[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: OT: mass installation on XBox

On Thursday 03 October 2002 03:06 pm, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-10-03 at 17:02, ben wrote:
> > On Thursday 03 October 2002 11:31 am, Jamin W.Collins wrote:
> > > On 03 Oct 2002 09:58:59 -0500 Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Not quite.  As I understand it, the XBox has hardware to restrict the
> > > execution of code to that signed and authorized by MS.  For the XBox to
> > > run Linux, one would first have to circumvent this mechanism.  Based on
> > > a cursory look at the provided link and referenced section it would
> > > seem that the application of a mod chip would be a violation.  Again,
> > > IANAL.
> >
> > surely, m(acro)$ would have to show that martin's manipulation of the
> > xbox caused them real financial loss in order to prove a violation of
> > patents or copyrights. even in order to prove that software
> > copy-protection had been circumvented, one should have to provide
> > evidence that copies had not only been made but also used in a fashion
> > contrary to the conditions of the license, in order to justify a claim
> > that that was the object of the manipulation.
> Unfortunately, I think that MS could make a justifiable claim that they
> are losing money. X-Boxen are sold below cost for maximum market
> pentration. The idea being that those costs and more will be recouped
> through game sales. If the systems in question are not being used to run
> games, and if no games are purchased for them, this would cause a loss
> to MS. A judge who's more concerned about business than plain old right
> and wrong (and those are too common for my liking) would probably rule
> in MS's favor. But, much like everyone else who has replied on this
> thread, IANAL.

sorry, that argument is equivalent to saying that m$'s business model for the 
xbox is law, rather than one company's marketing plan for one of their 
products. the logic of what you suggest implies that martin and any other 
consumer who purchases the xbox is simultaneously legally bound to purchase a 
sufficient number of games to enable the plan to succeed. anyone who lays out 
the bucks for the box must also have a legally sanctioned right to use it as 
a doorstop if they wish. 

does anyone on the list know what the actual purchase contract conditions are 
for the xbox? are there any lawyers on the list who want to venture a comment?


Reply to: