Xboxes may be banned In the US as well.

[Grygor]

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.

Did you just say software patents need to go? Considering we live in a capitalist society, removing software patents would be fucking dumb. Not calling you an idiot. Just... Did you really think that it would be a good thing if we lived without patents?

I mean, you are basically saying all software should be freeware. Which would cause the total collapse of a hell of a lot of companies. Including ones you like.

that said? This particular case is fucking dumb. But saying that we should be without patents is like saying.... I dunno. "Theres a fire in central New York! What we really need is a Tsunami"

No, software patents are a legitimately bad thing. Software copyright can be defended, but software patents are for things like "program which allows an applet to open in a web browser without first being clicked on," and they can be registered while the company doing it has absolutely no clue as to how to implement it. The example I gave was a real patent, by the way. You might recognize it as the reason you had to click on every flash application you opened in Internet Explorer 6.

Nah, software patents are totally justifiable.

The REAL issue is that the patent office isn't capable of properly evaluating them - they have no sense of what "prior art" is, or what is obvious and therefore unpatentable. Largely because software patents are generally evaluated by mathematicians, not computer scientists or programmers.

In other words, the real problem with software patents is patent office incompetence.

If you want to go there, the real real problem is that the patent office is no longer funded by the government, and is instead entirely funded by the registration fee for new patents. They kind of have a vested interest in /not/ denying any new patents.

Well yes, the entire intellectual property system is highly corrupted; you'll get no argument from me there.

After all, as Immanuel Kant said, "out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing was ever made."

 

[Wintermoot]

I get it Motorolla is bad but is it really necessary to kneecap a entire companies console line?
can't they change the software to remove the offending decoders? or strike a deal with Motorola?

 

[madster11]

Judge Shaw sounds like a **** who needs to be punched in the face, and microsoft need to be all 'Lol ok' and bring out the new xbox next week.
Alternatively, Microsoft could be 'Fine' and simply not sell any of their products in the country for a few months, causing thousands of people to lose jobs and melting the fuck out of the economy.

What a stupid fucking judge, taking on the company that effectively runs the entire world (If MS decided to send an auto-update tomorrow that disabled all windows based operating systems, how much chaos would there be?).

 

[TheMann]

Adorable.

I swear sometimes I wish SOPA passed, just as a big "fuck you" to the rest of the world.

Ha ha. Yeah. I can see the headline now:

SOPA Passes As Part of U.S. Effort to Troll Other First-World Nations.
"Lulz on you, Europe.", House Speaker Boehner remarked as Congress adjourned. While most Americans still agree that SOPA is a genuinely bad idea, after all the smack-talk coming from across the Atlantic, they just couldn't pass up the opportunity to make their lives a little miserable.

Annnnnd before I take this thread into flaming inferno territory I'll get OT.

I don't know the specifics, but it's wholly possible that Motorola has a genuine case. It's not a stretch that a small bit of software could have gone unnoticed. I also feel that some people here might be a wee bit biased towards Microsoft due to the fact that they make the XBox. Let's do a thought experiment. Pretend that this exact same scenario were playing out right now, with the exact circumstances, only substitute Apple for Microsoft. Say, Motorola claimed that a small bit of scripting used in iOS encoding was a patent violation. I have a suspicion that most posters would be screaming "Herp, Apple are ripoff douchebags. They should go bankrupt and pay Motorola a million-bazillion dollars." Microsoft has been sued for patent infringement a shitload of times. So much so that they actually went to the Supreme Court in an attempt to get patent law itself changed. [http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2011/06/09/microsofts-failed-attempt-to-change-patent-law-forever/] (It didn't work.)

However... The plot thickens (dun, dun duuuuuun!)
It turns out Microsoft and Motorola have actually been suing the shit out of each other for the past couple years. It's gotten pretty freaking vicious between the two companies. Recently Microsoft successfully sued Motorola for patent infringement [http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/motorola-android-devices-banned-from-us-after-microsoft-patent-dispute-1081355] resulting in an import ban of several Android phone models to the US. Also, both Microsoft and Apple went after Motorola and Google in a completely different case. [http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2012/02/microsoft-apple-take-on-google.html] So, maybe Motorola is butt-hurt about that and is looking for revenge. Who knows, it looks like a total shit storm.

Now this is the part where I could make a snarky comment about how I'm a PC gamer and how it must suck to be a console peon, but I'm not. I really don't want to see an XBox ban.
For one, I'm not one to take a piss on others' entertainment, I'd hate to have something I paid for get flushed like that. Also:

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

Yeah, mainly this. That would suck. It wouldn't just be the folks at Microsoft either. Many game developers have platform specific techs and programmers that work for them. They'd get canned too. I don't want to see that happen.

 

[Grygor]

Judge Shaw sounds like a **** who needs to be punched in the face, and microsoft need to be all 'Lol ok' and bring out the new xbox next week.
Alternatively, Microsoft could be 'Fine' and simply not sell any of their products in the country for a few months, causing thousands of people to lose jobs and melting the fuck out of the economy.

What a stupid fucking judge, taking on the company that effectively runs the entire world (If MS decided to send an auto-update tomorrow that disabled all windows based operating systems, how much chaos would there be?).

Well to be fair, he just issued a recommendation to the International Trade Commission. 360 sales won't actually be banned unless the ITC agrees with the judge that it's the proper course of action. As I understand it, they rarely do so in cases like this.

 

[Vault101]

as far as concole wars go (if thats even a thing anymore)

that would probably be the most hilarious event ever....like a nuke

 

[ace_of_something]

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

This is the argument that they should have used.

Judge Shaw sounds like a **** who needs to be punched in the face, and microsoft need to be all 'Lol ok' and bring out the new xbox next week.
Alternatively, Microsoft could be 'Fine' and simply not sell any of their products in the country for a few months, causing thousands of people to lose jobs and melting the fuck out of the economy.

What a stupid fucking judge, taking on the company that effectively runs the entire world (If MS decided to send an auto-update tomorrow that disabled all windows based operating systems, how much chaos would there be?).

Considering, at least my understanding, that only xbox's NOT MADE IN THE US are going to be effected I'm going to have to say it would actually not be that big a hit for US jobs. It might drive up the cost or cause microsoft to figure something else out. Also are they really selling that many copies of the system itself at this point?

I get it Motorolla is bad but is it really necessary to kneecap a entire companies console line?
can't they change the software to remove the offending decoders? or strike a deal with Motorola?

They could do both of those things. Especially the first, that would however cost microsoft time and money to develop an 'old product' something which they are likely not keen on doing.

I agree with the judge's decision if only so that a precedent of ignoring patients if you're too successful shouldn't be set.

 

[dessertmonkeyjk]

Eh, it's not like I'm going to buy a new one next time mine breaks. Maybe I'll get a PS3 finally.

Wait wait wait. Didn't Google recently buy out Montorola? [http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57438986-94/google-officially-closes-$12.5-billion-motorola-mobility-deal/] Oh dear...

 

[incal11]

It's very reductive and narrow-minded to automatically assume that physical objects are subject to all the laws of ownership, but designs, concepts, characters, virtual objects and works of art belong to the world, no matter how hard their original creators worked on them and want to keep them.

It is narrow minded to assume that "the laws of ownership" are such an absolute. When there are actually other cultural points of view, like some native American tribes who used to consider stealing as a feat to be proud of. You should be glad that the vast majority acknowledges ownership of physical objects at least.

It is a common error to assume that, because there are assholes in the world, most people will be utterly ungrateful whenever they can get away with it. You, who value the efforts made by artists and programmers, are actually part of the vast majority.

I value these efforts too, and I reward them whenever I can. But I see most of the efforts made to "keep" an idea, to force the physical laws of ownership on the immaterial, as simply and obviously delusional. There does not need to be such laws, since the majority recognizes the efforts that are made. An official grace period of 10 or 14 years is more than enough.

And companies aren't inherently soulless. Anyone can start a company based around their IP, and many do. I think intellectual property is as valid as physical property, and attempts to force people to give up their IPs is equivalent to forcing them to give away all their outdated products for free to whoever wants them, just because people feel entitled to it.

Yes, they are soulless, however I'm not saying they are intrinsically evil either. They are soulless in the sense that, without restraints, profits will have priority over human progress. The thing is one way or another ideas have to be shared for that progress to be made, it's an historical truth.

An IP is not in any way the "product" itself to begin with, it is the understanding that a certain concept will be exclusive for a period of time. You can start a company on an IP, but to hang on it forever is to stop the making of new companies who might want to develop new ideas from an old IP in ways your own company is unable to consider. Furthermore to hang on an IP forever is to kill your own incentive to innovate, collapse necessarily follows.

If you disagree I hope that you may take the time to answer. I swear I'm not trying to make anyone mad, I just like a good debate. If your position is good you will change my mind. Anyway, thank you for this occasion to think on that topic.

 

[Sealpower]

I guess it's time to buy a truckload of 360's, move to the US and start selling the things from the back of said truck.

 

[Esotera]

Did you just say software patents need to go? Considering we live in a capitalist society, removing software patents would be fucking dumb. Not calling you an idiot. Just... Did you really think that it would be a good thing if we lived without patents?

I mean, you are basically saying all software should be freeware. Which would cause the total collapse of a hell of a lot of companies. Including ones you like.

that said? This particular case is fucking dumb. But saying that we should be without patents is like saying.... I dunno. "Theres a fire in central New York! What we really need is a Tsunami"

No it wouldn't be dumb. Most current software patents are really trivial (like this [http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/05/16/1917253/IBM-Patents-Changing-Color-of-E-Mail-Text] and are easy to infringe upon without even knowing. In the course of writing my own program and distributing it, I have probably broken several software patents, but have no way of knowing it.

Then you have absolutely idiotic patents that people try and enforce, like Oracle recently tried to sue google over replicating their open source API. The whole point of an API is that other programs can call it and use its functionality. Basically, they wanted to patent really trivial stuff, like checking how large a number was compared to another, which is really, really easy to code and doesn't require any innovation.

I doubt that companies would collapse either, as they mostly seem to be wasting all their time suing each other. If there is obvious evidence that a program has been copied (if the source code has around 30 identical lines, for example), then the company can sue based on copyright ownership. People shouldn't be punished for coming up with a good solution to a problem just because someone else came up with it before. It does exactly the opposite of what patents were supposed to do.

 

[Khanht Cope]

It's very reductive and narrow-minded to automatically assume that physical objects are subject to all the laws of ownership, but designs, concepts, characters, virtual objects and works of art belong to the world, no matter how hard their original creators worked on them and want to keep them.

I think intellectual property is as valid as physical property, and attempts to force people to give up their IPs is equivalent to forcing them to give away all their outdated products for free to whoever wants them, just because people feel entitled to it.

However much the analogy may make sense in that perspective; ideas and concepts should of course be assessed seperately from physical assets because there's more than one piece of gold in the world.

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?

You can bet your ass the American officials responsible for the process of approving this decision will scratch their heads for a way to hand-wave the case or the ruling; due to a potentially bad result it could mean for American jobs, and others too. Depending on how the details of the case pan out, though; they couldn't just decide that a thief isn't a thief if the thief is American, and some kind of embargo is usually what these patent wars go for.

 

[likalaruku]

Trying to get a gamer to give up his console is like trying to get a member of the NRA to give up his gun collection.

 

[Lilani]

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.

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?

IMO, 14 years is more than enough time to make plenty of money, especially in such a fast paced culture. If you're relying on sequels to that work 15 years later (I concede that books may take time to write, depending on the author...*grumbles about George R.R. Martin*), wouldn't people be more inclined to purchase the official, canonical sequel to that work even in the presence of imitators and ripoffs?

And if you somehow manage to pen one of the Great American Classics for the future, you're already going to be rolling in the dough; people will come to YOU for all manner of things. The Harry Potter series is about 14 years old right now, and it's already propelled Rowling into a position as one of the most wealthy women IN THE WORLD.

What you're concerned about is if you wrote something and you're in your 80's (from a proposed 56 years to get a profit) and someone does your idea better. Really, it's fair enough to want to make money off of work, but keeping information out of the public domain just so you can make money until the day you die is just as bad as it is now in principle.

As well, copyright law was redesigned to let corporations profit from the works of long dead authors (Walt Disney being the foremost example), not artists.

You're just being hopeful and greedy.

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[Thumper17]

Wow, did that judge look like this

By any chance?

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Someone Depressing]

I live in the UK. But banning Xboxes in the US is dumb - it's absurd. That's Microsoft's biggest market. If Microsoft were to lose their rights to sell, probably half of their income, then there will probably be quite a large amount of more unemployed people. Microsoft might even close down if this succeeds. They'll not have as much recourses as they're used to, people will lose their jobs, and, well.. that'll suck.

Besides, more people like the Xbox in the US more than anywhere else in the world - or, it's definetely close. Remove the right to the Xbox360 in the US, and there'll probably be protests, too.

 

[Weaver]

I guess I just feel an enormous smug sense of satisfaction when a huge corporation gets hit with ridiculous fees for IP laws. Sucks when you're on the receiving end, doesn't it?

 

[Dryk]

It's nice to see a judge not bend over for a US corporation for once, even if it is in a patent trolling case

I also can't believe how many people in this thread think that Microsoft should get away with it just because they're Microsoft.