3 ms·

Steam is a closed platform, but: It's easier to beat Valve's lawyers than Sony's. Sony has a long history of paying out the nose for lawyers who could convince

by kick 7y ago

Steam is a closed platform, but: It's easier to beat Valve's lawyers than Sony's. Sony has a long history of paying out the nose for lawyers who could convince a judge that a law saying "Kill no one" meant "Genocide is legal for Sony Corporation!" (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment_America,_Inc._v._Hotz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment_Am...) Apple and Microsoft are the two most valuable companies on the planet right now, and they, too, can get some great lawyers (though they haven't demonstrated the same courtroom magic that Sony has). I can't remember who originally was responsible for this quote, but "Nintendo is a pile of cash disguised as a video game company" is something that has been proven anything but incorrect over the past decades. Wouldn't want to pick a fight in any court with them, either. (Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Nintendo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Nintendo) Valve, though? Valve is worth little in comparison, and hasn't had a great history in court. Easy pickings. Then, after you win against Valve, you go up, using the precedent set to help you with the next target.

gruez 7y ago
>It's easier to beat Valve's lawyers than Sony's. Sony has a long history of paying out the nose for lawyers who could convince a judge that a law saying "Kill no one" meant "Genocide is legal for Sony Corporation!" (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment_Am... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment_Am...) Is this supposed to be hyperbole? The case itself was never tried, so it that doesn't show anything about how effective sony's lawyers are.
- kick 7y ago
  That was just one example of a case (I just picked it because it's close enough to Hacker News that most people here probably remember it), and notice that Sony got everything they asked for before the case was settled, including some incredibly unfair things (like the list of people who had legally downloaded the legally-created software of Hotz). The reason it was settled out of court was seemingly just so Hotz could avoid a felony. There are plenty of other Sony cases that demonstrate the rule.
  - FDSGSG 7y ago
    >Sony got everything they asked for before the case was settled Not much happened before the settlement, the parties settled very quickly after Hotz's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction failed. The TRO sucked, but wasn't particularly unreasonable. >incredibly unfair things (like the list of people who had legally downloaded the legally-created software of Hotz). Jurisdictional discovery is not incredibly unfair, and was only a natural consequence of Hotz's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. >The reason it was settled out of court was seemingly just so Hotz could avoid a felony. The fuck? This was a civil case.
    - kick 7y ago
      The fuck? This was a civil case. Computer fraud is a felony, and around that time the DoJ was getting very trigger-happy in turning civil cases criminal. Google the CFAA, which they were trying to pin Hotz under.
      - FDSGSG 7y ago
        > DoJ was getting very trigger-happy in turning civil cases criminal Do you happen to have a single example of this?
        kick 7y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz
        FDSGSG 7y ago
        I don't think there was ever a civil suit filed against Swartz. As far as I remember and according to the timeline on wikipedia this seems to have been a criminal case from the very beginning. And in any case I don't think this is a great example of the DOJ being trigger-happy, what Swartz did was obviously criminal and they were still willing to let him off with only a slap on the wrist.

by kick 7y ago

gruez 7y ago

>It's easier to beat Valve's lawyers than Sony's. Sony has a long history of paying out the nose for lawyers who could convince a judge that a law saying "Kill no one" meant "Genocide is legal for Sony Corporation!" (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment_Am... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment_Am...) Is this supposed to be hyperbole? The case itself was never tried, so it that doesn't show anything about how effective sony's lawyers are.

kick 7y ago
That was just one example of a case (I just picked it because it's close enough to Hacker News that most people here probably remember it), and notice that Sony got everything they asked for before the case was settled, including some incredibly unfair things (like the list of people who had legally downloaded the legally-created software of Hotz). The reason it was settled out of court was seemingly just so Hotz could avoid a felony. There are plenty of other Sony cases that demonstrate the rule.
- FDSGSG 7y ago
  >Sony got everything they asked for before the case was settled Not much happened before the settlement, the parties settled very quickly after Hotz's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction failed. The TRO sucked, but wasn't particularly unreasonable. >incredibly unfair things (like the list of people who had legally downloaded the legally-created software of Hotz). Jurisdictional discovery is not incredibly unfair, and was only a natural consequence of Hotz's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. >The reason it was settled out of court was seemingly just so Hotz could avoid a felony. The fuck? This was a civil case.
  - kick 7y ago
    The fuck? This was a civil case. Computer fraud is a felony, and around that time the DoJ was getting very trigger-happy in turning civil cases criminal. Google the CFAA, which they were trying to pin Hotz under.
    - FDSGSG 7y ago
      > DoJ was getting very trigger-happy in turning civil cases criminal Do you happen to have a single example of this?
      - kick 7y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz
        FDSGSG 7y ago
        I don't think there was ever a civil suit filed against Swartz. As far as I remember and according to the timeline on wikipedia this seems to have been a criminal case from the very beginning. And in any case I don't think this is a great example of the DOJ being trigger-happy, what Swartz did was obviously criminal and they were still willing to let him off with only a slap on the wrist.