Xbox 360 Should Be Banned from U.S. for Violating Patents, Judge Says

http://techland.time.com/2012/05/23/xbox-360-should-be-banned-from-u-s-over-patents-judge-says/?iid=tl-article-mostpop1

by evo_9 • 14 years ago

99 68 14 years ago

techland.time.com

I used to naively hope that situations like this would force the government to sit up and take notice at how badly the patent system is broken and how it hurts most industries more than it helps them, especially hurting the "little guys" (who are often invoked in defense of the system) disproportionately since the system is set up to cost so much to "play the game".

But now I know that in the end each will pay the other their necessary "protection money", the lawyers will skim a huge amount off the top and big corporate business will go on as usual.

dromidas2• 14 years ago

I like how one of his justifications is that upholding copyrights is more in public interest than our entertainment.

crash013• 14 years ago

It is

chc• 14 years ago

I don't see where copyright law comes into this.

dclowd9901• 14 years ago

In a system written by lawyers, whom else would you expect to emerge the winners?

nwmcsween2• 14 years ago

This is one of the reasons I sometimes commit code under a pseudonym rather than my own name, go ahead and litigate an imaginary person, I honestly could care less who holds what patents on my code - if it works I'm using it.

ajross5• 14 years ago

This won't help anyone. You don't litigate against software authors. Patent suits are filed (or threatened) against the people who are selling/offering or otherwise making profits from a plausibly infringing device; because that's where the money is.

I think maybe you're confusing patent law (which is a civil thing about damages) and copyright law (which sometimes has criminal penalties). It's not illegal to write and publish source code implementing patented algorithms. In fact: the patent itself is in fact supposed to be an officially published version maintained by the government.

At best, anonymous contributions might insulate you from being subpoenaed because they can't find you.

nwmcsween2• 14 years ago

My goal is to insulate myself from the stupidity that is software patents, I generally come up with the ideas myself while working but then search for prior implementations to see it has been patented (some of which should never have been given a patent).

jasonkolb2• 14 years ago

"The Xbox 360 violates four Motorola patents, according to ITC Administrative Law Judge David Shaw, Wired reports. Shaw made his initial ruling against Microsoft in April, and now recommends a ban on sales and import of the game console."

Didn't Google just buy Motorola?

This could get interesting.

ajross5• 14 years ago

I'm not sure that I see it that way. If anything I'd think Google would find it in its (and, frankly, our) best interests to let the patent war escalate further. The more of a mess it is, the more likely someone in government will step in to intervene. At this point it's becoming routine for every successful consumer electronics device to see a patent ban somewhere. That's not sustainable. I hope.

jasonkolb2• 14 years ago

I hope too.

taligent4• 14 years ago

The government will step in alright and investigate Google/Motorola for anti-trust violation. Just like what is happening in the EU. And I expect them to be severely punished.

The fact is that Google/Motorola behaviour in abusing the principles of FRAND is arguably some of the worst seen in the history of the industry. Almost every single consumer electronic product would have either (a) not existed or (b) be significantly more expensive without the fair licensing of patent pools.

Steko2• 14 years ago

Apple seeks injunction vs HTC for patent infringement; ajross declares patent wars evil incarnate [1].

Google subsidiary Motorola granted likely injunction against Xbox 360; ajross suddenly ok with patent war.

[1] http://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22hacker+news%22+ajross+google+pat...

cma• 14 years ago

They bought Motorola Mobility; not the unit of Motorola that makes processors.

taligent4• 14 years ago

This is about Motorola Mobility. They are the ones suing here.

wmf• 14 years ago

Motorola is doing some serious FRAND abuse and Google has promised that things won't be any worse under their reign, which is pretty small comfort.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/80976133/12-02-08-Google-to-IEEE-o...

simba-hiiipower• 14 years ago

"The ideal outcome for consumers would be a broad cross-licensing agreement that would allow the Xbox 360 and Motorola phones to co-exist. But Microsoft is already getting hefty patent ransoms from other Android phone makers, and likely doesn’t want to let Motorola off the hook too easily, especially now that it’s owned by Google."

Ok, not directly related to the bulk of the article, but that point up above got me thinking.. Couldn't it end up benefiting MSFT if Motorola (now GOOG controlled) doesn’t pay-up under its Android licensing program? If essentially all other non-google-owned OEMs are paying a licensing fee and essentially GOOG itself manages to dodge it, it could further drive a wedge between them (Samsung, HTC, et all v. Google/Motorola).. leading to those OEMs (who currently dominate the market) shifting focus to Windows Phone, and thus benefiting MSFT in the end..? Just a thought; thought I’d share..

cooldeal• 14 years ago

Meanwhile, MS won another round in Germany against Motorola.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/24/microsoft-motorola-sms-pa...

jinushaun• 14 years ago

Scorched earth

Symmetry2• 14 years ago

Or: We had a Mutually Assured Destruction standoff for years, but now the missiles are flying.

csallen3• 14 years ago

The patent system as it exists today is a far cry from what the founders had in mind when, in the Constitution, they granted Congress the power to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Nowadays people think of patents as a way of protecting the "property" of inventors, and so patents are granted and enforced according to that principle, regardless of whether they promote or hinder progress. The usage of the words "theft" and "piracy" to refer to patent and copyright infringement is a symptom of this state of mind.

Thomas Jefferson et al would have called this nonsense. By its very nature, an idea -- once divulged -- cannot be someone's property, and it should not be treated as such. To prevent the free flow of ideas through a populace is, in many cases, harmful. (Imagine a group of hunter gatherers in which one family has patented the idea of farming.) At most, limited monopolies should be granted to prevent situations in which nobody is incentivized to create due to rampant copying. But we still have to be judicious in granting these monopolies:

    "...it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention
    are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices."
    -- Thomas Jefferson

    "But grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at
    all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation
    of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent; and
    it being not impossible that the monopoly itself, in its original operation,
    may produce more evil than good."
    -- James Madison

It's painful to see copyrights and patents today accomplishing the polar opposite of what they were intended to. But we've been gradually heading in this direction for the last 200 years.

In my opinion it's a combination of (a) allowing businesses to have too much say in law-making, (b) Congress + the populace not being sufficiently educated about the implications of copyrights and patents, thus giving more power to the natural tendency to think of ideas as property, and (c) the Supreme Court following overly non-interventionist policies and allowing Congress to make unconstitutional decisions.

drzaiusapelord• 14 years ago

I find this constitutional fundamentalist attitude to be just as wrong. The founders had no idea how the future would turn out. Lets just face facts: the idea of owning knowledge can never work out fairly thus patents in themselves are unethical and unfeasible. The system should just be retired. The founders were wrong about this the same way they were wrong about slavery and other 18th century issues. They are forever limited by their 18th century outlook.

There is no way you can have a "fair" patent system. Its like having "fair" slavery. Just let it go.

jay_kyburz• 14 years ago

I think there needs to be some way to give companies an opportunity to recoup their investment in new ideas. I'm just not sure what we have now is working.

fleitz• 14 years ago

To be fair only some of the founders were wrong about slavery.

Even back then slavery was contentious, just as patents were.

In either case it doesn't really matter what the founders thought as ideas should be tried on their merits, rather than who thought of them.

josephcooney• 14 years ago

I think looking back at what the original law-makers intended is useful in that it removes the veneer of respectability that something 'enshrined in law' might otherwise have, when people more respectable and revered (authors of the constitution) are shown to have doubted and questioned their (patents) validity. Lastly it shows how far we've come in a (relatively) short time. From "very peculiar cases only, if at all" to inalienable, perpetual rights that monied interests have over ideas.

hef19898• 14 years ago

Things started to turn ugly once legislative bodies became more concerned by the letters of laws instead of the spirit of laws. The spirit is in most cases valid (e.g. you shall not kill), the wording on the other should be adopted in such a way that the spirit fits the situation (changed due to technological developments for example).

chrischen• 14 years ago

You're right. Whether or not the we should stick to what the founders wanted is irrelevant.

However that does not mean the founders' original intent for patents isn't a better interpretation, and that the modern interpretation isn't still a bastardization of that better interpretation.

rsanchez12• 14 years ago

You can't just say the founders were wrong on slavery. You have to say which were wrong. They had to make a compromise to get states to agree to the Constitution, which states perceived as threatening their rights more than the Articles of Confederation. They compromised with the understanding that the problem will be resolved later, and it ultimately was decided 70 years later in the bloodiest war in American history.

Symmetry2• 14 years ago

Another reasons is that Congress, observing that patents and inventions are correlated, has made very effort to encourage patents so as to cause more inventions.

TimGebhardt3• 14 years ago

Don't forget that most people in Congress are lawyers. And lawyers will see the patent system providing a lot of value... because you typically need lawyers to file for a patent.

joelhaus• 14 years ago

Did anyone else notice that FOSS Patents gets a citation in this article?

The author, Jared Newman[1], needs someone to point out to him that he is citing an article written by someone with a major conflict of interest, the paid Microsoft shill, Florian Mueller[2].

If we ever hope to have public opinion shift on the patent issue, this type of journalism will only prolong the struggle.

[1] https://twitter.com/#!/OneJaredNewman

[2] http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120419070127103

Natsu• 14 years ago

Why would he tout what is clearly bad news for Microsoft?

Personally, I'm sick of all this injunction nonsense, but they need some way to fight back against Microsoft's patent aggression.

rbanffy• 14 years ago

Well... This is getting very entertaining.

Normally, I'd condemn Motorola's attitude, but Microsoft has been patent-extorting every Android manufacturer they can intimidate. I really hope Motorola can beat some sense into Microsoft.

Lendal• 14 years ago

Maybe they should be banned. Only something of this magnitude would draw the necessary level of interest from apathetic voters to make this a campaign issue, thus positive change might result. If a couple of years without Xbox's is the price for patent reform, I would gladly pay it.

intended• 14 years ago

In this case though it wouldn't work out that way because the topic is pretty arcane.

Unless the issue can be reduced to a catch phrase that actually encapsulates the idea, or people see some obviously valuable thing which is clearly being taken away from them; then its very hard to sell this.

bbrtyth• 14 years ago

That would teach Microsoft a valuable lesson about harassing Android over ridiculous software patents.

tsotha• 14 years ago

But the valuable lesson they would draw from it all is "we need to patent every thought a Microsoft employee has", which is probably not the lesson you're imagining.

gouranga• 14 years ago

The patent system is like watching a scene from Alien vs Predator...

"Whoever wins, we all lose" is surprisingly apt as well.

rsanchez12• 14 years ago

Maybe if the 360 is banned, people will finally wake up to how absurd the patent system is and demand reform.

Xbox 360 Should Be Banned from U.S. for Violating Patents, Judge Says

Related Stories