ESA Weighs In On Possible Xbox 360 Ban

[Buizel91]

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.

 

[Kinguendo]

I own a 360 and all that but... if they infringe upon patents then they shouldnt be punished as money is involved?! What the fuck is the point in patents then? I would see Microsoft burn and all 360s be recalled before I accept this kind of bullshit corporate hypocrisy.

You're guilty of murder. Since I said it, it must be true. We'll execute you now, then hold your trial in three weeks.

I mean, the evidence against you is substantial, so why should we bother going to trial BEFORE handing out a punishment?

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.

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.

 

[RvLeshrac]

I own a 360 and all that but... if they infringe upon patents then they shouldnt be punished as money is involved?! What the fuck is the point in patents then? I would see Microsoft burn and all 360s be recalled before I accept this kind of bullshit corporate hypocrisy.

You're guilty of murder. Since I said it, it must be true. We'll execute you now, then hold your trial in three weeks.

I mean, the evidence against you is substantial, so why should we bother going to trial BEFORE handing out a punishment?

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.

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.

 

[Kinguendo]

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.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

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.

 

[Strazdas]

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.

 

[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:

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.

 

[RvLeshrac]

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:

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.

 

[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.