Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft In Legal Battle Over Halo 2 Packaging
Gamespot is running an article about a legal battle regarding Halo 2's metal case. From the article: "The suit reportedly claims that G&M was contacted by Microsoft in 2003 and was looking for a company to produce metal packaging for the release of Halo 2. G&M claims that Microsoft sent its case proposals to Viva, a potential rival for the contract and not part of the NDA. According to reports, the Danish design firm alleges that its proprietary technology was used in a Viva case made for Halo 2 and that Microsoft and Viva are in cahoots. G&M is suing for damages and requesting an injunction against both Microsoft and Viva."
Did G&M invent a new alloy for the case or some metal stamping technology? If they copied their design, it's wrong, but is it really technology?
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." Mark Twain.
Even though it's Microsoft that's getting sued, I think that we all have to admit that things are getting a little out of hand.
At least this one's not over a software patent.
The packaging and printing industry is full of people trying to get something for nothing.
People want nice looking packaging that has all kinds of crazy features, but they'll penny pinch and backstab to save a buck (like getting one place to design it on the assumption it'll be printed there, then taking the design somewhere else to br printed).
It's a funny industry.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
I don't see anything very dramatically different/innovative with Halo2's casing.
(Though... that would be pretty cool...) =)
UTF-8: There and Back Again
Halo 2's packaging is not what made me buy Halo 2...
Orange telephone. Stack. Now these guys.
Except that at least Orange and Stack were SOFTWARE - as in Microsoft's main focus.
This is PACKAGING for crying out loud! This is NOT Microsoft's core competency!
Are they just screwing companies over just to see if they can get away with it?
Or does some buddy of Bill's own Viva?
www.eFax.com are spammers
If that is true and MS did share work that being done under a NDA then G&M deserves to be compensated. May I suggest a fair jury trial?
???
3)Profit!
What they both posted is basically just rumors without sources.
:)
tp:wwwcourtswagovfadwhomeWashington Case Search Page...Wants a last name first initial . Don't know how you'd do Microsoft.
Links: http://www.glud-marstrand.com/sw67.aspGlud & Marstrand Website Can't find anything here about the lawsuit. Earlier The Inquirer Article 9-16 as opposed to 9-19, but equally shoddy on the details...no wait, slightly better in that it says the lawsuit is taking place in a washington court. (Washington in this case being a State of the United States).
Viva's website is harder to pin down.
A search for Microsoft on Washington's Courts Website, most of which are about the Microsoft Word format...
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
One of the interesting things about packaging in general is that, when it comes to manufacturing, there are numerous products our there where the packaging is more expensive than what it contains. I work in the food packaging industry and I can tell you that the packaging Frito uses for their bags is more expensive than the chips (crisps) they are putting in them. Judging from the Halo2 boxes, I would expect the same to be true (speaking strictly manufacturing costs)
If MS truly did violate the NDA and take a proprietary box design to a comptetitor, that translates to a significant amount of money (especially when you look at Halo2's sales numbers). If someone were to do something similar in the food packaging industry (e.g. take the plastic film design from one supplier and provide the information to a competitor to have them produce the film more cheaply) the affected company would have their asses in court in a hurry.
Regardless of the complexity of the item in question, if an NDA was voilated then there should be some sort of reprimand. What's the point of an NDA if it's not enforcable? Corporations would stop any kind of cooperation pretty quickly if they knew any secrets they shared would be readily given to their competitors.
Sorry, I'm having a hard time working out whether you're being sarcastic there or not. I'll assume you'd have used tags if you were, and answer based on the assumption that your post was serious.
It really isn't crazy when you can think of architects as artists.
Why does that change anything? A photograph of a building isn't a building. I can see the point of copyright on the design of a building - that stops me copying the plans and building a great building, based on someone else's work that I haven't paid for. That seems fair and reasonable. But I cannot for the life of me work out why an architect should have any rights that could possibly make me need special permission to take a photograph of their work. How on earth does that affect their need to make a living designing buildings?
There is absolutely nothing they do but make a building look pretty.
Uh... that, and handle little details like making sure you have a safe route to get out by if there's a fire, or ensuring that there's sufficient ventilation so you don't suffocate when you close the window. I understand that a few people even value these attributes more highly than prettiness.
If we're talking about this company designing the box art for the collector's edition tin box, I'd suspect MS were super pissed when they got the results instead of the exciting we'd-never-have-thought-of-that art they were hoping for. It's the Halo 2 logo. ...in blue IIRC.
...if the company in the UK that is marketing its range of "innovative packaging designs" by using its design for "The Hero" DVD in its advertising is affected?
Especially since the design is exactly the same as Halo 2's, only with a little pair of black plastic goggles on the side as a clasp to keep the case closed.
I thought that Halo 2's case was just a DVD case made of metal, with the case being cut into two seperate pieces (rather than the "norm", which is one continuous piece) and kept together by an equally cheap metal hinge. And the previous poster is right in saying that Doom 3 was released in exactly the same style of casing.
I know we're all "supposed" to hate Microsoft, but could it not be that a) Small company realises that its main product is ridiculously easy to copy and has nothing else up its sleeve to improve profits, so b) sues the biggest company in the World, hoping to get a big "DualShock" style payoff?
My Mind Is Rewired. Is Yours?
A Architect is a artist, a engeneer is the one who actually takes care of all those little details like fire code and such.
Most architects have no fing clue about any of that as you can plainly see in any building that was designed by a architect but not gone over by a engeneer later.
As for why a special waver would need to exist, very simple, a architects calling card is his style. You look at a Wright house and you know Frank Loyd Wright designed it. Architects in the past used to be very sneaky and used to copy styles from other architects, thus why there is a copyright, to prevent someone from stealing anothers work which happend very often even as recent as the 30's and 40's.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
There is absolutely nothing they do but make a building look pretty.
Well, they aren't *supposed* to. They are supposed to create spaces that help you work and live. It's not as simple as it sounds. If you've ever been in a badly-designed building you remember it (foot traffic doesn't flow correctly, different types of traffic mix, windows create glare where they shouldn't, different types of activities aren't properly partitioned, etc., etc.). If you don't even NOTICE the building, if it just helps you get through your day, then you're in a well-designed building.
Read some of Christopher Alexander's books (the "patterns" guy). They are pretty mind-blowing, he explains it a lot better than I can.
But yeah, the sad truth is most architects want their buildings to be noticed, photographed, awarded, praised, etc., so they don't use these basic principles. They basically make giant sculpture with rooms inside.
One of Christopher Alexander's concepts is: a good design must be egoless.
So, your statement is true on it's face these days, but it shouldn't be.
You can also think about computer hardware, kitchen utensils, or anything else that has both artistic and functional aspects. Think of a Dell with useless swooping plastic pieces, vs. a Mac, where everything has a purpose (the swoop would be a handle, or it wouldn't be there, etc). Of course Apple's designs are not strictly "egoless", but they are "minimal", which is often close enough.
Open Source Buildings for teh win?
Wow! I think that post alone caused at least 10 spelling Nazi's to leap to their death from some tall building.
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
Actually, you're fairly wrong. Although a few architects try to function as if they were artists, the average architect does far more than draw pretty pictures. An architect needs to be aware of pretty much all of those little details like fire codes and such, although on complicated projects it's not unusual to consult with a multitude of engineers.
An architect may ask structural engineers to help size columns and beams and whatnot, but it's generally the architect who decides where they go. Most architects have at least a basic understanding of that sort of thing, and enough education to have an informed discussion about it with engineers. Fire codes are a little more complicated than the number of sprinklers and making sure the doors open the right way. The entire circulation patterns of high occupancy buildings can be massively influenced by fire codes, and you can be sure that an architect needs to be involved in that.
There are very few architects who have a completely personal and unique "calling-card style". FLW is one of them, a more contemporary example would be Frank Gehry. Styles in architecture generally span time periods more than particular persons, not to say that everyone doesn't have their own ideas. Architecture has a very long history. It'd be very limiting to think of it as "stealing ideas", so instead we call it "progress", and with a few exceptions, most architects are aware of how much they draw from the past, and are happy to see their own innovations and thoughts influence the profession as a whole.
Copying a building detail for detail is, of course, a slightly different story, but either way, is never good architecture. A well designed building will have made a lot of concessions to its particular location, while at the same time exploiting other properties of the site.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
I work in a small 3rd party game development haus. Right now most of the revenue came in from outsource work from bigger studios.
The consensus here is that most big money game publishers will rip us off but they will let us know ahead before anything is signed.
Microsoft will sign all kinds of papers and make promises, and then screw us anyway.
So we stay away from MS.
http://www.photosecrets.com/p14.html http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3601/is _n19_v38/ai_11742489
What a waste of time....
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.