Microsoft Anti-Trust case

DatabaseError

In October 2009, Microsoft released an update for the Xbox 360 which intentionally blocked 3rd-party (non-Microsoft) memory cards from working with the game console. UK-based Datel Design & Development, maker of 3rd party memory cards for the Xbox 360, then sued microsoft, claiming it was engaging in anti-competitive practices.

Source

MS joining Apple with the "my house, my rules" argument. far better to sell an official accessory at £50 than allow a 3rd party to sell an similar product for £10.

I wish Apple had lost the Psystar case, and I hope MS lose this one, though I suspect the most expensive lawyers will win, which will be sad for all of us (and I don't have an apple or xbox).

I paid thousands of pounds for my car, and the manufacturer doesn't feel he has the right to tell me which stereo to install, why should tech companies have the right to such control?

motorguy

From memory, (no pun intended) console makers generally make them at a loss / break even, then make their money on the games and peripherals.

I guess they are just 'protecting' a revenue stream.

Not pleasant for the consumer, but i'd suspect you can buy even the genuine ones significantly cheaper than RRP and they're not a consumable, therefore it should be a one off purchase?

Bikertov

Maybe the manufacturers should be more transparent about how many £££ Billions they make from us, rather than trying to say they make 'nothing' on the consoles, then rip us off on everything else. A bit like printers and Toner / Ink cartridges ?

We, consumers, are NOT cash cows. Make a fair commercial profit from us OK, but don't rip us off with sob stories of losses / break even on this that and the other.

Micro$oft did not become the biggest company in the world, and Bill Gate$ the richest man in the world by making a loss. Not that I have anything against them - I even reckon Bill Gates is a business genius for what he did, but don't tell us you make a loss ...

Marty_J

DatabaseError wrote: »

Source

MS joining Apple with the "my house, my rules" argument. far better to sell an official accessory at £50 than allow a 3rd party to sell an similar product for £10.

Apple don't stop people making accessories for their products. The market for iPod accessories is an industry in itself.

I wish Apple had lost the Psystar case, and I hope MS lose this one, though I suspect the most expensive lawyers will win, which will be sad for all of us (and I don't have an apple or xbox).

I paid thousands of pounds for my car, and the manufacturer doesn't feel he has the right to tell me which stereo to install, why should tech companies have the right to such control?

It's rather more complicated than that. Psystar circumvented copy-protection technologies built into OS X in direct violation of the DMCA. They also backwards engineered Apple updates and distributed them to their customers.

I'm sure I don't need to remind you that the unauthorised distribution of copyrighted material is against the law.

Marty_J

Bikertov wrote: »

Micro$oft did not become the biggest company in the world, and Bill Gate$ the richest man in the world by making a loss. Not that I have anything against them - I even reckon Bill Gates is a business genius for what he did, but don't tell us you make a loss ...

Just to nit-pick, but Microsoft aren't the biggest company in the world; they're not even close in fact.

In Fortune magazine's list of the top 500 companies for 2009, Microsoft came in 117th place. The top three were Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil, and Wal-Mart.

Bikertov

Marty_J wrote: »

Just to nit-pick, but Microsoft aren't the biggest company in the world; they're not even close in fact.

Fair point Marty - although I am sure they were close at one stage. Just making the point really, rather than getting into too much detail

Although I am sure the Bill and his mate Paul Allen were No.1 and No.2 for a while ?

sweetstudent

Marty_J wrote: »

Apple don't stop people making accessories for their products. The market for iPod accessories is an industry in itself.

It's rather more complicated than that. Psystar circumvented copy-protection technologies built into OS X in direct violation of the DMCA. They also backwards engineered Apple updates and distributed them to their customers.

I'm sure I don't need to remind you that the unauthorised distribution of copyrighted material is against the law.

Also they ran the risk of giving Apple a bad name, where if Pystar sold some machines, and they kept failing - who would the buyer hold responsible - Pystar or Apple. Apple have every right to have their brand protected.