xbox 360 slim real -

An administrative law judge has declared that the Xbox 360 should be banned in the US.

The ruling is part of an ongoing patent dispute between Microsoft and Motorola between the 4GB and 250GB S models of the Xbox 360, which saw the device almost banned in Germany earlier this month.

Courthouse News reports that Judge David Shaw also said that the US should prevent sale of the machines with a cease-and-desist order, and that Microsoft should post a bond equal to 7% of the declared value of unsold Xbox inventory already in the country.

I have no idea how much that is, but I bet it's loads.

Microsoft has argued that 7% is too high, instead suggesting it pay 2.5%. Motorola, on the other hand, has said Microsoft should pay 100%. I don't think Motorola really understands how to haggle.

Microsoft also said that Shaw's exclusion order doesn't service the public interest, because consumers would be left with only the PlayStation 3 and Wii for their console gaming needs. Shaw rejected the argument, stating that Sony and Nintendo could probably meet the increased demand.

Shaw determined in April that Microsoft had infringed on four Motorola patents, related to "secure wireless communication and transmission of video content between controller devices and game consoles."

What happens if Shaw's determination and recommendation becomes final? President Barack Obama will have 60 days to review the decision.

New stuff to check out

To add your comment, please login or register

Highest Rated Comment

ReadySteadyGo's Avatar

ReadySteadyGo@ Clockpunk

Click for Image
Posted 17:34 on 23 May 2012

User Comments

munkee's Avatar

munkee

I'm with dudester. The law is the law and why should Microsoft be let off? You and I wouldn't. If we sold products that infringed on the copyright patent of others, then we would be forced to stop selling the product. Microsoft may have had a deal in place before, but now they don't. They haven't settled a financial agreement to continue using the tech, but they're happily selling and profiting from it. They have to stop, or pay just like anybody else. Maybe Motorola are asking too much and it's fair for Microsoft to argue the point. But until then, they can't sell it as their own.

Again, as duster says, if you patented something, then another person was infringing on your patent, would you be cool for them to keep selling it. Especially when they are refusing to pay you for it? I'd take it through court too.

Now to take another example of this; Microsoft are selling something that isn't theirs to sell. Motorola asked for a lot of money to use it and Microsoft are stamping their feet saying they want it cheaper.

GAME were selling something that wasn't theirs. EA asked for a lot of money. GAME stamped their feet saying they want it cheaper. EA cut them off.. You know the rest.
Posted 10:22 on 24 May 2012
Wido's Avatar

Wido@ pblive

Now I got OBJECTION! in my mind, thank you Pb.
Posted 18:26 on 23 May 2012
p0rtalthinker's Avatar

p0rtalthinker@ ReadySteadyGo

Bruhahahaha *slow clap*
Posted 18:18 on 23 May 2012
pblive's Avatar

pblive

One question:

Where's Phoenix Wright when you need him?
Posted 17:57 on 23 May 2012
Clockpunk's Avatar

Clockpunk@ squidman

Oh, we all know who is guilty there! ;)

That summary above, though, is only what I read from the case...
Posted 17:50 on 23 May 2012
squidman's Avatar

squidman@ Clockpunk

Clockpunk you sound like you're excellent at LAW, are you going to be following the Activision/West&Zampella trial?
Posted 17:49 on 23 May 2012
ReadySteadyGo's Avatar

ReadySteadyGo@ Clockpunk

Click for Image
Posted 17:34 on 23 May 2012
Clockpunk's Avatar

Clockpunk

So far as I can tell, following the events that have led to here, the patents in question are part of a collective FRAND pool - which is set up to avoid instances like this. Inter-related patents held by several companies for technology or ideas that they wish to become industry standard (as is the case with this codec, same with DVD and Blu-Ray technology), which any other company can buy into at an incredibly low price - thereby increasing the overall level of integration of said tech, so as to allow further innovation.

However, Motorola have waited for their initial license with Microsoft to expire (having hitherto been all above board), and demand a significant ($4 billion) sum to carry on this agreement, which is far beyond what any other licensee has to pay. That is why Microsoft filed suit initially.

Before this nonsense began the MPEG LA pool (which contains 2,339 patents on H.264, contributed by 29 different companies) was paid an annual royalty capped at $6.5 million. If the cap didn't exist, the amount would be $60 million, but that was the deal.

Motorola holds only 50 of the individual patents in this pot, but want $4 billion to themselves, which microsoft have argued is not Fair, and a breach of the FRAND clause specified in Motorola's patent.

...

I find it very suspect that the judge is going along with this, personally...
Posted 17:32 on 23 May 2012
Wido's Avatar

Wido@ dav2612

What have Motorola got to lose? It surprises me that it has took this long over any patents which Microsoft have used.
Posted 17:17 on 23 May 2012
dav2612's Avatar

dav2612@ Wido

Surely if they were being weak they would ignore the infringements and not challenge Microsoft?
Posted 13:50 on 23 May 2012
tvr77's Avatar

tvr77@ Wido

Motorola may be weak as you put it but Microsoft are not so weak but they still stole Motorola's design on not one but four patents and now they are paying the price. Its a dog eat dog world and i'm sure if the situation was reversed Microsoft would not just stand by either.
Posted 13:45 on 23 May 2012
Wido's Avatar

Wido@ tvr77

Motorola is crap overall. Taking other companies to court is a showing that they are a weak company and they shall forever be one.
Posted 13:37 on 23 May 2012
tvr77's Avatar

tvr77@ Endless

"Motorola should be grateful their designs and components were used in the first place! Despite the infringement"

Why would they be grateful of someone using there designs without permission and without gaining anything from it. Motorola have put the work and funds into it so they they should be in the loop. The only reason we know now is because of Motorola are taking them to court.
Rules are rules but i think an Xbox ban would be total overkill!
Posted 12:32 on 23 May 2012
dudester's Avatar

dudester

Devils adovcate tho motorola spent time and money developing whatever ip and patent it is they hold why should they not be expected to be compensated for that if was being used without permission?

In this case it might be two big companies who can afford the courts more then anyone but these laws are in place for the likes of us if we made a great idea and I would hate if it was made easier for big companies to roll over people and take what they want. (plus it would probably be the end of dragons den!)
Posted 11:49 on 23 May 2012
Clockpunk's Avatar

Clockpunk

"Intellectual property rights is far more important than keeping the market competitive... even at cost to the end consumer", or words to that effect, were part of the recommendation.

That encapsulates everything wrong with the patent system as it is.
Posted 11:29 on 23 May 2012
View Full Site