November 24th, 2009

Law firm interested in hearing from banned Xbox Live gamers

Posted by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes @ 9:12 am

Categories: Legal, Microsoft

Tags: Console, Microsoft Xbox Live, Microsoft Corp., Microsoft Xbox, Abington IP, Game Players, Consumer Electronics, Personal Technology, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

A US law firm is keen to hear from Xbox gamers recently banned from Microsoft Xbox Live.

Abington IP has posted the following notice on its website:

An investigation is currently being conducted regarding business practices of Microsoft with respect to its recent cancellation of certain modified Xbox consoles for use with Xbox Live.

As has been reported widely in the media, tens of thousands of Xbox owners have had their modified Xbox consoles banned from Microsoft’s online gaming service Xbox Live. Although modification of Xbox consoles is *arguably* against the terms of use for Xbox/Xbox Live, Microsoft “conveniently” timed the Xbox console ban to coincide with the release of the new Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 game and less than two months after the release of the very popular Halo 3: ODST game. This “convenient” timing may have resulted in more Xbox Live subscription revenues for Microsoft than it would have generated had these Xbox console bans taken place at some time before the release of Halo 3: ODST and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. Additionally, sales of both Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (published by Activision) and Halo 3: ODST (published by Microsoft Game Studios) would likely have been greatly diminished had the Xbox console ban occurred prior to the release of these games.

It’s not just bans that the law firm want to hear about either:

Additional *reported* problems resulting from the bans include, but are not necessarily limited to:
* Disabling/altering Xbox functionality *NOT* associated with Xbox Live or piracy (HDD functionality for example);
* Disabling/altering Xbox functionality *NOT* associated with piracy (Netflix, game add-ons, music, and arcade games for example);
* Obtaining information from Xbox consoles without permission of the owner;
* Other problems/consequences associated with these bans have been reported here and elsewhere.

The law form does acknowledge that piracy is a problem for Microsoft but feels the software giant was too heavy-handed:

As an aside, PIRACY IS A LEGITIMATE CONCERN for Microsoft and other content producers. HOWEVER, (to use a poor analogy) Microsoft has chosen to use one of the most indiscriminate “weapons” in its arsenal in an effort to combat piracy — as a result, use of this “weapon” has resulted in a great deal of collateral damage — many people were affected who had nothing to do with piracy. Furthermore, Xbox console functions that have nothing to do with piracy were also affected or disabled. Details aside, Microsoft’s bans could (and should) have been more measured.

Also, if you were banned, did you get a refund for time paid up foor Xbox Live?

If you are an Xbox Live subscriber, had your modified Xbox console banned from Xbox Live, were not refunded a prorated sum for the time left on your subscription or have experienced other problems as a result of being banned, and would like to participate in a class action against Microsoft, please submit your information below.

I’ve heard from a lot of people who claim they were banned for no reason and can’t get any help from Microsoft technical staff. Well, now there’s someone who will listen to your problems.

November 17th, 2009

HP Pavilion Elite owner resorts to lawsuit over 'inherently defective' PC

Posted by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes @ 7:37 am

Categories: Legal

Tags: Lawsuit, Hewlett-Packard Co., PC, Issue, HP Pavilion, Computer, Productivity, Desktops, Hardware, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

The owner of an Pavilion Elite desktop PC is suing HP claiming the system he bought is ”inherently defective,” and regularly locks up within 20 minutes of use.

The lawsuit, filed in a California federal court last week, is seeking class-action status in order to allow other dissatisfied HP customers to seek remedy.

Note: Lawsuit here (PDF)

According to the lawsuit filed by Colorado resident Michael A. Kent, a range of Pavilion Elite desktop PC (e9150t, e9180f, e9180t, m9600t and m9650f) supplied with a “Truckee” motherboard manufactured by Pegatron Technology (an ASUS spin-off) and and an Intel i7 CPU, crash or lock up after a short period of use on a regular basis.

From the lawsuit:

“After operating the e9150t for approximately two weeks, Plaintiff’s computer began experiencing repeated disruptive failures including lock-ups, freezes, and blue screen errors, requiring him to reboot the computer.”

…

“The customer complaints identify manifestations of the defect that occur on HP Pavilion Elite series computers running Microsoft Windows XP and XP Professional, Windows 7 and Linux.”

I’ve watched this PR disaster unfold for a few weeks now. I first discussed the issue back at the end of September when the complaints thread on the HP support forum was 98 pages long. The thread is now Read the rest of this entry »

November 15th, 2009

Apple nukes Psystar

Posted by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes @ 6:19 am

Categories: Apple, Legal

Tags: Apple Macintosh, Apple Inc., Psystar, Apple Mac OS, Desktops, Operating Systems, Software, Hardware, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

The Apple vs Psystar case has ended rather predictably, with Apple basically nuking the Mac clone maker out of existence.

Florida-based Psystar rose to fame back in February of 2008 when it started to market Mac close systems - basically PCs modified and configured to run the Mac OS. In July of that year Apple threw a spanner into Psystar’s plans by filing a lawsuit against the company. That case has been progressing through the legal system ever since.

However, on Friday Judge William Alsup dealt what seems to be a fatal blow for Psystar by granting Apple’s motion for summary judgment while denying Psystar’s counterclaims.

Basically Alsup ruled that the Mac OS End User License Agreement (EULA) is both legal Read the rest of this entry »

November 12th, 2009

AMD/Intel announce settlement of all antitrust and IP disputes

Posted by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes @ 6:17 am

Categories: AMD, Intel, Legal

Tags: Antitrust, Settlement, IP, Agreement, Advanced Micro Devices Inc., Intel Corp., Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

AMD and Intel are friends again …

Intel Corporation and Advanced Micro Devices (NYSE: AMD) today announced a comprehensive agreement to end all outstanding legal disputes between the companies, including antitrust litigation and patent cross license disputes.  

In a joint statement the two companies commented, “While the relationship between the two companies has been difficult in the past, this agreement ends the legal disputes and enables the companies to focus all of our efforts on product innovation and development.”

Under terms of the agreement, AMD and Intel obtain patent rights from a new 5-year cross license agreement, Intel and AMD will give up any claims of breach from the previous license agreement, and Intel will pay AMD $1.25 billion.  Intel has also agreed to abide by a set of business practice provisions.  As a result, AMD will drop all pending litigation including the case in U.S. District Court in Delaware and two cases pending in Japan.  AMD will also withdraw all of its regulatory complaints worldwide.  The agreement will be made public in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Who said big companies don’t play nicely together!

November 12th, 2009

Microsoft Patents Sudo - So Sudo me!

Posted by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes @ 5:15 am

Categories: In the news, Legal, Microsoft

Tags: Patent, Microsoft Corp., Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

It appears that Microsoft has patented sudo, or at least its own version of sudo.

Note: In case the term sudo is unfamiliar to you, here’s how it’s described on Wikipedia:

“The sudo command is a program for some Unix and Unix-like computer operating systems that allows users to run programs with the security privileges of another user (normally the superuser, a.k.a. root).”

According to Groklaw, the USPTO has granted Microsoft a patent over something that it didn’t invent.

Here’s how the “invention” is described:

The invention claimed is:

1. One or more computer-readable media having computer-readable instructions therein that, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to present a user interface in response to a task being prohibited based on a user’s current account not having a right to permit the task, the user interface comprising: information indicating the task and an entity that attempted the task; a selectable help graphic wherein responsive to receiving selection of the selectable help graphic, the computer-readable instructions further cause the computing device to present the information; identifiers, each of the identifiers identifying other accounts having a right to permit the task, wherein the identifiers presented are based on criteria comprising: frequency of use; association with the user; and indication of sufficient but not unlimited rights; one of the identifiers identifies a higher-rights account having a right to permit the task, wherein the one of the identifiers comprises: a graphic identifying the higher-rights accounts associated with the user; and a name of the higher-rights account; an authenticator region capable of receiving, from the user, an authenticator usable to authenticate the higher-rights account having the right to permit the task, wherein: the authenticator comprises a password, and the authenticator region comprises a data-entry field configured to receive the password.

… and it goes on and on like that for ages more …

Does this sound familiar? Well, if you peel back the jargon and legalese, it sounds Read the rest of this entry »

November 5th, 2009

Antitrust charges filed against Intel

Posted by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes @ 6:40 am

Categories: Intel, Legal

Tags: Antitrust, OEM, Advanced Micro Devices Inc., Intel Corp., Productivity, Corporate Law, Semiconductors, Operational Accounting, Processors, Business Operations

The New York Attorney General has filed antitrust charges against chip giant Intel, claiming that the company engaged in “a worldwide, systematic campaign of illegal conduct.”

According to New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, emails have come to light which suggest that Intel leveraged “rebates” and employed threats and bribery to secure deals with PC makers.

Here’s what Cuomo said in a press release:

Rather than compete fairly, Intel used bribery and coercion to maintain a stranglehold on the market. Intel’s actions not only unfairly restricted potential competitors, but also hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower prices. These illegal tactics must stop and competition must be restored to this vital marketplace.

The complaint filed makes very interesting, and damning, reading:

Intel has engaged in a systematic worldwide campaign of illegal, exclusionary conduct to maintain its monopoly power and prices in the market for x86 microprocessors, the “brains” of Personal Computers (”PCs”).  By exacting exclusive or near-exclusive agreements from large computer makers (“Original Equipment Manufacturers” or “OEMs”) in exchange for payments totaling billions of dollars, and threatening retaliation against any company that did not heed its wishes, Intel robbed its competitors of the opportunity to challenge Intel’s dominance in key segments of the market.  This illegal behavior was highly detrimental to consumers, competition, and innovation.

Starting in 2001, the threat from competition became salient at Intel.  Intel’s biggest CPU competitor, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (“AMD”), had begun developing x86 chips that not only competed with Intel’s offerings, but were in many ways more desirable.  Business customers and consumers increasingly sought AMD-based computers.  OEMs began to comply. 

…

Intel launched an illegal campaign to deprive AMD of distribution channels and consumers of product choice and lower prices.

…

At the same time, Intel threatened OEMs with retaliation if they persisted in
dealing with AMD.  These threats took a variety of forms, including funding an OEM’s competitors to directly compete against it, ending any current payments that the OEM received from Intel, and ending joint development ventures.

…

At the highest levels, Intel routinely takes steps to make its displeasure felt when it feels threatened by OEM actions – even when those actions appear to be routine commercial behavior.  Intel’s customers are constantly reminded where their primary loyalty should lie.  For example, in March 2006, Intel’s CEO Paul Otellini received a courtesy “heads-up” from an HP executive that HP was sponsoring an advertisement featuring HP’s relationship with AMD and the theme of customer choice.  Otellini reacted:  “So, … why did you feel compelled to do this? It is certainly insulting to us and I do not see how it helps you…. If we are your key partner, this is nothing but a slap at us … I really don’t want to get in a pissing contest over this … But running an ad touting 10 years with amd [sic] and ‘choice’ is not the behavior of someone who wants to bring our two companies together.”

…

Intel’s objective throughout was not to eliminate AMD entirely, but to crush an unprecedented threat to its monopoly power.

Full complaint here (PDF).

October 22nd, 2009

Nokia sues Apple over iPhone

Posted by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes @ 1:44 pm

Categories: Apple, Legal

Tags: Apple iPhone, Nokia Corp., Apple Inc., Wireless, Wi-Fi, LANs, Smart Phones, Wireless And Mobility, Networking, Consumer Electronics

Nokia, the world’s biggest cellphone manufacturer, has said that it is suing Apple for infringing patents on technology used in the iPhone.

The ten alleged patent infringements involve wireless data, speech coding, security and encryption. Nokia claims the infringements apply to all iPhones sold so far.

The specific allegations raised in the lawsuit concern patents relating to three areas of wireless technology.

• GSM
• 3G (UMTS or W-CDMA
• An unnamed wireless local area network (LAN) technology, most likely WiFi.

Nokia claims that Apple is “trying to get a free ride on the back of Nokia’s innovation.”

There’s speculation that Nokia could grab as much as $12 per iPhone sold.

Apple’s shares fell following news of the legal action.

October 8th, 2009

It's time to bring the EULA madness to an end!

Posted by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes @ 6:51 am

Categories: Legal

Tags: EULA, Honeyball, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Why is it that every time I install a bit of software that I end up having to trawl through, or ignore, pages upon pages of seemingly meaningless legal gobbledygook collectively knows as the End User Licensing Agreement, or EULA?

Seriously, does software need to come with an elaborate “Licensing Agreement” in the first place? OK, maybe it does, but does that agreement need to be more than a few paragraphs long? A page at most? I’m pretty sure that if you can’t condense everything important down into a few hundred words, then something’s seriously wrong. The current EULA for Windows Vista SP1 jabbers on meaninglessly for a page on “Validation,” two pages on “Internet-based services,” and half a page on MPEG-4 and VC-1 standards.

Who cases? I know I don’t!

 Loading ...

I’ve bought things, sold things, conducted business deals and even out my life on the line (or other people’s lives on the line) based on far fewer legal words that I have to endure when installing software. I can’t think of a single aspect Read the rest of this entry »

September 25th, 2009

Judge rebukes Apple in Psystar case

Posted by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes @ 2:14 pm

Categories: Apple, Legal

Tags: Apple Inc., Psystar, Desktops, Hardware, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

The Apple vs. Psystar case has taken an interesting turn as a federal judge rebukes Apple in an order that dismissed a motion the company had made in its ongoing legal battle with Miami-based Mac clone maker Psystar.

In a federal motion, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup denied Apple’s motion to block a lawsuit filed by Psystar in August which claimed that Apple tied its new Mac OS X 10.6 “Snow Leopard” to Mac hardware.

In the motion Alsup claims that Apple timed Snow Leopard’s release to happen place after discovery deadline had passed.

Apple’s claim:

“Psystar deliberately concealed its intention to run Snow Leopard on its computers despite being relevant to Apple’s claims and responsive to Apple’s many discovery requests. Then, rather than litigate the legality of its conduct in this Court, where the issues already are pending, Psystar has attempted an end-run around this Court’s prior rulings by filing a duplicative and baseless lawsuit 3,000 miles away.”

Alsup’s view:

“Apple, not Psystar, commenced this action. Apple has fought hard to keep its unreleased product, Snow Leopard, out of this action by, among other things, relentlessly objecting to discovery on Snow Leopard. If Snow Leopard was within the scope of its own complaint herein, as it now suggests, then Apple should have welcomed discovery thereon rather than, as it did, object to discovery directed at Snow Leopard and effectively taking Snow Leopard out of the case.”

Alsup also criticize Apple’s Snow Leopard release date:

“Only after the discovery period closed did Apple release Snow Leopard, having successfully kept it out of the case. Apple even chose when to release Snow Leopard and it chose to do so after all opportunity to take discovery on it had ended. The problem is one largely of Apple’s own making.”

Apple’s lawsuit against Psystar goes in front of a jury in January 2010.

September 8th, 2009

Russia drops XP investigation

Posted by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes @ 1:46 am

Categories: In the news, Legal, Microsoft

Tags: OEM, Microsoft Corp., FAS, Microsoft Windows XP, Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Windows Vista (Longhorn), Operating Systems, Software, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

The Russian Federal Antimonopoly Service has dropped its investigation into Microsoft’s decision to stop selling Windows XP in favor of Windows Vista.

The FAS began a probe in July into why Microsoft was halting sales of the aging OS to OEMs despite there still being a demand for it. Questions were also raised into why OEMs and retail outlets were charged different prices for the OS.

Russian customers can continue to buy XP, and Microsoft has said that it will kick off an exchange program soon to allow users to downgrade Vista PCs to XP up until the end of 2009.

Not everyone is off the hook so easy though. The FAS is still investigating some of the largest OEMs for violating antimonopoly legislation by pre-installing Windows on notebooks.