[Noticia] La corte niega la demanda de Sony

George Hotz's Lawyers Issue Press Release - Court Denies Sony's Restraining Order

Geohot's (George Hotz) lawyers issued an official statement today, regarding their on going legal battle against the Sony Corporation. The legal team stated that the case is not about Sony protecting their intellectual property, but instead it's an attempt from Sony to scare any other would be hackers, irrespective of any legal basis for their action. They go on to state, regardless of the decision on Sony's proposed restraining order, the legal team "fully intend to defend Mr. Hotz in this action." It seems the lawyers are in it for the long haul, and plan to defend Hotz in any legal matters, that arise from his recent actions on the Playstation 3 console.


It didn't take long before the Hotz's lawyers found out the court's decision. Later that day, in a great blow to Sony, a California federal judge ruled against their request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against Mr. Hotz. The judge questioned the legal jurisdiction that the California court held over the matter. Sony's only basis for opening the case before the California court system, was the very weak link regarding Hotz and his Paypal account. Sony argued that Hotz profited from donations through the Paypal system, a company which is based in California. The court did not find that to be a substantial enough link, and therefore denied the request. The judge stated it could still grant the TRO, if provided with further evidence.

Source: TheRegister.co.uk


Below is the press release issued by Mr. Hotz's lawyers.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
January 14, 2011

Law Firms defend Sony's Accusations against George Hotz

San Francisco, California – Today, attorneys Stewart Kellar and Yasha Heidari announced they intend to vigorously defend the baseless accusations asserted by Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC (“Sony”) against Mr. George Hotz.

“Make no mistake,” Stewart Kellar, intellectual property attorney and e-ttorney at law™ stated, “this case is not about Sony attempting to protect its intellectual property or otherwise seek bona fide relief from the court. Rather, it's an attempt from Sony to send a message that any individual using Sony hardware in a way Sony does not deem appropriate will result in harsh legal consequences from a multi-billion dollar company, irrespective of any legal basis or authority for such action.”

Sony recently filed suit against a number of individuals, including Mr. Hotz, a 21-year-old computer prodigy who is well-known for his accomplishments and innovations in the field of phone and computer development, such as for creating the ability to provide for iPhone interoperability between various cellular network carriers. Citing unfounded concerns and a dubious legal basis for jurisdiction, Sony seeks relief from the Court due to Mr. Hotz re-enabling core functionality of the Playstation 3.

“I think it is quite telling that Sony, who is legally required to provide notice to Mr. Hotz before seeking any special relief with the Court, decided to e-mail Mr. Hotz a copy of their motion at 7 p.m. when a hearing was scheduled for the next morning at 9 a.m. in California, while Mr. Hotz does not even live in California. Sony is seeking various unreasonable relief, such as seizing Mr. Hotz's personal property and computers. Luckily, the Court postponed the hearing,” said Yasha Heidari, Esq., managing partner at Heidari Power Law Group, LLC.

Mr. Kellar added, “This case not only has profound implications for the parties involved, but it also implicates core property rights for every consumer out there.” Recently in April of 2010, citing the fact that the Playstation 3's terms and conditions reserve the right to modify the PS3's settings and features, Sony inexplicably issued an “upgrade” that removes the end user's ability to utilize the PS3's OtherOS functionality. Consumer familiar with the PS3 know that OtherOS is a powerful tool that is critical in allowing its users to utilize the PS3 as a personal computer. Sony had previously touted the PS3's OtherOS as a major selling point and feature that would receive Sony's continued support. Yet, despite this, Sony took the position that consumers must either choose to upgrade the PS3 to play newer game titles and lose OtherOS support, or ignore the update to keep OtherOS but be prohibited form playing newer titles.

Mr. Heidari stated, “While most companies issue firmware upgrades to increase a product's abilities over its life cycle, Sony has taken the unacceptable and draconian approach of decreasing the PS3's capabilities by actually destroying a core feature of the PS3. Imagine taking in your car for an oil change and having the manufacturer remove your car's air conditioner, radio, and half its horsepower because of fears that other hypothetical individuals might abuse their vehicles. It just doesn't make any sense, and it's a slap in the face to the consumers that put their support behind the product.” Mr. Kellar proclaimed, “This case rests on Sony's misguided belief that it has the unfettered ability to control how consumers use the products they legitimately purchase.”

Both attorneys agree that Sony's interpretation of the law is quite troubling. The attorneys state they hope the judge will deny Sony's motion, but regardless of how the judge rules, they fully intend to defend Mr. Hotz in this action, which has wide-spread implications for consumers globally.