By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - Datel suing Microsoft over Max Memory card lockout

Kasz216 on 24 November 2009
twesterm said:
Kasz216 said:
twesterm said:
Kasz216 said:
dsister44 said:
Kasz216 said:
dsister44 said:

I think that Microsoft should have the right to moderate which products should be used for the Xbox. They can't stop all 3rd party merchandise, but they can stop some. Some of the 3rd party stuff needs to be stopped. Look at the Nyko intercooler. It is dangerous and caused several RRoDs. I bought a 3rd party fan that plugs into the the back USB. Two weeks later the back USB stopped working. Microsoft said that the fan did it through faulty wiring(they could have easily lied to me) 

And I figured that that link you posted had something to do with monopolies. >.> Couldn't read a word of it

So why shouldn't microsoft be able decide what products can be used on Windows then?

 

What do you mean?

Saying what can and can't be used on the 360 is identical to saying Microsoft should be able to decide what programs and accessories could be used for a Windows computer.


Which is why it's ridiculious in the first place that Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo get away with what they do.

Imagine a windows where every Office program and accessory has to be approved by microsoft.  You don't see where they get an unfair advantage their?

That power itself is what constitutes a monopoly.  Not just them having sole ownership of the market.

Otherwise they could eaisly just liscense only Microsoft Office, and Bob's Office, an office tool create by bob that's 3 times the cost and barely works.

 

Etc.

Videogame systems are basically just specialized PCs... espiecally the 360.

 

The fact that microsoft gets to control on 360 but not windows is not congruent.

 

Liscensing fees and the like really shouldn't exist, and don't on the PC.  The fact that they don't for computers... but do for slightly more specialized computers is mindboggling from a legal position.,, and only exists because of favoritism.

See, saying what you're saying though is like saying we should be able to have other options for the Xbox dashboard when that just isn't the case.

This is MS's game console and they can allow whatever they want to work or not work on it.  It's up to them.  It doesn't matter if it screws over another company, it's their own fault for making an unlicensed product.

You can argue all day whether that is morally right or wrong or if it creates some sort of monopoly but it in the end it doesn't matter and it doesn't even matter what country you're in.  It is Microsoft's console and they can update it as they see fit.

If you don't want that update, dont' take the update but then you cannot sign onto MS's network-- it's that simple.

So... Windows is Microsofts operating system.

Are they free to do with it whatever they want?

Would it be fair game if they updated Windows to brick Firefox, Opera, Google Chrome and every other internet browser not IE until those internet browser companies started paying liscensing fees?

This is the problem I was getting at-- you're comparing apples to oranges.

A game console is not a PC.  No, Microsoft Windows should not block Mozilla but Windows is a completely different entity.

Again, it's Microsoft's game console, they can do what they want it.  Additionally, it's their network, they can do what they want with it.  If they want to give you an update that allows only licensed software to run on it, so be it.  That said, you do not have to take that update, but if you don't, they don't have to let you on their network.

This really isn't a hard concept to understand and I dont' know why people are actually arguing this.

Because it's the exact same thing.  A game console is a PC.  A much more specialized PC... but a PC none the less.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 24 November 2009
nightsurge said:
Kasz216 said:
twesterm said:
Kasz216 said:
dsister44 said:
Kasz216 said:
dsister44 said:

I think that Microsoft should have the right to moderate which products should be used for the Xbox. They can't stop all 3rd party merchandise, but they can stop some. Some of the 3rd party stuff needs to be stopped. Look at the Nyko intercooler. It is dangerous and caused several RRoDs. I bought a 3rd party fan that plugs into the the back USB. Two weeks later the back USB stopped working. Microsoft said that the fan did it through faulty wiring(they could have easily lied to me) 

And I figured that that link you posted had something to do with monopolies. >.> Couldn't read a word of it

So why shouldn't microsoft be able decide what products can be used on Windows then?

 

What do you mean?

Saying what can and can't be used on the 360 is identical to saying Microsoft should be able to decide what programs and accessories could be used for a Windows computer.


Which is why it's ridiculious in the first place that Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo get away with what they do.

Imagine a windows where every Office program and accessory has to be approved by microsoft.  You don't see where they get an unfair advantage their?

That power itself is what constitutes a monopoly.  Not just them having sole ownership of the market.

Otherwise they could eaisly just liscense only Microsoft Office, and Bob's Office, an office tool create by bob that's 3 times the cost and barely works.

 

Etc.

Videogame systems are basically just specialized PCs... espiecally the 360.

 

The fact that microsoft gets to control on 360 but not windows is not congruent.

 

Liscensing fees and the like really shouldn't exist, and don't on the PC.  The fact that they don't for computers... but do for slightly more specialized computers is mindboggling from a legal position.,, and only exists because of favoritism.

See, saying what you're saying though is like saying we should be able to have other options for the Xbox dashboard when that just isn't the case.

This is MS's game console and they can allow whatever they want to work or not work on it.  It's up to them.  It doesn't matter if it screws over another company, it's their own fault for making an unlicensed product.

You can argue all day whether that is morally right or wrong or if it creates some sort of monopoly but it in the end it doesn't matter and it doesn't even matter what country you're in.  It is Microsoft's console and they can update it as they see fit.

If you don't want that update, dont' take the update but then you cannot sign onto MS's network-- it's that simple.

So... Windows is Microsofts operating system.

Are they free to do with it whatever they want?

Would it be fair game if they updated Windows to brick Firefox, Opera, Google Chrome and every other internet browser not IE until those internet browser companies started paying liscensing fees?

You are comparing an operating system with hardware... Microsofts OS is mostly open so pretty much anyone can make programs for them.  This is fine because you use the OS to RUN other companies hardware AND software.  On a console, you get the hardware and OS from the same company and it is NOT open even in the slightest.  They are completely different markets and products.

It would be fair game for hardware developers to stop making hardware that supported Windows, yes.  That would be the comparison you are looking for, not software vs hardware....

Ok fine.  Apple.

Could Apple start blocking out any non liscensed ap it wanted.  Hardware and OS from the same company.

The point is... they shouldn't have the right to choose to "not be open".



Jordahn on 24 November 2009
nightsurge said:

Any accessory must be approved to work with the Xbox 360 by Microsoft. If third parties want to make memory accessories, that's great! They just need to get MS approval first. Now if this lawsuit forces MS to lower the prices on its proprietary memory or to allow third party memory, GREAT! Finally better prices! But at the same time MS has to be allowed the final word on all accessories so that crappy or potential dangerous products don't get connected to your 360.


There are plenty of reversed engineered third party products that are not approved by the first party manufactures.  This has been always been going on, and it's nothing new.  As long as it's the consumers choice to purchase such products, it is legally assumed that it's the consumers' risk for doing so.  Let's not look at a game console like it was a fragile newborn baby.  But this is the 360 that's in question...

;)



Hackers are poor nerds who don't wash.

twesterm on 24 November 2009
Kasz216 said:
twesterm said:
Kasz216 said:
twesterm said:
Kasz216 said:
dsister44 said:
Kasz216 said:
dsister44 said:

I think that Microsoft should have the right to moderate which products should be used for the Xbox. They can't stop all 3rd party merchandise, but they can stop some. Some of the 3rd party stuff needs to be stopped. Look at the Nyko intercooler. It is dangerous and caused several RRoDs. I bought a 3rd party fan that plugs into the the back USB. Two weeks later the back USB stopped working. Microsoft said that the fan did it through faulty wiring(they could have easily lied to me) 

And I figured that that link you posted had something to do with monopolies. >.> Couldn't read a word of it

So why shouldn't microsoft be able decide what products can be used on Windows then?

 

What do you mean?

Saying what can and can't be used on the 360 is identical to saying Microsoft should be able to decide what programs and accessories could be used for a Windows computer.


Which is why it's ridiculious in the first place that Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo get away with what they do.

Imagine a windows where every Office program and accessory has to be approved by microsoft.  You don't see where they get an unfair advantage their?

That power itself is what constitutes a monopoly.  Not just them having sole ownership of the market.

Otherwise they could eaisly just liscense only Microsoft Office, and Bob's Office, an office tool create by bob that's 3 times the cost and barely works.

 

Etc.

Videogame systems are basically just specialized PCs... espiecally the 360.

 

The fact that microsoft gets to control on 360 but not windows is not congruent.

 

Liscensing fees and the like really shouldn't exist, and don't on the PC.  The fact that they don't for computers... but do for slightly more specialized computers is mindboggling from a legal position.,, and only exists because of favoritism.

See, saying what you're saying though is like saying we should be able to have other options for the Xbox dashboard when that just isn't the case.

This is MS's game console and they can allow whatever they want to work or not work on it.  It's up to them.  It doesn't matter if it screws over another company, it's their own fault for making an unlicensed product.

You can argue all day whether that is morally right or wrong or if it creates some sort of monopoly but it in the end it doesn't matter and it doesn't even matter what country you're in.  It is Microsoft's console and they can update it as they see fit.

If you don't want that update, dont' take the update but then you cannot sign onto MS's network-- it's that simple.

So... Windows is Microsofts operating system.

Are they free to do with it whatever they want?

Would it be fair game if they updated Windows to brick Firefox, Opera, Google Chrome and every other internet browser not IE until those internet browser companies started paying liscensing fees?

This is the problem I was getting at-- you're comparing apples to oranges.

A game console is not a PC.  No, Microsoft Windows should not block Mozilla but Windows is a completely different entity.

Again, it's Microsoft's game console, they can do what they want it.  Additionally, it's their network, they can do what they want with it.  If they want to give you an update that allows only licensed software to run on it, so be it.  That said, you do not have to take that update, but if you don't, they don't have to let you on their network.

This really isn't a hard concept to understand and I dont' know why people are actually arguing this.

Because it's the exact same thing.  A game console is a PC.  A much more specialized PC... but a PC none the less.

That's like calling my TV, Car, and anything else with a circuit board a PC.  No, they are different things.

It is fair to say consoles are derived from PC's but they are not PC's. 



 

Smidlee on 24 November 2009

The difference between this case and Windows blocking hardware is Windows has a large monopoly when it comes to PC OS while this is not the case with consoles. X360 already has serious competition , Wii and PS3.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 24 November 2009
twesterm said:
Kasz216 said:
twesterm said:
Kasz216 said:
twesterm said:
Kasz216 said:
dsister44 said:
Kasz216 said:
dsister44 said:

I think that Microsoft should have the right to moderate which products should be used for the Xbox. They can't stop all 3rd party merchandise, but they can stop some. Some of the 3rd party stuff needs to be stopped. Look at the Nyko intercooler. It is dangerous and caused several RRoDs. I bought a 3rd party fan that plugs into the the back USB. Two weeks later the back USB stopped working. Microsoft said that the fan did it through faulty wiring(they could have easily lied to me) 

And I figured that that link you posted had something to do with monopolies. >.> Couldn't read a word of it

So why shouldn't microsoft be able decide what products can be used on Windows then?

 

What do you mean?

Saying what can and can't be used on the 360 is identical to saying Microsoft should be able to decide what programs and accessories could be used for a Windows computer.


Which is why it's ridiculious in the first place that Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo get away with what they do.

Imagine a windows where every Office program and accessory has to be approved by microsoft.  You don't see where they get an unfair advantage their?

That power itself is what constitutes a monopoly.  Not just them having sole ownership of the market.

Otherwise they could eaisly just liscense only Microsoft Office, and Bob's Office, an office tool create by bob that's 3 times the cost and barely works.

 

Etc.

Videogame systems are basically just specialized PCs... espiecally the 360.

 

The fact that microsoft gets to control on 360 but not windows is not congruent.

 

Liscensing fees and the like really shouldn't exist, and don't on the PC.  The fact that they don't for computers... but do for slightly more specialized computers is mindboggling from a legal position.,, and only exists because of favoritism.

See, saying what you're saying though is like saying we should be able to have other options for the Xbox dashboard when that just isn't the case.

This is MS's game console and they can allow whatever they want to work or not work on it.  It's up to them.  It doesn't matter if it screws over another company, it's their own fault for making an unlicensed product.

You can argue all day whether that is morally right or wrong or if it creates some sort of monopoly but it in the end it doesn't matter and it doesn't even matter what country you're in.  It is Microsoft's console and they can update it as they see fit.

If you don't want that update, dont' take the update but then you cannot sign onto MS's network-- it's that simple.

So... Windows is Microsofts operating system.

Are they free to do with it whatever they want?

Would it be fair game if they updated Windows to brick Firefox, Opera, Google Chrome and every other internet browser not IE until those internet browser companies started paying liscensing fees?

This is the problem I was getting at-- you're comparing apples to oranges.

A game console is not a PC.  No, Microsoft Windows should not block Mozilla but Windows is a completely different entity.

Again, it's Microsoft's game console, they can do what they want it.  Additionally, it's their network, they can do what they want with it.  If they want to give you an update that allows only licensed software to run on it, so be it.  That said, you do not have to take that update, but if you don't, they don't have to let you on their network.

This really isn't a hard concept to understand and I dont' know why people are actually arguing this.

Because it's the exact same thing.  A game console is a PC.  A much more specialized PC... but a PC none the less.

That's like calling my TV, Car, and anything else with a circuit board a PC.  No, they are different things.

It is fair to say consoles are derived from PC's but they are not PC's. 

With TVs, Cars and anything else with a circuit board... you still don't grant the original producer a "closed system right".

There is no logical reason why videogame systems should have closed system rights for a product they've sold to a consumer anymore then they should have the right to block out products they don't like through their OS.

It's an identical actual situation.



nightsurge on 24 November 2009
Kasz216 said:
nightsurge said:
Kasz216 said:
twesterm said:
Kasz216 said:
dsister44 said:
Kasz216 said:
dsister44 said:

I think that Microsoft should have the right to moderate which products should be used for the Xbox. They can't stop all 3rd party merchandise, but they can stop some. Some of the 3rd party stuff needs to be stopped. Look at the Nyko intercooler. It is dangerous and caused several RRoDs. I bought a 3rd party fan that plugs into the the back USB. Two weeks later the back USB stopped working. Microsoft said that the fan did it through faulty wiring(they could have easily lied to me) 

And I figured that that link you posted had something to do with monopolies. >.> Couldn't read a word of it

So why shouldn't microsoft be able decide what products can be used on Windows then?

 

What do you mean?

Saying what can and can't be used on the 360 is identical to saying Microsoft should be able to decide what programs and accessories could be used for a Windows computer.


Which is why it's ridiculious in the first place that Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo get away with what they do.

Imagine a windows where every Office program and accessory has to be approved by microsoft.  You don't see where they get an unfair advantage their?

That power itself is what constitutes a monopoly.  Not just them having sole ownership of the market.

Otherwise they could eaisly just liscense only Microsoft Office, and Bob's Office, an office tool create by bob that's 3 times the cost and barely works.

 

Etc.

Videogame systems are basically just specialized PCs... espiecally the 360.

 

The fact that microsoft gets to control on 360 but not windows is not congruent.

 

Liscensing fees and the like really shouldn't exist, and don't on the PC.  The fact that they don't for computers... but do for slightly more specialized computers is mindboggling from a legal position.,, and only exists because of favoritism.

See, saying what you're saying though is like saying we should be able to have other options for the Xbox dashboard when that just isn't the case.

This is MS's game console and they can allow whatever they want to work or not work on it.  It's up to them.  It doesn't matter if it screws over another company, it's their own fault for making an unlicensed product.

You can argue all day whether that is morally right or wrong or if it creates some sort of monopoly but it in the end it doesn't matter and it doesn't even matter what country you're in.  It is Microsoft's console and they can update it as they see fit.

If you don't want that update, dont' take the update but then you cannot sign onto MS's network-- it's that simple.

So... Windows is Microsofts operating system.

Are they free to do with it whatever they want?

Would it be fair game if they updated Windows to brick Firefox, Opera, Google Chrome and every other internet browser not IE until those internet browser companies started paying liscensing fees?

You are comparing an operating system with hardware... Microsofts OS is mostly open so pretty much anyone can make programs for them.  This is fine because you use the OS to RUN other companies hardware AND software.  On a console, you get the hardware and OS from the same company and it is NOT open even in the slightest.  They are completely different markets and products.

It would be fair game for hardware developers to stop making hardware that supported Windows, yes.  That would be the comparison you are looking for, not software vs hardware....

Ok fine.  Apple.

Could Apple start blocking out any non liscensed ap it wanted.  Hardware and OS from the same company.

The point is... they shouldn't have the right to choose to "not be open".

Yes Apple can and does do that.  Because they are in a minority market.  If they were a giant monopoly company like MS, they would not be allowed to do this.  They still shouldn't, because in affect they have a monopoly over the Apple OS usage and all apple products like iPods or Macs, while MS only produces the OS and some select software and any hardware company can produce PCs.



Kasz216 on 24 November 2009
nightsurge said:
Kasz216 said:
nightsurge said:
Kasz216 said:
twesterm said:
Kasz216 said:
dsister44 said:
Kasz216 said:
dsister44 said:

I think that Microsoft should have the right to moderate which products should be used for the Xbox. They can't stop all 3rd party merchandise, but they can stop some. Some of the 3rd party stuff needs to be stopped. Look at the Nyko intercooler. It is dangerous and caused several RRoDs. I bought a 3rd party fan that plugs into the the back USB. Two weeks later the back USB stopped working. Microsoft said that the fan did it through faulty wiring(they could have easily lied to me) 

And I figured that that link you posted had something to do with monopolies. >.> Couldn't read a word of it

So why shouldn't microsoft be able decide what products can be used on Windows then?

 

What do you mean?

Saying what can and can't be used on the 360 is identical to saying Microsoft should be able to decide what programs and accessories could be used for a Windows computer.


Which is why it's ridiculious in the first place that Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo get away with what they do.

Imagine a windows where every Office program and accessory has to be approved by microsoft.  You don't see where they get an unfair advantage their?

That power itself is what constitutes a monopoly.  Not just them having sole ownership of the market.

Otherwise they could eaisly just liscense only Microsoft Office, and Bob's Office, an office tool create by bob that's 3 times the cost and barely works.

 

Etc.

Videogame systems are basically just specialized PCs... espiecally the 360.

 

The fact that microsoft gets to control on 360 but not windows is not congruent.

 

Liscensing fees and the like really shouldn't exist, and don't on the PC.  The fact that they don't for computers... but do for slightly more specialized computers is mindboggling from a legal position.,, and only exists because of favoritism.

See, saying what you're saying though is like saying we should be able to have other options for the Xbox dashboard when that just isn't the case.

This is MS's game console and they can allow whatever they want to work or not work on it.  It's up to them.  It doesn't matter if it screws over another company, it's their own fault for making an unlicensed product.

You can argue all day whether that is morally right or wrong or if it creates some sort of monopoly but it in the end it doesn't matter and it doesn't even matter what country you're in.  It is Microsoft's console and they can update it as they see fit.

If you don't want that update, dont' take the update but then you cannot sign onto MS's network-- it's that simple.

So... Windows is Microsofts operating system.

Are they free to do with it whatever they want?

Would it be fair game if they updated Windows to brick Firefox, Opera, Google Chrome and every other internet browser not IE until those internet browser companies started paying liscensing fees?

You are comparing an operating system with hardware... Microsofts OS is mostly open so pretty much anyone can make programs for them.  This is fine because you use the OS to RUN other companies hardware AND software.  On a console, you get the hardware and OS from the same company and it is NOT open even in the slightest.  They are completely different markets and products.

It would be fair game for hardware developers to stop making hardware that supported Windows, yes.  That would be the comparison you are looking for, not software vs hardware....

Ok fine.  Apple.

Could Apple start blocking out any non liscensed ap it wanted.  Hardware and OS from the same company.

The point is... they shouldn't have the right to choose to "not be open".

Yes Apple can and does do that.  Because they are in a minority market.  If they were a giant monopoly company like MS, they would not be allowed to do this.  They still shouldn't, because in affect they have a monopoly over the Apple OS usage and all apple products like iPods or Macs, while MS only produces the OS and some select software and any hardware company can produce PCs.

No.  they don't do that.

I'm talking about actual accessories, like USB drives and Software like computer games.  Aka analogues stuff.

Apple doesn't force a liscensing fee for such things... and they couldn't either.



twesterm on 24 November 2009
Kasz216 said:
twesterm said:

That's like calling my TV, Car, and anything else with a circuit board a PC.  No, they are different things.

It is fair to say consoles are derived from PC's but they are not PC's. 

With TVs, Cars and anything else with a circuit board... you still don't grant the original producer a "closed system right".

There is no logical reason why videogame systems should have closed system rights for a product they've sold to a consumer anymore then they should have the right to block out products they don't like through their OS.

It's an identical actual situation.

But they do have a logical reason-- they stop devices they haven't signed off on because devices like the Datel memory card results in easy piracy.

Until game consoles are officially called game computers, they have every right to close it off as much as they want.  Just like how anyone can't just make games for the 360, anyone can't just make an accessory for the 360.  You may think it's right or wrong but that doesn't matter because that's just the way it is.



 

Kasz216 on 24 November 2009
twesterm said:
Kasz216 said:
twesterm said:
 

That's like calling my TV, Car, and anything else with a circuit board a PC.  No, they are different things.

It is fair to say consoles are derived from PC's but they are not PC's. 

With TVs, Cars and anything else with a circuit board... you still don't grant the original producer a "closed system right".

There is no logical reason why videogame systems should have closed system rights for a product they've sold to a consumer anymore then they should have the right to block out products they don't like through their OS.

It's an identical actual situation.

But they do have a logical reason-- they stop devices they haven't signed off on because devices like the Datel memory card results in easy piracy.

Until game consoles are officially called game computers, they have every right to close it off as much as they want.  Just like how anyone can't just make games for the 360, anyone can't just make an accessory for the 360.  You may think it's right or wrong but that doesn't matter because that's just the way it is.

So... your arguement is... it's right because it has a different name.

Really?  So if i make something that looks and acts a lot like a gun, but call it an apple it suddenly makes sense that i don't have to follow proper firearm laws?

This makes sense to you?  You would just be fine accepting the fact that there were completly different laws involving my "apple" just because it had a slightly different name and very slight difference in how it worked, but still performed the same fuctions.

The fact that you can't see the very easy to understand logical incongruity here is crazy.

Also, the easy piracy statement... how is that any different from the many devices that make PC piracy a lot easier?