Xboxes may be banned In the US as well.

[ShadowsofHope]

/popcorn

Good thing I live in Canada with the Xbox360 250GB Slim I bought last Christmas! There is no way Stephen Harper would bend over backwards and copy everything the U.S. plans to do he-...

...

..Shit.

On the plus side, I do believe that judge has mastered Obi-wan's legendary "Trollesu" form, confronted by Microsoft..

 

[RatRace123]

Isn't it bad for the consumer though? If the 360 was banned in the U.S. than game companies would stop producing for the 360 and anyone who just so happened to have bought a 360 would be screwed and would have to go buy a PS3 or Wii.

There's also the fact that this will put alot of people out of the job. Surely the U.S. has been trying to keep jobs up?

Oh ho ho, what a charming mindset. No, keeping jobs up and keeping things convenient for consumers is secondary when it comes to stupid-ass lawsuits.

OT: I'm hoping microsoft has enough money to throw at this problem to get it fixed, and I also hope we take another look at patent laws because this situation is kinda ridiculous. And the judge seems to be an idiot who doesn't know how the games industry works.
"D'oh, well Microsoft may be gone but Nintendo and Sony can pick up da slack and da number of consumers will still be the same."

But then again, I'm kinda pissed 'cause I own a shit load of 360 games, it's easily my most used current gen console and the system isn't known for being all that stable, so if my current one bricks then I'm screwed. I guess online sales are still a thing, so getting a 360 should probably still be possible. But the whole situation is just moronic.

 

[Johnson McGee]

Going through the process of patent application myself right now it's easy to see why patents get vague and stupid as there are hordes of lawyers poring over everything.

example: "we claim this new technology which does X, Y and Z"

lawyerization: "we claim all technology that does things with stuff"

The way the US patent system works, it's the responsibility of the patent holder to protect their IP. Going after everyone who infringes is expensive and time consuming, but waiting until someone else is actually successful and can actually pay out enough to make going after them worthwhile is a much better tactic. That being said, I'm not sure why Motorola would wait this long to sue.

 

[incal11]

I understand information needs to flow into the public domain, however I also understand that anything can happen and I'd hate to see people lying in wait for copyrights to expire so they can "do it better" without the need for author's permission as soon as possible.

Good point, but it's not like many aren't already unwilling to wait even ten years before committing blatant rip-offs. Beside the types who like to "lye in wait" are typically not the kind of persons who can do anything better than the originals. If imitators are being successful they are doing a good job, and then it would have been a shame to stop them because of someone's shallow feeling of entitlement.

I'm still with you when you say you should have a lifelong right to your creation. However I see that lifelong right as only the relative control of eventual adaptations of your work. Control over distribution of the original work shouldn't last much longer than 14 years, else there can not be any public domain, and you selfishly shoot your own profession in the foot. Also it's a right that shouldn't be sold, given, or ever last after your death.

I know it's easier said than done not to be selfish when everyone in the field are snapping at each other like rats for a few bread crumbs. Still there are too many artists who forget that their line of work is, or at least used to be, first about pleasing the public in exchange for support, not just to demand it's money even if the show sucked. If that's too harsh a change of field is in order.

 

[Toby Kitching]

I'm not a microsoft man, but this is a terrible shame for gamers generally. Last thing we need in today's market is any one console manufacturer getting complacent.

Good thing we're approaching the end of a console generation. With any luck that'll take some of the sting out of it.

 

[Riff Moonraker]

Ever since I first saw Han Solo blast out of Mos Eisley in the Falcon, I've wanted to be a smuggler. Guess now I'll get my chance.

No kidding. You find a Falcon, I'll be your partner!

 

[manaman]

Microsoft should just buy the patent from Motorola, there problem solved. Or better yet, why doesn't Microsoft just buy out Motorola?

Because, while the article doesn't say, this is Motorola Mobility. Motorola Mobility is a publicly traded company and while Microsoft is no stranger to buying companies this size neither is Google, who agreed to purchase the company for $12.5 billion in late 2011 and completed the merger this year.

That still doesn't exclude the possibility of buying the bloody patent.

It does if nobody is selling. Besides I have had my hunches for a while the real fight here is between Google and Microsoft.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Microsoft should just buy the patent from Motorola, there problem solved. Or better yet, why doesn't Microsoft just buy out Motorola?

Because, while the article doesn't say, this is Motorola Mobility. Motorola Mobility is a publicly traded company and while Microsoft is no stranger to buying companies this size neither is Google, who agreed to purchase the company for $12.5 billion in late 2011 and completed the merger this year.

That still doesn't exclude the possibility of buying the bloody patent.

It does if nobody is selling. Besides I have had my hunches for a while the real fight here is between Google and Microsoft.

True, but I have to wonder is Motorola even using that codec for anything? 'Cause if they aren't then why do they hold on to the patent other than to spite Microsoft which seems like a really stupid reason to me esp. from a business perspective. So yeah I can't think of a good enough reason why they wouldn't sell it assuming they could hammer out a price they could both agree on. Besides, all these legal battles just seem like a waste of time and money to me and we all know how much big business hates wasting both so it makes no sense to me that they wouldn't go for the quickest, most efficient, and most inexpensive solution to this problem.

 

[manaman]

Microsoft should just buy the patent from Motorola, there problem solved. Or better yet, why doesn't Microsoft just buy out Motorola?

Because, while the article doesn't say, this is Motorola Mobility. Motorola Mobility is a publicly traded company and while Microsoft is no stranger to buying companies this size neither is Google, who agreed to purchase the company for $12.5 billion in late 2011 and completed the merger this year.

That still doesn't exclude the possibility of buying the bloody patent.

It does if nobody is selling. Besides I have had my hunches for a while the real fight here is between Google and Microsoft.

True, but I have to wonder is Motorola even using that codec for anything? 'Cause if they aren't then why do they hold on to the patent other than to spite Microsoft which seems like a really stupid reason to me esp. from a business perspective. So yeah I can't think of a good enough reason why they wouldn't sell it assuming they could hammer out a price they could both agree on. Besides, all these legal battles just seem like a waste of time and money to me and we all know how much big business hates wasting both so it makes no sense to me that they wouldn't go for the quickest, most efficient, and most inexpensive solution to this problem.

There are four patents they are suing over. I really haven't been following this one closely enough to make some real comments on it, but what I find odd is that Motorola seems to be stepping around RAND (also FRAND) terms for licensing the popular codec and nobody is calling them on that.

I wouldn't doubt a bit that this is, at least as far as it can be with companies, personal.

Another lawsuit, Microsoft VS Motorola Mobility is flying under the radar. Microsoft is pulling exactly the same thing. It is a software patent that has to do with their ActiveSync program. This kind of thing has been the norm since the Android OS started to dominate the smartphone market. Apple and Microsoft are both suing the pants off Google and the manufacturers of Android phones.

The whole reason Google spent $12.5 billion buying Motorola Mobility was for the patents that came along with it. Google got tired of Apple and Microsoft both attacking the Android platform with lawsuit after lawsuit.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Microsoft should just buy the patent from Motorola, there problem solved. Or better yet, why doesn't Microsoft just buy out Motorola?

Because, while the article doesn't say, this is Motorola Mobility. Motorola Mobility is a publicly traded company and while Microsoft is no stranger to buying companies this size neither is Google, who agreed to purchase the company for $12.5 billion in late 2011 and completed the merger this year.

That still doesn't exclude the possibility of buying the bloody patent.

It does if nobody is selling. Besides I have had my hunches for a while the real fight here is between Google and Microsoft.

True, but I have to wonder is Motorola even using that codec for anything? 'Cause if they aren't then why do they hold on to the patent other than to spite Microsoft which seems like a really stupid reason to me esp. from a business perspective. So yeah I can't think of a good enough reason why they wouldn't sell it assuming they could hammer out a price they could both agree on. Besides, all these legal battles just seem like a waste of time and money to me and we all know how much big business hates wasting both so it makes no sense to me that they wouldn't go for the quickest, most efficient, and most inexpensive solution to this problem.

There are four patents they are suing over. I really haven't been following this one closely enough to make some real comments on it, but what I find odd is that Motorola seems to be stepping around RAND (also FRAND) terms for licensing the popular codec and nobody is calling them on that.

I wouldn't doubt a bit that this is, at least as far as it can be with companies, personal.

Another lawsuit, Microsoft VS Motorola Mobility is flying under the radar. Microsoft is pulling exactly the same thing. It is a software patent that has to do with their ActiveSync program. This kind of thing has been the norm since the Android OS started to dominate the smartphone market. Apple and Microsoft are both suing the pants off Google and the manufacturers of Android phones.

The whole reason Google spent $12.5 billion buying Motorola Mobility was for the patents that came along with it. Google got tired of Apple and Microsoft both attacking the Android platform with lawsuit after lawsuit.

Someone actually is calling them out on it: Microsoft. That's why the German court had to wait on an American judge; this whole thing is Motorola's response to Microsoft's response to Motorola breaking that agreement. They agreed to those terms because those patents are a few of many that are involved in the h.264 codec, and in order to keep ownership of the patents instead of sharing them with the industry group that regulates the CODEC, they signed a FRAND agreement, which they broke by trying to overcharge Microsoft for the use of that patent. Microsoft responded by suing them and ignoring the patent in the meantime, then Motorola started suing for patent violations.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Microsoft should just buy the patent from Motorola, there problem solved. Or better yet, why doesn't Microsoft just buy out Motorola?

Because, while the article doesn't say, this is Motorola Mobility. Motorola Mobility is a publicly traded company and while Microsoft is no stranger to buying companies this size neither is Google, who agreed to purchase the company for $12.5 billion in late 2011 and completed the merger this year.

That still doesn't exclude the possibility of buying the bloody patent.

It does if nobody is selling. Besides I have had my hunches for a while the real fight here is between Google and Microsoft.

True, but I have to wonder is Motorola even using that codec for anything? 'Cause if they aren't then why do they hold on to the patent other than to spite Microsoft which seems like a really stupid reason to me esp. from a business perspective. So yeah I can't think of a good enough reason why they wouldn't sell it assuming they could hammer out a price they could both agree on. Besides, all these legal battles just seem like a waste of time and money to me and we all know how much big business hates wasting both so it makes no sense to me that they wouldn't go for the quickest, most efficient, and most inexpensive solution to this problem.

There are four patents they are suing over. I really haven't been following this one closely enough to make some real comments on it, but what I find odd is that Motorola seems to be stepping around RAND (also FRAND) terms for licensing the popular codec and nobody is calling them on that.

I wouldn't doubt a bit that this is, at least as far as it can be with companies, personal.

Another lawsuit, Microsoft VS Motorola Mobility is flying under the radar. Microsoft is pulling exactly the same thing. It is a software patent that has to do with their ActiveSync program. This kind of thing has been the norm since the Android OS started to dominate the smartphone market. Apple and Microsoft are both suing the pants off Google and the manufacturers of Android phones.

The whole reason Google spent $12.5 billion buying Motorola Mobility was for the patents that came along with it. Google got tired of Apple and Microsoft both attacking the Android platform with lawsuit after lawsuit.

I sure hope all that sounds as mind bogglingly absurd to you as it does to me.

 

[Something Amyss]

Goodness, I think I struck a nerve or something. Okay, one at a time:

Or something. You made a point that doesn't logically sit with a lot of people. If you struck a nerve, you'd see more "STFU noob" comments.

Owyn and Atmos: I don't anticipate making money off a book so many decades after publication, but if the opportunity for some larger deal were to come up in that time, aren't I entitled to the money since I'm still breathing and able to speak for myself? Where the Wild Things Are came out in 1963. The movie came out came out just 2 years ago, and the author died just a few weeks ago. Even though he and the story were old, I think Maurice Sendak still deserved credit. He wasn't dead yet, so don't take his idea without his blessing just yet. And trust me, if every writer could model their career after J.K. Rowling, it would be an even more popular field than it already is.

Oddly enough, Sendak would still have rights under MOST of the proposals so far. To the day he died. Interesting, that. Should you be entitled to credit? Yes. Should you be entitled to money? That's a trickier issue.

And what do you mean by Rowling's model? You mean getting really lucky in crafting a franchise out of a hobby?

Zachary: I don't intend to be senile at 81 if I can help it ;-) My grandparents are nearly that age and they are anything but.

What we intend and what happens aren't always friendly with one another.

Freechoice: In these days of old and new books becoming movies, yes, I think someone "doing it better" (or on a bigger budget) is a pretty legitimate concern. And what on earth is wrong with being hopeful? The gist I've gotten from the two writing professors I've had so far is that hope is often the name of the game when it comes to getting published and making a good chunk of money. I understand information needs to flow into the public domain, however I also understand that anything can happen and I'd hate to see people lying in wait for copyrights to expire so they can "do it better" without the need for author's permission as soon as possible.

That's going to happen no matter when copyright expires.

Besides, at 50 years, the relevence there is minimal.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm not a microsoft man, but this is a terrible shame for gamers generally. Last thing we need in today's market is any one console manufacturer getting complacent.

You know what's worse? Console manufacturers getting the idea that they're above the law like this.

I prefer my 360 to my PS3, but Jesus, if they've done something wrong, they should be punished. It shouldn't matter that it might give the opposition a boost; they should have thought of that before they went there in the first place.

 

[gigastrike]

Unless the police are gonna bust down my door and burn my Xbox, I think I can last until the next console generation.