|
Subpoenas in SCEA v. Hotz Issue, Subject to Motions to Quash - Updated |
|
Friday, March 11 2011 @ 11:04 AM EST
|
The telephone conference with the parties in Sony Computer Entertainment America v. Hotz and the magistrate judge, Hon. Joseph Spero, went off as scheduled, and the sparse minutes are now available. The subpoenas are issuing now. The transcript won't be available until June 8, unfortunately. I wish the courts would consider a shorter time period of embargo. Here's the operative bit from the minutes:
Pursuant to the Order signed on 3/3/11, docket no. 90,
it is ordered that the issuance of the subpoenas is without prejudice to
the subpoenaed party to file a Motion to Quash. Any information provided
pursuant to the subpoena shall be provided on an “Attorneys’
Eyes” only.
Court issued rulings on the record as to docket nos. 85 and 86. Plaintiff to prepare Order, with agreed to form by Defendant, no later than the close of business on 3/14/11. No.85 was the joint letter to the judge about discovery, with some issues not resolved by the parties, and
No. 86 was the joint letter regarding impoundment issues. So the judge has now decided those issues, and since Sony is doing the order, it won more than Hotz, I gather. We'll find out when Sony files the orders by the 14th of this month.
Here are the filings:
03/10/2011 - 92 - Minute
Entry: Telephonic Discovery Hearing held on 3/10/2011 before Joseph C.
Spero. (Court Reporter Lydia Zinn.) (klh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed:
3/10/2011) (Entered: 03/10/2011)
03/10/2011 - 93 - Transcript of Proceedings held on 03/10/2011, before
Judge Joseph C. Spero. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lydia Zinn, Telephone
number (415) 531-6587. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference
policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public
terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber
until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that
date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request
Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date
of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/8/2011.
(Zinn, Lydia) (Filed on 3/10/2011) (Entered: 03/10/2011)
[ Update: The judge has issued an order on March 15, allowing SCEA to get information from PayPal on source of funds between January 1, 2009, to February 1, 2011. And here is the docket entry of the order, with related filings:
03/14/2011 - 94 - Letter from
[Joint] Plaintiff SCEA and Defendant George Hotz re Proposed Order for
March 10, 2011 Hearing. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2
Exhibit 2,
# 3 Exhibit
3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5
Exhibit 5,
# 6 Exhibit
6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8
Exhibit 8,
# 9 Exhibit
9, # 10 Exhibit
A)(Smith, Mehrnaz) (Filed on 3/14/2011) (Entered: 03/14/2011)
03/14/2011 - 95 - MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Yasha
Heidari ( Filing fee $ 275, receipt number 34611057493.) filed by George
Hotz. (Attachments: # 1 receipt, # 2 proposed order)(ys, COURT STAFF)
(Filed on 3/14/2011) (Entered: 03/15/2011)
03/15/2011 - 96 - ORDER RE
MARCH 10, 2011 TELEPHONIC HEARING RE JONT LETTER ON IMPOUNDMENT ISSUES
AND JOINT LETTER ON DISCOVERY. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on
3/15/11. **Please note change on page 3, line 12**(klh, COURT STAFF)
(Filed on 3/15/2011) (Entered: 03/15/2011)
So, another lawyer for Hotz, and the Paypal issue is resolved. Note that Exhibit 2 attached to #94 is a transcript of the telephonic hearing. It's fascinating, in that it was the judge that says, before the parties even speak a substantive word, that he requires Sony to add information to the subpoenas advising the parties being subpoenaed that they have the right to file a motion to quash: I did sign the order authorizing the issuance of the subpoenas that you both agreed that should be issued. And we'll deal with the rest of the discovery disputes today. I did want to emphasize two things about the subpoenas that were issued; and also, to the extent I authorize a PayPal subpoena, what my intent is with respect to those. And my intent, number one, is that the information that's
produced pursuant to those subpoenas will be attorneys' eyes
only, under the protective order; and second, that it will be
without prejudice, obviously, to the subpoenaed parties or
anyone else who's got standings, prejudice -- without prejudice
to their right to file a motion to quash. And what I would order you to do is make sure, when you serve those subpoenas or any other subpoenas I authorize, that you make sure you advise the subpoenaed parties that they have the right to file a motion to quash. On the discovery disputes, I thought we'd just go
down them, one by one. The first is a PayPal subpoena. This is -- it seems to me the relevancy of the PayPal information is limited to
whether or not the source of funds that are paid into the
PayPal account associated with the "geohot" g-mail address the location from which those funds are paid may be of some relevance, but the documents, beyond that narrow scope, I don't see particularly interesting, because we want to find out whether or not it's being paid by California residents. And so my thought was I would authorize a subpoena to the PayPal account only to the extent that you could obtain
documents sufficient to identify the source of funds, including location of the source of those funds deposited into a PayPal account -- any PayPal account associated with the geohot~gmail.com from January of 2009 to the present; but
otherwise, narrow it to that, but no further.... MS. SMITH [SCEA]: One
concern I have with the proposal that you're
making is that PayPal may have difficulty providing us information limited to -- in other words, it may be easier for PayPal to give us all of the information, rather than the information limited to the California residents.
THE COURT: Yeah. Well, easier is one issue. Easier doesn't necessarily cut it. There are lots of things that are easier, and it may or may not be easier.
It may or may not be impossible. It depends on -- it's a matter of degree. So I
don't know about easier; whether that would justify getting
information; but you agree that the question that is relevant
is -- is to identify whether or not, and how much, and how many California residents paid into that account?
MS. SMITH: Yes, your Honor. We agree with that.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Well, then, I'll limit
it, as requested.
I will limit it to documents sufficient to
identify any source of funds in California that went into that PayPal account -- any PayPal account associated with geohot~g-mail.com for the period January 1, '09, to February 1, '11. And ask the plaintiff to redraft their subpoena
accordingly. So that's the PayPal account. So it was the judge who thought about the recipients of the subpoenas, not the parties. That's what judges are for, of course, but it's nice to see. It's also relevant to a later argument between the parties. Hotz insists the subpoenas have to be redone, while SCEA argues they don't, but this indicates to me that they do. The cutoff date for PayPal ended up being February 1, because Hotz set up a legal defense fund in February, whereas Sony had asked for it to be all the way to the present. As you see, the judge is genuinely trying to be fair to both parties, not just Sony. - End update.]
Meanwhile, Sony has prevailed against LG in the Netherlands, getting the court to lift the seizure order, according to GamingUnion.net:
It was revealed today that the court order had been lifted, with LG being fined USD$180,000 in legal fees and an additional $275,000 for every day that they fail to pay up. While this only concerns the prejudgement order and not the actual Blu-Ray Disc patents case, it is still good news for Sony, who can now continue shipping and distributing PS3s across Europe.
Sony's lawyer said that they are willing negotiate with LG to settle the patent dispute, as well as all other cases with the company, including a clash with subsidiary, Zenith, over digital TV patents; as well as claims Sony made against LG, alleging that some LG smartphones infringe on Sony patents - "but not with a knife at the throat," supposedly referring to the prejudgement seizure order. The first hearing for the Blu-Ray Disc case is currently scheduled for November 18 this year.
The Daily Mail confirms:As it now stands, LG could be facing a large claim for damages.
A Sony spokesman said today: 'At a court hearing in the Hague yesterday, Sony's arguments were accepted and the seizure order was lifted.
We understand that there will now be no problem re-starting imports of the PlayStation 3 to Europe.' The scary part of this story is that according to the Guardian's account, the police not only were authorized by the now-lifted order to seize PS3s in warehouses and stores but they had authority to enter private homes to grab purchased products: Dutch police have seized several thousand PlayStation 3s at Sony's biggest European warehouse in the latest stage of its acrimonious patent battle with LG.
LG has won a court order enabling it to seize all new PS3 across the Netherlands – including those already in Dutch homes – in a dispute that centres on Sony's allegedly infringing use of Blu-ray technology belonging to LG.
Time to buy only with cash, I guess. Patent law has gone nuclear. These laws really don't believe that when you pay for something, it belongs to you after the sale. I know. They see patent infringement like robbing a liquor store. They might want to read this scholarly paper [PDF] on how patents lead to stagnation. The abstract:A country's most talented people typically organize production by others, so they can spread their ability advantage over a larger scale. When they start firms, they innovate and foster growth, but when they become rent seekers, they only redistribute wealth and reduce growth. Occupational choice depends on returns to ability and to scale in each sector, on market size, and on compensation contracts. In most countries, rent seeking rewards talent more than entrepreneurship does, leading to stagnation. Our evidence shows that countries with a higher proportion of engineering college majors grows faster; whereas countries with a higher proportion of law concentrators grows more slowly. Do you not see that in the current patent wars?
And the other news in this picture is that the plaintiffs in the class action regarding OtherOS being removed from PS3 have filed their amended complaint. We're working on a text version for you.
|
|
Authored by: red floyd on Friday, March 11 2011 @ 11:33 AM EST |
So PJ can find them.
Hints as to the location in the message body, and a brief description in the
title (e.g. rong => wrong) would be useful.
---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: red floyd on Friday, March 11 2011 @ 11:36 AM EST |
On topic posters will have to become a creditor in Judge Gross' court.
---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Sony gets PS3 import ban lifted - Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, March 11 2011 @ 11:43 AM EST
- Amusing scoring on ZDNet quiz - Authored by: David on Friday, March 11 2011 @ 11:49 AM EST
- Is virus scan software a violation of eula's? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 11 2011 @ 12:19 PM EST
- Has SJVN dropped the ball? - Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, March 11 2011 @ 12:58 PM EST
- Tuning to benchmarks ... - Authored by: Wol on Friday, March 11 2011 @ 01:14 PM EST
- Has SJVN dropped the ball? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 11 2011 @ 01:19 PM EST
- 64 bit vs 32 bit - Authored by: pem on Friday, March 11 2011 @ 01:29 PM EST
- 64 bit vs 32 bit - Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, March 11 2011 @ 03:51 PM EST
- 64 bit vs 32 bit - Authored by: dio gratia on Friday, March 11 2011 @ 03:55 PM EST
- 64 bit vs 32 bit - Authored by: greed on Friday, March 11 2011 @ 04:09 PM EST
- Misses the point - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 11 2011 @ 04:47 PM EST
- 64 bit vs 32 bit - Authored by: NobodyYouKnow on Friday, March 11 2011 @ 05:04 PM EST
- 64 bit vs 32 bit - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 11 2011 @ 08:13 PM EST
- Thats what made me switch to Linux - Authored by: Kilz on Friday, March 11 2011 @ 09:03 PM EST
- 64 bit vs 32 bit - Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, March 12 2011 @ 04:41 AM EST
- 64 bit vs 32 bit - Authored by: jjs on Saturday, March 12 2011 @ 07:43 AM EST
- What is 64-bit? - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Saturday, March 12 2011 @ 10:48 AM EST
- Linux is 64 bit... - Authored by: jesse on Friday, March 11 2011 @ 02:09 PM EST
- I've been running x64 windows for years... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 11 2011 @ 03:06 PM EST
- 64 bit unix - Authored by: jjs on Saturday, March 12 2011 @ 07:40 AM EST
- Righthaven business model under attack - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, March 11 2011 @ 03:07 PM EST
- Market Summery for NOVL - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 11 2011 @ 04:17 PM EST
- Wikileaks: Court upholds US subpoena for twitter records - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, March 11 2011 @ 08:07 PM EST
- Nokia: Transition to Windows Phone to take about two years - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 11 2011 @ 08:12 PM EST
- EA want to be Sony - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 11 2011 @ 10:54 PM EST
- So...? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 12 2011 @ 01:05 AM EST
- Retroactive Drug Monopoly Raises Rates From $10... To $1,500 - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 11 2011 @ 11:28 PM EST
- Son of ACTA in the works. - Authored by: complex_number on Saturday, March 12 2011 @ 02:29 AM EST
- Chernobyl 2...... - Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, March 12 2011 @ 06:20 AM EST
- Finally changed to Debian on AMD64 - Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, March 12 2011 @ 03:26 PM EST
- European Court of Justice rejects stem-cell patents - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Saturday, March 12 2011 @ 03:59 PM EST
- Google Android Security Patch Trojanised - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 12 2011 @ 05:13 PM EST
- OT: NFL in court - Authored by: Peter H. Salus on Saturday, March 12 2011 @ 05:55 PM EST
- NASA's Open Source Summit 2011 - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 12 2011 @ 06:37 PM EST
- this is worrying - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 13 2011 @ 09:24 AM EDT
- $60k damages awarded AGAINST blogger who reported truth - "tortious interference" - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 13 2011 @ 01:55 PM EDT
- Financier gets a "super-injunction" prohibiting the press from revealing that he is a banker - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 13 2011 @ 02:22 PM EDT
|
Authored by: red floyd on Friday, March 11 2011 @ 11:38 AM EST |
Please put the title of the newspick in the title of your post, assuming you're
starting a new subthread.
---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: red floyd on Friday, March 11 2011 @ 11:39 AM EST |
Please follow the usual procedures.
---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Friday, March 11 2011 @ 02:04 PM EST |
Patents. It's all about greed any more.
I wonder how much good money spent on litigation trying to strangle competitors
could have accomplished had it been spent on innovating and cooperating instead.
Look at open source software, for example. Vastly superior to proprietary, and
at a fraction of the expense, and especially when you include all the money
spent on litigation by proprietary companies trying to destroy each other and
competition in general.
Wasn't it Bill Gates himself who said if we had had patents 20 years ago like we
have today, the software industry would be at a standstill? What's any different
about today? Why are people now trying to kill each other with patents, when all
it does is lead to stagnation?
Like I said, it's all about greed. Pure and simple.
---
"It is written." always trumps, "Um, ah, well, I thought..."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Patent stupidity - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 11 2011 @ 05:10 PM EST
- re: billg - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 12 2011 @ 01:08 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 11 2011 @ 02:28 PM EST |
I'm still concerned about the jurisdiction part of this
process.
SCEA said that Hotz can be summonsed to California if people
in California visited his website because that counts as
doing business there. The judge thinks that's a compelling
enough reason that his host needs to be subpoenaed to find
out.
That's huge. If it's that simple then anyone running a
website can be summonsed almost anywhere.
Has this happened before? Is there actual law or cases
behind it or is it just this judge playing by ear?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pem on Friday, March 11 2011 @ 02:53 PM EST |
Mention was made in an earlier article about how BlueHost just rolled over on
subpoenas.
To the extent that Sony is just looking to tie IP addresses to geographic
location, the privacy implications may not be that bad.
To the extent that Sony wants to go after people who visited the websites,
another level of subpoenas (to the anonymous users' ISPs) will be required in
order to actually unmask the identities.
So either make sure you have a good ISP, or do all your surfing through an
anonymizing proxy...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Bystander on Friday, March 11 2011 @ 06:03 PM EST |
The scholarly paper cited, "The Allocation of Talent: Implications for
Growth", written by Kevin Murphy, Andrei Shleifer, and Robert Vishny, actually
talks about how exceptionally talented people choose between pursuing
opportunities involving entrepreneurship, working for others, or rent-
seeking.
Access to the published paper requires a subscription, but a pre-
print version
is available online.
Pre-pr
int draft of cited paper
The authors do not say that patents lead to
stagnation. On page 3, they
say this:
Finally, the
compensation contract--how much of the rents on their talent
the superstars can
capture--determines the sector's attractiveness to talent.
For example, if
returns to innovation are not protected by patents and cannot
be captured by an
entrepreneur, entrepreneurship becomes less attractive.
When individual output
is difficult to measure or is not sufficiently rewarded
when measured, talented
people are underpaid. Teamwork without attribution
is unattractive to
superstars, as is horizontal equity. The more of the rents on
her talent a
superstar can keep, the more likely she is to join a
sector.
The authors go on to say, starting on page
4:
In different countries and time periods, talented people
chose occupations in
which it was the most attractive to be a superstar. When
markets in a country
are large and when people can easily organize firms and
keep their profits,
many talented people become entrepreneurs. Examples of such
countries
might be Great Britain during the Industrial Revolution, the United
States in
the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, and some East Asian
countries
today.
Which activities the most talented
people choose can have significant effects
on the allocation of resources. When
they become entrepreneurs, they
improve the technology in the line of business
they pursue, and as a result,
productivity and income grow. In contrast, when
they become rent seekers,
most of their private returns come from
redistribution of wealth from others
and not from wealth creation. As a result,
talented people do not improve
technological opportunities, and the economy
stagnates. Landes [1969]
believes that the differential allocation of talent is
one of the reasons why
England had the Industrial Revolution in the eighteenth
century but France
did not. In more recent times, the allocation of talent to
the rent-seeking
sectors might be the reason for stagnation in much of Africa
and Latin
America, for slow growth in the United States, and for success of
newly
industrializing countries where these sectors are
small.
The important point being made by the authors is that
extremely talented
people will gravitate towards fields where they can be
rewarded for their
talents. Growth occurs when the rewards for entrepreneurship
are greater
than the rewards for other activities, particularly non-productive
rent
seeking.
Moreover, a country with large wealth but slow
growth is especially attractive
for rent seeking. The reason is that new goods
often have more than unitary
income elasticity of demand, and therefore future
growth is essential for the
profitability of innovation. Slow growth then
reduces the attractiveness of
innovation and entrepreneurship. This logic
suggests that the productivity
growth slowdown can be self-sustaining: as
talent leaves entrepreneurship
and growth slows, the returns to
entrepreneurship fall further relative to those
to rent seeking. We thus expect
rent seeking to prosper in countries with
substantial wealth and slow growth,
such as the United States and Argentina
today.
If talented
people cannot feel that they can be properly rewarded for their
talents by
being innovative in technological fields, they may well be motivated
to take up
other fields such as lawyering. What the authors are saying is that
this
transition can be a self-feeding process, as fewer entrepreneurs leads to
lower
growth, which leads to even further disincentives for
entrepreneurs.
Patents can have both positive and negative effects on
providing
extremely talented entrepreneurs with incentives to innovate. The
authors
seem to feel that innovation largely comes from the activities of a
relatively
small number of exceptionally talented individuals. This perhaps
explains why
our present patent system doesn't seem to work well. With too many
patents
being issued, and the majority being issued to large corporations for
relatively
minor variations on existing technology, the truly exceptional
innovators have
less opportunity to stand out. Patents would work more like
they are intended
if they were limited to real significant advances, and they
more readily
acknowledged and rewarded the accomplishments of the real
innovators.
--bystander1313 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tolerance on Friday, March 11 2011 @ 06:45 PM EST |
PJ's comment about the patent seizure law were partly based on a Guardian
article which has since been amended:
"This article was amended on 3 March to clarify the role of the civil court
of justice in the Hague in this injunction.
The court only serves to grant the LG's lawyer's application to have power of
attorney for the company on this matter.
Once this is granted, the attorney can then order EU customs officials to
blockade imports of this product."
So it's not the EU Civil Court ordering customs to impound the PS3s. It's LG
itself, through its attorney.
---
Grumpy old man[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DCFusor on Friday, March 11 2011 @ 10:01 PM EST |
Which kind of tells you something about how their corporate culture must be.
Would not all this action have originated with this guy?
Bloomberg link --- Why
guess, when you can know? Measure it! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 12 2011 @ 07:43 PM EST |
A famous general once said the best way to win a war is not to play by the
oppositions game plan. I don't know the reference but the logic makes sense.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: drwh on Monday, March 14 2011 @ 09:07 AM EDT |
A blog hosted by the The New Scientist is reporting that version 3.6 of the PS3's firmware fixes the "damage"
caused by Hotz's work, and speculates on the implications of the fix to the
lawsuit... However the article reports that there is doubt that the hole has
been permanently filled [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 14 2011 @ 12:57 PM EDT |
"Time to buy only with cash, I guess."
That will only work for you as long as you don't connect to the internet. If
you have a PS3, do you think it can't be found if it is on line? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|