ESA Weighs In On Possible Xbox 360 Ban

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

BiH-Kira:
I'm against a ban of the console, but I'm for a HUGE fine. Let it be like 10$ per sold console.
Hey, still less than per pirated song which is basically 20.000$

Why should MS be excluded from the law? Why should they be able to use Google's technology without paying. If they didn't like the price that Google asked, they should have just removed the technology, or made their own if they think they will make it cheaper.

They had plenty of other choices, legal choices.

I'm baffled that so many people here are on the side of Microsoft, jet they take every chance they get to insult pirates and say how there is no apology for piracy.
Guess what, this is basically the same. MS took something that isn't their without paying because the price was to high.

EDIT:
And do you guys really think that a ban of the xbox 360 would have a that huge impact on the US economy to allow such a hypocrisy?
lets face it, this generation is over. I doubt the number of sold consoles until the nextbox will be significant compared to the total numbers. I doubt the PS3 or WiiU would take over the market of the xbox 720.

The only thing that banning the xbox would really do is show that a company doesn't own the country. But judging from the fact that the court is still trying to find a way to get MS out of the shit, I would say that the companies do own the USA.

I think a fine would be a nice compromices if they are banned then MS will have to layoff works(trust me i don't want to see anyone lose their jobs. Also your right its unlikely that this would a serouis impact on the economy(this is partof the reason why i would like to see a fine not a ban).

RvLeshrac:

DVS BSTrD:
I think I speak for all Xbox owners when I say imposing a Licensing Agreement has a MUCH better ring to it.

Well played. Except for the part where it isn't fucking funny, since it could result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the US, and millions of additional jobs world-wide.

Gee, if only someone had thought about it before they went through with this.

Now the human part of me is thinking that this could be bad for the economy, for the job rate, and all that stuff.

But there's still a part of me, a small part, call it the monster, that hopes this spells the end of the next CoD/shooter-chat room FPS game.

It's a small part, but it's there. No matter how many times I tell it to go away, it doesn't. The majority of me still hopes this doesn't lead to a mass loss of hardworking people, because life is hard enough right now.

I say ban the 360 till they make a Viva Pinata 3. It's been too long.

Dammit someone ninja'd me to pointing out that this it a proxy battle between google and microsoft.

Anyway yet another case for why software codec copyrights are A BAD IDEA.

Goes without saying, but

This could really hurt the video game industry as a whole, and would hammer the American economy. All Xbox development would cease, so would Xbox Live - Why support a platform that can't be sold anymore?

Many many jobs would be lost. I really hope the commission realize what a terrible idea it would be to ban the console over this infringement - go for a license agreement instead.

No, "I'm too rich and famous" is not a defense against a console ban for what they did, but "This will hurt the whole country, and everyone across the globe" is. License. Please.

Or what Microsoft did this e3 is moot.

RvLeshrac:

gigastar:

RvLeshrac:

Well played. Except for the part where it isn't fucking funny, since it could result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the US, and millions of additional jobs world-wide.

I fail to see the source of that exaggeration, care to expand a little bit please?

Is it *really* necessary to provide a citation for why the blocking of import of one of the leading consumer entertainment products might cause job losses both in the US and in each country which produces the components for the product?

Not to mention the fact that banning the product from import into the US would lend greater legitimacy to the claim, likely leading to import holds in most Western countries.

This is basic market economics, not neurosurgery or astrophysics.

I mean, I guess I could dumb it down a bit for you. Here:

"When it isn't legal for you to sell your product, you start firing people."

Well in my mind the only people i can see actually losing out in the event of a ban of 360 console sales is retailers.

Its the end of the current console cycle so all of Microsoft's gaming hardware department is focused on making the nextbox. Thier marketing teams are also probably at work devising viral ads for the nextbox as well, if not working on other Microsoft products.

The manufacturers, whom last time i checked were Chinese, certainly wont lose out. The Chinese manufacturing industry can literally be compared to cancer, you can kill small bits of it but that will regenerate and it will continue to grow overall.

For those responsible for transporting the 360's across the world, they wont even register the losses, because someone always wants something transported in this day and age.

And even then retailers arent about to go under because its now illeagal for them to sell a 7-year-old console. Everybody knows that retailers mostly make money off of either used game sales or day one game sales.

And most importantly, the sales ban would only be in effect in the United States and Germany. Hardly even a third of the area where a 360 is available for purchase.

So, maybe your initial comment was a tiny bit exaggerative?

RvLeshrac:

DVS BSTrD:
I think I speak for all Xbox owners when I say imposing a Licensing Agreement has a MUCH better ring to it.

Well played. Except for the part where it isn't fucking funny, since it could result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the US, and millions of additional jobs world-wide.

Calm down, it's called a joke. I bet you've laughed at atleast one WWII joke in your life, and by your logic, that probably makes you a horrible person.

gigastar:
-huge snip-

You're forgetting that e3 has just passed and Microsoft isn't talking hardware - they pushed a big pile of money in the Kinect garbage can a couple years back.

mew4ever23:

gigastar:
-huge snip-

You're forgetting that e3 has just passed and Microsoft isn't talking hardware - they pushed a big pile of money in the Kinect garbage can a couple years back.

True, but even if Microsoft doesnt talk hardware its hard to think that they arent doing hardware when Sony has all but announced the PS4 with this "Project Orion", or whatever its called.

And money is no object for Microsofts gaming division. To them its a renewable resource akin to the wind, or sunlight.

Boyninja616:
While the obvious shanking of the Videogames Industry and Worldwide Jobs market is nothing to get over-excited about, I would quite like to see this happen just to see the shitstorm that will result from all the beady-necked teenagers who will have to actually... GO OUTSIDE to entertain themselves.

Good Lord. These are the End Days.

hahahahaha

insulting people with stupid sterotypes

so fucking hilarious

Kinguendo:

RvLeshrac:

Kinguendo:

Except that in reality there is absolutely no evidence of your claim... have you read the article? Do they say that it isnt patented? No, in fact it quite categorically states it does infringe upon patents... so what the hell are you talking about?

Have you read the article? Or been keeping up with the case for months now? This case hasn't even gone to trial yet, and the bulk of the evidence is actually on Microsoft's side.

In May, Judge David Shaw recommended to the International Trade Commission that the importation and sale of the Xbox 360 be banned in the United States because the console infringes upon patents held by Motorola.

Bish, bash, bosh. Case closed. Job done. Game over. Go to bed.

Interesting that the ruling isn't final until August, making this a preliminary decision. The ruling is, further, subject to numerous levels of appeal.

nice that EA are on the good side for once,
even if it is for totally selfish reasons

Wait, these guys supported SOPA? Well then, burn in hell, Microsoft's XBOX team.

The lesson here, folks: don't steal other people's patents. Unless your Microsoft. Then it's okay.

$1000 says if it was Microsoft that had a patent stolen, they'd sue the other company into the ground and not stop until there's nothing left.

Baldr:

mysecondlife:
If Microsoft really infringed on Motorola's stuff, no sympathy there. Ban sale of xbox and sort things out fast as possible so things can go back to normal.

It not that simple. Microsoft was paying Motorola for the H.264/MPEG-4 technology patent per device. Then Google bought Motorola and significantly increased the price they wanted per device just from Microsoft. Microsoft thought this was unfair and wanted negotiate with Google to bring it down to what other are paying. Google refused to negotiate and Microsoft leaving it no option to either replace the technology or remove it, didn't pay. The case went straight to court.

Microsoft doesn't think the licensing change was simply "unfair," but that it violates the FRAND license Motorola agreed to when Motorola's patents were allowed to become part of the standard.

This not only affects Microsoft, but *every single other company anywhere* that licenses *any* patent on which a standard is based. If the case is not decided in Microsoft's favour, in the end, it gives companies free license to disregard any and all restrictions placed on them in exchange for becoming part of a standard.

Without FRAND licensing, we would not have most of the consumer hardware we have today. It would mean each Wireless Router would operate on an incompatible standard. No two cellular handsets would use the same UI or button layout. Every motherboard you purchase would have different expansion slot, and drive connector pinouts.

Vault101:

Boyninja616:
While the obvious shanking of the Videogames Industry and Worldwide Jobs market is nothing to get over-excited about, I would quite like to see this happen just to see the shitstorm that will result from all the beady-necked teenagers who will have to actually... GO OUTSIDE to entertain themselves.

Good Lord. These are the End Days.

hahahahaha

insulting people with stupid sterotypes

so fucking hilarious

It is, isn't it?

Every single one of my friends owns a Games Console (19-20 years old). It's not really a stereotype - It's fact.

Boyninja616:

It is, isn't it?

Every single one of my friends owns a Games Console (19-20 years old). It's not really a stereotype - It's fact.

you shouldn't throw the word "fact" around like that

its anecdotal evidence.... doesn't prove crap

and no..its not funnny, its a dumb joke

Vault101:

Boyninja616:

It is, isn't it?

Every single one of my friends owns a Games Console (19-20 years old). It's not really a stereotype - It's fact.

you shouldn't throw the word "fact" around like that

its anecdotal evidence.... doesn't prove crap

and no..its not funnny, its a dumb joke

Who do you think this technology is aimed at in the first place?

Besides, my first post implied neither that every teenager owned a console, nor that every console owner were a teenager.

If you feel it was a joke, why give a sarcastic, childish reply?

Actually, don't bother. I'm not going down this road. I have better things to do.

Boyninja616:

Who do you think this technology is aimed at in the first place?

what, as if being a socially retarded neckbeard is some kind of prerequisite?

Besides, my first post implied neither that every teenager owned a console, nor that every console owner were a teenager.

If you feel it was a joke, why give a sarcastic, childish reply?

because I think its a tired stupid joke that was never funny in the first place

RvLeshrac:

Kinguendo:

RvLeshrac:

Have you read the article? Or been keeping up with the case for months now? This case hasn't even gone to trial yet, and the bulk of the evidence is actually on Microsoft's side.

In May, Judge David Shaw recommended to the International Trade Commission that the importation and sale of the Xbox 360 be banned in the United States because the console infringes upon patents held by Motorola.

Bish, bash, bosh. Case closed. Job done. Game over. Go to bed.

Interesting that the ruling isn't final until August, making this a preliminary decision. The ruling is, further, subject to numerous levels of appeal.

Yes, and as we all know... part of a ruling is deciding what to do about it... which is the whole "banning" thing. But clearly, the patent exists which is my point. So if this were murder, they have done the murder... they are just deciding upon a "punishment", wether it be an actual punishment that is completely deserved or some slap on the wrist bullshit is that can be debated and that isnt what we are debating. One side is saying "Ban it", the other side isnt saying "We didnt do it." they are saying "Well, cant we make a deal?".

So again, case closed.

As much as I think a ban is the right way to punish a patent offender, in this particular scenario it's probably not the best course of action.

No, I think the best way to solve this would be a sufficiently large payout that causes microsoft or any other large corporation, to want to avoid doing this shit ever again.
Even something so large that it means the 360 lost microsoft money over its entire lifespan.

'cos at the end of the day, the people who make games, or those who buy games, aren't at fault here.

Kinguendo:

RvLeshrac:

Kinguendo:

Bish, bash, bosh. Case closed. Job done. Game over. Go to bed.

Interesting that the ruling isn't final until August, making this a preliminary decision. The ruling is, further, subject to numerous levels of appeal.

Yes, and as we all know... part of a ruling is deciding what to do about it... which is the whole "banning" thing. But clearly, the patent exists which is my point. So if this were murder, they have done the murder... they are just deciding upon a "punishment", wether it be an actual punishment that is completely deserved or some slap on the wrist bullshit is that can be debated and that isnt what we are debating. One side is saying "Ban it", the other side isnt saying "We didnt do it." they are saying "Well, cant we make a deal?".

So again, case closed.

The argument in the court is one of whether they killed someone, or whether he fell out the window. That's what will be decided in August. You're advocating for a punishment which may or may not fit the crime, to be meted out before the trial has concluded.

This is not a case of Microsoft infringing on patented copyright, as many of the knee-jerkers around here seem to miss. The problem here is Motorola (and by extension Google) are being copyright trolls just because they think MS will pony up the money.

Here's a dumbed down version for people on here in the "rawr MS are evil, burn them" bandwagon. Pretend you build and design a new computer keyboard. When you're done you want to put a USB connector on it (like EVERYTHING electronic made in the last 10 years) so you do that and make an agreement to give whoever owns the USB patent (let's call him John) 10$ a day for using his port in your device. Then after selling your keyboard for years along comes Mike who buys John and rewrites the contract you already signed saying instead of 10$ a day it'll be 50$ a day instead and if you say no we'll take you to court and sue you and make your company come crashing down.

It's extortion is what it is.

Danceofmasks:
No, I think the best way to solve this would be a sufficiently large payout that causes microsoft or any other large corporation, to want to avoid doing this shit ever again.
Even something so large that it means the 360 lost microsoft money over its entire lifespan.

You want to punish Microsoft for being extorted from? They're not "infringing copyright", that's just a fun word to make people kneejerk. They had a deal to use the codec and then one day well into the console's life-cycle Motorola decides "fuck our deal, I want MOAR money than we agreed on, pay it or fuck you" and you say it's MS who deserves to lose out? Good job.

Deshin:
This is not a case of Microsoft infringing on patented copyright, as many of the knee-jerkers around here seem to miss. The problem here is Motorola (and by extension Google) are being copyright trolls just because they think MS will pony up the money.

Here's a dumbed down version for people on here in the "rawr MS are evil, burn them" bandwagon. Pretend you build and design a new computer keyboard. When you're done you want to put a USB connector on it (like EVERYTHING electronic made in the last 10 years) so you do that and make an agreement to give whoever owns the USB patent (let's call him John) 10$ a day for using his port in your device. Then after selling your keyboard for years along comes Mike who buys John and rewrites the contract you already signed saying instead of 10$ a day it'll be 50$ a day instead and if you say no we'll take you to court and sue you and make your company come crashing down.

It's extortion is what it is.

Wheeeeeeey! Someone on this thread actually uses their brain!

I hope Motorola and Google get told to do one.

RvLeshrac:

Kinguendo:

RvLeshrac:

Interesting that the ruling isn't final until August, making this a preliminary decision. The ruling is, further, subject to numerous levels of appeal.

Yes, and as we all know... part of a ruling is deciding what to do about it... which is the whole "banning" thing. But clearly, the patent exists which is my point. So if this were murder, they have done the murder... they are just deciding upon a "punishment", wether it be an actual punishment that is completely deserved or some slap on the wrist bullshit is that can be debated and that isnt what we are debating. One side is saying "Ban it", the other side isnt saying "We didnt do it." they are saying "Well, cant we make a deal?".

So again, case closed.

The argument in the court is one of whether they killed someone, or whether he fell out the window. That's what will be decided in August. You're advocating for a punishment which may or may not fit the crime, to be meted out before the trial has concluded.

No, I am saying the patent exists... therefor do something about it. Money seems to be the ONLY defence mentioned, and that annoys me.

Kinguendo:

RvLeshrac:

Kinguendo:

Yes, and as we all know... part of a ruling is deciding what to do about it... which is the whole "banning" thing. But clearly, the patent exists which is my point. So if this were murder, they have done the murder... they are just deciding upon a "punishment", wether it be an actual punishment that is completely deserved or some slap on the wrist bullshit is that can be debated and that isnt what we are debating. One side is saying "Ban it", the other side isnt saying "We didnt do it." they are saying "Well, cant we make a deal?".

So again, case closed.

The argument in the court is one of whether they killed someone, or whether he fell out the window. That's what will be decided in August. You're advocating for a punishment which may or may not fit the crime, to be meted out before the trial has concluded.

No, I am saying the patent exists... therefor do something about it. Money seems to be the ONLY defence mentioned, and that annoys me.

What does the patent's existence have to do with anything? Microsoft admits the patent exists. Microsoft admits the patent is used in the 360. The disagreement is over whether or not Motorola/Google should be held accountable for the FRAND provisions, and whether or not their refusal to continue licensing the patent to Microsoft at the existing rate constitutes a violation of those provisions. If it does, then Microsoft has to pay the existing rate - which is EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.

Microsoft doesn't want to infringe on the patent, but they feel that Motorola/Google began violating the agreement Motorola entered into when licensing the patent was allowed to become a required part of standards compliance.

RvLeshrac:

What does the patent's existence have to do with anything? Microsoft admits the patent exists. Microsoft admits the patent is used in the 360. The disagreement is over whether or not Motorola/Google should be held accountable for the FRAND provisions, and whether or not their refusal to continue licensing the patent to Microsoft at the existing rate constitutes a violation of those provisions. If it does, then Microsoft has to pay the existing rate - which is EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.

Microsoft doesn't want to infringe on the patent, but they feel that Motorola/Google began violating the agreement Motorola entered into when licensing the patent was allowed to become a required part of standards compliance.

Dude, dont get whiney just because you lost. I said the patent existed, you said "Blah, blah. It hasnt been decided yet." and now you admit it has so thats that. I honestly dont know why you are still going.

They should ban it. It's a stupid patent law but it's law nonetheless. Either get rid of stupid laws or abide by them! If banning Xbox is necessary for people to start thinking about the stupidity of some of the laws currently in effect then it must happen.

Whether or not a ban is warranted, which I don't think it is but to be honest I have only a passing familiarity with this issue based on an ArsTechnica article, of course the ESA is going to come out against it, they are the lobby group for video games.

wow, the gaming industry has its way with arguments. hey we can break the law as long as the company that we ran into the ground wont get equal harm if we stop. thats like saying lets not put the murderers in jail because whether we do or dont the guy is dead anyways.

Before I actually read it, I was convinced that ESA meant the European Space Agency...which would have been slightly more interesting, if a bit weird.

Anyway:

Adam Jensen:
They should ban it. It's a stupid patent law but it's law nonetheless. Either get rid of stupid laws or abide by them! If banning Xbox is necessary for people to start thinking about the stupidity of some of the laws currently in effect then it must happen.

This. It cannot be one rule for one company and another rule for Microsoft. So what if they're big and it would lose lots of money? A smaller company would be sued into the ground if something similar happened. I understand the whole Motorola/Google being dicks thing, but the law does exist.

Don't like the law? Get it changed, don't break it.

Cheeseman Muncher:
Before I actually read it, I was convinced that ESA meant the European Space Agency...which would have been slightly more interesting, if a bit weird.

Anyway:

Adam Jensen:
They should ban it. It's a stupid patent law but it's law nonetheless. Either get rid of stupid laws or abide by them! If banning Xbox is necessary for people to start thinking about the stupidity of some of the laws currently in effect then it must happen.

This. It cannot be one rule for one company and another rule for Microsoft. So what if they're big and it would lose lots of money? A smaller company would be sued into the ground if something similar happened. I understand the whole Motorola/Google being dicks thing, but the law does exist.

Don't like the law? Get it changed, don't break it.

Holy fuck, none of you understand any of this. Motorola is required, by the agreement they signed when their patents were allowed to become part of the standard, to license the patent under Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory terms. Microsoft contends that Motorola's terms were no longer Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory at the time of the license renewal, and thus they do not have to meet the new terms. Microsoft had, and has, no issue with the terms under which the patent was originally licensed.

This question has NOTHING WHAT-SO-FUCKING-EVER TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT MICROSOFT IS USING THE PATENT.

There IS NO QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT MICROSOFT IS USING THE PATENT.

The question is whether or not Motorola's terms are Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory. If they are NOT, then Microsoft will pay the original license fees, AS THEY HAVE WANTED TO DO ALL ALONG.

If they *ARE*, then Microsoft will have to pay Motorola damages, in addition to the licensing costs under the new terms.

As I pointed out earlier, this is like a murder trial where Motorola claims that Microsoft killed the guy, and Microsoft claims that the guy tripped and fell out the window. There are two VERY different penalties involved.

Kinguendo:

RvLeshrac:

What does the patent's existence have to do with anything? Microsoft admits the patent exists. Microsoft admits the patent is used in the 360. The disagreement is over whether or not Motorola/Google should be held accountable for the FRAND provisions, and whether or not their refusal to continue licensing the patent to Microsoft at the existing rate constitutes a violation of those provisions. If it does, then Microsoft has to pay the existing rate - which is EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.

Microsoft doesn't want to infringe on the patent, but they feel that Motorola/Google began violating the agreement Motorola entered into when licensing the patent was allowed to become a required part of standards compliance.

Dude, dont get whiney just because you lost. I said the patent existed, you said "Blah, blah. It hasnt been decided yet." and now you admit it has so thats that. I honestly dont know why you are still going.

Because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of both this case and the law.

 Pages PREV 1 2

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