Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Geohot To Turn Over Computers To Neutral Third Party

Posted by timothy on from the small-victories-are-still-good dept.

intellitech writes "This will make a lot of you feel better. Groklaw is reporting that both parties have come up with a stipulation in Sony Computer Entertainment American v. Hotz regarding what Hotz must do about handing over his computers. The new Preliminary Injunction (PDF) now says that he is to turn his materials over to a 'neutral' third party, not to SCEA's lawyers, and after the neutral party combs through them, it all is returned to Hotz. All but whatever they 'segregate' out of them. He won't get that back until the end of the litigation, should he prevail, which this court at least currently thinks is less likely than that Sony will. There will be a hearing on Hotz's motion to dismiss on April 8, 2011."

2 of 117 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Hope They Hurry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    No. The moral of this whole episode is Don't Buy Sony.

  2. WTF? by russotto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Hotz is required to deliver his computers, hard drives, CD-roms, DVDs, USB sticks, and any other storage devices on which any Circumvention Devices are stored

    Wait a minute here... surely there's a question of whether or not there ARE any "Circumvention Devices", that being a term defined by 17 USC 1201. By requiring Hotz to turn over "Circumvention Devices" the judge is requiring him to either
    a) Concede the point here and now OR
    b) Risk contempt of court charges for not turning them over.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the $10,000.00 posted by SCEA on January 27, 2011 as security for the Court's issuance of the Temporary Restraining Order shall suffice 3 for this Preliminary Injunction.

    I didn't realize purchasing a preliminary injunction was so cheap.

    I see the "Honorable" Susan Illston is still giving us a demonstration of what "due process" looks like nowadays; first issue a broad ex parte injunction, THEN hold a hearing, then ratify the original injunction with only minor changes, requiring the defendant to cede the case to comply. No opinion was published, so apparently we're not going to get to see her "reasoning" in this case.