On Thu, 03 Oct 2002 17:06:04 -0500 Alex Malinovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[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 > Let me see if I got that right, I sell you 100.- bucks for 80.- then I sue you if you don't buy any other of my products that make up for my loss - all I got to do after that is to find some judge and attorney that are willing to take up the case? If that is really the case now in the U.S. something is slightly more than screwed up. If somebody sells a product below cost it shouldn't be the responsibility of the justice system and finally the taxpayer to secure that there are no losses. If somebody sells a product that is not secure - same story. If somebody leaves his car unlocked with the keys in the ignition and the thing gets stolen nobody is going to pay for it. Why are there other rules for M$ ??? Prost, Klaus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
