Sony Dominating Microsoft's Goal

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]What is more to business than money? And again, please keep in mind that many Apple and MS products have shown that the two companies value money more than rivalry. lolfaqs

First of all, I said there is more to business than just money, so again you're twisting my words. But to respond, there's much more to business than just money such as.

1. Influence. I.e., If everyone has to come to you for your vote on something.

2. Monopoly. For example, why do you think it is that Microsoft will never reveal the source code for Windows? Do you think they would sell the Windows Source Code to Apple?

[QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]PS1 games were available on the PS Store before Xbox Originals were available on the Marketplace.TX360

Why do you think they want a monopoly? Hint = More $$$

So if it's all about money in the end why wouldn't The BR board want more of this money when in the end it's what they really want?JLF1

And what happens as they let more and more companies join in as board members? Hint = less monopoly. And the point of this subthread was that Apple is not about to vote in favor of letting MS join in as a board member of BDA, because it's worth more to them to exclude MS from a board seat than it would be to accept whatever bribe MS offers.

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]

"Microsoft and Toshiba are more than welcome to join the Blu-ray camp and would be valuable additions if they did. That's what the Blu-ray Disc Association's spokesperson, Frank Simonis, said when he spoke to TechRadar from Japan this afternoon.

"Of course we have always said that Toshiba and Microsoft, and any other company, is more than welcome to join the Blu-ray Disc Association. We are an open organisation, with an open disc standard. If Toshiba decides to drop HD DVD we would extend the hand of friendship to them, they are always welcome to join," he said."

Your move counselor.

lolfaqs

Link? Also, blu ray camp =/= a seat on the board of directors.

Omg... now you are changing your argument. First saying MS won't go to blu ray for licensing reasons with Sony and now you are stating about them wanted to be part of the Board of Directors? Face it guy you lost this argument.

That's all well and good, but an invitation go join the BD "camp" doesn't amount to an invitation to join the BDA's board of directors.lolfaqs

All the companies in the BDA have a say in who uses Blu-ray, right? Therefore the companies in the BDA ARE the directors. If MS joined the BDA, they'd be one of them. The board of directors is made up of the companies in the BDA. There is no seperate board of directors.

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]MS and Sony are not like that. MS would use Blu-Ray. They use the Sony developed DVD and CD formats, don't they? They just lost a ton of money on the HD DVD add on and are not keen on doing that all over again, especially this late in the game.lolfaqs

Um, they're businesses in direct competition with each other in the console war. Of course they're like that. Sony has a BD patent. Microsoft does not. VC 1 is irrelevant, because both companies have patents in it along with other companies. Microsoft does not have the exclusive ability to grant VC 1 licenses. Sony is on the list of companies that can grant that license.

www.mpegla.com/vc1/vc1-licensors.cfm

Thus, your argument about how Microsoft developed VC 1 is irrelevant, because Sony still does not have to go to Microsoft for a license.

[QUOTE="3picuri3"]

correct me if im wrong but i thought MS was referring to movies for DD. personally hate the idea of full fledged games on a live service.

a) they're never cheaper

b) you have no hard product to sell or trade in when you're done with it

c) can't lend it to a friend or vice-versa

i'll start giving two ***** about DD when it makes games far cheaper.

Chutebox

They said games would be $39.99 when released over PSN, we'll see if that holds up...

[QUOTE="JLF1"]
More $$$

It's the reason Sony released the PS3, PSP and PSN.

Why would Sony release these platforms when they already had money?lolfaqs

Again, why do they need Microsoft to make more money from BD? BDA's board member companies can make BD drives for PC. They can make BD players for PS3 and standalone players. They can make the discs. They can make the content to put on those discs. So they need MS for what again?

Why do Sony need to use Windows in their Vaio laptops when Linux is there for free?

It's easy really. The more support a format has the healthier it is.

If Sony would refuse MS to use BR why would MS allow Sony to use Windows?

Omg... now you are changing your argument. First saying MS won't go to blu ray for licensing reasons with Sony and now you are stating about them wanted to be part of the Board of Directors? Face it guy you lost this argument.

spinecaton

I still don't see a link for that article, and I'm not about to go search through all the posts to find it. Secondly, this whole thread about licensing is about getting a license for the 360. I'm sure they'll take MS' money for a BD license for Windows, but that has nothing to do with the 360. Finally, that press release must be ancient given the fact that it talks about "IF" Toshiba drops HD DVD. So in essence they're asking MS to surrender HD DVD and join BDA.

Why do Sony need to use Windows in their Vaio laptops when Linux is there for free?

It's easy really. The more support a format has the healthier it is.

If Sony would refuse MS to use BR why would MS allow Sony to use Windows?

JLF1

Easy, MS and Sony reached an agreeable business agreement on the license of Windows for Vaio. Do you think the will reach such an agreement for a license to use Windows on the PS3? And again, this is about using BD on the 360.

[QUOTE="spinecaton"]

Omg... now you are changing your argument. First saying MS won't go to blu ray for licensing reasons with Sony and now you are stating about them wanted to be part of the Board of Directors? Face it guy you lost this argument.

lolfaqs

I still don't see a link for that article, and I'm not about to go search through all the posts to find it. Secondly, this whole thread about licensing is about getting a license for the 360. I'm sure they'll take MS' money for a BD license for Windows, but that has nothing to do with the 360. Finally, that press release must be ancient given the fact that it talks about "IF" Toshiba drops HD DVD. So in essence they're asking MS to surrender HD DVD and join BDA.

Link to the article.

[QUOTE="JLF1"]
Why do you think they want a monopoly? Hint = More $$$

So if it's all about money in the end why wouldn't The BR board want more of this money when in the end it's what they really want?lolfaqs

And what happens as they let more and more companies join in as board members? Hint = less monopoly. And the point of this subthread was that Apple is not about to vote in favor of letting MS join in as a board member of BDA, because it's worth more to them to exclude MS from a board seat than it would be to accept whatever bribe MS offers.

The thing is none of the BR owners can get monopoly so it doesn't matter to them. All that matters is the health of the BR format.

If both Sony and Apple would hate MS so much that they wouldn't let MS use BR than why would they work with MS in a lot of even more profitable markets?

[QUOTE="JLF1"]

Why do Sony need to use Windows in their Vaio laptops when Linux is there for free?

It's easy really. The more support a format has the healthier it is.

If Sony would refuse MS to use BR why would MS allow Sony to use Windows?

lolfaqs

Easy, MS and Sony reached an agreeable business agreement on the license of Windows for Vaio. Do you think the will reach such an agreement for a license to use Windows on the PS3? And again, this is about using BD on the 360.

BZSIN

Link to the article.

There's nothing in that article that indicates to me that MS could get on the board of directors or that MS would have enough votes to get a BD license for the 360.

Easy, MS and Sony reached an agreeable business agreement on the license of Windows for Vaio. Do you think the will reach such an agreement for a license to use Windows on the PS3? And again, this is about using BD on the 360.

kingtito

Nope, but they do need a license, and Sony has gets a vote on it.

[QUOTE="JLF1"]

Why do Sony need to use Windows in their Vaio laptops when Linux is there for free?

It's easy really. The more support a format has the healthier it is.

If Sony would refuse MS to use BR why would MS allow Sony to use Windows?

lolfaqs

Easy, MS and Sony reached an agreeable business agreement on the license of Windows for Vaio. Do you think the will reach such an agreement for a license to use Windows on the PS3? And again, this is about using BD on the 360.

The thing is none of the BR owners can get monopoly so it doesn't matter to them. All that matters is the health of the BR format.

If both Sony and Apple would hate MS so much that they wouldn't let MS use BR than why would they work with MS in a lot of even more profitable markets?

JLF1

You're confusing several different issues.

First of all, Apple would likely be opposed to letting MS join as a member of BDA's board of directors for reasons already mentioned.

Sony would be opposed to granting a license to MS to use BD on its 360.

I doubt either company would be opposed to letting MS use BD on Windows.

If it's about BR on 360 then why do you keep mentioning windows on the PS3?

Why would't they reach an agreeable business model for BR on thr 360. The Laptop market is bigger than the gaming market for Sony and MS.JLF1

To illustrate a point. MS isn't in the business of making PCs, so what do they care which PCs can or can't use Windows. MS does, however, make consoles. In fact, MS' console competes directly with Sony's console. Likewise, Sony would likely be opposed to allowing MS to use BD on the 360.

There's nothing in that article that indicates to me that MS could get on the board of directors or that MS would have enough votes to get a BD license for the 360.

lolfaqs

For the record, that article was written over a month after Warner effectively ended the format war by going Blu-ray exclusive, and around that time Toshiba said they were throwing in the towel. The reason Toshiba hasn't joined the BDA is because they wanted to carry on with their own thing and get into improving upscaling technology.BZSIN

yeah, the article is definitely old, and it seems more calculated at encouraging Toshiba and MS to surrender in the format war than anything else.

[QUOTE="lolfaqs"]

There's nothing in that article that indicates to me that MS could get on the board of directors or that MS would have enough votes to get a BD license for the 360.

JLF1

"They" didn't say anything. They said the 360 would be technologically compatible with a BD player, but the spokesperson still pointed out that MS would need a license. That means the BDA's board would still have to vote on it. Nothing in the article indicates how the board would vote on such a license application for the 360.

[QUOTE="BZSIN"]

lolfaqs

Link to the article.

There's nothing in that article that indicates to me that MS could get on the board of directors or that MS would have enough votes to get a BD license for the 360.

THE BDA IS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. THE BDA IS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. THE BDA IS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. Sorry I had to repeat myself, but I didn't think it would be hard to understand. If MS were to join the BDA, they would be eligible to vote on any matters concerning Blu-ray. There is no seperate board of directors. Why would the companies that make up the BDA have a seperate board to vote on things?

Anyway, I'm done. You keep getting proved wrong and your argument keeps changing.

Good day.

THE BDA IS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. THE BDA IS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. THE BDA IS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. Sorry I had to repeat myself, but I didn't think it would be hard to understand. If MS were to join the BDA, they would be eligible to vote on any matters concerning Blu-ray. There is no seperate board of directors. Why would the companies that make up the BDA have a seperate board to vote on things?

Anyway, I'm done. You keep getting proved wrong and your argument keeps changing.

Good day.BZSIN

Actually, you're mistaken. BDA is a consortium.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc_Association

Within that consortium (within the "camp"), you have the board of directors, the contributors, and the regular members. An invitation to join the "camp" doesn't automatically mean they're inviting MS to join the board. They might just be inviting MS to join as a member or contributor. But if you want to gloss over the details, that's cool. Have nice day.

Being on the BOD is irrelevant...I don't even know why it is being discussed.

Sony cannot stop MS from licensing BD for use in the 360. That would be anti-competitive and violate article 81 of the Treaty of Rome (European Competition Act) and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (US anti-competition act).

And of course, MS knows this...seeing as this is how they lost on automatic loading/bundling of IE to the detriment of Netscape :)

Again, there is no way that Sony can stop MS from using BD technology as long as they pay the licensing fees and behave themselves.

Period. Full stop. End of story.

Being on the BOD is irrelevant...I don't even know why it is being discussed.

Sony cannot stop MS from licensing BD for use in the 360. That would be anti-competitive and violate article 81 of the Treaty of Rome (European Competition Act) and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (US anti-competition act).

And of course, MS knows this...seeing as this is how they lost on automatic loading/bundling of IE to the detriment of Netscape :)

Again, there is no way that Sony can stop MS from using BD technology as long as they pay the licensing fees and behave themselves.

Period. Full stop. End of story.

SUD123456

Because some people ITT seems to think "camp" is the equivalent of joining the board of directors. Maybe you missed that though.

The anti-trust stuff isnice in theory, but it doesn't apply to an equal opportunity vote on a license application. There is no law that says a licensor must grant all prospective licensees a license. And, in practice, that hasn't stopped MS from having a monopoly on the Windows source code. If the board flat out refused to even consider an application, that'd be different, but there's nothing illegal about the board voting against granting MS a license to use BD on the 360. If there were, boards would be acting illegally all the time whenever they deny a license to anyone.

As for the EU, they tell MS similar stuff all the time about Windows. It hasn't amounted to much, but that may get more traction now that Mozilla has joined in with the EU.Sony can stop MS if MS fails to get the necessary votes to get such a license. That's the real end of story.

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

Being on the BOD is irrelevant...I don't even know why it is being discussed.

Sony cannot stop MS from licensing BD for use in the 360. That would be anti-competitive and violate article 81 of the Treaty of Rome (European Competition Act) and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (US anti-competition act).

And of course, MS knows this...seeing as this is how they lost on automatic loading/bundling of IE to the detriment of Netscape :)

Again, there is no way that Sony can stop MS from using BD technology as long as they pay the licensing fees and behave themselves.

Period. Full stop. End of story.

lolfaqs

Because some people ITT seems to think "camp" is the equivalent of joining the board of directors. Maybe you missed that though.

The anti-trust stuff isnice in theory, but it doesn't apply to an equal opportunity vote on a license application. There is no law that says a licensor must grant all prospective licensees a license. And, in practice, that hasn't stopped MS from having a monopoly on the Windows source code. If the board flat out refused to even consider an application, that'd be different, but there's nothing illegal about the board voting against granting MS a license to use BD on the 360. If there were, boards would be acting illegally all the time whenever they deny a license to anyone.

As for the EU, they tell MS similar stuff all the time about Windows. It hasn't amounted to much, but that may get more traction now that Mozilla has joined in with the EU.Sony can stop MS if MS fails to get the necessary votes to get such a license. That's the real end of story.

Except that there is no reason for any of the Board to vote against/deny MS said application. In fact, for eveyone else on the Board, it is in their interest to invite MS to join their camp, since that is the purpose of the organization...to promote the widespread adoption of the technology. Ergo, Sony would have to lean on other Board voters...which by definition is anti-trust conspiracy. Meaning you are wrong, there is no practical way for Sony to stop MS from licensing the technology.

And, hell, if denying a license to someone was illegal, why have a license system at all? It would defeat the purpose of having a license system if you could never deny anyone a license without breaking a law.lolfaqs

The license system is to obtain fees...a revenue stream. In almost all practical applications it is impossible to deny someone a license...for almost anything.....as long as they meet the published requirements. Which is why there are very few groups of any kind left that have restrictive memberships....women and minorities having broken through almost all remaining barriers for instance.

And, hell, if denying a license to someone was illegal, why have a license system at all? It would defeat the purpose of having a license system if you could never deny anyone a license without breaking a law.lolfaqs

What reason would they have to deny MS? That they are currently at console war and if it were to happen the fanboys would erupt? Seriously... all the directors would look at the proposal and see if it is in the best interest to add support. For the xbox 360 there is a userbase of 27+ million, if they were to release a blu ray add on, would it be worth it? Well hell yeah it would, that is 27 million potention customers which is a heck of a lot. It is like you don't think they will ever come to an agreement because it might hurt their reputation with fanboys. All they care about is if it will generate money or not, could care less who is at war with who.

Except that there is no reason for any of the Board to vote against/deny MS said application. In fact, for eveyone else on the Board, it is in their interest to invite MS to join their camp, since that is the purpose of the organization...to promote the widespread adoption of the technology. Ergo, Sony would have to lean on other Board voters...which by definition is anti-trust conspiracy. Meaning you are wrong, there is no practical way for Sony to stop MS from licensing the technology.

SUD123456

You don't know that. You're not privy to the undisclosed strategies and projects each of those businesses have in the works. You also don't know how each of those companies would view granting or denying MS such a license.

[QUOTE="lolfaqs"]And, hell, if denying a license to someone was illegal, why have a license system at all? It would defeat the purpose of having a license system if you could never deny anyone a license without breaking a law.SUD123456

The license system is to obtain fees...a revenue stream. In almost all practical applications it is impossible to deny someone a license...for almost anything.....as long as they meet the published requirements. Which is why there are very few groups of any kind left that have restrictive memberships....women and minorities having broken through almost all remaining barriers for instance.

No, the license system is to grant permission to use. By definition, if a licensor can grant someone permission to use something, the licensor can also deny someone permission to use something. There would be no point in having such a system if you could never deny anyone a license to use something.

Microsoft is obviously pushing DD hard, because they're not about to go to Sony for a blu ray license. Unfortunately for Microsoft, 75% of gamers still prefer a retail box + disc copy.

www.edge-online.com/news/npds-frazier-consumers-prefer-retail

Sony is just fighting Microsoft on two software fronts, DD and retail.

lolfaqs

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

Except that there is no reason for any of the Board to vote against/deny MS said application. In fact, for eveyone else on the Board, it is in their interest to invite MS to join their camp, since that is the purpose of the organization...to promote the widespread adoption of the technology. Ergo, Sony would have to lean on other Board voters...which by definition is anti-trust conspiracy. Meaning you are wrong, there is no practical way for Sony to stop MS from licensing the technology.

lolfaqs

You don't know that. You're not privy to the undisclosed strategies and projects each of those businesses have in the works. You also don't know how each of those companies would view granting or denying MS such a license.

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

[QUOTE="lolfaqs"]And, hell, if denying a license to someone was illegal, why have a license system at all? It would defeat the purpose of having a license system if you could never deny anyone a license without breaking a law.lolfaqs

The license system is to obtain fees...a revenue stream. In almost all practical applications it is impossible to deny someone a license...for almost anything.....as long as they meet the published requirements. Which is why there are very few groups of any kind left that have restrictive memberships....women and minorities having broken through almost all remaining barriers for instance.

No, the license system is to grant permission to use. By definition, if a licensor can grant someone permission to use something, the licensor can also deny someone permission to use something. There would be no point in having such a system if you could never deny anyone a license to use something.

Read the bolded part again and think about what you just said.

What reason would they have to deny MS? That they are currently at console war and if it were to happen the fanboys would erupt? Seriously... all the directors would look at the proposal and see if it is in the best interest to add support. For the xbox 360 there is a userbase of 27+ million, if they were to release a blu ray add on, would it be worth it? Well hell yeah it would, that is 27 million potention customers which is a heck of a lot. It is like you don't think they will ever come to an agreement because it might hurt their reputation with fanboys. All they care about is if it will generate money or not, could care less who is at war with who.
spinecaton

You don't know that. Who knows what projects and products the board member companies are working on that may be affected by denying or granting MS a license for BD on the 360. That article certainly doesn't indicate that the board considers it to be in their best interests to grant such a license. The article merely states that the 360 would be compatible with a BD player, but MS would still need to obtain a license. The article makes no mention about the likelihood of obtaining such a license for the 360.

Furthermore, the PS3 is only trailing the 360 by about 6-7 million consoles despite costing more and despite only being out for 2 years instead of the 360's 3 years. The board members may wish to hedge their bets until they see how the console war evolves some more.

[QUOTE="spinecaton"]What reason would they have to deny MS? That they are currently at console war and if it were to happen the fanboys would erupt? Seriously... all the directors would look at the proposal and see if it is in the best interest to add support. For the xbox 360 there is a userbase of 27+ million, if they were to release a blu ray add on, would it be worth it? Well hell yeah it would, that is 27 million potention customers which is a heck of a lot. It is like you don't think they will ever come to an agreement because it might hurt their reputation with fanboys. All they care about is if it will generate money or not, could care less who is at war with who.
lolfaqs

You don't know that. Who knows what projects and products the board member companies are working on that may be affected by denying or granting MS a license for BD on the 360. That article certainly doesn't indicate that the board considers it to be in their best interests to grant such a license. The article merely states that the 360 would be compatible with a BD player, but MS would still need to obtain a license. The article makes no mention about the likelihood of obtaining such a license for the 360.

Furthermore, the PS3 is only trailing the 360 by about 6-7 million consoles despite costing more and despite only being out for 2 years instead of the 360's 3 years. The board members may wish to hedge their bets until they see how the console war evolves some more.

Read the bolded part again and think about what you just said.

JLF1

It doesn't change my analysis. It's never impossible to deny anyone a license. If it were impossible, how could EA, for example, have an exclusive license to make 007 games? Do you really think EA is the only company in the world who meets the published requirements for a license to make 007 games? And women and minorities have nothing to do with this, because this involves corporations. Corporations are not a suspect class recognized as needing protection by the Supreme Court the way women and minorities are.

The board members doesn't care about which console that sell the most. The PS3 is only a very small part of all BR players, a 360 add-on would be another.JLF1

Again, you don't know that. You don't speak for each individual board member.

[QUOTE="lolfaqs"][QUOTE="SUD123456"]

The license system is to obtain fees...a revenue stream. In almost all practical applications it is impossible to deny someone a license...for almost anything.....as long as they meet the published requirements. Which is why there are very few groups of any kind left that have restrictive memberships....women and minorities having broken through almost all remaining barriers for instance.

JLF1

No, the license system is to grant permission to use. By definition, if a licensor can grant someone permission to use something, the licensor can also deny someone permission to use something. There would be no point in having such a system if you could never deny anyone a license to use something.

Read the bolded part again and think about what you just said.

Exactly.

This is the crux of the choice you make when you are an association, not an individual person/organization, and when you license something, not protect your individual proprietary rights.

Once you publish the rules, you have to live with them.

[QUOTE="JLF1"]
The board members doesn't care about which console that sell the most. The PS3 is only a very small part of all BR players, a 360 add-on would be another.lolfaqs

Again, you don't know that. You don't speak for each individual board member.

Sony did not invent Blu Ray although it seems like this is a popular misconception because it's included in the PS3 I guess but they did help with the research and development. The Blu Ray Alliance is comprised of about 20 or so different corporations so I do not believe Microsoft would have to pay Sony specifically for a license. I will certainly admit I do not actually know what Microsoft would have to do in order to obtain a Blu Ray license though.Lance_Kalzas

Another popular misconception is people thinking that I ever said Sony invented blu ray.

Exactly.

This is the crux of the choice you make when you are an association, not an individual person/organization, and when you license something, not protect your individual proprietary rights.

Once you publish the rules, you have to live with them.

SUD123456

And what rule says a consortium must grant MS a license to use BD on the 360?

Why would

Panasonic
Pioneer
Philips
Thomson
LG
Hitachi
Sharp
Samsung
Apple
Dell
TDK

Care about the PS3?

And again you don't know anything either because you don't speak for each individual board member either. Why would your believes about how these companies would react hold more weight than mine?JLF1

I already said that it is unknown how those other companies would vote. However, there are obvious conflicts between two companies on that list that are apparent.

The first is Apple. Apple has a seat as a board member and would likely not want to share that privilege with Microsoft.

The second is Sony who, obviously, is in direct competition with Microsoft in the console wars.

For the rest of the companies, it is unknown how they would view granting or denying MS a license for BD on the 360. The article posted earlier definitely does not indicate how they would vote. And to say it's in their bests interests to grant such a license is mere speculation at best.

[QUOTE="JLF1"]
Why would

Panasonic
Pioneer
Philips
Thomson
LG
Hitachi
Sharp
Samsung
Apple
Dell
TDK

Care about the PS3?

And again you don't know anything either because you don't speak for each individual board member either. Why would your believes about how these companies would react hold more weight than mine?lolfaqs

I already said that it is unknown how those other companies would vote. However, there are obvious conflicts between two companies on that list that are apparent.

The first is Apple. Apple has a seat as a board member and would likely not want to share that privilege with Microsoft.

The second is Sony who, obviously, is in direct competition with Microsoft in the console wars.

For the rest of the companies, it is unknown how they would view granting or denying MS a license for BD on the 360. The article posted earlier definitely does not indicate how they would vote. And to say it's in their bests interests to grant such a license is mere speculation at best.

EDIT: Meant won't .

And this is why you can't claim that MS would get a BR license.JLF1

I take it you mean "wouldn't." And that's why I never said such a thing. I said that Microsoft would not seek such a license from Sony (who is one of the voting members of the BDA board) for the 360, and that's why they're now pushing DD hard.

[QUOTE="JLF1"]
Why would

Panasonic
Pioneer
Philips
Thomson
LG
Hitachi
Sharp
Samsung
Apple
Dell
TDK

Care about the PS3?

And again you don't know anything either because you don't speak for each individual board member either. Why would your believes about how these companies would react hold more weight than mine?lolfaqs

I already said that it is unknown how those other companies would vote. However, there are obvious conflicts between two companies on that list that are apparent.

The first is Apple. Apple has a seat as a board member and would likely not want to share that privilege with Microsoft.

The second is Sony who, obviously, is in direct competition with Microsoft in the console wars.

For the rest of the companies, it is unknown how they would view granting or denying MS a license for BD on the 360. The article posted earlier definitely does not indicate how they would vote. And to say it's in their bests interests to grant such a license is mere speculation at best.

THE ENTIRE LIST OF COMPANIES IS AT CONFLICT!!!

I cannot believe you just said that, they all make TVs and are in competition with each other. Multiple companies make blu ray players, I believe they could care less who is winning a system war when so many other divisions probably bring in a lot more revenue for them anyway.

Apple and Microsoft aren't at mortal war with eachother either. If they were, MS wouldn't allow Apple software on their computer, Apple wouldn't allow people to dual OS their computer. You should seriously throw in the towel because you obviously can't look at the entire picture like the rest of us.