Geohot Sony settlement details leak

By Robert Purchese Published 12 April, 2011

Break it and face $10,000, $250,000 fines.

The terms of the settlement between George Hotz (aka Geohot) and Sony have been revealed.

Hotz (and his "servants") must permanently restrain from "unauthorised access" to any Sony machines either under the law or under Sony's terms and conditions, demands the settlement, posted by PSX-Scene (via QuickJump)

"Unauthorised access" consists of the following:

  • Reverse engineering, decompiling, or disassembling any portion of the Sony Product
  • Using any tools to bypass, disable, or circumvent any encryption security, or authentication mechanism in the Sony Product
  • Using any hardware or software to cause the Sony Product to accept or use unauthorised, illegal or pirated software or hardware
  • Exploiting any Sony Product to design, develop, update or distribute unauthorized software or hardware for use with the Sony Product

"Trafficking", "distributing" or "knowingly assisting" anything related to the above is also a no no.

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED," shouted the decree, "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 software, hardware, or any circumvention device, or knowingly assisting the same, each distribution of said software (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."

The settlement also declares that any legal action brought by SCEA and co. against Hotz will be duked out in a Californian court. But if Hotz takes Sony to court, then a New Jersey trial will be applicable.

The law as it stands in California will govern the settlement.

The settlement between George Hotz - the man who jailbroke PS3 - and Sony was announced yesterday. Sony was "glad" and Hotz was "happy" to bring an end to the legal scrap.

Sony's legal action against George Hotz began back in January.

How will hacker group Anonymous react after it declared war on Sony for it's legal actions against George "Geohot" Hotz? And will Anonymous take any credit for the quick settlement?

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds. @Clert on Twitter.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (57) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Bradach #1 1 year ago

    sounds like he got away lightly to me

  • spongebob #2 1 year ago

    Sony drops like it's Geohot.

  • streetmagix #3 1 year ago

    Hotz (and his lawyers) didn't really have a leg to stand on. It could of been far, FAR worse.

  • darleysam #4 1 year ago

    Settlement reached on 31st of March, wasn't that before Anonymous were involved?

  • arcam #5 1 year ago

    Indeed, Anonymous 'declared war' four days after the settlement was reached. Even Anonymous would struggle to convince people they deserved the credit...

  • Architect_z #6 1 year ago

    Sony are shoveing their flag straight into the asses of Anonymus, metephorically ofcourse (except for one case, where a member has quite literally had a flag stuffed up his anus.)

  • Haerger #7 1 year ago

    Looks like he can't hack NGP which is a good thing. I HATE piracy.

  • crazyhorse174 #8 1 year ago

    I'm not sticking up for the guy, but I dont get how they can stop him fannying about with a console that he bought? I mean, if I buy a car and decide that I want to chip it\put new wheels on it\take the engine out and replace it and then use said car to go speeding\rob a bank (basically do something illegal), I wouldnt expect Renault (or any other manufacturer!) to take me to court for making these changes.

    Maybe I'm just being simple here?! If he distributed his hack, then sure, take him to the cleaners. If he 'reverse engineered' someones PS3 for them, again, take him for all he's worth. If he pirated software and sold it to folk, his ass should indeed be grass (and Sony are the lawnmower...). I just dont get why he's being 'done' for hacking the system?

  • Markitron #9 1 year ago

    Sounds like Sony were fairly reasonable here, just a stern 'dont do it again or ill spank you'. I mean they coulda crucified him right?

  • Shikasama #10 1 year ago

    A settlement was always likely. No-one 'got away liightly' because neither side was sure they would win. If this had gone to court and Sony had LOST (after the case costing them hundreds of thousands in billable hours) then it would have been a complete disaster. Likewise if Hotz had lost he would have been up the shit financially.

    The whole thing was two sides flirting before they finally get together, throw caution the wind and start making sweet, sweet monkey love.

  • PixelPirate #11 1 year ago

    So is Hotz going to pay back all the money he got now too, since he got off so lightly?

    To be honest after Anonymous silly DNS attacks in the middle of this, any hacker wanting to legitimately claim they are doing it for homebrew has lost any credibility, with the legal system. It will take a long time to disassociate hackers (who want to see how things work and test a system) and thieving scumbag kiddie coders who cause trouble and destroy lives.
    Edited by PixelPirate at 12/04/11 @ 15:09

  • TheJuriel #12 1 year ago

    Sony realizes they have no leg to stand on and backpedals, I see.

  • kenzie316 #13 1 year ago

    Im with you crazyhorse174 on this one. They cant do him for hacking his own console as long as he isnt distributing it. Look at Kinect, its being hacked to death but most of the things coming out from it are all positive. Maybe Sony should get this guy to show them a thing or too.

    If he is making money etc out of his hacking then hell yeah take him to the cleaners.


  • Kenshin001 #14 1 year ago

    Hotz is now encouraging people to boycott Sony and Anon are trying to organise a sit in of Sony stores via Facebook. Take that evil Sony.

  • RobotRocker #15 1 year ago

    Hotz (and his lawyers) didn't really have a leg to stand on. It could of been far, FAR worse.

    Wrong. If they didn't, Sony would have swept in for the kill in court and get a definitive judgement rather than a settlement.

    Sony's entire pre-trial prep was a mess and they did seriously idiotic things like calling Hotz a "Fugitive" even though he notified his lawyers where he was going and making the media coverage so disastrous that Jury selection would have been a mess. Hotz had plenty of avenues for defence as well and the fact that congress passed through a motion saying that Jailbreaking was legal last year (Though will come up for review in 3 years time) was going to really hurt them if they tried to get him on the DMCA. The paypal issues could have also ended up badly for Sony as well if Hotz did prove he wasn't making profit off them.

    Sony is trying to clean up the mess they made rampaging and trying to get Hotz to court. It's the best they could have hoped for themselves as the case could have went either way, or even if Hotz was found in breach of the monetary part, that the judge could have ruled the jailbreaking action to be legal in itself which would have ended up opnening whole new can of worms.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #16 1 year ago

    I dont get how they can stop him fannying about with a console that he bought

    They can get him to stop by forcing him to agree to abide by a legal injunction. It's almost as if they had thought of that.

    Whether they actually have the right to make him do that is untested, since Hotz has capitulated in the face of a global's corporation's legal representation, and the need to travel to California for the battle.

    Thus has corporate might prevailed against the little guy.

  • kangarootoo #17 1 year ago

    "I mean, if I buy a car...."


    NOOOOOOOOOO!!

  • Gearskin #18 1 year ago

    As if he ever really stood a chance. You don't become an economic powerhouse if 21 year old plebs can cause you trouble!
    Edited by Gearskin at 12/04/11 @ 15:48

  • Haerger #19 1 year ago

    'Hotz is now encouraging people to boycott Sony and Anon are trying to organise a sit in of Sony stores via Facebook. Take that evil Sony. '

    Like Sony cares. People out there still buy Sony products. I for one still do.

  • Cronan #20 1 year ago

    Ignorance plus opinion is such a heady mix, isn't it? Nice to know we have so much legal expertise on this site.
    Sony management must feel like such fucking heroes, using the full weight of their legal team against a 21 year-old boy.

    Hotz settled because he got some good advice, and Sony decided that dragging a boy through the courts wasn't going to do the image of their pathetic corporation any good. Understand this; regardless of the merits of the case, which I won't debate here because I'm not a lawyer, Hotz was always going to lose. With appeals, and court dates, and legal letters, Sony could have slowly ground him down, spending all his money and time.

    But neither have Sony won.

  • kangarootoo #21 1 year ago

    @Cronan

    "regardless of the merits of the case, which I won't debate here because I'm not a lawyer, Hotz was always going to lose"

    Read that sentence back to yourself.

  • Feanor #22 1 year ago

    Sony's entire pre-trial prep was a mess and they did seriously idiotic things like calling Hotz a "Fugitive"


    Since Fugitive in is quotations, can you link to the document where Sony used that term?

  • Cronan #23 1 year ago

    And I've been boycotting Sony since they tried to rootkit my PC with their scumware.

    "Vote me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."
    Edited by Cronan at 12/04/11 @ 15:36

  • Cronan #24 1 year ago

    @kangarootoo I wasn't making a statement about the case, I was referring to the fact that Hotz was always bound to incur significant personal cost, whether this was financial, emotional, or stress-related. Sony and their shysters were always going to "win", regardless of the outcome of any court case or hearing, because to them this whole issue is just business, to Hotz it's his life.

  • betrayerofhope #25 1 year ago

    boycott?

    sony don't give damn. Plenty of people still buying sony products as we speak. what are a bunch of basement swelling nerds who never contributed anything beyond ddos and hacking gonna do?

    reminds me of monty python. 'what are you gonna do? Bleed on me?'

  • TelexStar #26 1 year ago

    @crazyhorse - "I'm not sticking up for the guy, but I dont get how they can stop him fannying about with a console that he bought? I mean, if I buy a car and decide that I want to chip it\put new wheels on it\take the engine out and replace it and then use said car to go speeding\rob a bank (basically do something illegal), I wouldnt expect Renault (or any other manufacturer!) to take me to court for making these changes. "

    It's not the same thing. When you buy a console, you own the hardware but you do not own the operating system running on it. That is licensed out to you to use as the owner (in this case, Sony) intended.

    Of course, this does then fly in the face of the ruling that you are allowed to jailbreak a phone. I'm not sure I see much a distinction between a console and a smartphone.

    Either way, I don't care much for Sony or hotz in all of this. All I know is it's been entertaining to watch it all unfold.

  • RobotRocker #27 1 year ago

    Since Fugitive in is quotations, can you link to the document where Sony used that term?

    Sony issued a press release with insinuation that he was fleeing to avoid the case.

    [link url=http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-03-23-ps3-hacker-flees-to-south-america
    ]http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-0...[/link]

    Nice try on the technicality though.

  • Cronan #28 1 year ago

    The actual legal document is here:

    http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/dis...

  • Cronan #29 1 year ago

    @betrayerofhope Withdrawing my money is one of the most signficant ways I can punish a company who I believe no longer deserves my business. Telling all my friends about them is another way.

    And what the fuck do my personal decisions have to do with you anyway, kid?

  • Cronan #30 1 year ago

    In my view, Microsoft have a far better approach. As long as you aren't making a business out of it, they don't care what you do with their hardware or software.

    But if you want to use their online services (i.e. Xbox live) then you can't do it using modified hardware or software. It's their service, they get to make the rules.

    Much simpler, and doesn't leave them looking like a bunch of bullies.

  • kangarootoo #31 1 year ago

    @Cronan

    I take your point, I was just being pedantic. To discard the merits of a situation, and yet then issue an edict on it seems kind of contradictory to me. Carry on :)

  • SClaw #32 1 year ago

    Shock horror! Sony being completely reasonable.

    They could have crushed him with years of legal fees and general stress (not to mention simple bad press - who would employ this guy with such a case hanging over him?) even if Sony couldn't "win" the case, but instead they gave him a telling off and a warning. Right or wrong to even be in court, you can't disagree this is a reasonable settlement by a big company's standards.

  • kimchibaka #33 1 year ago

    Reading the blogs closest to the case and other websites it seems like the most interesting aspect of the story isn't even mentioned here.

    What is mentioned is the public settlement, a matter of public record, what's (obviously) missing is the confidential agreement between Sony and Hotz. Who wants it kept confidential? Hotz might (after all he did promise people who donated to his legal fund he wouldn't settle until OtherOS was to be reinstated etc) but Sony obviously do. Now why would that be?! Fascinating. We can only hope these papers leak (though Hotz better hope and pray it's not from his side).

    Meanwhile Hotz is saying there's a bigger battle on the horizon. This story isn't finished by a long shot.
    Edited by kimchibaka at 12/04/11 @ 16:03

  • FladgeMangle #34 1 year ago

    @crazyhorse174

    Pimping your ride isn't going to potentially give everyone with the same model of car access to free petrol is it?

    In other words, NOOOOOOOOOO!!

  • Cronan #35 1 year ago

    Sony has interesting form in this kind of thing:

    2002 - Sony settles Class Action suit related to PS2 drive problems
    [link url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_2#Disc_Read_Error_.28DRE.29_Lawsuit
    ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation...[/link]

    2005 - Sony installs rootkits on the PCs of people who play their CDs
    [link url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal
    ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_co...[/link]

    2005 - Sony crush small PSP retailers with heavy-handed tactics
    [link url=http://www.videogamer.com/news/sony_picking_on_small_retailers.html
    ]http://www.videogamer.com/news/sony_pick...[/link]

    2006 - Sony closes down Lik Sang
    [link url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lik_Sang
    ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lik_Sang
    [/link]

    2008 - Sony recalls 100,000 laptop batteries
    [link url=http://crave.cnet.co.uk/laptops/sony-battery-recall-affects-hp-toshiba-dell-laptops-49299650/
    ]http://crave.cnet.co.uk/laptops/sony-bat...[/link]

    2011 - Sony vs George Hotz
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Comput...

  • arcam #36 1 year ago

    Murton's law in effect.

  • coolbritannia #37 1 year ago

    I for onejoin Geohotz

  • ShiftyGeezer #38 1 year ago

    @Cronan : You think other companies are any better? You think MS are the Saintly Heroes of Gaming who've never used heavy-handed legal bullying to get what they want?

    As for Hotz backing out, I have to wonder how those who donated to him feel? He was going to "shove it to the man" and uphold consumers' rights. Anyone who helped support this quest financially has just been sold short. sony isn't going to get its comeuppance and we aren't going to have PS3 hacking and custom FW declared legal in the US, so all those dollars of donations haven't won those who donated anything.

  • Bonders99 #39 1 year ago

    Coolbritannia = Tool

  • Lord_Gremlin #40 1 year ago

    Well, Sony re-secured PS3 again, it's good to see that this one won't try to hack it again.

  • orangpelupa #41 1 year ago

    +1 for you sifty...

    the original "plan" for asking donation to keep the consumer right that those donators think that will be done with their donation is crumbled..

    wow my english getting worsen in late light...

  • weebl #42 1 year ago

    I'm dead against everything that circumventing security brings (even though some good can come out of it - think Kinect), but for someone as undoubtedly clever as Hotz you would think that he would have realised that remaining anonymous is the only way to remain out of trouble.

    Now he'll disappear from public view, collaborate with others and Sony will find itself in the same situation as they do now, without anyone to pin the blame on.

    They should have took him to the cleaners when they had the chance.

  • azix2 #43 1 year ago

    Why would this guy agree to this rubbish? He has the financial backing of so many people so wtf would he give give up for?

    as a hacker how can you sign on to any of this? What if he finds himself confronted with a sony product again? Why submit to this limitation on himself? All anyone needs to do now, for example, is put a sony bit in their product and he is shot
    Edited by azix2 at 12/04/11 @ 18:22

  • vizzini #44 1 year ago

    I was unhappy by Hotz attempts at hacking the PS3 and the resulting action by SCEI or SCEA to remove the OtherOS feature in f/w.

    But reading this ongoing Class Action suit against Sony for OtherOS removal in fw 3.21 and the timing of SCEA offering Hotz favourable terms to settle, I do think that the judge's decision to allow the Class action suit to continue on 31 March 2011 has been the catalyst for this settlement.

    At some point the OtherOS might need to be returned by Sony Corporation(US?Japan?) to allow SCEI (Japan) to avoid getting drawn into legal action by US customers, who are unlikely to let the OtherOs matter drop.
    Edited by vizzini at 12/04/11 @ 19:23

  • chessboxer #45 1 year ago

    @TelexStar

    The difference (as I understand it) is that a mobile phone by design is made to work on different operator's networks in various regions around the world. The jailbreaking mobile phones law was passed because they deemed that locking the phone to a single operator in the US (I think it was AT&T) without the option to use it on another network was unfair.

    A console is not designed that way. None of the consoles that have been created were made with the ability of running an alternative OS or network whilst still giving access to the devices originally intended functionality.

    If hackers really want to make custom firmware for the PS3, then should create an OS from the ground up without reverse engineering/decompiling any of Sony's original code. This custom firmware would also have to install itself without compromising any of the security measures that Sony put in place in its own official firmware and it must not gain access to the PSN or compromise the secuirty of any officially created software/applications for the PS3, which obviously includes things such as games and the PS Store.

  • superdelphinus #46 1 year ago

    I should think he got a fairly cuntingly large order for costs

  • superdelphinus #47 1 year ago

    "Wrong. If they didn't, Sony would have swept in for the kill in court and get a definitive judgement rather than a settlement. "

    Do u understand what an injunction is?

  • kimchibaka #48 1 year ago

    weebl #42

    'I'm dead against everything that circumventing security brings (even though some good can come out of it - think Kinect), but for someone as undoubtedly clever as Hotz you would think that he would have realised that remaining anonymous is the only way to remain out of trouble.

    Now he'll disappear from public view, collaborate with others and Sony will find itself in the same situation as they do now, without anyone to pin the blame on.

    They should have took him to the cleaners when they had the chance.'

    1) Indeed, Microsoft have (so far) embraced the Kinect hacks.

    2) He won't work with others on Sony, even anonymously. See the penalties in the settlement for doing just that. He's publicising a boycott of Sony products, and the new post from today on his blog throws his weight behind the class action lawsuit regarding OtherOS. It may very well be that the way that's shaping up led to him settling with Sony.

    3) If they'd had a chance to 'take him to the cleaners', they would have. On each and every point raised so far his legal team have outwitted Sony's (and pretty easily it must be said). For a lawsuit from a company who were SO sure of winning, with a virtually bottomless legal fund, why have they been so keen to settle? Think about it - it's the key point here. And one I can't believe the article even bothers raising.

    I've spent an hour or two reading Hotz's blog, replies to it, and other interesting pieces today like [link url=http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2011/02/sonys-war-on-makers-hackers-and-innovators.html.
    ]http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2011/02...[/link]

    Basically, as entertaining as it is to read so many uninformed comments on EG, the article itself is very poor journalism with nary any research, and most people are wasting their time trying to get any decent news on this here (I realise now I was one of them, but no longer!)

  • kimchibaka #49 1 year ago

    parsnip
    12/04/11 @ 19:00
    Ignore poster | #46

    Didn't take long for someone to give it the old "If i buy a car..." story

    Jesus Fucking Christ . It's not the same thing. AT ALL.

    I'm glad this is over. Hopefully Geotwat has learnt something valuable from it.

    Bet he's happy knowing he isn't going to get bummed in the showers now.
    ---------------------------------------------------------

    No, as someone very eloquently put it (and much more so than I will because I'm both tired and lazy) in Hotz's blog comments, it's more similar to buying a book.

    The words are copyrighted (just like the lines of code that make up pieces of software). It's illegal to copy it and distribute it. BUT, once you buy that book you're free to do with the contents what you like otherwise. Want to white out some of the words and put your own in? Yes, you can alter it in any way you want. Want to tell your friends to do the same? No problem legally. Want to read it upside down, back-to-front etc? If the copyright holder came along and told you to stop doing that you'd laugh them away.

    As for your shower comment, you do know that a civil case doesn't involve prison, don't you?

    Edited by kimchibaka at 12/04/11 @ 21:03

  • chessboxer #50 1 year ago

    The situation with MS and Kinect is different because Kinect is a peripheral that is sold without any copyrighted firmware attached to it for people to use it on Windows or any other PC OS. People seem to be writing their own drivers to get it to work.

    If people were hacking the 360's OS and decompiling MS code to get it to work or if these hacks were being done on the 360 due to someone reverse engineering and publishing encryption keys which made game piracy easy, we may have seen a different response coming from MS about the whole situation. Lest we forget that MS do actually ban consoles found to be running modified DVD firmwares and jtag 360s.

  • zedzee #51 1 year ago

    So, Sony won.

  • superdelphinus #52 1 year ago

    It's not like buying a car or buying a book. It's very specifically like buying a ps3 under a user licence and then adapting in ways which do or may aide infringements of intellectual property rights, or break other areas of various licences at various stages. It's a relatively new area of law. A car is irrelevant because it is a transfer of title, a ps3 is basically a plastic box filled with things that have had their ip concerns licenced to you

  • oupe #53 1 year ago

    Oh noes! Hundreds of corporate fanboys were robbed of their Hotz' bumsex-in-jail fantasies!

    Now, about that Gary Mod.

  • ShiftyGeezer #54 1 year ago

    @kimchibaka - Kinect hasn't been hacked - that was crap reporting by journalists who wrongly used the term. It's just had custom drivers created, like PSEye did on PC, and many, many other USB devices. MS are just as happy to use their legal powers to get what they want. There are no 'nice companies' who'll see large losses through activities they can (try to) stop but who choose to do nothing out of the goodness of their hearts and a respect for human freedoms!

  • dnd #55 1 year ago

    "Hotz (and his "servants";) must permanently restrain from..."

    don't u mean refrain?

  • alegl5141 #56 1 year ago

    Why would Anonymous claim credit, when the results of this case do not favor Hotz in any way, shape or form.

    Were they not fighting for him? Or did Sony want to sue the bitch for every last cent that he and his family possess?

  • alegl5141 #57 1 year ago

    Secondly, Hotz evidently had no desire to keep his modifications to himself, otherwise they wouldn't have leaked now would they?