Microsoft Sued for Locking Out Third Party Memory Cards

[SilentHunter7]

They do allow third-party items, they just have to be licensed by Microsoft first. That's the problem with these cards, they are not approved by Microsoft.

That's the problem with this whole thing. Forcing 3rd party manufacturers to purchase a license to use their products with theirs violates every competition law made since Theodore Roosevelt.

 

[SMOKEMNHALO2001]

They do allow third-party items, they just have to be licensed by Microsoft first. That's the problem with these cards, they are not approved by Microsoft.

That's the problem with this whole thing. Forcing 3rd party manufacturers to purchase a license to use their products with theirs violates every competition law made since Theodore Roosevelt.

Nintendo did this years ago and nobody had a problem with this, Microsoft shouldn't be damned because they want to...oh I don't know make money from their system. Pelican gets permission when they make these things so what makes these guys so special? They should follow the same rules as everyone else.

 

[SilentHunter7]

They do allow third-party items, they just have to be licensed by Microsoft first. That's the problem with these cards, they are not approved by Microsoft.

That's the problem with this whole thing. Forcing 3rd party manufacturers to purchase a license to use their products with theirs violates every competition law made since Theodore Roosevelt.

Nintendo did this years ago and nobody had a problem with this, Microsoft shouldn't be damned because they want to...oh I don't know make money from their system. Pelican gets permission when they make these things so what makes these guys so special? They should follow the same rules as everyone else.

If Microsoft can't make money because someone out there offers something better or cheaper, it's their own damn fault; Welcome to Capitalism. 3rd party hardware manufacturers shouldn't be damned because Microsoft dislikes anything that isn't part of their Monopoly.

And Nintendo already lost a lawsuit [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/96554-Nintendo-Loses-Lawsuit-Against-DS-Flash-Cards] because of this. It's one thing to make money off of your system. It's another thing entirely to remove competition by forbidding someone to make something that works with your system. It would be like if Honda only allowed Honda-approved tires, oil-filters, cams, and other parts to be used with their vehicles, and the only way for companies to make their parts Honda-approved would be to pay Honda a ridiculous sum of money for every part they want to sell.

 

[SMOKEMNHALO2001]

They do allow third-party items, they just have to be licensed by Microsoft first. That's the problem with these cards, they are not approved by Microsoft.

That's the problem with this whole thing. Forcing 3rd party manufacturers to purchase a license to use their products with theirs violates every competition law made since Theodore Roosevelt.

Nintendo did this years ago and nobody had a problem with this, Microsoft shouldn't be damned because they want to...oh I don't know make money from their system. Pelican gets permission when they make these things so what makes these guys so special? They should follow the same rules as everyone else.

And Nintendo just lost their lawsuit over DS Flash Cards. With an international precedent set, I doubt highly MS will win this. Maybe...a very very thin maybe in the States, but Europe will tear this one up, as they've been doing with a great many MS lawsuits of late. (Anti-trust).

Yes yes, Nintendo lost, but they never had a rule against such a thing, Microsoft's' 360 has always had a special coding to prevent "unofficial" memory cards use on their systems. If anything to prevent "cheating and playing pirate games" Microsoft will use this in their defense and chances are it will work in their favor.

 

[SMOKEMNHALO2001]

They do allow third-party items, they just have to be licensed by Microsoft first. That's the problem with these cards, they are not approved by Microsoft.

That's the problem with this whole thing. Forcing 3rd party manufacturers to purchase a license to use their products with theirs violates every competition law made since Theodore Roosevelt.

Nintendo did this years ago and nobody had a problem with this, Microsoft shouldn't be damned because they want to...oh I don't know make money from their system. Pelican gets permission when they make these things so what makes these guys so special? They should follow the same rules as everyone else.

If Microsoft can't make money because someone out there offers something better or cheaper, it's their own damn fault; Welcome to Capitalism. 3rd party hardware manufacturers shouldn't be damned because Microsoft dislikes anything that isn't part of their Monopoly.

And Nintendo already lost a lawsuit [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/96554-Nintendo-Loses-Lawsuit-Against-DS-Flash-Cards] because of this. It's one thing to make money off of your system. It's another thing entirely to remove competition by forbidding someone to make something that works with your system. It would be like if Honda only allowed Honda-approved tires, oil-filters, cams, and other parts to be used with their vehicles, and the only way for companies to make their parts Honda-approved would be to pay Honda a ridiculous sum of money for every part they want to sell.

They never removed competition they simply found a way for both parties to make money. They're not saying "We don't want third party hardware on our system." just "ask permission so we can do business" and that's what it's about business. Microsoft knows there will always be cheaper third party items so why not go with the old saying,if you can't beat em' join em'

 

[SMOKEMNHALO2001]

They do allow third-party items, they just have to be licensed by Microsoft first. That's the problem with these cards, they are not approved by Microsoft.

That's the problem with this whole thing. Forcing 3rd party manufacturers to purchase a license to use their products with theirs violates every competition law made since Theodore Roosevelt.

Nintendo did this years ago and nobody had a problem with this, Microsoft shouldn't be damned because they want to...oh I don't know make money from their system. Pelican gets permission when they make these things so what makes these guys so special? They should follow the same rules as everyone else.

If Microsoft can't make money because someone out there offers something better or cheaper, it's their own damn fault; Welcome to Capitalism. 3rd party hardware manufacturers shouldn't be damned because Microsoft dislikes anything that isn't part of their Monopoly.

And Nintendo already lost a lawsuit [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/96554-Nintendo-Loses-Lawsuit-Against-DS-Flash-Cards] because of this. It's one thing to make money off of your system. It's another thing entirely to remove competition by forbidding someone to make something that works with your system. It would be like if Honda only allowed Honda-approved tires, oil-filters, cams, and other parts to be used with their vehicles, and the only way for companies to make their parts Honda-approved would be to pay Honda a ridiculous sum of money for every part they want to sell.

They never removed competition they simply found a way for both parties to make money. They're not saying "We don't want third party hardware on our system." just "ask permission so we can do business" and that's what it's about business. Microsoft knows there will always be cheaper third party items so why not go with the old saying,if you can't beat em' join em'

It actually doesn't matter, beyond the French precedent, many other's have been set regarding a persons right to do whatever they please with what they purchase. Gamers, actually would have a very very easy win on their hands, if they simply filed suit against Microsoft with infringing on their rights to their own property. Once it's paid for, it no longer belongs to MS. It's that persons property, and what they decide to do with it, is theirs. What people are confusing, is Microsofts right to XBL, versus a persons right to hack/mod/burn/wood chip the 360 they own. It's not Microsofts call, and either the 3rd party manufacturer will win, or gamers will win.

As for your Honda analogy. That's incorrect, nobody has to pay Honda squat to make parts that fit their vehicles. None. In fact, it's cheaper to buy after-market 'Z' rated parts (That's, better than OEM...Original Equipment Manufactured). I buy 90% of my car parts personally for my BMW, so I know this to be true. The only thing that would require a parts maker to bend over backward to the parent company, is if they wanted to put the Honda logo on it. Otherwise, it's just a piece of metal that happens to fit the correct screw pattern for the vehicle you own/they made.

The Honda theory isn't mine, but I see where you're coming from, but the pirating of games is still illegal no matter how you look at it and from that perspective Microsoft is protecting not only themselves but their partners as well.

 

[SilentHunter7]

They never removed competition they simply found a way for both parties to make money. They're not saying "We don't want third party hardware on our system." just "ask permission so we can do business" and that's what it's about business. Microsoft knows there will always be cheaper third party items so why not go with the old saying,if you can't beat em' join em'

If it was as simple as them asking for approval, and MS going "Oh yeah, no problem", or "just make sure such and such anti-piracy measures are implemented", there wouldn't have been a lawsuit. However, licensing costs money, and often involves giving a royalty to MS for each unit sold, which the manufacturer has to pass on to the consumer by raising prices. If they raise prices, suddenly MS has the best option, and the 3rd party manufacturers are up a creek. THAT's where the anti-trust issues come into play. MS isn't joining the 3rd party manufacturers. They're extorting them.

As for your Honda analogy...

Actually, it was my analogy, and I just said IF they did that.

 

[GloatingSwine]

The only reason this could be a problem is if it allows people to cheat on XBL. Is that possible? And surely there are server admins that ban cheaters. Oh wait...

Yes, it's possible. It was a hacked savegame file that allowed people on the PS3 version of Call of Duty 4 to use noclip and shoot through walls.

And sure, you can ban the people who do it, but they've still fucked the experience up for others and devalued your platform.

 

[SMOKEMNHALO2001]

The Honda theory isn't mine, but I see where you're coming from, but the pirating of games is still illegal no matter how you look at it and from that perspective Microsoft is protecting not only themselves but their partners as well.

The problem I have with that, is that Microsoft would then be holding the 3rd party card makers, responsible for Microsofts inability to create a secure system, as well as the lack of ethical behavior amongst some of it's consumers. This is quite similar to the file-sharing mediums, coming under fire from the MPAA/RIAA. In the end, if it was simply a program that allowed for P2P transfer, the courts decided in favor of the end-user/programmer, stating that the program itself is not to blame. But the people who misuse the program. Whereas, file-sharing hubs, such as Napster, Audiogalaxysatellite et al, where a parent server maintained the data, those were deemd illegal, as the company is actually encouraging piracy, by providing places for this data to be stored.

Once the money has changed hands, once ownership of property has transferred from Microsoft to a consumer, the only thing Microsoft can police is activity on their network. If someone chooses to mod their 360 and play offline, MS can't do squat about it (unless they find out about it, of course). But, if they go online...yeah, that's a whole nother ballgame. MS can ban away, but that still only affects their access to XBL, not whether the machine will continue to play games offline.

And that's where I'm coming from there was no lawsuits because it never caused a problem, like you said they can police their networks and if an unofficial third party hardware is to blame for networking-esq issue i.e cheaters on LIVE then Microsoft has the rights to say stop. Of course that's assuming the cheating is the reason Microsoft doesn't want this particular companies cards.

 

[Supreme Unleaded]

The sad thing is, i bet the Datel cards are made better then Microsofts and they probably cost less (i dont know how much they cost). And if they dont cost less i can almost gaurnentee that they cost less per Gb the Microsofts.


Stupid miscrosft and your monopaly, you need to stop playing that game.

 

[SMOKEMNHALO2001]

They never removed competition they simply found a way for both parties to make money. They're not saying "We don't want third party hardware on our system." just "ask permission so we can do business" and that's what it's about business. Microsoft knows there will always be cheaper third party items so why not go with the old saying,if you can't beat em' join em'

If it was as simple as them asking for approval, and MS going "Oh yeah, no problem", or "just make sure such and such anti-piracy measures are implemented", there wouldn't have been a lawsuit. However, licensing costs money, and often involves giving a royalty to MS for each unit sold, which the manufacturer has to pass on to the consumer by raising prices. If they raise prices, suddenly MS has the best option, and the 3rd party manufacturers are up a creek. THAT's where the anti-trust issues come into play. MS isn't joining the 3rd party manufacturers. They're extorting them.

The people making the cards can still make them cheap just not as cheap. This is all about business the big 3 doesn't want faulty hardware clogging their systems, they have partners too who design third party items, Microsoft has a guideline for all third party made goods, I'm sorry but I see nothing special about this one company that they can skip all of the guideline because they don't want to follow the same respectable rules as everyone else.

 

[SMOKEMNHALO2001]

And that's where I'm coming from there was no lawsuits because it never caused a problem, like you said they can police their networks and if an unofficial third party hardware is to blame for networking-esq issue i.e cheaters on LIVE then Microsoft has the rights to say stop. Of course that's assuming the cheating is the reason Microsoft doesn't want this particular companies cards.

I'm thinking it'll turn out slightly differently. Microsoft has the right to protect their network, yes. But, the 3rd party manufacturer's aren't the ones doing the piracy, cheating, or proliferation of pirated material. Their product is simply a medium in which data can be temporarily stored and transferred elsewhere (Thus, in the hearing, I'm guessing something along the lines of 'Microsoft cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that the creation and intent of these objects were solely for activity it deems illegal or unfair, that is ultimately the end-users responsibility to decide right from wrong). Pictures, Music, Movies, every single one of those things can be in completely legal forms. Microsoft, would be _much_ better served, by banning anyone with an edited save file. Maybe, have the 360 stamp the files with an indentifier (PS3's do this with their HDD's, as it's formatted, the PS3 stamps the drive with some kind of code...plug that drive into another PS3 and the only option you have is to format). Once the file is updated by anything other than a 360, the stamp is altered or what-have-you, XBL/MS picks up on the modification and takes action. This would allow, well, any piece of 3rd party hardware to be used, without much risk from piracy. (For a time). The problem there is, MS never...ever...thought about a secure system when they made the 360. And people are always going to find ways to exploit it, as they have with Music/Video/Software piracy. As they have with virtually every console ever made. As they have with the 'secure' IWNet system.

So in essence, Microsoft makes the smaller companies, pay for their own stupidity. Basically give the world a system with more holes in it than a piece of Swiss, then point the finger at the other guy, when people (who will always be up to no good), exploit said holes.

I agree with you to an extent, I hate to keep bringing this up but, Microsoft has guidelines to make sure the items a third party company makes meets their standard. Yes Microsoft can't get them shut down or whatever but they could use this to their advantage.

 

[SMOKEMNHALO2001]

They never removed competition they simply found a way for both parties to make money. They're not saying "We don't want third party hardware on our system." just "ask permission so we can do business" and that's what it's about business. Microsoft knows there will always be cheaper third party items so why not go with the old saying,if you can't beat em' join em'

If it was as simple as them asking for approval, and MS going "Oh yeah, no problem", or "just make sure such and such anti-piracy measures are implemented", there wouldn't have been a lawsuit. However, licensing costs money, and often involves giving a royalty to MS for each unit sold, which the manufacturer has to pass on to the consumer by raising prices. If they raise prices, suddenly MS has the best option, and the 3rd party manufacturers are up a creek. THAT's where the anti-trust issues come into play. MS isn't joining the 3rd party manufacturers. They're extorting them.

The people making the cards can still make them cheap just not as cheap. This is all about business the big 3 doesn't want faulty hardware clogging their systems, they have partners too who design third party items, Microsoft has a guideline for all third party made goods, I'm sorry but I see nothing special about this one company that they can skip all of the guideline because they don't want to follow the same respectable rules as everyone else.

Sony allows any 3rd party item that's USB or Firewire. As long as it's formatted as FAT or FAT32 (Not NTFS...that's a Microsoft trademarked property), it'll be read by the PS3. IE, the end-user is responsible for whatever after-market parts they decide to use with _their_ device. Remember, it's not MS' after it changes hands. Only XBL is.

It may not be Microsoft's goods but it still affects the company, and the company may take steps in order to avoid backlash from the people giving them money, the consumers and their third-party partners.