Top
670°

George Hotz Speaks in Detail – Exposes Sony; Calls Them Liars

After George Hotz’s battle with Sony in the court ended, the PlayStation 3 and iPhone hacker stated there’s much more to come from him in terms of information (regarding Sony). Well, he certainly wasn’t joking around as Geohot has revealed extensive details regarding the removal of the OtherOS feature and much more.

The story is too old to be commented.
movements2719d ago

I'm really tired of all this. This little attention seekers need a life.

MmaFan-Qc2719d ago Show
NewMonday2719d ago

When will this guy just wake up from denial and just realize how lame he is.

gamingdroid2719d ago (Edited 2719d ago )

Regardless of Hotz, doesn't this unsettle you as a consumer?

“You don’t have an ownership right in the software that Sony Computer allows you to use. That’s the whole point of the license agreement, it’s not an ownership interest, it is a privilege that Sony conveys on them.” Should I feel privileged to give you $300? If you take the privilege back, what can I do with my uncontested ownership physical PS3? If I stop using your software and install my own, you’ll sue me.

Not only that, but as we move forward all products will likely contain a computer and some software. If the manufacturer would like to reduce your access to said software, congratulations you got a paperweight!

We need a reform on the law to prevent companies from screwing consumers.

Ace_Man_62719d ago

I agree, this is getting bloody stupid, they've obviously realised that SONY has won this whole thing and now they've ran out of ideas.

Caleb_1412719d ago (Edited 2719d ago )

Sony are defending their IP - that's all it comes down to and if you are somehow threatening the balance and well being that online gamers expect then you can't expect Sony to simply stand idly by while their entire network is destroyed can you?

That's what this little pr**k doesn't seem to understand. He's 'whining' about Sony searching personal computers and PS3's but he also says that they're the 'representatives'. If you've somehow got yourself involved in this mess and Sony press charges against you, how can you not expect them to search your PC and PS3 for incriminating evidence as this is what the entire case revolves around? Don't piss on the snow and call it lemon slush Geohot. Then he goes on to say that Sony demanded to search someone's computer, even though he backed out of the suit. Do you think a person storing child pornography on their computer can simply 'back-out' of a case brought against them because it's infringing their privacy? Of course not! People are going to want that person brought to justice because he was in the wrong and if that person was in the wrong, Sony has every right to demand an inspection.

He's also taking things way out of context. He says how it 'unsettles him' that Sony says we don't have ownership rights in the PS3 software. Of course we bl**dy well don't! This all comes back to Sony wanting to maintain a fair and balanced online community which cannot be done if people are simply allowed to do what they want with their hardware and wanting to play online with other people at the same time.

I'm sick and tired of this guys face cropping up everywhere and I just had to vent - hopefully you guys agree.

colonel1792719d ago

these guys are just crying because haven't been able to fully hack the PS3 and Sony is giving them a hard time doing so. They were expecting to become popular and have their 15 min of fame by allowing homebrew apps on the PS3 but Sony is not letting them, and now they are trying to find excuses like little girls

PirateThom2719d ago (Edited 2719d ago )

Software has NEVER been owned by an end user. It's called an " end user licence agreement" and "licence" is the key word here, licence to use the software, not that you own the software.

This applies to games, applications and operating systems, including the PS3s. You're living in a fantasy world if you think you own ANY media you have.

Games, music, movies... technically, even lending them to a friend is a breach of the licence agreement, "unauthorised lending" is usually the term on the disc. Why do "rental" places exist? They pay MASSIVE fees to be given permission to loan them out.

Point is, you can't complain about ownership of something you don't own. The console is a delivery medium for said software, just as a disc would be for a game, worthless pieces of plastic with the software and licence being what you are paying to use.

Millah2719d ago (Edited 2719d ago )

I want to hear you try to somehow spin Sonys actions of demanding a plaintiffs computer and hard drive EVEN AFTER Sony scared them away from pursuing with the lawsuit. Yes, after the plaintiff gave up on the lawsuit, Sony still demanding access to that individuals computer and hard drive, which has no relevance to the case to begin with, despite the fact that the person was no longer seeking a lawsuit.

Give me a break. I LOVE my PS3/PS2/psx just as much as you guys, but that is just insane behavior for a company of Sonys size and stature. You guys need to understand that they are a CORPORATION, one that seeks money. Please stop actng like they are the savior to humanity.

I understand Sonys desire to maintain security for the PS3 and fully support that. I DON'T however support the way they are going about this. What they did to the person who brought a court case over otherOS removal is just downright wrong.

HolyOrangeCows2719d ago

GeoStealsCode is such a ridiculous hack.

"One of the new focuses of this blog will be following the OtherOS lawsuit. These class action lawsuits are the type that can bankrupt or do seriously financial harm to a company, and finally get Sony to realize that they are not above the law as they would like to believe"
-
LOL, he wishes. A class action lawsuit is HARDLY going to take down an entire corporation. Class action suits happen all of the time.

"And it’s still on everyone’s PS3 who didn’t update"
-
And the online attach rate is extremely high on the PS3. Most people updated and the future for the PS3 became more secure.

"They are whining to the court, saying they didn’t remove OtherOS and that they are just the messenger. And that they can’t get the documents and communications saying why because SCEI has them"
-
Yeah, SOOOOOOO much lamer of an excuse than "I didn't noes that SCEA existedz!" /s

"If I were the plaintiffs, the first thing I would have done is added SCEI and got a motion to compel on those docs"
-
And yet you didn't wait for it to happen...you settled. It's over. What might have been is no longer due to YOUR actions. So stop whining.

"they claim restoring Linux to your PS3 is “not only prohibited under Sony’s agreements, but is illegal” This is an example of a lie. EULAs are not law"
-
Breaking a signed agreement IS illegal, however...

"You don’t have an ownership right in the software that Sony Computer allows you to use. That’s the whole point of the license agreement, it’s not an ownership interest"
-
Welcome to economy 101, Geohack.

badz1492719d ago Show
gamingdroid2718d ago (Edited 2718d ago )

@PirateThom:

"Games, music, movies... technically, even lending them to a friend is a breach of the licence agreement, "unauthorised lending" is usually the term on the disc. Why do "rental" places exist? They pay MASSIVE fees to be given permission to loan them out."

Ever heard of first sale doctrine? It effectively ensures you can rent, sell or lend a legally obtained copy of copyrighted work once it is been sold!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
http://www.insideredbox.com...

@HolyOrangeCows:

"Breaking a signed agreement IS illegal, however... "

That is not entirely true either. It is NOT illegal to break an "Illegal Agreement". So if you signed a paper saying you are slave to someone else, but you later refused then it isn't illegal!

***It is only illegal to break a legal agreement!***

People really need to broaden their mind about the system before they make false assertions!!!

PirateThom2718d ago

That "first-sale doctrine" only covers resale and gifting, not lending.

And, based on that Wikipedia page, a case in 2004 was "lost" based on the EULA.

gamingdroid2718d ago (Edited 2718d ago )

Incorrect and incorect! It is completely legal to rent and lend a legally obtained copyrighted work.

It is the second or third sentence in the wikipedia article :

"The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell, lend or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained."

Redbox is a good example of this, where they sent employees out to buy large quantity of DVDs at retail for rental in their RedBox Kiosk and the movie studios really can't do jack squat.

This is well documented and can be found by searching Google.

Furthermore, did you read the case you referred to? It has nothing to do with the first sale doctrine. It has to do with a breach of EULAs (and also notice they also included the terms of *service*) by reverse engineering and distribution of the resulting software:

"Plaintiffs assert that the individual defendants breached the EULAs and TOU when they used reverse engineering to learn Blizzard's protocol and distributed the bnetd software on the Internet. Defendants contend that the EULAs and TOU in this case concern areas protected by the Copyright Act. Defendants assert that the Copyright Act preempts the state law of contracts and therefore plaintiffs' state law contract claim is preempted by the Copyright Act."

Source: http://www.freedom-to-tinke...

Learn your rights, know why you need to protect them then PROTECT THEM!

InTheKnow2718d ago

.
It looks like the fanboys will defend Sony no matter what. How is looking at people's home computers any of Sony's business? I said from the beginning, Geo needed better lawyers and Sony would of got a lot worse than an out of court settlement.

What I don't get is why no lawyers stepped up to take on Sony. Sony couldn't even prove geo new what Sony was, let alone if he even owned a PS3. Sony should of been fined 1 million dollars a day for wasting the courts time.

If someone does something wrong, Have him charged assuming your have reasonable grounds, take him to court and prove it. What Sony did was we THINK he is doing something wrong now give us permission to go into ALL aspects of his life and see IF we can find something.

I don't agree with piracy BUT I rather have piracy than big corporations running around abusing people's rights.

badz1492718d ago

"What Sony did was we THINK he is doing something wrong now give us permission to go into ALL aspects of his life and see IF we can find something.

I don't agree with piracy BUT I rather have piracy than big corporations running around abusing people's rights."

LOL what a spin! are you his lawyer or something? Sony "thinks" he did something wrong? he posted the key online, and admitted that he DID! what else are there to think for?

and that last statement means...you're a PIRATE then!

jerethdagryphon2718d ago

@ gaming droid.

such a thing would be unworkable because its not just consoles and such but everything..

such a law would basically say that companys lose ip rights when they release a physical product.

while homebrew could be nice its incredibly unlikly that it would only be used for homemade aplications

i buy a copy of windows im entitled to use it and add to it as long as i dont try to alter its core or reverse engeener it.

if a law like that was passsed to allow people more rights

then whats to stop one company from buy ing windows to rework direct x so it runs on linux or a mac or android..

companys lease and license software they dont sell it if they did it would be chaotic

imaginary company linsoft releases doors there new os and a law comes into place saying purchesres have rights over the software...

so they lose the ability to protect it which means bob who bough a copy makes copys and sells emto friends because its his software now..

it legalises piracy basically

DragonKnight2718d ago

I believe that most of you coming to EgoHot's defense and claiming Sony are infringing rights are forgetting two simple facts when an investigation like this is being done.

First, Sony will not be seeing or using anything. Just like the IP addresses in EgoHot's case, a third impartial party has to be assigned to find what Sony wants to locate. A very specific subpoena has to be made in order to gain access to that individuals computer so that personal and private information irrelevant to the case is not divulged. The impartial party will only be allowed to search for evidence pertaining to the case and nothing else. Privacy is protected even in this.

Second, the plaintiff's lawyers also have the right to use this evidence as they see fit. Full disclosure applies. Just like in EgoHot's case.

You're saying that the individual who backed out of the case shouldn't have been demanded to hand over evidence. It doesn't work that way. The individual bit off more than he could chew and tried to chicken out, but if there was reason to believe that he had illegal material in his possession, then Sony's rights are being upheld when they make a request to obtain that evidence.

If the issue is about rights, then remember that both sides have rights. Essentially what you're saying is that Sony's right to protect their industrial secrets and intellectual properties are irrelevant next to the rights of people to reverse engineer software they had no part in creating, and have no personal stake in. Sony can't stop anyone from removing their Sony's OS and installing their own. But they can stop people from taking their work and having it changed and modified. Especially if the modifications can be damaging to not only the company's bottom line, but the overall majority of individuals who expect a stable and fair online experience.

No individual rights have been violated here, the media is blowing this to unrealistic proportions and ignoring the facts. Sony would not be granted the use of any evidence that was a fundamental violation of basic rights, which are and always have been clearly stated in law.

By agreeing to an EULA, you are admitting that you paid for the hardware and are granted a LICENSE to use any software that comes with the hardware. You agree that the software is NOT your created work, and thus you have no claim to it and cannot change it. You agree that you do not have the right to then distribute an altered version of work you had no part in creating or have any stake in. These are legally binding terms. The only way these terms can be circumvented is if they are deemed to be unfair to either competition, or detrimental to the function of the product. It's all plain and simple.

You supporters of EgoHot like to talk a big game about your crusade for people's rights, but have you bothered to look deep into each case and see the real details? Or do you just take the biased opinions of "the scene" at face value, adding in your personal distaste of big corporations who are responsible for millions of jobs, and millions of dollars in charitable donations, and are made up of hundreds of people who want their rights to make an honest living off of hard work to be defended as well?

Perkel2718d ago (Edited 2718d ago )

@ DragonKnight

ok first things first:

EULA IS NOT A LAW. It's agreement.

LAW > EULA

My Country law say (poland) that features of buyed product can't be dependable on another agreement like EULA.

So they can't sell you product wich depend on digning new EULA in new firmwares.

So they can't remove other OS and they can't make you sign anything that removes any feature.

So if on my PS3 box is signed OTHER OS and PLAYSTATION 3 games no EULA can change that. If i go to shop and i see PLAYSTATION 3 game that game must run on all PS3 even with firmware from 2007.

This is my country LAW and even if i agree on EULA in doesn't mean EULA will change anything.

People think that EULA is law but it isn't

LAW>EULA always.

To make this clear for you people here is example:

You signed contract with your best friend that you will kill him. It's EULA

After you kill him EULA can't do anything because LAW says if you kill somebody you will go to jail.

This case applies to every country mine USa and other.

Same is with case of used coppies. USA LAW as someone posted allow you to sell YOUR game. EULA say you can't.

LAW>EULA and you can sell games that you bought.

So if there is a LAW that says OTHER OS CAN't be removed like OTHER OS. People have every right to change it or ask for money or including back Other os in new firmware even if they accepted Eula.

Also i can't comprehend why people defend Sony ?

- Sony removed feature that you bought same as blu ray or ps3 games.
- Sony tried to seize computers of people who sue Sony.
- In Geohot case they are side (SCEA) if it comes to playstation 3 and they independant from SCEI
In OTHER OS case they clearly say they are parent company to SCEI and can't get documents from them.

You think if this case is won by those poeple Sony won't sell you games anymore ? or will stop making PS3 ? Or will cut funding for better exclusives ?

No this won't happen it will teach Sony that they can't do anything they want with people products that they bought.

If on the box says : OTHER OS, PS3 GAMES, BLURAY MOVIES.

EVERY FEATURE MUST BE THERE IN 2010,2020,2030 and so on.

If you can't understand it you guys have been brainwashed.

Once more to be clear:

LAW>EULA ALWAYS

DragonKnight2718d ago

@Perkel: Laws in Poland are irrelevant to this issue. The fact remains that agreeing to the EULA is agreeing that you have been given a license. It IS a contract between you and Sony that you purchased hardware from them and have been granted a license to use their software. THAT is LAW. You are given a choice. Agree to the EULA and be given the access to the software under those conditions, or do not agree to the EULA and keep the PS3 as a paperweight.

EULA's are designed to show the rights of the buyer and the software author. As a buyer you have the right to use the software as per the terms of the EULA and can't be stopped from using the software as long as you agree to those specified terms. As the software author Sony has the right to maintain control over their industrial secrets and protect their financial investment as the principal owners and creators of a unique intellectual property. The law cannot force companies to divulge or allow the distribution of their industrial secrets.

Now then, the EULA and TOS of pretty much any product on the face of the planet states that the rights holder to said product is granted permission, upon acceptance of said agreement by the end user, to change/revise the product WITHOUT prior notice so long as the change or revision does not hamper the basic functional purpose of the device. OtherOS was NOT an advertised feature, it was NOT a critical feature necessary to the basic function of the PS3 (which is a multimedia gaming console), and when you clicked on "Accept" you acknowledged that you knew Sony was telling you that they reserve the right to change any part of their proprietary software and you were completely ok with it.

Your rights as a consumer were not infringed upon as the basic function of the PS3 is still very much secure, stable, and as strong as ever. YOU AGREED to the terms and therefore have no right to b*tch. Especially over a less than minimally used feature.

Know your TRUE rights. If anything Sony changes or removes prevents you from playing games, music, or videos, then you have the right to be outraged and Sony would lose a class action lawsuit. But in this instance, it is the same as any software company removing older features from older versions of their software in an update that you download and agree to install.

Would you sue MS for features removed from Windows 7 that were in Windows XP?

captain-obvious2718d ago

he sounds sooooooooooo butthurt and angry

Saladfax2718d ago

Here's an interesting thought about EULAs.

Most of these agreements are reached after purchase and installation. In essence, you buy the thing, and then you agree to the EULA. If you, for example, read the agreement and decide to say no to the stipulations found within, you happen to be completely out of luck.

Couple this with the fact that at least certain types of titles can't be returned to the store any longer (as in, someone bought up store copies of Cataclysm, grabbed the CD-keys, and tried to return them), and suddenly you have your end of the bargain held up: money is paid but no good/service has been received. Technically speaking, all requirements and agreements should be reached prior to any sort of purchase, or at least materials regarding the EULA should be made readily available for perusal.

But it doesn't work that way at all. In addition, a EULA is, as other people have mentioned, not law, but sort of a contract. You agree to certain terms found within, but it's not necessarily legally binding.

Think of it like an apartment rental contract. In Minnesota, the landlord is responsible for monetary upkeep internally and externally (lightbulbs, smoke alarm batteries, lawn mowing, etc.) However, many landlords will put stipulations in the contract saying they can take money out of the deposit for missing lightbulbs or some such. In addition, they can also "require" tenants to maintain lawn or charge them fees if they don't.

Just because a tenant signs the contract agreeing to the stipulations doesn't make them legal, and landlords can get in serious trouble for putting in illegal requirements. However, often times they get away with it because people aren't aware of specific laws.

Now, obviously software law is a long way behind a lot of other places, but I seriously think cases will be coming up soon that challenge the legality of stipulations found in the EULAs.

Mostly I'm thinking it will start regarding privacy issues, as in how much personal data programs are allowed to mine from your computer and habits.

jadenkorri2718d ago

@ InTheKnow
seriously, you don't know anything, sony got the IP's for evidence, not to look at whats on my computer or yours, they got it to prove distribution of the security code information Geohot released about the ps3.

"What I don't get is why no lawyers stepped up to take on Sony. Sony couldn't even prove geo new what Sony was."

Are you freaking serious, prove what sony was. I'm not even gonna bother.

If geohot did nothing wrong, then he would of stuck it out to win, he settled with sony cause he was gonna lose. He knew it, his lawyers knew it, thats why. Were probably never gonna know the real reason because hes bound by a gag order under the settlement.

ComboBreaker2718d ago

Sony tried to end the lawsuit with class and style, so GoeHot doesn't lose face, and instead,
GeoHot goes around, whinning like a sore loser, "whah wah wah!!!"

Lame.

ComboBreaker2718d ago (Edited 2718d ago )

GeoHot: "Wah, wah, wah. Sony have no right to ask the court to search my computer after I have done something illegal. They're violating my right to privacy."

...is the same as...

Murderer: "Wah, wah, wah. The prosecutor have no right to ask the court to search my house after I have openly murdered someone in my basement and openly brag about it over the internet. They're voliating my right to privacy."

thats_just_prime2718d ago (Edited 2718d ago )

Well this one is really going to make the ps3 fangirls cry.

"The US District Court for the Western District of Washington has backed Vernor, though, in his claim that he owned the software and had the right to sell it on."

So $ony didnt own the software geohot did cause they sold it to him.

Saladfax "Most of these agreements are reached after purchase and installation. In essence, you buy the thing, and then you agree to the EULA"

That why does are not legally binding. you have to read and sign a contract for it to be legally before payfor services or buy something. Plus not everyone can enter legally agree to a EULA even if they want to. Minors cant agree to any kind of legal contract and that probably about 60% of p3 owner at least. people who are mentally retard cant either(that probably about 75% of ps3 owners).

Think of it like this when you go to buy a car you are given the paper to read and sign before they can take your moeny. You dont buy a car then get all the paperwork.

insomnium22718d ago

@perkel

EULA is a legally binding contract.

Christopher2718d ago (Edited 2718d ago )

@thats_just_prime: Completely different. That case is about selling one's license, not about modifying and then freely distributing.

The article itself is very poorly written up front and does not speak towards the actual case's precedent until mid way through, which is that users have the right to sell the Discs, digital copies, and licenses that they purchase to others.

It is not about giving them the right to edit the code and redistribute it without giving up their rights to the license they previously agreed to. Nor is it about giving them the right to create patches that edit the code on their or someone else's machine. The IP is still in the ownership of the company, just the copy is owned by the user and may be resold as they see fit.

This is not an issue with the PS3 considering A) second-hand sales of consoles and game software are already legal and B) PSN software is already provided for free and therefore reselling it just doesn't make any sense.

hiredhelp2718d ago

gamingdroid. apone reading what you stated.
as for sony owning the fact is alot of company's with whatever item they sell hardware wise have terms and condition's mainly loop holes.

as im reading this this sounds like its been read from a statement by his lawer from money silly people threw at him. when there was other people looksing loved ones and homes in japan.

i agree they are getting desperate even the latest news on annonymous look desperate they gonna make the biggest attack we ever seen. yet asking for people same time in video to step up. like wtf if you soo big why dont u do it take of your f*cking masks at least hotz doesnt hide give him that.

This is getting ridiculas we cant take everything that has been said because we wernt there we dont know what was said. and yet not long he was out of court he wouldnt give no statement no comment.

Sony has always been against piracey since the playstation 1 day's im all with sony removing the linux ca'mon how many really used it WORLDWIDE. small percentage. sony trying to keep them safe and guess wot they get for it little sh*ts like this. they supposed to be for the ppl HA more like yourselvs. fuck i hate all of this sh*t Sony screw em over once and for all.

gamingdroid2717d ago (Edited 2717d ago )

You are wrong on so many counts, yet you point the finger at others and say "but have you bothered to look deep into each case and see the real details?"

If you read my comments (and others), did the research you will know that the law always supersede any agreements you make. Any agreement (including the EULA) is only legally binding if it is enforceable within the ramification of the law.

As Perkel said (and it works virtually the same in all countries including the US):

You cannot sign away your rights, and I repeate nor can you enforce an illegal agreement. It's plain and simple.

The LAW > EULA!

Now the interpretation of the law can be changed, and that is often contested in court.

However, there is no if's, but's, what's or when... I suggest you follow your own advice and do some more research!

@ComboBreaker:

Murderer: "Wah, wah, wah. The prosecutor have no right to ask the court to search my house after I have openly murdered someone in my basement and openly brag about it over the internet. They're voliating my right to privacy."

NO! I have simply looked up how to perform murder, not actually done it! Should anyone (including the government or corporation) have the right to inspect my privacy simply because I view material that may be offensive to others? I invoke my and others the freedom of speech and to listen/hear whatever I want even if it is offensive to you! That is the essence of free speech and is why the US is such a great country! I don't want to live in a country where the government or corporation can censor information (think how wonderful China's censoring is)!

Keep in mind that Sony isn't asking about only Hotz's record, it has other peoples information (ip and access log). That is the issue! Just clarifying since people are focusing on Hotz, but the issue isn't about Hotz. It's about Sony asking for information that breaches others privacy.

+ Show (26) more repliesLast reply 2717d ago
Rynx2719d ago Show
Oxymoron0282719d ago

@gamingdroid;

No, it doesn't. I brought the PS3 knowing damn well it was propriety hardware and software. I knew I'd never actually own the rights to it and that I'd just own a license.

TBM2718d ago

oh god why are there still articles about this douche bag? most of us gamers don't give two sh*ts what you think or say.

i wish these websites would just stop giving this guy the attention he's so desperately seeking.

moeqawama2718d ago

@TBM

Dude I swear to u I agree with you 100%. I don't know why the hell I keep seeing his ugly mug on the home page of N4G, or why people are still writing about him. It's getting on my last nerve

TBM2718d ago

@moe

Yea I don't understand it either are these sites that desperate for hits?

I mean with all the games releases, E3 coming around the corner why are we still talking about idiot hackers?

frostypants2718d ago Show
TheMrMadzen2718d ago

He's a motherfucking moron. "I started to reconsider if it was because of an exploit, that OtherOS got removed"
This idiot needs to realize, that nobody cares about this shitty feature, and that it was removed because of exploits. If it was patched YOU could maybe have exploited it again so Sony took it away. A useless piece of media, that nobody except you, Anonymous, Anon, every fucking one of you lousy hackers need, because without it, you will hopefully die out soon.
Hehe, can't wait :)

Just_The_Truth2718d ago

They can easily run any form of OS on any kind of computer. computers that are way more powerful than the ps3. It's not about rights, they're just mad they can't hack it anymore. Plus sony added the feature after the ps3 was released and never advertized it so they have the right to remove it if they want, no matter the reason. They are acting like babies trying to convince the world that Sony having control over their own software is a horrible thing if they want the other os so bad then don't update easy and buy another to play games this is just a vendetta that these spoils kids can't get. If you don't like sony get a xbox and mod all you want or better yet use your smarts to make a better machine and hack away but no they don't think logically they'd rather whine until someone give them the nipple.

debian_zac2718d ago (Edited 2718d ago )

just_the_truth

I agree with your point, however might i say the cell processor is the same one used in blade servers. thus the ps3 when clustered to cost equal that of 1 blade, they(the cluster) are more than 3 times as powerful. I could be wrong though if so could you let me know.

xAlmostPro2718d ago

As if im going to side with a hacker who also lies..

Hey.. how did you afford that vacation when you had a shit tonne of court fees to pay.. oh yeah those donations.. right..

You mentioned in the lawsuit things like never owning a game.. yet one of your first things shown with your exploit was involving a game..

No geo just no, you failed to get what you wanted.. hackers hate you.. you've lost a tonne of respect.. just disapear and use your skills to become a programmer or find a decent job that can provide you with a decent life

AyeGee2718d ago

*reads*

*next article*

DrFUD2718d ago

He seems as passionate about being lied to as I was when my 360 kept breaking while Microsoft lied about RROD not being an issue.
But even though I knew Microsoft screwed me and everybody I never wanted to attack Live or their websites.
My "attack" was to stop being a customer and taking my business elsewhere

xtremeimport2718d ago

when will this crybaby disappear? his picture makes me want to smack him. go out, get a job and make yourself useful to society

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 2717d ago
kyl2772719d ago (Edited 2719d ago )

He seems angry though what he did was illegal (releasing the code), he should just stay quiet. He was lucky to get away with only a minor penalty considering what could have happened if he had lost. It seems like he just wants attention, why not tell us where the donation money has gone instead of badmouthing sony the minute you settle, you can say what you want but the case only ended a very short time ago, try not to generate more negative press towards yourself.

Some choice quotes:

"get Sony to realize that they are not above the law"

"When OtherOS was first removed, I had no doubt it was due to the hypervisor exploit."

"OtherOS removal is a completely stupid step"

"They are whining to the court"

"Sony doesn’t expect to find “evidence” there, it’s just simply to harass the representatives."

"Basically if Sony does bad things, you better not call them out, or they’ll attempt to make your life hell."

theonlylolking2719d ago

"OtherOS removal is a completely stupid step considering no one had even done anything with the hack yet. And the exploit was totally patchable."

Then he(geohotz) and other hackers would just try to find a way pass the patch.

jerethdagryphon2718d ago

also he said in his blog on the hypervisor exploit. they cant patch it out

and hes right when he discusses what he did it cant be patched out without hardware revision and running some more programs to try to prevent what he did

MGRogue20172719d ago (Edited 2719d ago )

OtherOS is not going to be put back onto the PlayStation 3. Simple as.

Sony knows best.. & I believe in them to keep the system as secure as possible.

Perkel2718d ago

what Other Os have to do with security ?

If they will remove DVD/bluray movies playback because there is some exploit you will be happy ?

Same with every other feature you bought.

GameScrub2718d ago

Perkel I agree with you 100%, some people don't want to see the bigger picture and the bad precedence this suits can cause.

Mohdunknown2719d ago

I thought he came to peace with the matter with sony. He seems so butthurt after the court was over

prankster2719d ago

he's just trying to save face because of all the backlash he got from his supposed supporters after the settlement.

mastiffchild2718d ago

Yeah, he's tal,king loud but saying nothing which is a very usual position for a man who let his side down. I totally don't agree with him(or the barefaced lie that he "never imagined what he was doing might enable piracy" FFS-how stupid does he imagine people are?)but DO feel for those who paid him monies thinking the guy would at least stand up as the martyr he made himself out to be.

It was Hotz who made this a big moral issue and by taking the supposed high ground he set himself up to get these people to pay his fees because they expected him to fight it out for his rights as his rhetoric suggested he would do. Sadly, this is no Malcolm X and no Mandela and at the first chance of avoiding a ;proper penalty he saved his own hide-and now we get a lot of hot air which says nothing just in a lame attempt to put off those former supporters sick of his double dealing.

If I had supported this guy I'd be REAL sick of his BS and would have been the moment I heard he settled. When you hear that you know for certain that Sony got something they wanted from him-what he got is obvious(they dropped the case and didn't bankrupt the guy)what he offered them, though, must be bad because there's a lot of bleating from him which suggests to me he's REALLY let his side down and feels a bit guilty now it's all over. Probably ratted out all his mates.

No honour among thieves, i'm afraid and Hotz just proves it. While I don't agree with his position, mind, the hacker movement deserved better than a coward who looked after number one at the very first chance. Hotz is, to me at least, a poor example of humanity, a coward and someone who you shouldn't trust. If I was innocent and felt I was I would NEVER settle as people will always doubt you if you do that and even more when you use other people's cash to fund your case-he owes them something, much more than this rubbish.

Silly gameAr2719d ago

George, you're done. Go away.

Mystickay862719d ago

Agreed. The disagrees are apparently supporters of George, as their disagree clicking like crazy to every post here thus far that resents George. Freakin losers.

Zinc2719d ago

The only losers in life are those that don't pay attention to what's actually going on around them and putting it in its proper context. George isn't a loser and neither are those that agree with him.