Judge Recommends Xbox 360 Import Ban in US

[Phil]

http://www.xbox360achievements.org/news/news-11776-Judge-Recommends-Xbox-360-Import-Ban-in-US.html

Can't see this really passing. If it did, millions of people will be pissed and that judge will become a very hated person.

 

[Shiuzu]

dafuq?

 

[Arm514ve]

I smell motorola pay off seriously who patent claims on a decoder hay Microsoft easy fix to this a whole issue use a new decoder. its software apply it in a patch, or hell go along with it and drop the price on hard drives from 100-70 and guess what problem solved there. But seriously this is so ridiculous I can't see it going through the trade commission.

 

[Phil]

Places like Best Buy(Who is already suffering here) and Gamestop would also lose big sales. I got a feeling this Judge really has no idea what he is talking about or is thinking ahead.

 

[Vencu]

The next headline after the bill is passed? "SWAT team killed in failed attempt to confiscate XBOX 360 console from a former military service member's home."

 

[Shiuzu]

Places like Best Buy(Who is already suffering here) and Gamestop would also lose big sales. I got a feeling this Judge really has no idea what he is talking about or is thinking ahead.

Lol, yeah Best Buy is doing pretty bad, how much profit did they make from unused gift cards in 2006? Forty three million? I know that isn't a lot for them, but Best Buy is doing fine, their lion shares aren't coming from consoles, it's the TV's and all the other appliances.

 

[Malcador]

This is all I have to say

[video=youtube;ztVMib1T4T4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4[/video]

Well ok, I guess I will give my two cents. Microsoft makes boatloads of money and helps the entertainment industry rolling along with the ecnomy. Banning 360's and saying Sony and Nintendo can pick up the reigns reduces that competition. But either way, I doubt it will get passed.

 

[Ash]

They might want to release that 720 early. Haha.

Anywho, ...this guy doesn't have a clue.<3

 

[Zen]

They might want to release that 720 early. Haha.

Anywho, ...this guy doesn't have a clue.<3

Xbox is Microsoft right? So If Xbox 360 is gone so is 720? Right? Or NO?

 

[Vencu]

If this really was a threat to Microsoft, which I highly doubt, they could always just buy up the little ol' Motorola and be done with it.

 

[Ash]

Xbox is Microsoft right? So If Xbox 360 is gone so is 720? Right? Or NO?

"... that 4GB and 250GB Xbox 360 Slim consoles should not be allowed..."

 

[Zen]

If this really was a threat to Microsoft, which I highly doubt, they could always just buy up the little ol' Motorola and be done with it.

Problem Solved!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Jiang Winters]

Looooooooooooooooool.

Motorola better watch out. This one has to have pissed off Microsoft.

 

[BLADE]

I smell motorola pay off seriously who patent claims on a decoder hay Microsoft easy fix to this a whole issue use a new decoder. its software apply it in a patch, or hell go along with it and drop the price on hard drives from 100-70 and guess what problem solved there. But seriously this is so ridiculous I can't see it going through the trade commission.

1. Haha, no. I'm sorry I work for a federal judge and while I don't agree with many of their rulings (particularly the conservatives), they are highly qualified and generally very honest people. This sort of accusation is not the sort of thing to be leveling even in jest, since the federal justice system (in this sense) is one of the few still trusted institutions in the US.

2. And you're basing this off of your extensive knowledge of US patent law?

...

...

Anyhow...


Some better background on the case/series of cases. This case is related to the patent regarding the H.264 codec standard (the technical aspect of this is that it's actually two separate patents relating to the video decoding adaptation as well as a compression solution --filed in 1992 and 1994 respectively). Motorola (which by the way, Microsoft would be unlikely to buy as it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Google, which is a co-plaintiff in these cases) and Microsoft have been suing and counter-suing in a variety of courts, with the bulk of the action coming in Germany (Motorola sued last year in Mannerheim) and the US (which has prevented a German ruling by issuing an injunction in the Western District Court.) The former because Google-Motorola recognizes that shutting down X-Box sales in Germany (as it is trying to do/trying to get leverage over Microsoft) would also chill X Box sales in the rest of the Eurozone. With regards to the ITC "ruling" it really is a recommendation; structurally judges in that body do not have plenary deliberative powers, and instead can issue recommendations which a six-member panel can heed at its discretion.

As I noted, the panel is unlikely to go through with this for a variety of reasons.

1. The panel usually does take the public interest into account, and the most likely reasonable legal solution here (and the canny one too for Google-Motorola, which is likely to get hit with any number of nasty lawsuits on its hilariously monopolistic Android practices (and it will lose eventually, mark my words)) would be to accept some sort of royalty-bearing client relationship with Microsoft for its Android platform and essentially concede the German market to Microsoft. Google-Motorola has tried to abuse its recent market agglomeration and the generally accepted international standards of FRAND (basically setting a reasonable and non-market distorting basis and rate for royalty relationships between companies to avoid monopolistic practices.)

2. Historically, the prevailing legal ideology in the United States since the 1970s has been pragmatic econometrics a la Posner, Calabresi and Bork. In Europe, the equivalent would be Coase (whose expertise has filtered to both common and civil law systems.) This ideology usually emphasizes economic outcomes and allocative efficiency, so while the sociopolitical argument for monopolistic practices is not as compelling as it would normally be (that is, monopolistic practices by themselves are not self-evident and sufficient criteria for rulings, generally speaking) but rather that it will be about servicing the holistic market here (what is best for producers and consumers.) Google-Motorola has been unreasonably and abusive (IMHO) with regards to its use of FRAND/RAND in the courts, and is likely to lose.

3. As noted above, Google-Motorola, conformable with its unreasonable market-claims over the aforementioned systems (as well as many others) has been asking for licensing fees that have ranged from 4-8 billion dollars (according to both parties, including the relatively independent analysis of the great Bardehle Pagenberg law firm which has a sterling reputation for this sort of thing.)

The problem for Google-Motorola then, is that any loss in any of these cases will reverberate. Microsoft and the companies similarly waiting until Google-Motorola gets slapped down for excessive royalty schemes really only needs to win any of these cases, and on balance it is likely to win the bulk of them (Google lost a related case over Java APIs against Oracle)

4. There's also the issue of Google-Motorola's wider conduct. Despite their corporate motto ("Don't Be Evil") Google and Motorola have pursued pretty hardball and frankly unethical methods in using injunctions (stop orders for those of you not familiar with legalese) to try and force potential competitors into broad cross-licensing contracts on its terms. Microsoft did, for example, have to begin moving its logistics chain out of Germany with regards to X-Box production and into the Netherlands partly as a result of this (though some of Merkel's labor policies and the wider macroeconomic climate also had an impact.) The EU regulatory commission had already been investigating them for violating antitrust regulations, so this may be a repeat of what happened to Microsoft in the 90s/early aughts. The regulatory commission is also eager, as a matter of political symbolism to enforce generally reasonable European-wide regulations, so the political climate (and the law is always political) does not favor Google Motorola either.

It's honestly a shame since patent rulings/suits are a legitimate way to protect intellectual property; MIT, an alma mater of quite a few friends of mine, filed a suit against Funai recently which is pretty abstemious and circumspect in its arrogation of broad legal principles and which is not broadly unethical. Google's actions on the other hand will distort an already top-heavy market if there is no legal correction here.

tl; dr...

The law is complex and sometimes humans can make erroneous decisions but the climate here as well as the history of the proceedings (both European and American) suggests that this headline is more than a bit premature. I'll let you all know if you should stock up on 360s. For now...

Even shorter tl; dr...

Meh.

/Lawyer mode