Recommended Posts

ITC judge recommends import ban on Microsoft's Xbox

An administrative law judge for the International Trade Commission issued a recommendation that the commission ban 4GB and 250 GB Xbox gaming consoles from import to the United States. The recommendation(PDF) was released to the public on Monday, and would punish Microsoft for infringing against some of Motorola?s patents. The patents permit video transmission and compression on the console and between the console and its controllers.

Not all import bans are created equal though. In Judge David Shaw?s statement, he suggested a cease and desist order be placed against Microsoft. It would, "require the respondent to submit an annual report to the Commission regarding the number and value of infringing goods in its domestic inventory," according to the authors of ITC Remedial Orders in the Real World(PDF). "Failing to do so, or providing false information in the report, may lead to criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. ? 1001." The cease-and-desist order is more strict than a standard exclusion order, which would simply require US customs agents to keep tabs on Microsoft?s activities.

Judge Shaw also ordered "that Microsoft post a bond equal to 7 percent of the declared value of unsold Xbox inventory already in the country," according to Courthouse News.

Source [Ars Technica]

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1079227-itc-judge-bans-xbox/
Share on other sites

Confused by this. Motorola has a patent for video transmission and compression on the console? Wouldn't this then apply to DVRs, DVD recorders, Blu Ray players, TVs etc. etc.? Woudn't there be prior art?

Video transmission to controllers doesn't apply here as there is no video on an xbox controller (would affect the new wii however).

From: IGN

A Microsoft representative stated, "the full Commission will rule on this in August, and until that time, nothing will change." As such, IGN received the following statement, which is identical to the original comment from last month:

?The recommendation by the Administrative Law Judge is the first step in the process leading to the Commission?s final ruling. We remain confident the Commission will ultimately rule in Microsoft?s favor in this case and that Motorola will be held to its promise to make its standard essential patents available on fair and reasonable terms.?

I'm also really confused as to why the Xbox was singled out here.

  1. Microsoft sued Motorola for unlicensed patents
  2. Motorola sued back Microsoft MPEG-LA licensed patents.

  • Like 3
  1. Microsoft sued Motorola for unlicensed patents
  2. Motorola sued back Microsoft MPEG-LA licensed patents.

Okay, I can believe that. All these patent wars seem to be is one company trying to get back at the other.

I'm sure the lawyers love it, but I bet the judges are sick of it.

Okay, I can believe that. All these patent wars seem to be is one company trying to get back at the other.

I'm sure the lawyers love it, but I bet the judges are sick of it.

Some lawyer/rep for Motorola said something along the lines of "we are getting back at them because of the licensing agreements MS was doing with Android manufacturers". Dunno the exact quote or the article in question but this was around the time of the first ruling/judgment/consideration that the xbox should be banned (a couple of weeks ago).

Correct me if wrong but this started when MS complained about the (unfair?) pricing of Moto's FRAND video licenses right?

  1. Microsoft sued Motorola for unlicensed patents
  2. Motorola sued back Microsoft MPEG-LA licensed patents.

They where not unlicensed, they where licensed under the common low rate FRAND terms,

Motorola just might make FRAND worthless. which is far worse for them than anyone else if they succeed. they need others FRAND licenses far more than others need theirs.

Correct me if wrong but this started when MS complained about the (unfair?) pricing of Moto's FRAND video licenses right?

Actually Microsoft sued Motorola over it rather than just paying up as Android OEM's did. I can't say Microsoft didn't have this coming though. You can't go around suing/threatening everyone then complain when the same happens to you.

On a brighter note, Sony and Nintendo must be jumping with joy :)

They where not unlicensed, they where licensed under the common low rate FRAND terms,

Motorola just might make FRAND worthless. which is far worse for them than anyone else if they succeed. they need others FRAND licenses far more than others need theirs.

? I did say that Microsoft had licensed the FRAND patents but motoroloa still sued them.

Actually Microsoft sued Motorola over it rather than just paying up as Android OEM's did. I can't say Microsoft didn't have this coming though. You can't go around suing/threatening everyone then complain when the same happens to you.

On a brighter note, Sony and Nintendo must be jumping with joy :)

you're sentence doesn't make sense and is all distorted, and whileI think I know what you're trying to say, that's also wrong.

MS did try to make a deal with Motorola, Motorola refused, there's was a short back and forth before MS sued because Motorola wouldn't pay a small fair price for the patents like every other OEM.

MEanwhile all of MS' demands have been a fair license price. meanwhile Motorola, besides suing over FRAND patents, are also demanding ridiculous prices that are what, 50% the valule of the xbox...

On a brighter note, Sony and Nintendo must be jumping with joy :)

They shouldn't be, if this lawsuit is successful, and for the laqsuit to have any validity, both of those(seeing as they use the same h.264 stuff) will have to pay the same patents.

luckily that this will never actually go anywhere in reality though. at best it'll be settled for a bare percentage of the ridiculous suit, or it'll eventually be thrown out when they get some actual tech judges and not just the general idiots who don't know what they're doing.

My father's company was involved in a $200,000,000 intellectual property infringement (NAC vs Plastipak) - it boiled down to the use of 1 word... "generally"

Right and wrong dont matter, only thing that matters is how good your lawyer's relationship is with the judge - thats it.

you're sentence doesn't make sense and is all distorted, and whileI think I know what you're trying to say, that's also wrong.

Seems fine to me.

MS did try to make a deal with Motorola, Motorola refused

Microsoft wants to charge $15 per device that uses Android. Motorola is asking for what? $25 for a laptop and something similar for the Xbox. Sounds fair.

, there's was a short back and forth before MS sued because Motorola wouldn't pay a small fair price for the patents like every other OEM.

Do you have the minutes of the meeting as well? ;)

MEanwhile all of MS' demands have been a fair license price.

And Motorola is asking for an equally fair licence price too.

meanwhile Motorola, besides suing over FRAND patents, are also demanding ridiculous prices that are what, 50% the valule of the xbox...

What goes around comes around. So it's okay if Microsoft does it, but unfair when others respond commensurately?

Microsoft wants to charge $15 per device that uses Android. Motorola is asking for what? $25 for a laptop and something similar for the Xbox. Sounds fair.

Try one third of that, some partners get a better deal. so not really. and besides that, most phones are at least twice the price of an xbox today. both of these on their own makes the rest of your post irrelevant.

Right and wrong rarely if ever matter in the corporate world, it's all a cut-throat little world of "I better crush my opposition before they crush me". The lack of ethics here isn't new, it's just taking a different form.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!