Xboxes may be banned In the US as well.

[Andy Shandy]

You know how there was the whole Microsoft vs Motorola thing is Germany? Well, it seems the same is happening in the US now.

http://gamepolitics.com/2012/05/22/judge-recommends-import-ban-xbox-360

Basically Judge David Shaw recommended that the International Trade Commision ban both the 4GB and 250 GB consoles (slim versions) be banned in the US.

So, what are people's thoughts on this then?

 

[Wayneguard]

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.

 

[Esotera]

This is stupid, software patents really need to go. I think there was recently a ruling in the UK that invalidates/diminishes them, but unfortunately nothing worldwide yet.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

Microsoft argued that Judge Shaw?s order did not serve the public interest because it would leave consumers with only two console options: Sony?s and Nintendo?s. Shaw slapped down that argument saying that enforcing intellectual property rights outweighed the economic impact on game console buyers and there was no evidence that Microsoft?s competitors wouldn?t be able to handle the demand.

I love the Judge's reaction to Microsoft's argument. Basically amounts to:

Microsoft: our competitors might get more customers
Judge: i'm sure they'll be heartbroken over it

 

[repeating integers]

Wow.

I'm not really sure what else to say, except maybe "break out the popcorn"?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

This is stupid, software patents really need to go.

And while we're at it, let's scrap all of our current IP laws and take them back to pre-1978 levels. 70 years after the author's death is obscene. 28 years from the date of publication plus another 28 if the work is renewed should be more than sufficient.

Edit: And by the way, even that is double what the original U.S. copyright law was. 14 years plus another 14 if the copyright is renewed would be wonderful.

 

[Fappy]

I doubt this will happen. You know how many people would lose their jobs if Xbox lost its biggest market?

 

[CAPTCHA]

Motorola claims that the Xbox 360 uses ?Motorola-developed technology that allows set-top boxes to decode transmissions between its Droid2 and DroidX mobile devices? while Microsoft argues that Motorola refused ?to abide by requirements set by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standards Association to set reasonable license fees of essential technology.

A little late for microsoft to be complaining now. They must have written a contract accepting that Motorola were going to develop a patent for there own transmission device. The whole case just seems to be about Microsoft worming out of paying their dues. The judge is right, they should honor their deals or GTFO.

 

[OldDirtyCrusty]

Woah, now the americans are starting to go nazi on Microsoft.
Common people, many had a blast typing this shit when it started in germany, let`s get started now.
It`s rifles vs bows and arrows this time or whatever favorite american history massacre flows your boat.
The thread title should be renamed into "USA bans Xbox360".


Hmm, i still wonder how this turns out for Microsoft at all. It seems they are loosing this time.

 

[dimensional]

What really lol this would be funny if it did actually go through but I doubt it will Microsoft will get out of it somehow they have to much at stake but they will have to up their game from trying to say consumers will suffer because there will be only 2 consoles, seriously how transparent can you get.

 

[Lilani]

This is stupid, software patents really need to go.

And while we're at it, let's scrap all of our current IP laws and take them back to pre-1978 levels. 70 years after the author's death is obscene. 28 years from the date of publication plus another 28 if the work is renewed should be more than sufficient.

Edit: And by the way, even that is double what the original U.S. copyright law was. 14 years plus another 14 if the copyright is renewed would be wonderful.

While I agree copyright laws have gotten out of hand, I would go for up to the death of the author. I'm hoping on getting a book published in the future, and I think it would be rather tragic for someone to make a moderately successful piece when they're about 25, just to see it taken and rehashed and made much more successful and have to watch all that money flow into someone else's pocket (especially now with people saying the 10-20 year olds of today will probably be living easily into their 100s). Information does need to flow into the public domain, but authors and artists shouldn't have to bear witness to someone else making money off of their idea.

Anyway, as others have said, break out the popcorn. This is going to get interesting.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

This is stupid, software patents really need to go.

And while we're at it, let's scrap all of our current IP laws and take them back to pre-1978 levels. 70 years after the author's death is obscene. 28 years from the date of publication plus another 28 if the work is renewed should be more than sufficient.

Edit: And by the way, even that is double what the original U.S. copyright law was. 14 years plus another 14 if the copyright is renewed would be wonderful.

While I agree copyright laws have gotten out of hand, I would go for up to the death of the author. I'm hoping on getting a book published in the future, and I think it would be rather tragic for someone to make a moderately successful piece when they're about 25, just to see it taken and rehashed and made much more successful and have to watch all that money flow into someone else's pocket (especially now with people saying the 10-20 year olds of today will probably be living easily into their 100s). Information does need to flow into the public domain, but authors and artists shouldn't have to bear witness to someone else making money off of their idea.

Anyway, as others have said, break out the popcorn. This is going to get interesting.

If you can't make enough money in 28 years from the date of publication, let alone 56, you're either being greedy or you're too lazy to write a second book. Before 1978, you had to register a copyright for something to be protected in the first place, and it generally started at the date of publication, so theoretically you'd already be signed with a publisher and selling your book before it would be a problem.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I wouldn't have a big problem with this if it wasn't done by patent trolling.

 

[x EvilErmine x]

Could someone explain all the fuss over this to me, coz i just don't get it.

Has not the Xbox 360 been out for years now? So why all of a sudden all the fuss?

 

[Canadamus Prime]

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

 

[Vivi22]

Microsoft should just buy the patent from Motorola, there problem solved.

Why would Motorola ever sell the patent when they may have Microsoft over a barrel? Even if they did, they'd probably want a lot more than Microsoft thinks they should have to pay.

 

[Something Amyss]

While I agree copyright laws have gotten out of hand, I would go for up to the death of the author. I'm hoping on getting a book published in the future, and I think it would be rather tragic for someone to make a moderately successful piece when they're about 25, just to see it taken and rehashed and made much more successful and have to watch all that money flow into someone else's pocket (especially now with people saying the 10-20 year olds of today will probably be living easily into their 100s). Information does need to flow into the public domain, but authors and artists shouldn't have to bear witness to someone else making money off of their idea.

Do you really anticipate making money off your first published work in 56 years?

In other terms, do you really anticipate making money off your first published work when you're about 81?

I know this is a case of "no consensus," but I really don't think I'll care when I'm bedridden and senile. The primary reason I'm seeking publications is I'd love to have something I wrote enjoyed and seen by people. I do want creative control and I'd love to make money off of it, but it's not my primary drive.

Even established artists disagree, as you can find pro and anti piracy advocates in books and music readily. But still, even if you like to 120, what are the odds that you're going to really need to see money off that book?

 

[Something Amyss]

Microsoft should just buy the patent from Motorola, there problem solved.

Why would Motorola ever sell the patent when they may have Microsoft over a barrel? Even if they did, they'd probably want a lot more than Microsoft thinks they should have to pay.

Considering they didn't think they even had to license it in the first place, I'm inclined to agree.