Judge Recommends Banning Xbox Imports to the US

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Judge Recommends Banning Xbox Imports to the US

In the ongoing dispute between Motorola and Microsoft, Obama may be the Xbox 360's only hope.

image

Judge David Shaw has recommended to the International Trade Commission that imports of Xbox 4GB and 250GB consoles to the United States should be banned because the technology infringes Motorola patents. If the ITC accepts Judge Shaw's recommendation then President Obama has sixty days to review the decision before it passes to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The Judge also suggested that Microsoft post a bond equivalent to 7% the value of unsold consoles already within the United States, falling far short of Motorola's request of 100%.

This recommendation follows Judge Shaw's decision, announced in April, that Microsoft had infringed on four Motorola patents. You may recall that Germany has attempted a similar ban, though this was temporarily blocked by a US court decision.

Microsoft claimed that such a ban would be bad for the consumer, arguing that a restriction on imports would leave Sony and Nintendo the dominant force in the market. Judge Shaw didn't think much of that line of reasoning, however, saying that protecting intellectual property was more important.

The public version of Judge Shaw's decision has yet to be released; the decision, by necessity, includes proprietary information, which neither Microsoft nor Motorola wants published in a public forum.

Sources: Courthouse News, Eurogamer

Permalink

Soooo ... assembly lines will move back to the US, I assume?

image
Oh the irony, a console that bricks moders being banned for not respecting Intellectual property.

If Microsoft broke the law with those patents they should be punished for it no matter how much it affects the gamers. Though FEichinger that would be nice for the distribution, you would think we could lower those price tags a bit more on the transportation costs.

I hope everyone is ready for the new Xbox!
I foresee this being a reason for Microsoft to push and try to get that new Xbox done.

Noble_Lance:
If Microsoft broke the law with those patents they should be punished for it no matter how much it affects the gamers. Though FEichinger that would be nice for the distribution, you would think we could lower those price tags a bit more on the transportation costs.

Oh, I was merely hinting at the fact that it's rather likely that M$ will just get around that ban by importing anything they can (all hardware prior to a certain point in assembly), putting it together in the US and selling it from there.

I do, however, endorse any measures against corporate theft.

"You can't stop us from doing what we like, it's bad for the consumer"
<judge cocks eyebrow>
"Do you actually think I'm going to fall for that?"

Also now that this is over does that mean that they can let the German injunction go through?

Haha, that judge is retarded. They all are. IP is more important than consumer rights... WRONG! IP's exist to protect the consumer as much as they do the person who came up with an idea. I mean, lets face facts though, Microsoft is making that argument for them and not the consumer. If you are familiar with MS outside the realm of Xbox systems, you know this already. Enforcing this restriction would only increase the cost of the system. As others have said, better get ready for the new Xbox.

Microsoft is saying something is bad for consumers.

Hilarious.

God this is stupid. Copyrights held on widely used formats only hurt the consumer and limits the format's distribution itself.

Baresark:
Haha, that judge is retarded. They all are. IP is more important than consumer rights... WRONG! IP's exist to protect the consumer as much as they do the person who came up with an idea. I mean, lets face facts though, Microsoft is making that argument for them and not the consumer. If you are familiar with MS outside the realm of Xbox systems, you know this already. Enforcing this restriction would only increase the cost of the system. As others have said, better get ready for the new Xbox.

M$ infringed Motorola's patent, thus IP. So, the consumers, whose rights are to be "protected" by the IP - as per your logic - are Motorola's consumers, not Microsoft's ... Therefore, the judge's reasoning of Motorola's IP being more important than Microsoft's consumers is perfectly valid.

FEichinger:
M$

I'm sorry, but please.. .don't do that. Really.
It's just... no.

I realise you may think its witty, or profound, or a bold statement, but it just... looks silly.

Also, why can a US judge block a German court proceeding? Is it just another example of American enforcing itself on the world, or what?

and this is why copyright law is so fucking awesome and pirates are pure evil

here comes the panic and stockpiling

i can see it now, "tempers flare as rampant red ring ruins reserves"

teebeeohh:
and this is why copyright law is so fucking awesome and pirates are pure evil

This a thousand and one times.

GiglameshSoulEater:

FEichinger:
M$

I'm sorry, but please.. .don't do that. Really.
It's just... no.

I realise you may think its witty, or profound, or a bold statement, but it just... looks silly.

Also, why can a US judge block a German court proceeding? Is it just another example of American enforcing itself on the world, or what?

I associate "MS" with something else, thus prever "M$" when referring to Microsoft, simple as that. I actually believe Microsoft's tactics are far more ... humane, than those of many other companies, when it comes to money.

As for the block on the German proceeding, take this quote from the respective article (as linked in this article):

How can a U.S. court overrule a German ruling? That little twist, as explained by phoneArena, comes thanks to a "procedural anomaly" in German law that requires any company winning an injunction against another to meet other requirements, which often includes the posting of a bond, before the injunction can be enforced. The U.S. court cannot override the German ruling but it can, and apparently did, issue a restraining order preventing Motorola from seeking enforcement of the injunction.

Meh, they can ban the 360.

My Motorola console has WAY better games anyway....

FEichinger:

Baresark:
Haha, that judge is retarded. They all are. IP is more important than consumer rights... WRONG! IP's exist to protect the consumer as much as they do the person who came up with an idea. I mean, lets face facts though, Microsoft is making that argument for them and not the consumer. If you are familiar with MS outside the realm of Xbox systems, you know this already. Enforcing this restriction would only increase the cost of the system. As others have said, better get ready for the new Xbox.

M$ infringed Motorola's patent, thus IP. So, the consumers, whose rights are to be "protected" by the IP - as per your logic - are Motorola's consumers, not Microsoft's ... Therefore, the judge's reasoning of Motorola's IP being more important than Microsoft's consumers is perfectly valid.

IP's protect consumers by not allowing cheap knockoffs to be sold to a consumer that bear the name of the original creation. Inhibiting the production of a device does not protect consumers at all in this case. Especially since, from a consumer perspective, MS is not laying claim to the creation of a device as much as they are simply using a device. It's one of those catch 22's of IP laws. In this case it's not in the consumers interest for the device to not be sold. It's probably one of the few times MS and consumer values are in perfect alignment. Furthermore, Motorola's consumers are not harmed by the use of the Xbox360. People are not choosing to pick either the Motorola or MS version of a product.

Really, the problems is that no one should be trying to inhibit sales or productions of a device. That will only serve to harm the consumer, create artificial shortages, and drive prices up. Everyone should just learn to be adults about this kind of thing. MS should admit their shortcomings and offer Motorola money for the use of their IP. Motorola in turn should not be trying to force MS to stop production and sales of Xbox360's.

The problem with patenting widely used formula's- you end up with ridiculous rulings like this. Hell, Microsoft patented x86, so maybe it's about time they got what was coming to them.

Karloff:

In the ongoing dispute between Motorola and Microsoft, Obama may be the Xbox 360's only hope.

Allow me to rephrase that for you:

Microsoft (wearing that bizarre hair-style): "Help us Obama-Wan Kenobi, you're our only hope!"

Sorry, couldn't resist :P

mrdude2010:
The problem with patenting widely used formula's- you end up with ridiculous rulings like this. Hell, Microsoft patented x86, so maybe it's about time they got what was coming to them.

Microsoft also patented graphics processing. Now, the reason why Microsoft did both of those is not to protect consumers, but to protect the manufacturers of said processors and video cards.

I'm hoping that Motorola's new owner will take a look at the lawsuit and be reasonable, and not expect too much hate when it comes to their stuff on a Microsoft system.

FEichinger:
Soooo ... assembly lines will move back to the US, I assume?

Hm, really? I had thought that it meant that the Xbox would no longer be allowed to be produced.

Anyways, I get my new Gaming PC (First one in over seven years! I am kind of excited. Please note I still love all games, I don't hate consoles at all or think they are inferior, I am just excited.) So I don't really care.

Baresark:

FEichinger:

Baresark:
Haha, that judge is retarded. They all are. IP is more important than consumer rights... WRONG! IP's exist to protect the consumer as much as they do the person who came up with an idea. I mean, lets face facts though, Microsoft is making that argument for them and not the consumer. If you are familiar with MS outside the realm of Xbox systems, you know this already. Enforcing this restriction would only increase the cost of the system. As others have said, better get ready for the new Xbox.

M$ infringed Motorola's patent, thus IP. So, the consumers, whose rights are to be "protected" by the IP - as per your logic - are Motorola's consumers, not Microsoft's ... Therefore, the judge's reasoning of Motorola's IP being more important than Microsoft's consumers is perfectly valid.

IP's protect consumers by not allowing cheap knockoffs to be sold to a consumer that bear the name of the original creation. Inhibiting the production of a device does not protect consumers at all in this case. Especially since, from a consumer perspective, MS is not laying claim to the creation of a device as much as they are simply using a device. It's one of those catch 22's of IP laws. In this case it's not in the consumers interest for the device to not be sold. It's probably one of the few times MS and consumer values are in perfect alignment. Furthermore, Motorola's consumers are not harmed by the use of the Xbox360. People are not choosing to pick either the Motorola or MS version of a product.

Really, the problems is that no one should be trying to inhibit sales or productions of a device. That will only serve to harm the consumer, create artificial shortages, and drive prices up. Everyone should just learn to be adults about this kind of thing. MS should admit their shortcomings and offer Motorola money for the use of their IP. Motorola in turn should not be trying to force MS to stop production and sales of Xbox360's.

So you think that because the Xbox is popular and loved then MS should be allowed to break the law? I don't care how you spin it, the court has determined that they used the codec illegally and now their crying fowl for being caught out and punished for it. The IP laws are there for a reason, and while they can be anoying at times this is an example of why they are there, to stop a big company like MS from making money off someone elses work (Motorola). That boys and girls, is called stealing.

The_Darkness:

Karloff:

In the ongoing dispute between Motorola and Microsoft, Obama may be the Xbox 360's only hope.

Allow me to rephrase that for you:

Microsoft (wearing that bizarre hair-style): "Help us Obama-Wan Kenobi, you're our only hope!"

Sorry, couldn't resist :P

Lol. Mental image is strange.

OT: people are still buying those things?

I groan every time I hear "intellectual property" because it's usually followed up by some corporate asshattery and further evidence that copyright laws are just freaking broken.

RicoADF:

Baresark:

FEichinger:

M$ infringed Motorola's patent, thus IP. So, the consumers, whose rights are to be "protected" by the IP - as per your logic - are Motorola's consumers, not Microsoft's ... Therefore, the judge's reasoning of Motorola's IP being more important than Microsoft's consumers is perfectly valid.

IP's protect consumers by not allowing cheap knockoffs to be sold to a consumer that bear the name of the original creation. Inhibiting the production of a device does not protect consumers at all in this case. Especially since, from a consumer perspective, MS is not laying claim to the creation of a device as much as they are simply using a device. It's one of those catch 22's of IP laws. In this case it's not in the consumers interest for the device to not be sold. It's probably one of the few times MS and consumer values are in perfect alignment. Furthermore, Motorola's consumers are not harmed by the use of the Xbox360. People are not choosing to pick either the Motorola or MS version of a product.

Really, the problems is that no one should be trying to inhibit sales or productions of a device. That will only serve to harm the consumer, create artificial shortages, and drive prices up. Everyone should just learn to be adults about this kind of thing. MS should admit their shortcomings and offer Motorola money for the use of their IP. Motorola in turn should not be trying to force MS to stop production and sales of Xbox360's.

So you think that because the Xbox is popular and loved then MS should be allowed to break the law? I don't care how you spin it, the court has determined that they used the codec illegally and now their crying fowl for being caught out and punished for it. The IP laws are there for a reason, and while they can be anoying at times this is an example of why they are there, to stop a big company like MS from making money off someone elses work (Motorola). That boys and girls, is called stealing.

Gotta jump in here: I think what is being said is that stopping the sales of the console is unnecessary. There are better ways of setting this straight and making things right. Ways that wont hurt the consumer.

Upset about blocking the import of the console to America? Yeah, well then they should stop being such greedy profit-mongers and have the console built in the States.

The manufacturing sectors of 1st world countries need all the help they can get.

Copyright, IP and patenting regulations and laws are stuck in the 20th century. The entire circus around lawsuits left and right and up and down and all directions in between is simply ridiculous in any sane world.

wow I never new Microsoft stole technology. It's only ok to steal if you have monies

It's funny how Microsoft is against copyright infringement when it comes to games, but has been the #1 example of that in the computer tech industry since, well, there has been a "computer tech" industry.

It doesn't make Microsoft or "pirates" "right", it's just funny.

For those who think IP/copyright/patents etc are about the consumer: nope. In this case, it is about: Motorola spent money, who knows how much, to research and develop the tech behind these components. IP gives them the right to sell that tech exclusively so they can recover the cost of developing it; not just the cost of units of production. When Microsoft uses that tech, without having incurred the cost of developing it, and without licensing it from Motorola, they are cheating Motorola out of recovering the cost of developing that tech.

The idea behind it is to keep innovation going. What incentive would developers have to spend resources on developing new tech if they couldn't recover that cost? If someone could just use that tech as soon as it was developed without compensating the original developer, they couldn't recover that cost. Hence, IP law.

LostintheWick:

RicoADF:

Baresark:

IP's protect consumers by not allowing cheap knockoffs to be sold to a consumer that bear the name of the original creation. Inhibiting the production of a device does not protect consumers at all in this case. Especially since, from a consumer perspective, MS is not laying claim to the creation of a device as much as they are simply using a device. It's one of those catch 22's of IP laws. In this case it's not in the consumers interest for the device to not be sold. It's probably one of the few times MS and consumer values are in perfect alignment. Furthermore, Motorola's consumers are not harmed by the use of the Xbox360. People are not choosing to pick either the Motorola or MS version of a product.

Really, the problems is that no one should be trying to inhibit sales or productions of a device. That will only serve to harm the consumer, create artificial shortages, and drive prices up. Everyone should just learn to be adults about this kind of thing. MS should admit their shortcomings and offer Motorola money for the use of their IP. Motorola in turn should not be trying to force MS to stop production and sales of Xbox360's.

So you think that because the Xbox is popular and loved then MS should be allowed to break the law? I don't care how you spin it, the court has determined that they used the codec illegally and now their crying fowl for being caught out and punished for it. The IP laws are there for a reason, and while they can be anoying at times this is an example of why they are there, to stop a big company like MS from making money off someone elses work (Motorola). That boys and girls, is called stealing.

Gotta jump in here: I think what is being said is that stopping the sales of the console is unnecessary. There are better ways of setting this straight and making things right. Ways that wont hurt the consumer.

I retract my statement if that's the case. Although stopping the sale of the offending item is standard proceedure, so as anoying as it is, I still stand by the fact that the courts have done the right thing, anything less would be letting MS off easier than the rest.

Imthatguy:
God this is stupid. Copyrights held on widely used formats only hurt the consumer and limits the format's distribution itself.

KeyMaster45:
I groan every time I hear "intellectual property" because it's usually followed up by some corporate asshattery and further evidence that copyright laws are just freaking broken.

This isn't about copyrights but about patents. These two are actually pretty different: copyright is something you gain automatically when creating a 'creative work' and gives you the right to determine how that work is distributed. A patent, on the other hand, is something you buy to temporarily protect (or, more accurately, prevent anyone from using or making) an invention which you don't even have to have made yet.

At least this is the case under European (more specifically, Dutch) law; but I assume the distinction is similar in the US.

See this is why you should not be allowed to patient software. Microsoft are the worst at this kind of practice, now they will see how stupid this practice is.

As soon as we get rid of software patients the better.

Whist we are at it corporations that buy up patients simply to try to extract money form other should be illegal.

Gov't infringing on the free market? SHOCKING.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here