I am sorry to post so late in the chain, but I believe that the real bugbear is not the price of Windows but rather the steep decline in the US Dollar value.
The pricing reflects inflation not M$ taking advantage of a monopoly position.
600 USD for a gaming console and 450 USD for a operating system. Robber baron times and inflation to match! :) George
So you have three choices - xBox360, PS3, or Wii Nin... The New Nintendo comes in at a very very nice price. In my opinion the only distinction then has to be with the games that are offered... So question: Will the new Nintendo have cool games? Will it have CS, BF2, Halo, Tribes, or any other first person shooter like the above? Will it have cool sports games?
Cause lets face it, the choice between which console to buy is less a factor of the price of the console than say which games are on it. I currently have the PS2 and I play Battlefield 2 religiously. I borrowed a friends XBOX360 and played Call of Duty 2 and actually in all honesty the Call of Duty is better and so is the wireless controllers with "trigger" buttons etc.
I would only consider replacing my PS2 with the Nintendo if it had cool shootem ups... Any thoughts?
With every day that passes we head closer and closer to that game I used to play as a child called Shadowrun - with deckers that hacked into systems while trolls protected them. (patent trolls that is).
Re:10 haha that's funny that you clasified me as "troll counsel" without knowing anything about the type of work I do as a lawyer and whether I even do IP work at all. In fact your assumptions are not even close.
Not only that but your comments smack of a complete lack of understanding as to how patent litigation works.
You assume that 1. "troll counsel" would take a case for only a few hundred thousand. you are dreaming. there is no money in a case worth nothing. 2. you forget that patent litigation is expensive FOR BOTH SIDES (plaintiff and defendant). Experts cost money, depositions cost money, court costs - cost money, and basically patent litigations typically run as high as several million (yes million) dollars FOR BOTH SIDES each. So why would a plaintiff sue if they have a useless patent - you need a good patent and a strong case or you are throwing good money away.
I was actually just thinking about RIM and why it is such a good target right now and the answer is simple. They were nailed for a 600 Million dollar verdict because they mishandled their case (managing to file the same motion 4 times and receiving 4 rejections - they should have stopped at the first one) and played the wrong game. They had numerous opportunities to settle, numerous opportunities to make the litigation go away but they wanted to play hard ball with a case that was not heading in their favor. They are the cause of their own demise not some company asserting its IP rights.
Microsoft can afford to play hard ball. Why? Because they have 40 Billion in cash. They can afford to make a small offer and cause the other side to spend a fortune in legal fees - even if the verdict that comes down is in the hundreds of millions, they just use interest to pay off the judgment. But a company like RIM with a mere 1 billion in the bank should carefully consider fighting versus settling - not to mention the negative affect on business during the litigation. It was not worth it to litigate when settling was a better option. This was their tactical decision and one that they are living with now.
The USPTO grants a right that is enforceable if infringed upon in the same manner as someone who steps onto your property and trespasses.
As for heading over to Slashdot, I am there too. I just happen to like the pictures at engadget better than the text at slashdot.
Evan, haha, thank you for saying my posting was eloquent.
I do have some criticisms of yours though in response:
1. you cannot patent an idea. you have to have 3 things for an invention to be patentable: NEW, USEFUL, and NONOBVIOUS. (in the EU this last one is called inventive step). These three things a patent makes.
2. NTP did invent something - just because the guy was a failed business man does not mean he is a failed inventor. He did invent and he spent many years doing so.
3. Your idea of patenting a device to help flying machines avoid power lines is GREAT! However, 1. the patent would be expired by 2050 (20 years from date of filing is the term), 2. you have to sue without undue delay (called laches), 3. you have to have invented something (so more than just the idea of a flying machine with wire evading capabilities - you would need to actually SHOW how this will work)
4. in-house counsel SHOULD play a role in the development of any new products - FOR MANY REASONS - in fact I would blame the engineers for shying away from, and despising their in-house lawyers. It's almost standard procedure that the engineers hate the lawyers and yet everyone is on the same team. Lawyers work with regulatory, contractual, and business relationships - Engineers design and create - the two need to work together to make the business effective. (I am a lawyer in case you were wondering).
5. You are simply incorrect with regard to the China comment. FOR SO MANY REASONS: 1. China has historically not been a net inventor but rather a net IP thief. 2. China has historically been the West's manufacturing base (with the West providing the ideas and technology and China manufacturing it cheaper and faster), 3. Only recently has China become an innovator on the Global Scale (think Lenovo and the takeover of IBM) 4. With China taking a front seat in innovation, we will see more Chinese companies asserting their IP rights in the US (see Hynix (Korean chip manufacturer) that for the first time sued a US company for patent infringement) - and China has also started litigating its patent rights here in the US.
Re: #4: I am afraid that you sir are incorrect! For several reasons:
1. The Eastern District of Texas is not "plaintiff-friendly", it is "patent-friendly". The judges in the EDTX have made it their business to create local rules that favor the advent of patent cases. These include rules that make for a speedy trial and require ontime production of documents.
For many years large corporations that are typically patent defendants (because they have infringed with impunity) were able to delay trial (due to discovery proceedings) for many years - to the point that the RIM v NTP proceeding took 5 years to come to a head. The EDTX allows for much faster trial - which is good for everyone that wants to go about their business - without infringing.
2. Stating that the EDTX has never ruled in favor of a defendant is absolutely incorrect! 88% of the time the plaintiff wins in the EDTX, however, this is not much higher than the national average - (Virginia for instance comes in at about 70%) (see District Court statistics).
3. Venue shopping is an incorrect assumption. A plaintiff can sue in whichever District infringement occurs. In the case where infringement is national in scope, the plaintiff has the decision to make on where they would like to sue the Defendant. Additionally, the defendant has the opportunity (once put on notice) to sue in another venue.
I am not sure why everyone on the Engadget boards seem to favor large corporations and gross infringement. If I owned a patent and it was being infringed, I certainly would want to protect my intellectual property.
We all have heard the stories where some large corporation because of their shear size and bank account rolls over the little guy - why is protecting your IP any different?
The fact is RIM DID infringe the NTP patents (its irrelevant that they were found invalid after the fact) - the court in VIRGINIA made a determination on the facts and law that infringement occurred - that should be enough to satisfy anyone.
The term Patent Troll is being thrown around without much determination of what it actually means to be a patent troll. It is becoming anyone who sues to enforce their IP and that is too broad a definition.
Actually, nothing is new here. Companies suing each other over patents is just another part of the patent landscape.
We live in the digital age - with the digital age comes digital (ie: intellectual) property.
If this were medieval England we would be fighting over real property but since we have supposedly moved onwards and upwards from the Dark Ages, we now fight in a courtroom over sh*t we cannot see let alone understand.
Actually, I have posted quite a bit about technology and the patent landscape over at my blog... if anyone cares (just click on my name above)...
Really I just think that everything and anything Canadian is lame. The people are friendly and annoying and speak in a tongue that is not quite American but just enough of a dialect change to really grate the skin. They have this inferiority complex cause they live next door to the greatest nation on earth and feel insulted if you call them americans. they are small minded and fight over 1 canadian dollar and who owes it to who. and really toronto is a copy of new york and montreal is a copy of gaza.
RIM messed up because they couldnt handle the heat in the kitchen and tried to play the judge for a fool - filing the same motion four times and having it rejected four times... yah bad form.
i am sick of small minded people playing a big boys game and not getting that big boys rules also apply.
good on ya NTP and i wish RIM would just go back to the frigid north next to that other lame company NORTEL.
"I'm heading to university next year, and I've purchased a MacBook. I'm also taking my four year old desktop, just in case I'm left with no computers when the MacBook is being repaired or whatnot. With only two USB ports on a MacBook, I want a Bluetooth mouse. Budget is about $100, and of course, it needs OS X support. Thanks for the help!"
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
http://kungfoox.typepad.com/kungfoox/2008/04/fooxiphoneskinz.html
:)
Foox