Geohot: guilty or not guilty?

[flamepanther]

Evedently, the judge in CA is rejecting Sony's claim that California has jurisdiction over the case...

[AppleQueso]

Evedently, the judge in CA is rejecting Sony's claim that California has jurisdiction over the case...

oh?

...what does that mean then

[flamepanther]

It means the case is delayed until they figure out what court should actually have jurisdiction. It also means that at least one judge has thrown out at least one part of Sony's EULA (agreement to be bound by CA laws).

[jfrost]

It means the case is delayed until they figure out what court should actually have jurisdiction. It also means that at least one judge has thrown out at least one part of Sony's EULA (agreement to be bound by CA laws).

That's hilarious.

[flamepanther]

That's hilarious.

Yes. Yes it is. I hope George fares better than everyone else Sony has tried to bury under mountains of court costs.

[Bradtemple87]

That's hilarious.

Yes. Yes it is. I hope George fares better than everyone else Sony has tried to bury under mountains of court costs.

AMEN

[Niode]

That's hilarious.

Yes. Yes it is. I hope George fares better than everyone else Sony has tried to bury under mountains of court costs.

To be fair he just needs a lawyer willing to take the case pro bono (which he appears to have got). The claims that Sony have made are completely false. So it won't take much to convince the courts of his innocence (I hope). Well that's if Sony don't play dirty. I hope this doesn't just go to an out of court settlement and we actually get a verdict on whether that big shiny box of tricks we bought really is ours to do what we want with or not. Or if Sony can hold your equipment ransom should you use it to run your own code on. In the EU Sony would get into a tonne of shit if they disabled your console remotely, however they can still do it and I'd rather not deal with the hassle of getting it sorted should that happen.

According to the interview geohot gave to G4, the case is going to challenge the difference between a phone and a console, since both are closed systems; why is jailbreaking a phone legal but not on a console?

[Saraph]

Not guilty. George has made his point and the courts will see that this really is no different then the previous iPhone jailbreaking case.

[Hatta]

I hope this doesn't just go to an out of court settlement and we actually get a verdict on whether that big shiny box of tricks we bought really is ours to do what we want with or not.

I'm not so sure you'd like that verdict if you got it.

According to the interview geohot gave to G4, the case is going to challenge the difference between a phone and a console, since both are closed systems; why is jailbreaking a phone legal but not on a console?

Because the exemption specifically states that it's for "wireless telephone handsets". Just because you can use the same arguments for video game consoles as you can for phones means nothing. There is an exemption for phones and none for games.

[YoshiEgg25]

According to the interview geohot gave to G4, the case is going to challenge the difference between a phone and a console, since both are closed systems; why is jailbreaking a phone legal but not on a console?

Because the exemption specifically states that it's for "wireless telephone handsets". Just because you can use the same arguments for video game consoles as you can for phones means nothing. There is an exemption for phones and none for games.

That's not the point he was trying to make. That's what the law specifically states and why this is going to trial. The point is that, since each are closed systems and (essentially) the only difference between them is that one is a phone, why should there be an exception for one and not for the other?