142w ago - Today Groklaw.net reports that PS3 hacker GeoHot is now accusing Sony of "false representations" to the court and petitioning for a protective order while Wired.com confirmed that SoftLayer is moving to quash Sony's subpoena on George Hotz Forum account details in the pending PlayStation 3 hacking case despite their recent PayPal victory.
To quote from Groklaw: "Specifically, Hotz says that Sony Computer Entertainment America falsely claimed at a recent hearing that the Software Developer Kit at issue in this litigation referenced SCEA being in California. The SDK, Hotz says, is owned by Sony Computer Entertainment in Japan, and the installation procedures reference Sony Japan, not SCEA.
This is relevant, Sony argued, because if they found any of the SDK tools on his computer, it would "establish contacts between SCEA and Mr. Hotz" in that they claimed SCEA is the only entity distributing the SDKs. The discovery that the court ordered was based on SCEA's representations. Now what? Should the discovery even be allowed?
Hotz has filed a motion for a protective order, as the parties continue to wrangle about what should happen to Hotz's impounded hard drives. At the same time, SoftLayer Technologies has filed a motion to quash."
From Wired, to quote: "Dallas-based SoftLayer is the only company so far to object to subpoenas in the hotly contested Hotz case. The judge has signed off on Sony subpoenas to Twitter, YouTube, Google and PayPal as part of the console-maker's scorched-earth litigation tactics to win an unspecified amount of monetary damages from Hotz.
Thursday's legal tussle surrounds a SoftLayer subpoena approved by Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero of San Francisco two weeks ago. It demands "documents reproducing all server logs, IP address logs, account information, account access records, and application or registration forms" connected to Hotz's psx-scene.com account.
Sony wants those logs, and a record of all of his postings, to determine whether Hotz had logged in from the San Francisco area while trumpeting or posting his hack.
That data is at the center of a jurisdictional argument whether Sony must sue Hotz in his home state of New Jersey rather than in San Francisco, where Sony would prefer. SoftLayer objects to the subpoena on grounds that, among other things, it requires "disclosure of protected matter." No hearing date has been set."
Stay tuned for more PS3 Hacks and PS3 CFW news, follow us on Twitter and be sure to drop by the PS3 Hacks and PS3 Custom Firmware Forums for the latest PlayStation 3 scene updates and homebrew releases!
Some more legal doc updates (courtesy of http://psx-scene.com/forums/785995-post1.html) are attached below, which include GeoHot's laywers response refuting Sony's claims that the "blickmaniac" PSN account belongs to him.
I'm really not trying to be mean here, but you have no idea what you are talking about. In particular:
1) This is still in the early stages. they are still in the discovery stage, with a neutral party facilitating the transfer of items and information. I hardly think that qualifies "His lawyers are clutching at straws trying to get out of this case..."
2) I'm not quite sure how jail time comes into the equation here - he was not arrested nor accused of committing a crime at this point. He is being sued. You can't go to jail just for being sued. Actually, anybody can be sued for anything...it really doesn't mean anything until the judge makes a final ruling (and then appeals can kick in).
3) This is a civil suit, so there is no "fee" for him to pay, other than normal court fees. Beyond that, he has to pay his lawyer's fees, but that's a business contract, not a judicial fee. Additionally, you can't go to jail (in the US) for an inability to pay. If he has the ability to pay and a court order to do so, that's different. But if he cannot afford to pay it, he's not legally required to pay it over personal needs. Actually, if SCEA wins and the court orders a huge sum to pay, he could just claim bankruptcy and likely get it discharged. Then SCEA can't even come after him.
4) By that logic, there's really no reason to support anybody challenging a DCMA suit. I agree that the DMCA is horrible and should be rewritten, but that doesn't mean money going towards defending people accused of violating it is being wasted. Maybe there are better DMCA-related causes, but personally, I want to see how this plays out.