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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. -Alex
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
