[LINK] Xbox, modchips and law vs business model
Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:36:12 +1000
They don't need to change the Trade Practices Act, Sony lost on a
technicality- which was that the chip was not a copyright device, or
something of the sort. The next time they go to court they'll call the
technology something else, and will win the case.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chirgwin, Richard" <Richard.Chirgwin@informa.com.au>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 8:11 AM
Subject: RE: [LINK] Xbox, modchips and law vs business model
> Generally, when threats are given, there's an alternative offered ... "do
> it, OR". Not in this case - SB simply says "we require". It's feasible, I
> guess, that fed.gov.au may say "stuff your requirements, the law is the
> - but I don't think Centabet would give me odds.
> Do we really believe that the "or" is "or we'll stop selling X-Box in
> Australia"? Or is it more likely that the "or" means "or we're going to
> lobby you from every conceivable direction to change the law"?
> In my mind, the "or" most likely is that MS will threaten to deny
> access to X-Box tools - the rationale being that "since Australia won't
> change its laws, Microsoft won't put the X-Box intellectual property at
> This is the threat most likely to draw lobbying from outside MS. A games
> developer industry lobby will call on the Federal Government to save them
> from ruin, by changing the Trade Practises Act. And federal ministers will
> tell us they're not prepared to put thousands of jobs and hundreds of
> millions of dollars of export revenues at risk.
> (Quotes will probably run along the lines of: "The legitimate jobs of
> thousands of honest Australians are more important than protecting the
> illegal activities of a handful of anti-social hackers".)
> Bets anyone?
> Richard Chirgwin
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jan Whitaker [mailto:jwhit@PrimeNet.Com]
> > Sent: Sunday, 20 October 2002 08:17
> > To: Lars Gaarden
> > Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Subject: Re: [LINK] Xbox, modchips and law vs business model
> > At 02:33 PM 19/10/02 +0200, Lars Gaarden wrote:
> > >http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/18/1034561304223.html
> > >
> > >This is really something. If Ballmer is quoted correctly, he
> > >is saying that if australian law is incompatible with MS'
> > >business model then the law has to change.
> > The last paragraph seems to support what you say. Maybe he
> > has that sort of
> > power in the US [now that the Repugnicans are in control] and
> > forgot where
> > he was for a moment.
> > >"Given the way the economic model works, and that is a
> > subsidy followed,
> > >essentially, by fees for every piece of software sold, our licence
> > >framework has to do that," Mr Ballmer said. "If there are
> > aspects that are
> > >not allowed, it would encourage us to require a change in the legal
> > >framework. Otherwise, it wouldn't make economic sense."
> > JLWhitaker Associates
> > Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
> > email@example.com -- http://www.primenet.com/~jwhit/whitentr.htm
> > ----------
> > For Link list information see http://sunsite.anu.edu.au/link/
> For Link list information see http://sunsite.anu.edu.au/link/
For Link list information see http://sunsite.anu.edu.au/link/