Judge Berates Prosecutors In Xbox Modding Trial 285
mrbongo writes with this excerpt from Wired:
"Opening statements in the first-of-its-kind Xbox 360 criminal hacking trial were delayed here Wednesday after a federal judge unleashed a 30-minute tirade at prosecutors in open court, saying he had 'serious concerns about the government's case.' ... Gutierrez slammed the prosecution over everything from alleged unlawful behavior by government witnesses, to proposed jury instructions harmful to the defense. When the verbal assault finally subsided, federal prosecutors asked for a recess to determine whether they would offer the defendant a deal, dismiss or move forward with the case that was slated to become the first jury trial of its type. A jury was seated Tuesday."
And tomorrow... (Score:5, Insightful)
And tomorrow the feds drop the case since they don't want to set a precedent, and try again next month with a friendlier judge.
Re:Translation: Judge's son/nephew owns modded Xbo (Score:4, Insightful)
more likely he realizes the court has more valuable things to allocate time and taxpayer money on than going after some kid who hacked his xbox. Or maybe he saw that their argument was pushing beyond the confines of the allegedly broken laws, and he wasn't about to let his courtroom be a tool for them to advance their agenda.
Whatever his motivation was, good for him!
Re: No Rage Allowed (Score:5, Insightful)
No disrespect for the court allowed? (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I want people to be able to jailbreak their own devices and despite my prejudice against the prosecutors' case any judge that lets lose with a tirade in a court room needs to be removed from the bench. Nobody should be subject to a verbal assault by a judge or other public employee.
There are rules to follow in the legal system. In this case the judge believe that the prosecution may have seriously failed to follow those rules - in spite of the fact that his job is to know those rules very well indeed. And if the judge suspects your failure to follow the rules are deliberate or due to laziness you may be found to be in contempt of the court - something which can have serious consequences for your case and perhaps even your job in the legal business.
If you show up in front of a judge with a blatant disrespect for the court, the court will give you a hard time for it.
What is the surprise here?
- Jesper
Re: No Rage Allowed (Score:5, Insightful)
"Please place the weapon the floor, pretty please, and then we'll put you in these nice, shiny handcuffs"
"I would very much appreciate it if you didn't cross that safety barrier that you're now crossing, thank you very much."
Nobody should be subjected to anything *unnecessarily* but this is a judge dealing with witnesses who broke the law while collecting evidence, jury-tampering and a prosecution that doesn't see the harm in what they did and continually asserts that to the court and doesn't see the severity. He's probably also extremely annoyed at how a valid court case in quickly turning into a farce at tax-payers expense.
Shouting is not about aggression - it's about tone of voice, volume, and choice of words. If you're shouting in someone's face directly, or pushing forward towards them, that's just rude and confrontational. But it doesn't mean you can't *shout* at them without doing that, only making them realise your displeasure through their own obstinacy and yet not feel threatened.
Shouting at someone, especially someone who should know how irate people behave and be performing their *own* simple professional duty, won't kill them. Teachers shout at kids in school. I shouted at my letting agent last year (and without that, I wouldn't have working plumbing, or my landlord removing their contract, reporting them for breach of contract, extracting *my* deposit from them via a legal process, and dealing with me direct for even the most minor of problems and actually doing a better job). Parents shout at their children in supermarkets. I'm actually *glad* when some kids get told off because it means that the parent is paying attention to their actions and cares about the outcome for everyone - those parents who just say "Come on, now. I won't tell you again. No, really, come on. This is the last time I'll ask you. Please come on, Jack. Jack, if you come now, I'll give you sweeties" REALLY, REALLY need to have a room full of other parents shout at them until they understand why that doesn't work.
It's not a first resort, but it's the last (legal) resort of the ordinary man. We can't all be martyrs and speak perfectly calmly no matter how annoyed we are, and the *WORST* we can do without committing a crime is shout at someone. It's also, generally, incredibly effective. Try politely asking someone on a complaints desk to get their supervisor. In quite a lot of cases it won't happen, especially if they know they are in the wrong. Without shouting, you end in the the same position. Now try shouting only AFTER they refuse to do that. Now try being obstinate and refusing to leave the building until your problem is solved. Now try shouting some more. Nobody gets hurt, injured, threatened or abused, they just get talked to in a loud and certain tone. It has a surprisingly greater result at no significant psychological cost and it's the most you can *legally* do (I do not in any way condone actually threatening or hurting people - by that point, you've lost the argument and sight of what you're trying to achieve).
If you're really that devastated by someone shouting at you, it makes me wonder just how much of global life you're ready for, what your parents did when you ran into the road, and what attention your teachers were paying to you at school.
Shouting *is* the non-aggressive alternative here. The judge is showing that the lawyers are on their last chance and if they don't buck their ideas up, he'll be seeking sanctions against them. This is his way of warning them, and if it was done in a polite note about "The court disagrees with the prosecution", no-one would pay it any attention and if sanctions were then applied, the lawyers would claim there was no way they could see it coming. The judge has been definite, assertive, perfectly clear, aired all his concerns, indicated the seriousness of this to everyone and yet NOT ONE PERSON has been hurt in any way. I just wish a few more parents were like him, really.
Re:Better yet, prosecute those who modded mortgage (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lets get the facts straight :-) (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the difference in buying, customizing, then reselling an XBox and in buying, customizing, and reselling a vehicle made by Ford?
None.
This is the insidiousness the IP monopolists are trying to get away with, the ability to sell something yet still OWN it.
Unless the XBox modder bought an XBox, then used it to make other XBoxes, they have no beef.
Xbox 360 vs. Wii and original Xbox (Score:4, Insightful)
The modded XBox will be used almost exclusively to run stolen software.
You may be right about the Xbox 360 platform. But if it were a modded Wii or a modded original Xbox, there might be more evidence of actual substantial noninfringing use. Unlike the Xbox 360, which has XNA, these older consoles have no official environment for running original software developed outside a traditional corporate environment, and for this reason they have picked a vibrant modding community for running such "homebrew".
Re:Lets get the facts straight :-) (Score:5, Insightful)
Love the car analogies...
A (performance) modded car could be used almost exclusively to exceed the speed limit. Easy argument against the practice (lets ignore for a moment emission laws).
Where as an end user could argue that the modifications make their life more convenient by allowing them to reach the posted speed limit more expediently.
Just because something allows you to potentially break the law doesn't always make it illegal.
Re:Lets get the facts straight :-) (Score:4, Insightful)
Guess what they called the stuff they were delivering?
Homebrew.
Re:Lets get the facts straight :-) (Score:5, Insightful)
Refusing arguments by analogy is absurd. Analogy is the only way to compare what we know and have experience with to new situations. The vary basis of language is analogy and categorization -- we come to a common agreement on what constitutes "yellow" and treat all things of that class the same way even though it's unlikely that your yellow schoolbus is the the same color as my yellow lemon.
Argument by analogy is incomplete, in that there are differences between the actual point of contention and the analogous situation, and those differences might make a particular analog inapplicable to a particular situation, but dismissing analogy as an invalid tool for legal or other argument is just silly.
The category of "things protected by IP laws that you can modify aftermarket" seems like a pretty relevant place to start comparison. If you want to object to the analogy based on some specific difference between cars and game consoles feel free, but don't try to dismiss the comparison out of hand.
Also note that "street legal" is an irrelevant comparison for game consoles, as their operation is not regulated by the state, nor is the case at hand about the operation of the modified device -- which the defendant did not do -- only the modification itself and the sale thereof.
Fascism (Score:4, Insightful)
Why are our tax dollars paying our lawyer to press criminal charges against one of our citizens on the behalf if a multi-billion dollar multi-national corporation for altering legally purchased private property?
I remember when AT&T was forced, gasp, to use non AT&T phones on their service because the government protected its citizens. It seems we've come reversed ourselves.
Re:Lets get the facts straight :-) (Score:5, Insightful)