Updated: Microsoft Currently Trying to Track and Identify Xbox One Info Leaker

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Updated: Microsoft Currently Trying to Track and Identify Xbox One Info Leaker

Microsoft

Microsoft executives are said to be looking to take legal action against the NeoGAF user who leaked the company's alleged Xbox One plans.

Just in case you didn't know, Microsoft's Xbox One plans for the foreseeable future has allegedly been leaked by a "mod-verified" NeoGAF user named "ntkrnl." Among the leaks was a plan for console revisions set for release later this year, and what Microsoft has scheduled for its games lineup. Over on Kotaku, a "reliable source" has been able to confirm that ntkrnl is indeed "connected" to Microsoft, though that doesn't mean every info that got leaked is real. Another person who's "familiar with the situation" who spoke under the condition of anonymity has also surfaced, and states Microsoft is currently trying to track and identify the forum poster. This same unnamed source also mentions that Microsoft executives are seeking to take legal action against ntkrnl.

Also of note, one of the things revealed yesterday was the Titanfall Limited Edition Xbox One, which two industry sources have confirmed to Kotaku to be real; although it's mentioned the leaked console packaging and unit image is not 100% accurate. NeoGAF poster Pete Dodd, who instigated the "PS4NoDRM" movement on Twitter, and has leaked industry info himself, claims he heard the Titanfall bundle was cancelled, with cost being the major factor.

When we asked Microsoft for a statement regarding the leaks, we got the now-standard "we don't comment or rumors" line, which almost every company uses these days. Thankfully, other people are willing to talk on the leaks' developments, so we have an idea what's happening behind the scenes.

Out of the info posted online, which ones do you think will come true? And should Microsoft take legal action against the leaker or has ntkrnl helped Microsoft promote the Xbox One by revealing the host of titles coming to the console?

Updated: Adding more fuel to the speculation fire, VG247 reports that a "well-respected" senior publisher has told them that a new Xbox One model will indeed be released this year. The source could not comment on whether the system will have a disc drive but they did say it will be priced lower than the current $499 model.

Source: Twitter, Kotaku, VG247

Permalink

One of the rumors was a Halo 2 remake, and the xbox one wasn't guaranteed to handle 1080p and 60fps at the same time. They might as well stuck with the xbox 360 at this point if its such a tiny improvement over it.

If this is true, that would be the biggest gaming joke in all of 2014. Might be a rehash of resolution gate.

The rumor of a 399$ xbox without a disc drive is pants on head retarded if they even try to force it. Disc drives don't even cost that much to warrant a whole 100$ discount. At best its more anti used game DRM meant to force you to use xbox live. They can knock off 100$ because they will drain your wallet dry at full price on xbox. Its not like you have cheaper options online or offline, if you have no disc drive on a console they pretty much have you by the balls. There is no such thing as a "used" download at gamestop.

Even then, that pitiful 500Gb will fill up fast.

Microsoft trying to sue a guy for something that will come out anyway is laughable and only makes those rumors more believable and makes Microsoft that much more of a joke in the process. You can't dispel rumors by acting suspicious.

Ultratwinkie:

Microsoft trying to sue a guy for something that will come out anyway is laughable

Thats not laughable, sounds pretty reasonable actually. If you are privy to information not available to the public and are bound by contracts/agreements to not release the information, regardless of it coming out in the future or not doesn't matter, you cannot release that information.

Huh. I thought the leak turned out rather well for them. A lot of people seemed quite hyped (myself included) for some of the stuff that was "announced". I suppose if it's something they had big plans for revealing, like at E3, then I can understand why they'd be annoyed, but you'd think they'd take any positivity they could get at the moment.

Ultratwinkie:
Microsoft trying to sue a guy for something that will come out anyway is laughable and only makes those rumors more believable and makes Microsoft that much more of a joke in the process. You can't dispel rumors by acting suspicious.

Someone with NDAs with Microsoft broke them. It's hardly laughable for someone to get in trouble for intentionally doing something illegal.

Microsoft should look at it this way;

This person leaking this information is a good way to poll consumer interest in their plans, at a stage where it is most likely possible to revert or alter some of the stuff.

On the other hand, it gives the competition a little bit of an edge...

What's the big deal? They were going to release the information anyway, what difference does it make if it's released a couple of weeks early?

bluegate:
Microsoft should look at it this way;

This person leaking this information is a good way to poll consumer interest in their plans, at a stage where it is most likely possible to revert or alter some of the stuff.

No, they should look at it this way:

This person leaked trade secrets of our company. At the very least, it circumvented and sabotaged a very expensive marketing plan. Next time, they might do even more damage. We should identify this employee and determine the appropriate course of disciplinary action, whether it's probation, termination and/or criminal prosecution. If we don't, the next time an employee violates our confidentiality (and does real damage) they would be able to rightfully point out that we didn't pursue the last person that did and then they have the foundation for a civil case that we're selectively discriminating against them.

ntkrnl made a bonehead decision. And now he has a choice to make: he can either admit his mistake and hope that his honesty moderates Microsoft's response; or he can keep his head down and hope this blows over... although if he does get found out, it'll go doubly bad for him, since trying to hide your screwup is always viewed more harshly than manning up.

Mortuorum:
No, they should look at it this way:

This person leaked trade secrets of our company. At the very least, it circumvented and sabotaged a very expensive marketing plan. Next time, they might do even more damage. We should identify this employee and determine the appropriate course of disciplinary action, whether it's probation, termination and/or criminal prosecution. If we don't, the next time an employee violates our confidentiality (and does real damage) they would be able to rightfully point out that we didn't pursue the last person that did and then they have the foundation for a civil case that we're selectively discriminating against them.

ntkrnl made a bonehead decision. And now he has a choice to make: he can either admit his mistake and hope that his honesty moderates Microsoft's response; or he can keep his head down and hope this blows over... although if he does get found out, it'll go doubly bad for him, since trying to hide your screwup is always viewed more harshly than manning up.

But, you got the fact that my post was meant as a lighthearted joke, right?

bluegate:

Mortuorum:
No, they should look at it this way:

This person leaked trade secrets of our company. At the very least, it circumvented and sabotaged a very expensive marketing plan. Next time, they might do even more damage. We should identify this employee and determine the appropriate course of disciplinary action, whether it's probation, termination and/or criminal prosecution. If we don't, the next time an employee violates our confidentiality (and does real damage) they would be able to rightfully point out that we didn't pursue the last person that did and then they have the foundation for a civil case that we're selectively discriminating against them.

ntkrnl made a bonehead decision. And now he has a choice to make: he can either admit his mistake and hope that his honesty moderates Microsoft's response; or he can keep his head down and hope this blows over... although if he does get found out, it'll go doubly bad for him, since trying to hide your screwup is always viewed more harshly than manning up.

But, you got the fact that my post was meant as a lighthearted joke, right?

This is the internet, humour and sarcasm never translates well via text.

To be honest I thought you were being completely serious as well. The last sentence especially doesn't help.

bluegate:
But, you got the fact that my post was meant as a lighthearted joke, right?

Uh, nope. As Ed130 intuited, I thought you were dead serious. And, even if you weren't, enough posters stated essentially the same sentiments (and I can't imagine that they were all joking) that I still stand by my point.

Ha, I'm laughing pretty hard at the "trade secrets" and "marketing sabotage" type of posts.

pretty sure come next E3 if Microsoft announced these new Xbones, within a year of console launch, I might as well fucking remind people. My interest in owning a xbone would be that like it is now, absolute zero.

So, actually, how about we look at it in a different way?

Cause I'm pretty suspicious about Microsoft releasing new versions of a console that isn't even a year old yet. I would be suspicious of one of those consoles only being able to download games and due to the Terms of Service, rules governing their use could change at any moment.

I hope Ntkrnl releases more information, cause this is shady as fuck.

Mortuorum:

bluegate:
But, you got the fact that my post was meant as a lighthearted joke, right?

Uh, nope. As Ed130 intuited, I thought you were dead serious. And, even if you weren't, enough posters stated essentially the same sentiments (and I can't imagine that they were all joking) that I still stand by my point.

Please don't misunderstand; me telling you it was meant as a joke wasn't an attempt to make you change your point, I was just trying to make things clear, as you explicitly quoted my post.

On a serious note, I would have to agree with the things you wrote. I personally enjoy getting new information about stuff, leaked or not, but I fully understand that a person leaking information is a serious problem for a company.

Ed130:
This is the internet, humour and sarcasm never translates well via text.

To be honest I thought you were being completely serious as well. The last sentence especially doesn't help.

Hehe, yeah, at times, that attribute makes reading comments on the internet all the more fun though.

The last sentence doesn't help, you say, curious, personally I thought it would nudge the tone a bit into the direction of non-seriousville. I guess it's back to the drawing board for me.

Jim Sterling commented on the topic of industry secrecy months ago, but it's still quite relevant.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/8371-Cloak-and-Dagger

Thank God for him.

"We're not confirming any of these rumors, but we are looking to track down and sue the guy that started spreading them."

Yeah, Microsoft doesn't comment on rumors. They prefer to just take action, I suppose.

Yeah, good luck with that. Do you know how easy it is to vanish on the internet?

And do you seriously think someone would leak something like this without ensuring their bases were covered trace-wise?

If you're going to cut something for cost, cut the Kinect. The drive is only about $15, if that, especially since they went with a cheap-ass one not designed for vertical orientation.

Well already another model coming this year? One hopes that it is the fabled Kinect-less model, but something's telling me it's gonna end up being the Titan Fall one. Especially since most of the rumors that were about the Xbox One before it's reveal and launch ended up being correct...

Mortuorum:

ntkrnl made a bonehead decision. And now he has a choice to make: he can either admit his mistake and hope that his honesty moderates Microsoft's response; or he can keep his head down and hope this blows over... although if he does get found out, it'll go doubly bad for him, since trying to hide your screwup is always viewed more harshly than manning up.

It's hardly manning up to volunteer for criminal prosecution. I say good luck to them, if they were careful enough, there's a very real chance they'll escape with no punishment.

MS seeking this person does lend some credibility to the claims, I think. While I understand that NDAs were broken I feel that MS should use this to their advantage. It is perfect. You let someone slip some information that can't be confirmed or disproven and see how the internet likes it. If it gets a positive reception MS would go ahead with their plans and if it was received negatively then it was just a rumor some guy started. However, with MS' recent track record I would be surprised if they were able to find the guy, let alone employ a marketing tactic this advanced...

Whether the leaked info turns out to be good or bad for them, the end result is that a staff member proved to be untrustworthy and violated their employment contract.

Whether you find the idea of marketing losses and industry secrets and all that laughable or not, you have to see that's not a trait you want to go unanswered in an employee.

ClockworkUniverse:

Ultratwinkie:
Microsoft trying to sue a guy for something that will come out anyway is laughable and only makes those rumors more believable and makes Microsoft that much more of a joke in the process. You can't dispel rumors by acting suspicious.

Someone with NDAs with Microsoft broke them. It's hardly laughable for someone to get in trouble for intentionally doing something illegal.

I think whats laughable is that such things can be made illegal to begin with. Embargos need to die, they are not beneficial. Gaming industry needs transparancy, badly.

Sarge034:
MS seeking this person does lend some credibility to the claims, I think.

one needs to remmeber that the information about MS seeking for a leaker is supposedly a "leak" itself so you assume that it is credible and that a rumor somehow gives credibility to another rumor?

Strazdas:
I think whats laughable is that such things can be made illegal to begin with. Embargos need to die, they are not beneficial. Gaming industry needs transparancy, badly.

As someone who has had went to college for business management I can tell you this is a bad idea. NDAs and the like are in place to ensure that companies can keep their competitive edge against each other. It would be like if you were in a group and you were all told to start thinking of topics for a paper. You are just casually talking with the group and discussing everyone's ideas and that one asshole will inevitably take the best topic (that obviously wasn't theirs) and you can't do anything about it.

one needs to remmeber that the information about MS seeking for a leaker is supposedly a "leak" itself so you assume that it is credible and that a rumor somehow gives credibility to another rumor?

When the pieces seem to fit right, yes. Just remember, credibility is a far stretch from confirmation.

Sarge034:

Strazdas:
I think whats laughable is that such things can be made illegal to begin with. Embargos need to die, they are not beneficial. Gaming industry needs transparancy, badly.

As someone who has had went to college for business management I can tell you this is a bad idea. NDAs and the like are in place to ensure that companies can keep their competitive edge against each other. It would be like if you were in a group and you were all told to start thinking of topics for a paper. You are just casually talking with the group and discussing everyone's ideas and that one asshole will inevitably take the best topic (that obviously wasn't theirs) and you can't do anything about it.

While my degree in economics is no business management, i done my fiar share of business analysis. Its a bad idea only if you think that busness being able to monopolize products and services and information and sueing anyone that does the same thing better is a good thing. i for one want the most efficient business to have the competetive edge and not the ones with best army of lawyers and boguht politicians.
Yes, that asshole would take the topic, SO WHAT? if hes good at writing this topic he will do well, if not he will not. maybe hes even better at this topic than you are, however you want to refuse to let him even try because hur dur i want to do it instead.

Strazdas:
While my degree in economics is no business management, i done my fiar share of business analysis. Its a bad idea only if you think that busness being able to monopolize products and services and information and sueing anyone that does the same thing better is a good thing. i for one want the most efficient business to have the competetive edge and not the ones with best army of lawyers and boguht politicians.
Yes, that asshole would take the topic, SO WHAT? if hes good at writing this topic he will do well, if not he will not. maybe hes even better at this topic than you are, however you want to refuse to let him even try because hur dur i want to do it instead.

God I hated the economic classes, how did you major in that shit?

Anyway, NDAs don't necessarily equate to monopolization. I would actually put that in the court of patents, copyright, trademarks, and the like. It also depends on if you are looking at it from the consumer side or the business side.

As a business, if I spend the time and the money to research current trends anything I come up with is an investment at that point because I spent man hours and capitol to get that information. Have to think of a clear cut example... Wii fit. Nintendo did the market research to find that this was a thing that the market wanted but didn't have anything to fill that need. If Nintendo had made that public knowledge then they would be doing free market research for their competitors.

As a consumer, NDAs only really affect us if a product is shit. In gaming they restrict ANY review information before the official launch if the devs/publisher know the game sucks (if the game gets a review at all). In manufacturing a contracted assembly company can't tell you about chinchy construction of an item. Ect.

While I do think monopolies, business law, patents, and copyright are all very interesting points of discussion when it comes down to it NDAs only restrict the flow of "proprietary information". As such I can't deny they serve a purpose that needs to be filled.

Sarge034:

Strazdas:
While my degree in economics is no business management, i done my fiar share of business analysis. Its a bad idea only if you think that busness being able to monopolize products and services and information and sueing anyone that does the same thing better is a good thing. i for one want the most efficient business to have the competetive edge and not the ones with best army of lawyers and boguht politicians.
Yes, that asshole would take the topic, SO WHAT? if hes good at writing this topic he will do well, if not he will not. maybe hes even better at this topic than you are, however you want to refuse to let him even try because hur dur i want to do it instead.

God I hated the economic classes, how did you major in that shit?

Anyway, NDAs don't necessarily equate to monopolization. I would actually put that in the court of patents, copyright, trademarks, and the like. It also depends on if you are looking at it from the consumer side or the business side.

As a business, if I spend the time and the money to research current trends anything I come up with is an investment at that point because I spent man hours and capitol to get that information. Have to think of a clear cut example... Wii fit. Nintendo did the market research to find that this was a thing that the market wanted but didn't have anything to fill that need. If Nintendo had made that public knowledge then they would be doing free market research for their competitors.

As a consumer, NDAs only really affect us if a product is shit. In gaming they restrict ANY review information before the official launch if the devs/publisher know the game sucks (if the game gets a review at all). In manufacturing a contracted assembly company can't tell you about chinchy construction of an item. Ect.

While I do think monopolies, business law, patents, and copyright are all very interesting points of discussion when it comes down to it NDAs only restrict the flow of "proprietary information". As such I can't deny they serve a purpose that needs to be filled.

i love economics, i love statistics, and i love counting moneys. different things for different people i guess. (i also got my masters in accounting and auditing, so im very much into money counting).
everything is better with statistics. i am yet to see a game that has enough statistics for me. then again, i work at national statistics office, i may be a bit biased :P

NDAs dont necessary equate to monopolization, but they very often do, especially on things like information embargo like this. Copyright and trademark laws are quite broken and need a rewrite (and they give way too many powers for companies for way too long, when copyright was introduced it had a 26 year lifespan, for the time this was good, it should ahve gotten SHORTER as world moved faster, not longer). I look at it from the side of humanity. laws should be beneficial to humanity, not to selected few who happen to slap a NDA first.

See, your example is benefit to company monepolizing the market without any ability to respond by the competition. if nintendo would have made it a public knowledge they would have earned less on it than they did, becuase likely competition would have responded with competent product as well and public would have had a choice. this is GOOD for the market and bad for nintendo. I prefer economy as a whole over single company. companies of course prefer themselves above everything else, thus a conflict.

im not saying we should remove NDA completely, rather limit the cases where it can be used legally (like the instance of microsoft wanting to make another model). After all, if patent laws work correctly there is no reason to hide the thing you pattented (in fact, you cant, as your patent can be looked at by anyone since its public record).

it would also limit the "3 dollars PCM" deals, which in this particular case was actually illegal. according to trade commission in US anyone being paid to advertise something must disclose that he is paid for it, and the NDA MS made machinima folks sign forbid such disclosure, thus the NDA was actually breaking the regulations.

It is obviuos that we have very different views when it comes to business practices, and it may end up in very interesting discussion :)

Strazdas:
i love economics, i love statistics, and i love counting moneys. different things for different people i guess. (i also got my masters in accounting and auditing, so im very much into money counting).
everything is better with statistics. i am yet to see a game that has enough statistics for me. then again, i work at national statistics office, i may be a bit biased :P

Lies, damn lies, and statistics >.>... I'm joking. I do enjoy actually dealing with the information, but the classes themselves were so outdated that they were almost pointless. When your prof, who was a vp in an industry leading business, says that the information is wrong but they have to teach/test you on it anyway it just feels pointless. At least she did us the service of teaching us the correct info on the side if we were interested.

NDAs dont necessary equate to monopolization, but they very often do, especially on things like information embargo like this. Copyright and trademark laws are quite broken and need a rewrite (and they give way too many powers for companies for way too long, when copyright was introduced it had a 26 year lifespan, for the time this was good, it should ahve gotten SHORTER as world moved faster, not longer). I look at it from the side of humanity. laws should be beneficial to humanity, not to selected few who happen to slap a NDA first.

Not trying to poke at you, but you do know what NDAs are right? From your description it seems like you lump them in with the likes of copyrights and patents. They are nothing alike. A copyright/patent "prevents" people from duplicating your specific thing and provides detailed, publicly available, records so you know what not to design while an NDA simply keeps people in the know from spilling the information before you are ready. I will agree that copyright law needs a rework if only because the internet and digital media didn't exist at its' conception. However, I can't agree that copyright protection needs to be diminished simply because the person who made "that thing" should get credit for having made "that thing" as long as "that thing" is relevant. You know how people can get around that kind of copyright law? They make their own "thing" that works better and doesn't use the preexisting item as a springboard.

See, your example is benefit to company monepolizing the market without any ability to respond by the competition. if nintendo would have made it a public knowledge they would have earned less on it than they did, becuase likely competition would have responded with competent product as well and public would have had a choice. this is GOOD for the market and bad for nintendo. I prefer economy as a whole over single company. companies of course prefer themselves above everything else, thus a conflict.

Nintendo withheld the information they paid for because it was an asset they paid for. They didn't monopolize anything as companies are free to make their own fitness "games" that don't infringe on Nintendo's patents or copyrights. Sony responded with the PlayStation Move fitness games and Microsoft responded with the Xbox 360 Kinect fitness games. Hell, there are even third party fitness games on the Wii. Had there been a monopoly there would only be Wii Fit on the market.

im not saying we should remove NDA completely, rather limit the cases where it can be used legally (like the instance of microsoft wanting to make another model). After all, if patent laws work correctly there is no reason to hide the thing you pattented (in fact, you cant, as your patent can be looked at by anyone since its public record).

That's not how patent/copyright law works. You patent very specific pieces, not the product as a whole (for the most part). So, continuing with the Wii Fit example, Nintendo would have filed a patent for a "game pad" (now known as the Wii Balance Board) and provided the specs so the patent office could file them away. Nintendo would file a copyright for the modified Miis in the Wii Fit version. Nintendo would file a patent for their fitness code including, but not limited to, the caloric burn computing algorithm, the exercise tracking code, and the goal system code. So any analysts that were scrutinizing Nintendo's filings, and make no mistake every company pays people to keep an eye on their competitors, would have come to the conclusion that Nintendo was working on some sort of exercise software, might be looking to change the Miis in some way, and had another "gimmicky" controller in the works. And that is just looking at the pertinent information. Anything that is made in an R&D lab is automatically patented just in case it is the next big thing. So the analysts would have had to wade through all of that info as well. However, one person breaking the NDA would have told the analysts that Nintendo was making a fitness game on the Wii that utilized in game avatars, personal profiles, and the balance board.

it would also limit the "3 dollars PCM" deals, which in this particular case was actually illegal. according to trade commission in US anyone being paid to advertise something must disclose that he is paid for it, and the NDA MS made machinima folks sign forbid such disclosure, thus the NDA was actually breaking the regulations.

Incorrect. The official statement was...

"This partnership between Machinima and Microsoft was a typical marketing partnership to promote Xbox One in December. The Xbox team does not review any specific content or provide feedback on content. Any confidentiality provisions, terms or other guidelines are standard documents provided by Machinima. For clarity, confidentiality relates to the agreements themselves, not the existence of the promotion."
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/131539-Update-Microsoft-And-Machinima-Defend-YouTube-Promotion-Deal#

That means that, as per the law, the promotion itself was public knowledge but information like how much the video makers were being paid was confidential. Machinima somehow failed to require the "standard language" (as they call it) in the video's description at the beginning of this fiasco.

It is obviuos that we have very different views when it comes to business practices, and it may end up in very interesting discussion :)

Most of the conversations I'm a part of end up very interesting if nothing else.

Sarge034:

Lies, damn lies, and statistics >.>... I'm joking. I do enjoy actually dealing with the information, but the classes themselves were so outdated that they were almost pointless. When your prof, who was a vp in an industry leading business, says that the information is wrong but they have to teach/test you on it anyway it just feels pointless. At least she did us the service of teaching us the correct info on the side if we were interested.

I can uderstnad the furtration. We had a financial analysis teacher in my masters that was just like that. he would point that we need to learn certain formula, and then spend half and hour telling us why that formula is completely useless in real business. funny thing is, due to me studying in different cities there were plenty of overlapping classes, and i was listening to these formulas for the 3rd time, and he was the first one to point it out openly.

Not trying to poke at you, but you do know what NDAs are right? From your description it seems like you lump them in with the likes of copyrights and patents. They are nothing alike.

I know what Non-Disclosure Agreements are. I lump them together because i think they are equally allowed to run without any regulation to the point of destruction of economy. Just like copyright laws, NDA laws should be rewritten from scaratch to benefit everyone and not just big companies.

Nintendo withheld the information they paid for because it was an asset they paid for. They didn't monopolize anything as companies are free to make their own fitness "games" that don't infringe on Nintendo's patents or copyrights. Sony responded with the PlayStation Move fitness games and Microsoft responded with the Xbox 360 Kinect fitness games. Hell, there are even third party fitness games on the Wii. Had there been a monopoly there would only be Wii Fit on the market.

Being a market leader is very important in business. Nintendo managed to legally force itself to be a market leader by not disclosing information they have, essentialy depriving other markets of equal competition. Granted, this is an example that isnt best suited to make my point, which is that transparency helps the market.

Incorrect. The official statement was...

Well, from one side we got microsoft rep defending microsoft, from another we got youtubers saying they wanted them to sign NDAs that didnt allow them to say that they are being paid for it. Who messed up here, microsoft or machinima, or the youtubers themselves i dont know, but all 3 are believable targets in my opinion.

Well, assuming the rumors are true (and it actually makes sense from a business perspective) the only reason I imagine they're mad is because now Sony knows about it.
Blu-Ray free version? Digital-only? HMMM.
Sony doesn't get any royalties on those units sold, but more interesting to me is that the elimination of Blu-Ray just shits all over their "All-In-One entertainment box" pitch. The digital download only is aimed squarely at gamers (and possibly a response to Sony's PSN efforts, and the upcoming Steambox).

So I guess the Xbone needed gamers on board after all.

Strazdas:
I can uderstnad the furtration. We had a financial analysis teacher in my masters that was just like that. he would point that we need to learn certain formula, and then spend half and hour telling us why that formula is completely useless in real business. funny thing is, due to me studying in different cities there were plenty of overlapping classes, and i was listening to these formulas for the 3rd time, and he was the first one to point it out openly.

Yeah, higher education curriculum is archaic and very padded with unnecessary classes to keep unpopular departments afloat. That is a business practice I could bitch about for hours.

I know what Non-Disclosure Agreements are. I lump them together because i think they are equally allowed to run without any regulation to the point of destruction of economy. Just like copyright laws, NDA laws should be rewritten from scaratch to benefit everyone and not just big companies.

I personally think that there could be one change to NDAs. I think that if you have agreed to the NDA but you are aware of things that are shady, but not quite illegal, you should be able to disclose that information to the proper authorities for review.

Being a market leader is very important in business. Nintendo managed to legally force itself to be a market leader by not disclosing information they have, essentialy depriving other markets of equal competition. Granted, this is an example that isnt best suited to make my point, which is that transparency helps the market.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree. Nintendo didn't "force" anything. They came up with the idea and no one else did. Nothing was stopping MS and Sony from developing a fitness game other than the fact they weren't looking to. While transparency is good is some areas complete transparence would be very detrimental to the free market.

Well, from one side we got microsoft rep defending microsoft, from another we got youtubers saying they wanted them to sign NDAs that didnt allow them to say that they are being paid for it. Who messed up here, microsoft or machinima, or the youtubers themselves i dont know, but all 3 are believable targets in my opinion.

I figure MS wanted to keep the details of the deal quiet (as they have a legal right to), Machinima probably forgot to put the little blurb in the videos' descriptions, and the youtubers are probably tilting the facts to discredit MS because "fuck MS" is a thing. Perhaps a deserved thing, but a thing no less.

Sarge034:

Yeah, higher education curriculum is archaic and very padded with unnecessary classes to keep unpopular departments afloat. That is a business practice I could bitch about for hours.

well, there were people coming from other universities that never had such classes, so i sort of can see a point to an extent.

I personally think that there could be one change to NDAs. I think that if you have agreed to the NDA but you are aware of things that are shady, but not quite illegal, you should be able to disclose that information to the proper authorities for review.

yes, this one would be a nice first step.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree. Nintendo didn't "force" anything. They came up with the idea and no one else did. Nothing was stopping MS and Sony from developing a fitness game other than the fact they weren't looking to. While transparency is good is some areas complete transparence would be very detrimental to the free market.

Transparency is detrimental to monopolies. It benefits actual free market.

I figure MS wanted to keep the details of the deal quiet (as they have a legal right to), Machinima probably forgot to put the little blurb in the videos' descriptions, and the youtubers are probably tilting the facts to discredit MS because "fuck MS" is a thing. Perhaps a deserved thing, but a thing no less.

The problem was that youtubers claimed MS wanted to keep the existence of the deal quiet (as in not allowed to say you are advertising) which they dont have a legal right to do. And when it got called on it MS responded with "its common practice" which is like saying "yes i murdered somone but murder happens often so its ok". from the legality point of view.

Strazdas:
well, there were people coming from other universities that never had such classes, so i sort of can see a point to an extent.

I was speaking specifically to the certification requirements in America and completely forgot to think you might have experienced a different system. I had to take classes that made sense for my major such as technical writing, higher English courses, pretty much a sample of all the business classes, and the like. However the course was padded with a bio-chemistry course that was Frankensteined into the nursing program, a calculus course that I would never use in my professional career, and the one that pissed me off the most... Music Appreciation. I don't have to fucking "appreciate" music to be able to run the business. I need to know how to manage personal, finances, and supply.

Transparency is detrimental to monopolies. It benefits actual free market.

So explain to me how one company spending resources on R&D and all other companies being able to get that information for free benefits the free market. The free market would devolve into waiting for one dumbass company to pay for the R&D so everyone else can vulture around it. It would kill any kind of entrepreneurial drive. I see that as being detrimental to the free market.

The problem was that youtubers claimed MS wanted to keep the existence of the deal quiet (as in not allowed to say you are advertising) which they dont have a legal right to do. And when it got called on it MS responded with "its common practice" which is like saying "yes i murdered somone but murder happens often so its ok". from the legality point of view.

I'm just saying that it devolved into a "he said she said" scenario. There is no real proof one way or the other as the youtubers claimed it was MS' fault and MS said they pay for advertisement all the time BUT it was only the terms of the deal that were confidential.

To equate it to your "murder" example everyone knows James Bond murders people but he is allowed to due to his license to kill. So he can say yes I murdered that man but I can't tell you why I did. That is classified information.

Sarge034:
and the one that pissed me off the most... Music Appreciation.

what is this i dont even.
we need universities teaching us "music appreciation". <facepalm>

So explain to me how one company spending resources on R&D and all other companies being able to get that information for free benefits the free market. The free market would devolve into waiting for one dumbass company to pay for the R&D so everyone else can vulture around it. It would kill any kind of entrepreneurial drive. I see that as being detrimental to the free market.

It benefits free market because all comapnies have equal information therefore are at equal footing in competition. This means the the consumers can chose between products based on companies with no sacrofises while companies have to compete for costumers at equal footing. Meanwhile one company having information that others dont give it and advantage of extracting money from consumers and hogging the matrket - something a monopolies do. The company doing R&D would benefit less, but it would not be wasting its money in trasnparency model. They would benefit the same as all other companies, which can range from better building lines to costumer service improvement depending in what research is being done at.

I think you might be mixing free market in economical sense and free market in political sense.

I'm just saying that it devolved into a "he said she said" scenario. There is no real proof one way or the other as the youtubers claimed it was MS' fault and MS said they pay for advertisement all the time BUT it was only the terms of the deal that were confidential.

I agree that we do not know all the truth and is basing it on a "he said". I pointed as much in my original comment. however MS coming out and pretty much admitting it by saying "we always do that" leans it towards MS being the culprit.

To equate it to your "murder" example everyone knows James Bond murders people but he is allowed to due to his license to kill. So he can say yes I murdered that man but I can't tell you why I did. That is classified information.

James Bond wouldnt work in reality though. He would be jailed quite swiftly.

Strazdas:
what is this i dont even.
we need universities teaching us "music appreciation". <facepalm>

Yep. You should look up some US degree programs sometime for a good chuckle.

It benefits free market because all comapnies have equal information therefore are at equal footing in competition. This means the the consumers can chose between products based on companies with no sacrofises while companies have to compete for costumers at equal footing. Meanwhile one company having information that others dont give it and advantage of extracting money from consumers and hogging the matrket - something a monopolies do. The company doing R&D would benefit less, but it would not be wasting its money in trasnparency model. They would benefit the same as all other companies, which can range from better building lines to costumer service improvement depending in what research is being done at.

I think you might be mixing free market in economical sense and free market in political sense.

Actually both definitions of a free market are rather similar. I believe you are confusing free market with communism. In a free market there will be a standard of service or good and some company will develop a better service or good that takes the previous things place as the new standard. This forces competitors to innovate to bring their goods up to, or surpass, the new standard or perish. In a communist market everyone owns everything, R&D information included, and there is no real competition or massive innovations. The market will stagnate if you make it so companies can not keep their proprietary information.

And you keep using the word "monopoly"... Is something being lost in translation because a monopoly is when only one company provides a service or good. R&D information defiantly gives companies an edge, but it by no means shuts out the competition as shown with the Wii Fit and the slew of other fitness "games" that followed in its' wake.

I agree that we do not know all the truth and is basing it on a "he said". I pointed as much in my original comment. however MS coming out and pretty much admitting it by saying "we always do that" leans it towards MS being the culprit.

And as much as I hate coming to MS' aid I was pointing out that they said the act of paying for advertising in youtube videos was standard practice, not concealing the fact they were paying for advertising.

James Bond wouldnt work in reality though. He would be jailed quite swiftly.

If they were as grandiose as Bond yes, but do you really believe that governments don't have wetwork teams that do "stuff" like that? But it was late and I couldn't come up with a better analogy. I'll try this one. What if your friends were forced to tell you what they really thought all of the time and you the same to them? Would this free exchange of information help or harm your friendships? I know it would harm a fair few of mine. Free exchange of information is not always a good thing.

Sarge034:

Actually both definitions of a free market are rather similar. I believe you are confusing free market with communism. In a free market there will be a standard of service or good and some company will develop a better service or good that takes the previous things place as the new standard. This forces competitors to innovate to bring their goods up to, or surpass, the new standard or perish. In a communist market everyone owns everything, R&D information included, and there is no real competition or massive innovations. The market will stagnate if you make it so companies can not keep their proprietary information.

And you keep using the word "monopoly"... Is something being lost in translation because a monopoly is when only one company provides a service or good. R&D information defiantly gives companies an edge, but it by no means shuts out the competition as shown with the Wii Fit and the slew of other fitness "games" that followed in its' wake.
<...>
If they were as grandiose as Bond yes, but do you really believe that governments don't have wetwork teams that do "stuff" like that? But it was late and I couldn't come up with a better analogy. I'll try this one. What if your friends were forced to tell you what they really thought all of the time and you the same to them? Would this free exchange of information help or harm your friendships? I know it would harm a fair few of mine. Free exchange of information is not always a good thing.

The free market advocated in politics and free market in economical sense are different beats. Free market in economical sense is sometimes defined as perfect competition, as used in this link. It is the opposite of monopoly and while granted is as extreme as its opposite and is almost impossible in real world situation (due to noone having ALL information), this is something that benefits society. In fact, there are laws encouraging it while there are laws discouraging monopolies.
I am not confusing this with communism and i am well aware of what communism is. I disagree about market stagnating, as we saw this does not happen in almost perfect competition food market for example.

Monopoly is when one has exclusive rights to something. A service monopoly is when only one company provides the service, but monopolies also exist for information - for example copyright. Sometimes monopoly is held up by law (as in copyright case) and sometimes naturally by high entry costs (for example internet provider monopolies). You use monopoly in only one narrow sense of the word which makes you confused when i use it in broader sense.
<....>
Yes, there are such teams in reality. As was evident last week on the escapists when the public learns about such teams however most cry out for judging them on same standart as other people - to make them accountable for their crimes. and while the government can and does break its own laws it does not mean something like James Bond would be able to go around and continue to be a chronic alcoholic (the amount of alcohol he consumes if we go by the movies would actually kill him from intoxication).
I believe that lieing is one of the worst thing a human can do in a relationship. The lieing part is also the larger part of the problem with people getting mad about secret lovers. I think living in a world where we would have to say truth to others would be a strange experience, but better as a whole. Imagine not having to worry that someone just lied to you? It would also allow for fair criticism when it is deserved (since your not lieing) which would be a thing to ponder about at least to intelligent people.
I dont know why do you keep around friends that you need to lie to keep, but that is your choice of course.

 Pages 1 2 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