIATES shall
mean Sony
28
~~
FINAL JUDGMENT UPON CONSENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
11-cv-000167 SI
CASE NO.
- 1 -
1 Corporation and all companies owned or controlled by Sony
Corporation or SCEA,
2 including but not limited to, Sony Corporation of America,
Sony Electronics Inc., Sony
3 Computer Entertainment Inc., Sony Computer Entertainment
Europe, Sony Network
4 Entertainment America, and Sony Ericsson. To the extent
that a company is an SCEA
5 Affiliate but is not listed in this definition and does
not have Sony in its name, SCEA wil
6 provide Hotz with notice of the name of that company.
7 2. For purposes of the Order below, SONY PRODUCT shall
mean any product
8 or service of SCEA or SCEA AFFILIATES that bears the Sony,
PlayStation or PlayStation
9 Network ("PSN") name, mark or brand. SONY PRODUCT does not
include those products
10 or services created or sold by companies which have been
acquired by SCEA or SCEA
11 AFFILIATES, which products or services were on the market
prior to acquisition by SCEA
12 or SCEA AFFILIATES. However, once SCEA, SCEA AFFILIATES
or the acquired
13 company rebrands the product or service with the Sony,
PlayStation or PSN name, mark
14 or brand, then the product or service that bears the
Sony, PlayStation or PSN name, mark
15 or brand shall thereafter constitute a SONY PRODUCT. To
the extent that there are any
16 Sony products or services that do not bear the Sony,
PlayStation or PSN name, mark or
17 brand and that SCEA wishes to be treated as a Sony
Product for purposes of this
18 Permanent Injunction and Consent Judgment, SCEA wil
specifically identify those
19 products or services and provide notice to Hotz.
20
3. For purposes of the Order below, CIRCUMVENTING or
CIRCUMVENT shall
21 mean using any means whatsoever to descramble, decrypt,
or otherwise avoid, bypass,
22 remove, deactivate, or impair, regardless of the alleged
purpose of the Circumvention.
4. For purposes of the Order below, TECHNOLOGICAL PROTECTION
23
24 25 code, device, information, encryption or key that
prevents access to, downloading of,
26 distributing, or copying of any confidential or
proprietary information or any softare code
27 or other copyrighted materiaL.
28
~~
MEASURES or TPMs shall mean anything whatsoever, including
but not limited to any
III
FINAL JUDGMENT UPON CONSENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
CASE NO.11-cv~000167 SI
- 2-
1
5. For purposes of the Order below CIRCUMVENTION DEVICE
shall mean any
2 circumvention technology, product, service, method,
softare, tool, device, or any
3 components or parts thereof that circumvents any of the
TPMs or security in any SONY
4 PRODUCT.
5 6. For purposes of the Order below, TRAFFICKING shall mean
any means of
6 distributing or sharing, including but not limited to
offering to the public, posting online or
7 on or in any media accessible by anyone, marketing,
advertising, promoting, installing,
8 distributing or otherwise providing to anyone. TRAFFICKING
shall also include knowingly
9 providing links from any website to any other webpage,
specific location or listing that Hotz
10 knows or reasonably should know is selling, offering for
sale, marketing, directly
11 advertising or promoting, installing, importing,
exporting, offering to the public, distributing,
12 posting or otherwise providing any CIRCUMVENTION DEVICE
or to any website that Hotz
13 knows or reasonably should know is predominantly focused
on sellng, offering for sale,
14 marketing, directly advertising or promoting, installing,
importing, exporting, offering to the
15 public, distributing, posting or otherwise providing any
CIRCUMVENTION DEVICE.
16 II. ORDER
17
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by consent of the Parties
that Hotz,
18 whether as an individual or as a principal, officer,
director or employee of any business
19 entity, and his agents, servants, employees,
distributors, suppliers, representatives and all
20 other persons or entities acting in concert or
participation with Hotz who receive notice of
21 this Judgment, shall be and hereby are permanently
enjoined and restrained from:
22
23
24
A. Engaging in any unauthorized access to any SONY PRODUCT
under the
law;
B. Engaging in any unauthorized access to any SONY PRODUCT
under the
25 26 applicable to that SONY PRODUCT, whether or not Hotz
has accepted such
27 agreement or terms of use, including without limitation:
28
~~
terms of any SCEA or SCEA AFFILIATES' license agreement or
terms of use
(i) reverse engineering, decompiling, or disassembling any
portion of the
FINAL JUDGMENT UPON CONSENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 11-cv-000167 SI
- 3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Sony Product;
(ii) using any tools to bypass, disable, or circumvent any
encryption,
security, or authentication mechanism in the Sony Product;
(iii) using any hardware or softare to cause the Sony
Product to accept
or use unauthorized, illegal or pirated softare or hardware;
and
(iv) exploiting any Sony Product to design, develop, update
or distribute
unauthorized softare or hardware for use with the Sony
Product.
8 If any term of such SCEA or SCEA Affilates' license
agreement or terms of
9 use applicable to that Sony Product shall be determined by
Congress or by a
10 court of law in a final non-appealable decision in an
action to which SCEA or
11 an SCEA Affiliate is a party to be illegal and
unenforceable, then such term
12 shall not be binding on Hotz.
13 C. CIRCUMVENTING any of the TPMs or security in any SONY
PRODUCT;
14 D. TRAFFICKING in any technology, product, service,
device, component, or
15 part thereof that, at the time of Hotz's trafficking,
circumvents any of the
16 TPMs or security in any SONY PRODUCT, including but not
limited to the
17 Ellptical Curve Signature Algorithm ("ECDSA") Keys,
encryption andlor
18 decryption keys, dePKG firmware decrypter program,
Signing Tools, 3.55
19 Firmware Jailbreak, andlor any other technologies that
enable unauthorized
20 access to andlor copying of the PS3 System andlor enable
compatibility of
21 unauthorized copies of other copyrighted works with the
PS3 System.
22
23
24
E. Distributing or posting any SCEA or SCEA Affiliates'
confidential or
proprietary information relating to any SONY PRODUCT;
F. Knowingly assisting or inducing others to engage in any
of the conduct set
25 forth in A-E above solely directed at any SONY PRODUCT or
that otherwise
26 constitutes contributory liabilty under the law.
27
28
~~
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that any violation of
this Injunction
and Order by Hotz shall result in his payment of stipulated
liquidated damages in the
FINAL JUDGMENT UPON CONSENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 11-cv-000167 SI
.,4 -
1 amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per violation at
the election of SCEA or SCEA's
2 Affiliates. In the event that the violation involves
distribution or TRAFFICKING by Hotz of
3 softare, hardware, or any CIRCUMVENTION DEVICE, or
knowingly assisting the same,
4 each distribution of said softare (including downloads via
the Internet), hardware, or
5 CIRCUMVENTION DEVICE shall.constitute an independent
violation, up to a cap of two
6 hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000). Such
liquidated damages shall be an
7 optional alternative to demonstrating actual or, if
relevant, statutory damages.
8
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that any action or
proceeding (other
9 than a declaratory judgment action) that may be brought by
SCEA or SCEA Affilates
10 against Hotz arising out of, in connection with or by
reason of the Parties' Settlement
11 Agreement or this Judgment or to enforce the terms and
conditions of the Parties'
12 Settlement Agreement or this Judgment, shall be brought
in the United States District
13 Court for the Northern District of California. The
Parties further agree that any action or
14 proceeding (other than a declaratory judgment action)
that may be brought by Hotz against
15 SCEA arising out of, in connection with or by reason of
the Parties' Settlement Agreement
16 or this Judgment or to enforce the terms and conditions
of the Parties' Settlement
17 Agreement or this Judgment, shall be brought in the
United States District Court for the
18 District of New Jersey or the state in the United States
of Hotz's current permanent
19 residence. The Parties agree to waive any venue or
jurisdictional challenges consistent
20 with this paragraph. The Parties further agree that the
laws of the state of California shall
21 govern to the exclusion of the law of any other forum in
any action or proceeding brought
22 by any party arising out of, in connection with or by
reason of the Parties' Settlement
23 Agreement or this Judgment or to enforce the terms and
conditions of the Parties'
24 Settlement Agreement or this Judgment.
25
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that entry of this
Judgment shall
26 conclude this action to the prejudice of any and all
claims or cross-claims deemed merged
27 and barred in accordance with the law.
28
~~
The undersigned hereby stipulate to the above facts and
conclusions and consent
FINAL JUDGMENT UPON CONSENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 11-cv-000167 SI
- 5-
04/09/2011 01: 06 FAX 650 655 8042
Legal
I4 00 i
1 to the entry of this Judgment, which may be signed in
counterparts. Signatures can be
2 obtained and exchanged by facsimile.
3 IT IS SO STIPULATED.
4
5
Respectfully submitted,
DATED: April 9, 2011 SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA LLC
DATED: April 9, 2011 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
6
7
B; ZJ~QJ
'RI~SELL "
8
9
10
By:
JAMES G. GILLILAND, JR.
11
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA LLC
12
13
14
DATED: April '9,2011
By:
GEORGE HOTZ
15
16
E-ttorney at LawTM
17
18
DATED: April
9, 2011
19
STEWART R. KELLAR
Attorney for Defendant
GEORGE HOTZ
20
21
By:
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
24
DATED:
HON. SUSAN ILLSTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25
26
27
28
~~
FINAL JUDGMENT UPON CONSENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 11-cv-000167 SI
., 6-
Apr 09 11 12:49a
5102327060
Jim Gilliland
p.2
1 to the entry of this Judgment, which may be signed in
counterparts. Signatures can be
2 obtained and exchanged by facsimile.
3 IT IS SO STIPULATED.
4
5
Respectully submitted,
DATED: April 9, 2011
SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA LLC
6
By:
7
RILEY R. RUSSELL
8
9
DATED: April 9,2011
10
By: .~f1
KiL~ & STOCKTON LLP
J MES G. L LAND, JR.
. 11
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA LLC
12
13
14
DATED: April 9, 2011
By:
GEORGE HOTZ
15
16
E-ttorney at LawTM
17
18
DATED: April 9,2011
STEWART R. KELLAR
19
Attorney for Defendant
GEORGE HOTZ
20
21
By:
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
DATED:
HON. SUSAN I LLSTON
24
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25
26
27
28
~~
FINAL JUDGMENT UPON CONSENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
CAE NO. 11-cv-000167 51
- 6-
1 to the entry of this Judgment, which may be signed in
counterparts. Signatures can be
2 obtained and exchanged by facsimile.
3 IT IS SO STIPULATED.
4
5
Respectfully submitted,
DATED: April 9, 2011
SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA LLC
6
By:
7
RILEY R. RUSSELL
8
9
DATED: April 9, 2011
10
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
By:
JAMES G. GILLILAND, JR.
11
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA LLC
12
13
14
DATED: April 9, 2011
15
16
0/1 /7'
BY:~~
GEORG~~"
E-ttorneyat LawTM
17
18
DATED: April
9, 2011
19
STEWART R. KELLAR
Attorney for Defendant
GEORGE HOTZ
20
21
By:
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
24
DATED: tf¡ter~~!(
(
HON. SUSAN ILLSTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25
26
27
28
~41
FINAL JUDGMENT UPON CONSENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
I"ACi: 11." 11,,"'''_.(()(-t~7 CL
_ R_
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 12 2011 @ 08:33 AM EDT |
When you want to know more, but end up knowing less?
Thanks for the very one sided commentary all along.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 12 2011 @ 09:59 AM EDT |
Question I don't think anyone's asked: How does this impact
team fail0verflow? They were named in the same suit, right?
Does this mean the suit is still ongoing just without Hotz
listed as a defendant?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Alan(UK) on Tuesday, April 12 2011 @ 01:29 PM EDT |
The best that Hotz could have got out of this would have been not losing.
In an ideal world, we would like to have seen Hotz vindicated, Sony made to pay
his costs, the judge declare that Hotz or anyone else is quite entitled to do
what he did, Sony being ordered to restore the advertised functionality, Sony
being made to compensate Hotz for the work he had done, and Sony being put in
the stocks and pelted with rotten tomatoes.
We do not live in an ideal world.
---
Microsoft is nailing up its own coffin from the inside.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 12 2011 @ 01:34 PM EDT |
Exactly what does unauthorized access mean here and who determines what
is authorized or not?
Provided that is not SCEA then appears to be a
suitable deal ignoring the lawyer costs.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 12 2011 @ 02:16 PM EDT |
| What is a "TPMs" ? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 12 2011 @ 03:01 PM EDT |
Hotz is the defendant. If the plaintiff withdraw it's complaint, only the judge
can keep the case alive. Hotz has no say in this. Well, he could sue... But
that's a different case.
Sony must have seen the danger ( too late imao ) of trying to defend against a
class action AND go on a crusade at the same time.
Sony doesn't have any product worth buying anyway. Just vote with you money.
Case closed.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 12 2011 @ 05:29 PM EDT |
why doesnt he make a jailbreak and put it on thepiratebay or isohunt?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- realy? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 14 2011 @ 07:44 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 12 2011 @ 05:55 PM EDT |
1 - Sony seems to fear Hotz's abilities with respect to their products.
2 - This will NOT help Sony's market with people who are "in to"
technology and hear of the result.
As usual I think that Sony is not seeing the whole picture.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 12 2011 @ 11:34 PM EDT |
Seriously: After dragging him all the way to the front door of the court, after
all the threats and bad publicity and trouble and grief, all that Sony has got
ghotz to agree to is not to make any "unauthorised access", with
unauthorised meaning "not authorised under the various Ts'n'Cs specified by
SCEA et al."
Now, as far as I can see, that simply means that he's agreed to accept terms
that amount to pretty much their standard EULA. Remember that half this case
hinged around whether he was even subject to it or not; by settling out of
court, he has had to agree to accept it, but only voluntarily so in order to
settle, and so Sony have lost their chance to claim that the EULA applies to
anyone who ever owns a PS, no matter who they bought it from or under what
conditions. Sony wanted to establish that their EULA binds you even if you buy
a second-hand PS3 in a shop somewhere and have never entered into any kind of
business transaction with them, and they have lost their attempt to try and
trick the court into approving this over-reaching interpretation of implied
consent, and that's good news for all of us.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 13 2011 @ 03:15 AM EDT |
Apologies to post this as Anon. and apologies for my
ignorance, but what did the Anonymous people do and why did
that prejudiced George Hotz's chances?
PS: I donated to George so Sony wouldn't steamroll over him
and I think he did the right thing in settling. I've had to
go through legal wrangles of my own years ago and litigation
is the last place on Earth you'd want to be. It churns you up
something chronic, even if you're in the right. He's out of
it and good on him![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 13 2011 @ 07:51 PM EDT |
There were decisions to make and this whole story played in. It may be just a
few bucks but the kids won't play with Sony's products and they will be
socialized with Sony's competition and they will pay much to their products.
Hmm, and all their cousins, it's a big family. Next generation gone. Ouch,
that hurts...
cb[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Marc Mengel on Thursday, April 14 2011 @ 03:30 PM EDT |
So he's not allowed to do "unauthorized" things with his ps3... things
not authorized by who exactly, and how does one obtain such authorization?
I mean, if his friend Louie down the street authorizes it, is that okay? If
Hotz himself authorizes it, is that okay?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
