Slashdot Mirror
ITC Judge Calls For US Xbox Import Ban
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.
Both sides are assholes on this one. They seriously need to overhaul the US patent system, the balance has been tipped (for a long time) to where it stifles innovation way, way more than it fosters it.
About the only things that deserve patents are fundamental discoveries and drugs that are unique and cost hundreds of millions to develop and test. And even then, just provide some kind of "formula patent" that only lasts 5-6 years.
Most patents are fundamentally flawed because they rely on a small leap from someone else's existing work. Sure, if you just step outside the box and totally invent zero point energy in your mad scientist lab you should get a patent and make $5 trillion from it. But most "inventions" are just trifling little bullshit extensions of something that exists already.
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.
Well, Microsoft won an import ban against Motorola for a patent on "generating meeting requests", so I'd say turnabout is fair play, in this case.
Although you are right about the damages, in a way: how are all those red-ringed XBOX 360s supposed to get replaced now? *ducks*
Google is evil.
Ah, right. Let me check: timestamp of post matches that of article, 4 post history all on Google/MS discussions (all today). Oh look, a shill!
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Yeah, sure, blame Google. After all they acquired control over Motorola yesterday so they must be responsible for this ruling which came out 2 days ago.
"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.
Well maybe if Microsoft didn't want to be victims of broken patent law, they should have done something about it... like lobbying to fix the patent system. Corporations are good at lobbying about stuff they care about and Microsoft is no exception - they both lobby for what they want and they've also exploited the broken patent system when it suited them in the past.
The public won't fix the patent system, politicians only listen to the corporate wallets today. So let's make bad laws work against corporations and then maybe these corporations will try to change the laws.
Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Motorla and others should all be victimized by patent law as much as possible. Just like the MPAA/RIAA should be made victims of bad copyright law. Then things will change for the good of the public.
unfortunately, turnabout play does nothing for the customer or the nation.
It does if it convinces companies that they need to lobby against the patent system instead of for it.
About the only things that deserve patents are fundamental discoveries and drugs that are unique and cost hundreds of millions to develop and test. And even then, just provide some kind of "formula patent" that only lasts 5-6 years.
I know of very few cases when a fundamental discovery was made by a commercial company, they usually shy away from anything that takes a decade or more to develop. Usually this is funded by the goverment which is supposed to have a longer term view.
Both this action by Motorola (Google)...
The lawsuit in which Microsoft sued Motorola started long before Google began the process of acquiring Motorola Mobility and the judgment was made about a week before the acquisition. This lawsuit, in which Motorola sued Microsoft, began around the same time. Further, this was Motorola suing Microsoft, no Motorola Mobility, which Google fully acquired just a few days ago.
Google may not be perfect, but they're also not the assholes who started this shit; hell, they're not even involved int it. If anything, they're getting screwed on the Motorola Mobility deal because of this.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
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.)
About the only things that deserve patents are fundamental discoveries and drugs that are unique and cost hundreds of millions to develop and test. And even then, just provide some kind of "formula patent" that only lasts 5-6 years.
Abolish patents entirely and replace private research with publically funded research. The hard work (discovering new drug targets) is done by the NIH anyway. All pharma does are the clinical studies which are pretty much rote. They could easly be done by the public as well. And if we take the profit motive out of the situation, maybe we won't see 100,000 annual deaths due to adverse drug reactions.
Patents exit to encourage private investors to invest in research. But if we directly fund research, we need no patents. The best part is that when the public does all the work, we'll get to keep all the profits too.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
'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.
I think we're seeing some wide cracks in the patent system if a product can be produced right up to EOL before an import ban can be thrown at it.
Looking at it rationally, how could it possibly work any other way?
Given that there are patents, gazillions of them, how can you possibly read thru each and every on to find out if your new product might have run afoul of some clause in some obscure patent, especially when the language of those patents is purposely written to be vague and all inclusive? You would have to spend two years of patent lawyer time researching what it took you two months to breadboard up in the lab.
These things are always going to be discovered after the fact.
While developing your new gizmo, you only look at the obvious competitors. (Some avoid looking at all, due to the risk of idea pollution).
Microsoft does not see Motorola as a competitor in game consoles, so they ignore them. Same for John Deere tractors. No game consoles. Ignore them.
But then they make the mistake of trying to block Motorola phones, and Moto starts digging around in its bag of patents for a club to hit Microsoft with.
Would Moto spend that time and money without the initial provocation? I'm guessing not.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
>>>False.
Oh well, OK. I guess I was wrong then. Thanks for setting me straight. It's not like I've worked in biology for a decade or anything. It's not like I've taken medical pharmacology classes where they explained exactly who is responsible for what part of the drug discovery process. Nah, your simple assertion without evidence is all I need to change my mind.
Oh hell, I have, and I know what I'm talking about. And it's easily verifiable if you go to the library and read a book or two about the pharmaceutical industry. The fact is the pharmaceutical industry contributes very little to the process, and pockets the vast majority of the profits. Deny this if you like, it only illustrates your ignorance.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I am guessing you have never worked in R&D. It is not quite as extreme as Hatta indicates, but a great deal of the heavy lifting in drug research is indeed done by government funded entities, with the liability and market centric tasks done by the drug companies.
Generally people don't go into research because of a 'profit motive'. Research jobs do not pay all that well, esp the ones on the 'heavy lifting' side of thing, so they tend to be staffed by people who are motived through doing good research and building reputation.
Not sure what a video about some jerk has to do with anything.
The British NHS has been a state-funded venture from the start (although there is currently legislation in place to change this) so the doctors do not gain/lose anything through profit motive, their general motivation to do their job is the Hypocratic oath and general ethical outlook. Suggesting all doctors are driven by profit seems to be a bit insulting to the profession. Hell, even lawyers do pro bono work, and they're the ones I'd classify as "profit driven" if anyone.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.