Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
XBox (Games) Microsoft Patents Games Your Rights Online

ITC Judge Calls For US Xbox Import Ban 255

Posted by Soulskill
from the can't-you-boys-just-play-nice dept.
symbolset writes "In the long running dispute between Motorola and Microsoft, Judge David Shaw of the ITC recommended Monday an import ban on Xbox 360 S consoles, as they are found to infringe Motorola's patents (PDF). The judge also ordered Microsoft post a bond of 7 percent of the retail price of all unsold U.S. Xbox inventory. The decision will go to the ITC's board of commissioners, who will either uphold the recommendation or overturn it. 'Microsoft argued that Shaw's exclusion order does not serve the public interest because it would leave consumers of video game consoles with only two options to satisfy their needs: the Sony Playstation and the Nintendo Wii. Shaw rejected that argument, finding that the public interest in enforcing intellectual property rights outweighs any potential economic impact on video game console buyers.'" This follows news last week of Microsoft winning an import ban on Motorola's Android devices.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ITC Judge Calls For US Xbox Import Ban

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    This could wind up being a great way to force a compromise.

    • by geminidomino (614729) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @12:51PM (#40090939) Journal

      Pretty much this. Let's be honest. No one involved in this patent-war-on-twelve-fronts gives a flying fuck at a rolling donut about "the public interest."

      They need to go ahead with the ban. The only thing that's ever made the giants in the sandbox ever stop and go "wait a sec..." was MAD.

      • by N7DR (536428)

        Pretty much this. Let's be honest. No one involved in this patent-war-on-twelve-fronts gives a flying fuck at a rolling donut about "the public interest."

        When rendering an opinion, an admninstrative law judge at the ITC is required to consider the public interest. Most likely, bith sides in the instant investigation will have briefed the judge with the aim of convincing him that their particular position is in the public interest. In many cases (I don't know if this was one, although it seems likely given the scope of the investigation) there an internal ITC lawyer is appointed specifically to argue "the public interest" case before the judge.

      • They need to go ahead with the ban. The only thing that's ever made the giants in the sandbox ever stop and go "wait a sec..." was MAD.

        This is wishful thinking at the least. You're assuming this will make the giants come to the same conclusion as you and react in the way you would. However, if they followed that logic, this wouldn't be happening in the first place. Patterns of behavior indicate that the giants will instead react by putting even more resources into litigation and acquiring patents. Also, this isn't MAD. The legal industry would profit from this without the risk of being whipped out in the crossfire. In contrast, in a real M

  • by Ultra64 (318705) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @12:56PM (#40091015)

    "Microsoft argued that Shaw's exclusion order does not serve the public interest because it would leave consumers of video game consoles with only two options to satisfy their needs"

    Bah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
    Microsoft sure has some huge balls.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @12:57PM (#40091025)

    The ITC has determined that just about every product out there violates some patent or other, so to play it safe, no products will be allowed into the United Staes ever again.

  • Those patents sure are working well. Soon we will have nothing that we can buy in the states. We will have to travel to asia, buy it, and sneak it back here.

  • by cpu6502 (1960974) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @01:08PM (#40091199)

    Microsoft wants it both ways. They want to block somebody elses product.... Android..... but not their own. Fairness says both companies should be blocked. Good for the judge.

    • by Bigby (659157)

      To be fair, Microsoft's lawyers for each case probably wasn't aware of the other case.

  • H.264 Codec (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bobbomo (877614) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @01:15PM (#40091279)

    My understanding is that the Xbox 360 uses Windows Media Audio 10 Professional for all system and game audio.

    If the main issue is the H.264 video codec, why can't they just switch to Microsoft WMV/VC-1 or one of the many open source ones available? Sounds like a simple software system update to me if its just the video apps doing it. If H.264 is used on game discs then MS needs to payup.

    • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @01:26PM (#40091419) Journal

      MS switching to an opensource codec on a closed DRM machine to get around software patents...

      You are FUNNY!

    • by cpu6502 (1960974)

      How do you implement this... simple solution... when most Xboxes are not net connected. Plus that doesnt solve the problem of the last five years games which have h.264 on disc. MS would still be noncompliant.

    • by tlhIngan (30335)

      My understanding is that the Xbox 360 uses Windows Media Audio 10 Professional for all system and game audio.

      If the main issue is the H.264 video codec, why can't they just switch to Microsoft WMV/VC-1 or one of the many open source ones available? Sounds like a simple software system update to me if its just the video apps doing it. If H.264 is used on game discs then MS needs to payup.

      h.264 is everywhere, and yes, the Xbox must use them for things like YouTube and whatnot.

      Now, the question on paying up is

  • by CityZen (464761) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @01:20PM (#40091327) Homepage

    I wonder how long this system will remain viable?

    Reminds me of a story concerning the game "MULE" (an excellent little multi-player economy-based game set around the building of a new colony). I liked this game a lot and often played against my brothers and friends. We'd play very competitively, each trying to maximize our own profits. Then I met a friend at college and happened to mention this game. She said, "Oh, I love that game too. What was the richest colony you made?" Until she asked, it hadn't occurred to me that you could play the game a different way: cooperatively, in order to achieve the best good for the colony as a whole.

    I wonder when humanity will figure that out too.

    (This is not an endorsement of "socialism" or "communism" or anything like that, or even a criticism of competition. It's just a note that we tend to focus too much on little-picture, selfish goals instead of big-picture ones. Compete to make the best thing, rather than compete to kill the competition.)

    • by Bigby (659157)

      Is that like playing Risk where no one attacks each other? Of course it yields many many more armies and everyone lives in harmony. But it is completely uninteresting and lacks creativity. May as well live without possessions like a Franciscan.

  • by Brannoncyll (894648) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @01:39PM (#40091603)

    'Shaw rejected that argument, finding that the public interest in enforcing intellectual property rights outweighs any potential economic impact on video game console buyers.'

    This guy is seriously disconnected from the real world if he thinks that enforcing intellectual property rights is more important to the public than the availability of a popular product. As far as I can tell, the only people benefiting from the escalating levels of IP enforcement are the lawyers and cartels, while the public are getting shafted as the draconian measures erode their freedoms.

    • by scribblej (195445)

      To feel otherwise is to directly admit IP laws do not serve the public interest.

      • To feel otherwise is to directly admit IP laws do not serve the public interest.

        Its about time someone admitted that.

  • Micro$oft just needs to pay up as the judge ruled to get their consoles out of customs or wait for the appeal and not have them in the market. If they don't want to pay in the future, simply remove the offending IP from any new consoles. It may not be profitable for Micro$oft's game console business, but it is what it is.

    My Guess is that Micro$soft will eventually pay up, but right now they are hoping to reduce the supply of units in the pipeline by slowing production. The game console business is not

  • Enforcing intellectual property rights means charging us more for the same thing, that is against our interests. It is in the interests of entrenched players, they benefit from IP rights but the public just gets hosed by them. If we did away with the patent system competition would keep technology advancing. There is always a better way to do something and always someone willing to do it. Open source software proves this point. The patent system needs to be abolished and patent lawyers rendered into Soyl
  • It's like MAD where both sides just say "eh, fuck it".
    • The obvious difference between Cold War and this is that here, everyone rather seems to say things like "take THAT! now how do you like it, bitch?", with no end in sight. Presumably because patent lawsuits aren't up to the level of mutual assured destruction yet, at least for the major players.

  • As the saying goes, "Those who live by the sword die by the sword".
  • (MAD= Mutually Assured Destruction)

    was that noone was actually supposed to pull the trigger!!!

    DOH!

The rich get rich, and the poor get poorer. The haves get more, the have-nots die.

Working...