Geohot Files Opposition to Sony Restraining Order

Geohot has filed his opposition to Sony's motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Order of Impoundment that was brought against him because of the PS3 jailbreak.

His attorney Stewart Kellar notes that George Hotz is not a resident of California and does not fall under its jurisdiction.

Mr. Hotz is not a resident of California, does not consent to jurisdiction in California, intends to file a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and requests this court delay hearing on this TRO until after the court has ruled on such Motion to Dismiss.


Kellar states that Sony is merely trying to scare individuals from using their products in a way it doesn't approve of and reveals that they only provided Hotz with documentation hours before a preliminary hearing in California. (Hotz lives in New Jersey).

Geohot's filing makes it clear that he doesn't classify himself as a hacker, doesn't have any affiliation with the other defendants, and has not produced, manufactured, sold, nor does he have any intent whatsoever to produce, manufacture, or sell, any devices that facilitate piracy or counterfeiting.

You can download the entire filing or look below for the introduction.




-----
INTRODUCTION:
This case is not about Sony Computer Entertainment America LLP ("Sony") attempting to protect its intellectual property or otherwise seek bona fide relief from the court. Rather, it's an attempt for Sony to send a message to any would-be individual that attempting to use any hardware it manufacturers in a way it does not deem appropriate will result in harsh legal consequences, irrespective of any legal basis or authority for such action. It is for this reason that Sony filed a motion for ex parte protective relief, complete with numerous misstatements of fact and law, and providing Mr. Hotz, who is a resident of New Jersey, with a copy of the documents mere hours before a preliminary hearing for this matter was set in this Court in California, denying Mr. Hotz's counsel the opportunity to file a properly-drafted response.

Contrary to Plaintiff's depiction, Mr. Hotz is a computer prodigy, a little over 21 years of age, that is well-known for his accomplishments in the field of iPhone development, such as for creating the ability to unlock the phone to provide for interoperability between various cellular network carriers. Mr. Hotz has also gained fame through his numerous accomplishments in the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair, and provided numerous interviews on major television networks including the Today Show, Fox, CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC. More recently, Mr. Hotz discovered the ability to install programs on the Playstation 3 Computer Entertainment System ("Playstation Computer"), which has angered Sony. Accordingly, Sony has filed this ex parte motion for relief, which is devoid of jurisdiction over Mr. Hotz, and which grossly mis-categorizes the underlying facts and fails to meet the minimum burden required to obtain the extraordinary relief it seeks.

As a cursory matter, Defendant Hotz vehemently objects to Plaintiff's attempt to classify him as a hacker and to assert, without authority or a good faith basis, that Defendant Hotz has any association or connection with Defendants "Bushing," Hector Cantero, Sven Peter and "Segher". It is also noteworthy that Plaintiff has asserted no basis for personal jurisdiction over Defendants "Bushing," Hector Cantero, Sven Peter and "Segher," leaving Plaintiff's basis for personal jurisdiction over Mr. Hotz based on a few incorrect and conclusory assertions regarding Mr. Hotz. Moreover, Defendant Hotz has not produced, manufactured, sold, nor does he have any intent whatsoever to produce, manufacture, or sell, any devices that facilitate piracy or counterfeiting.

Nonetheless, Mr. Hotz now responds to Sony's motion as follows, and demonstrates (1) Mr. Hotz does not have sufficient contacts with California to be subject to personal jurisdiction therein and any hearing on the TRO or any preliminary injunction should be delayed until a proper determination of personal jurisdiction can be made by this court; (2)SCEA has failed to satisfy the burden required to obtain the extraordinary relief it seeks, including for the impoundment of Mr. Hotz's personal computer and property; (3)an order at the TRO stage that shifts the burden of a preliminary injunction onto the Defendants is inequitable as the burden should remain with the moving party, SCEA.
-----