Sony Dominating Microsoft's Goal

[QUOTE="JLF1"]
And this is why you can't claim that MS would get a BR license.lolfaqs

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.

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.

spinecaton

I didn't realize each of those companies has its own console since, you know, that's what I've been talking about. Consoles.

The reason MS isn't using BR is because they don't need it, not because they can't get it.JLF1

Well, they obviously felt a need to bring out a HD DVD add on for the 360, which failed.

[QUOTE="JLF1"]
The reason MS isn't using BR is because they don't need it, not because they can't get it.lolfaqs

Well, they obviously felt a need to bring out a HD DVD add on for the 360, which failed.

[QUOTE="spinecaton"]

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.

lolfaqs

I didn't realize each of those companies has its own console since, you know, that's what I've been talking about. Consoles.

We aren't talking about consoles dude, come on. We have been talking about blu ray lisencing for the past 4 pages of this thread.

[QUOTE="spinecaton"]

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.

lolfaqs

I didn't realize each of those companies has its own console since, you know, that's what I've been talking about. Consoles.

Yes, and guess what? it wasn't needed for gaming and they supported HD-DVD becasue if it had won that would have meant a ton of $. JLF1

How do you figure? Microsoft isn't in the DVD Forum, and I'm not aware of Microsoft having any board position in any HD DVD organization.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_Forum

We aren't talking about consoles dude, come on. We have been talking about blu ray lisencing for the past 4 pages of this thread.

spinecaton

And what do you think started that 4 page discussion? Hint. It was about MS pushing for DD after losing the format war, because they're not about to seek a BD license for the 360. A 360 is a console by the way.

The thing is, why would Sony allow Dell to join when they are in a direct competition with laptops but won't allow MS because they are in competition in consoles?JLF1

Obviously, the founding board members of BDA did think it was in their best interests to bring Dell on. How those founding members voted, I have no idea. Why Microsoft backed HD DVD instead of BD and not subsequently obtained a board seat in BDA, who knows. But that's how things unfolded.

[QUOTE="spinecaton"]

We aren't talking about consoles dude, come on. We have been talking about blu ray lisencing for the past 4 pages of this thread.

lolfaqs

And what do you think started that 4 page discussion? Hint. It was about MS pushing for DD after losing the format war, because they're not about to seek a BD license for the 360. A 360 is a console by the way.

And then we started talking about MS obtaining a license and you stated it is because Sony and MS are competitors and that it would effect Sony. Then we stated that Blu Ray is owned by multiple companies and that they would have a say in it as well. You then stated again that it wouldn't happen because the two companies are at conflict which I said that there are already multiple companies within BDA that are competitors and that they could probably care less about a tiny competition between MS and Sony on a console. What would the other 17 companies of BDA have against MS of joining? Do you seriously just forget things after they have been posted?

[QUOTE="JLF1"]
The thing is, why would Sony allow Dell to join when they are in a direct competition with laptops but won't allow MS because they are in competition in consoles?lolfaqs

Obviously, the founding board members of BDA did think it was in their best interests to bring Dell on. How those founding members voted, I have no idea. Why Microsoft backed HD DVD instead of BD and not subsequently obtained a board seat in BDA, who knows. But that's how things unfolded.

[QUOTE="JLF1"]

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

lolfaqs

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 ****recognized as needing protection by the Supreme Court the way women and minorities are.

It is almost always impossible to deny someone this type of a license, provided they meet the published guidelines for said license. This is just as true in business as it is in gov't and I deal with it often.

The example of a singular entity receiving an exclusive or restrictive license to make/produce something is simply following the published guidelines. The licensor can grant an exclusive or non-exclusive license with or without other restrictions, but in all cases the license and guidelines will go hand in hand.

In the EA example, it isn't that only EA could make the game...many companies could....but the intellectual property is being protected by granting a singular license. In this case, granting additional licenses would reduce the value of the original license holder. So, if it was an exclusive license granted then the orginal licensee would be violated by another license given out...think franchise territory. Therefore, your example does not violate the principle...there is only one license to give out...and as an arrangement between two private parties the terms are up to them to decide.

And this isn't two private parties. This is an association whose aim is the promotion of the widespread adoption of the technology for which the association was created. Therefore, the guidelines for this type of licensing are broad and general....meaning it is practically impossible to prohibit someone from obtaining this type of license. This is because widescale adoption is the raison d'etre of the association, and widescale adoption is to the benefit of the association itself, even if it might be to the detriment of an individual member of the association. This is the essential difference between an association and a private individual/company.

And then we started talking about MS obtaining a license and you stated it is because Sony and MS are competitors and that it would effect Sony. Then we stated that Blu Ray is owned by multiple companies and that they would have a say in it as well. You then stated again that it wouldn't happen because the two companies are at conflict which I said that there are already multiple companies within BDA that are competitors and that they could probably care less about a tiny competition between MS and Sony on a console. What would the other 17 companies of BDA have against MS of joining? Do you seriously just forgot things after they have been posted?

spinecaton

And that was all within the context of the console war between MS and Sony. In fact, if you go back through those 4 pages and do a search for "console," I bet you'll find me using the word again and again and again.

I said MS would not go to Sony for a license to use BD on the 360, because Sony isn't likely to grant one since they're competitors in the console war. I said it is unknown how the other board members would vote, and that article linked earlier gave no indication how they would vote either. I said MS is pushing DD hard now after losing the format war, because they're not going to seek a BD license for the 360. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that there is no BD add on coming for the 360, so either MS' application for a license for the 360 was rejected, or MS decided against pursuing such a license. In either case, that is why they are now pushing hard for DD. They've given up on HD DVD and given up on BD for the 360. MS is all about DD now.

This is the real world where companies are out to make money, this isn't high school drama. If a company sees a good partnership they will invest in it. spinecaton

If it were just about money, things like market share wouldn't matter. MS wouldn't have wasted untold billions on the Xbox project only to not turn a profit on it until about 2008.

[QUOTE="lolfaqs"][QUOTE="JLF1"]

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

SUD123456

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 ****recognized as needing protection by the Supreme Court the way women and minorities are.

It is almost always impossible to deny someone this type of a license, provided they meet the published guidelines for said license. This is just as true in business as it is in gov't and I deal with it often.

The example of a singular entity receiving an exclusive or restrictive license to make/produce something is simply following the published guidelines. The licensor can grant an exclusive or non-exclusive license with or without other restrictions, but in all cases the license and guidelines will go hand in hand.

In the EA example, it isn't that only EA could make the game...many companies could....but the intellectual property is being protected by granting a singular license. In this case, granting additional licenses would reduce the value of the original license holder. So, if it was an exclusive license granted then the orginal licensee would be violated by another license given out...think franchise territory. Therefore, your example does not violate the principle...there is only one license to give out...and as an arrangement between two private parties the terms are up to them to decide.

And this isn't two private parties. This is an association whose aim is the promotion of the widespread adoption of the technology for which the association was created. Therefore, the guidelines for this type of licensing are broad and general....meaning it is practically impossible to prohibit someone from obtaining this type of license. This is because widescale adoption is the raison d'etre of the association, and widescale adoption is to the benefit of the association itself, even if it might be to the detriment of an individual member of the association. This is the essential difference between an association and a private individual/company.

Hmm... I think you win the thread.

[QUOTE="JLF1"]
The thing is, why would Sony allow Dell to join when they are in a direct competition with laptops but won't allow MS because they are in competition in consoles?lolfaqs

Obviously, the founding board members of BDA did think it was in their best interests to bring Dell on. How those founding members voted, I have no idea. Why Microsoft backed HD DVD instead of BD and not subsequently obtained a board seat in BDA, who knows. But that's how things unfolded.

Hmm... I think you win the thread.

spinecaton

Not really. He contradicted himself in his own post. He said it's almost impossible to deny a license if you meet the published requirements, but then he said in the case of EA, an exclusive license was granted despite the fact that EA is hardly the only company who could meet the published requirements for such a game.

[QUOTE="lolfaqs"]

[QUOTE="JLF1"]
The thing is, why would Sony allow Dell to join when they are in a direct competition with laptops but won't allow MS because they are in competition in consoles?JLF1

Obviously, the founding board members of BDA did think it was in their best interests to bring Dell on. How those founding members voted, I have no idea. Why Microsoft backed HD DVD instead of BD and not subsequently obtained a board seat in BDA, who knows. But that's how things unfolded.

But the competition! It could hurt someone's feelings :(

Apple and Microsoft aren't at war... Neither is Sony and Microsoft. There are a lot more to each company then just a console.

[QUOTE="lolfaqs"]

But if Dell which was in direct competition with a lot of the BDA members managed to get a license, even join the BDA, why wouldn't MS manage that when only two of the BDA members as you said could (but not proven) be against it?


There is no logical reason to not allow MS to get a license. It would help the format in every possibly way.JLF1

You'd have to ask the BDA members. I don't know. As for MS, if it's so easy for them to get a license, why haven't they done so? Why not have Samsung, for example, build a BD add on for the 360? Obviously someone somewhere decided there was a reason to either not give MS a license or for MS to not pursue a license (perhaps partially due to a belief that they would not be granted enough votes to obtain one).

[QUOTE="spinecaton"]

Hmm... I think you win the thread.

lolfaqs

Not really. He contradicted himself in his own post. He said it's almost impossible to deny a license if you meet the published requirements, but then he said in the case of EA, an exclusive license was granted despite the fact that EA is hardly the only company who could meet the published requirements for such a game.

He was talking about private licensing... a little different then the licensing that of blu ray.

But the competition! It could hurt someone's feelings :(

Apple and Microsoft aren't at war... Neither is Sony and Microsoft. There are a lot more to each company then just a console.

spinecaton

Whoever mentioned anything about feelings? This is business. And for unknown business reasons, MS has not joined the BDA's board of directors, nor has MS obtained a license for BD on the 360 (whether it's because they didn't pursue it or because they got rejected, who knows). Thus, for some reason or another, that's how things unfolded, and MS is now pushing DD hard.

[QUOTE="spinecaton"]

But the competition! It could hurt someone's feelings :(

Apple and Microsoft aren't at war... Neither is Sony and Microsoft. There are a lot more to each company then just a console.

lolfaqs

Whoever mentioned anything about feelings? This is business. And for unknown business reasons, MS has not joined the BDA's board of directors, nor has MS obtained a license for BD on the 360 (whether it's because they didn't pursue it or because they got rejected, who knows). Thus, for some reason or another, that's how things unfolded, and MS is now pushing DD hard.

Seriously dude... turn on your sarcastic meter. This is the second time you have missed it in this thread. Loosen up.

He was talking about private licensing... a little different then the licensing that of blu ray.

spinecaton

The only difference is the manner in which you register it. Intellectual property is registered with a copyright or trademark. Technology, chemicals, etc. are registered with a patent. The enforce mechanism is the same.

A patent grants the patent holder the right to exclude others from using the patent. A copyright or trademark grants the owner of it the right to exclude others to use the copyrighted or trademarked intellectual property. But if you're getting hung up on the copyright/patent distinction, it doesn't change the fact that a licensing system, by definition, grants the ability to deny licenses. That's why you have a license in the first place, to prevent unauthorized persons or entities from using or engaging in whatever it is you're seeking to protect.

[QUOTE="spinecaton"]

But the competition! It could hurt someone's feelings :(

Apple and Microsoft aren't at war... Neither is Sony and Microsoft. There are a lot more to each company then just a console.

lolfaqs

Whoever mentioned anything about feelings? This is business. And for unknown business reasons, MS has not joined the BDA's board of directors, nor has MS obtained a license for BD on the 360 (whether it's because they didn't pursue it or because they got rejected, who knows). Thus, for some reason or another, that's how things unfolded, and MS is now pushing DD hard.

MS pushed DD hard even before HD-DVD failed.

The reason why MS hasn't licensed BR yet is because they don't need it.

What could MS possible do with BR on the 360

Seriously dude... turn on your sarcastic meter. This is the second time you have missed it in this thread. Loosen up.

spinecaton

Actually, it's just that the humor failed yet again, and, if anything, only serves to mislead and distract from the discussion.

[QUOTE="spinecaton"]

Seriously dude... turn on your sarcastic meter. This is the second time you have missed it in this thread. Loosen up.

lolfaqs

Actually, it's just that the humor failed yet again, and, if anything, only serves to mislead and distract from the discussion.

It wasn't humorous because I wasn't trying to be. And I wasn't distracting from the discussion because I talked about more then just that.

[QUOTE="spinecaton"]

Seriously dude... turn on your sarcastic meter. This is the second time you have missed it in this thread. Loosen up.

lolfaqs

Actually, it's just that the humor failed yet again, and, if anything, only serves to mislead and distract from the discussion.

MS pushed DD hard even before HD-DVD failed.

The reason why MS hasn't licensed BR yet is because they don't need it.

What could MS possible do with BR on the 360

JLF1

Not really. Both companies had DLC, sure. But MS didn't bring Netflix on board until recently. And what could MS possibly do with a HD DVD add on for the 360 that compelled them to release one? Whatever a HD DVD add on could do, a BD add on could do even better.

[QUOTE="lolfaqs"][QUOTE="spinecaton"]

Seriously dude... turn on your sarcastic meter. This is the second time you have missed it in this thread. Loosen up.

JLF1

Actually, it's just that the humor failed yet again, and, if anything, only serves to mislead and distract from the discussion.

The only thing laughable here is that MS is trying to force DD on everyone when sadly 75% of gamers still prefer a retail box + disc copy.

The only thing laughable here is that MS is trying to force DD on everyone when sadly 75% of gamers still prefer a retail box + disc copy.

lolfaqs

[QUOTE="lolfaqs"]

The only thing laughable here is that MS is trying to force DD on everyone when sadly 75% of gamers still prefer a retail box + disc copy.

JLF1

Nah, Sony still has the upper hand with BD. They're just competing with MS on the DD front, because that's where MS is focusing their attention now.

[QUOTE="JLF1"][QUOTE="lolfaqs"]

Actually, it's just that the humor failed yet again, and, if anything, only serves to mislead and distract from the discussion.

lolfaqs

The only thing laughable here is that MS is trying to force DD on everyone when sadly 75% of gamers still prefer a retail box + disc copy.

Um... what kind of force are they using? I provided a link in the beginning of this thread that says MS is interested in DD of movies/TV shows and they are doing that just fine. I haven't rented or purchased anything from the marketplace for about 8 months, and when I did I surely wasn't forced. MS shows no signs of going 100% DD and until they do, there will be no "force" that you speak of.

Well, it's been fun, but I have to head out for a bit. To recap.

MS lost the format war after backing HD DVD.

MS has not and likely will not get a seat on the BDA's board of directors.

MS either has not pursued a BD license for the 360 or was denied one.

MS is now pushing DD hard now despite 75% of gamers still preferring a retail box + disc copy.

The only thing laughable here is that MS is trying to force DD on everyone when sadly 75% of gamers still prefer a retail box + disc copy.lolfaqs

Um... what kind of force are they using? I provided a link in the beginning of this thread that says MS is interested in DD of movies/TV shows and they are doing that just fine. I haven't rented or purchased anything from the marketplace for about 8 months, and when I did I surely wasn't forced. MS shows no signs of going 100% DD and until they do, there will be no "force" that you speak of.

spinecaton

Last comment before I head out. I meant that MS is trying to push DD onto consumers even though 75% of gamers still prefer a retail box + disc copy. MS has said many times, after HD DVD died coincidentally, that they think DD is the future.

Well, it's been fun, but I have to head out for a bit. To recap.

MS lost the format war after backing HD DVD.

MS has not and likely will not get a seat on the BDA's board of directors.

MS either has not pursued a BD license for the 360 or was denied one.

MS is now pushing DD hard now despite 75% of gamers still preferring a retail box + disc copy.

lolfaqs

To recap the parts where you are wrong or have no information to back up your claims(in red)

[QUOTE="spinecaton"]

Um... what kind of force are they using? I provided a link in the beginning of this thread that says MS is interested in DD of movies/TV shows and they are doing that just fine. I haven't rented or purchased anything from the marketplace for about 8 months, and when I did I surely wasn't forced. MS shows no signs of going 100% DD and until they do, there will be no "force" that you speak of.

lolfaqs

Last comment before I head out. I meant that MS is trying to push DD onto consumers even though 75% of gamers still prefer a retail box + disc copy. MS has said many times, after HD DVD died coincidentally, that they think DD is the future.

Check my very first post in this thread :wink: they are talking about movies and tv shows.

[QUOTE="lolfaqs"]The only thing laughable here is that MS is trying to force DD on everyone when sadly 75% of gamers still prefer a retail box + disc copy.xsubtownerx

Yes, sir.

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

[QUOTE="xsubtownerx"][QUOTE="lolfaqs"]The only thing laughable here is that MS is trying to force DD on everyone when sadly 75% of gamers still prefer a retail box + disc copy.lolfaqs

Yes, sir.

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

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"][QUOTE="lolfaqs"]

"The announcement covers the source code behind the communication protocols for Windows Workgroup Server and Windows Desktop."

Hardly the same thing as the actual source code for Windows itself.

lolfaqs

If you want to surrender, that's cool, But the communication protocols for Windows Workgroup server and Windows Desktop =/= the source code for Windows itself, which is MS' prized possession.

[QUOTE="spinecaton"]

Hmm... I think you win the thread.

lolfaqs

Not really. He contradicted himself in his own post. He said it's almost impossible to deny a license if you meet the published requirements, but then he said in the case of EA, an exclusive license was granted despite the fact that EA is hardly the only company who could meet the published requirements for such a game.

Ummm...no I didn't. A singular license granted by one party to another does not create an expectation of multiple lincensors....it has an expectation of exactly one license, and there may be no expectation around publishing the guidelines (a lot of B2B) or their could be transparent guidelines (tender). Therefore, there is one awarded and none denied.

Or you might say there is a limit of 10 licenses, each available for $50, by filling out this paperwork, first come first served. If you publish those guidelines you will have to live with them. First 10 people with $50 that fill out the paperwork correctly get the licenses. The other's aren't denied. They just didn't meet the criteria. If you did meet the criteria and could prove it then you will win that battle in court.

Or you could have broad, almost unrestricted guidelines.....like say Windows. Pay a few bucks, agree to pretty simple terms....you really can't stop anyone from legally obtaining a Windows license.

The nature of the license and the guidelines will effectively outline the rules, but the overall framework of rules is well developed.

Generally, the more open and broad you are (association vs private entity) and the nature of the organization (private narrow interests vs broad public interests) will greatly influence the guidelines of licensing.

But this is all theoretical. The only thing we have to do is go to the BDA website and take a look at the actual published guidelines....which essentially are wideopen....fill out the paper, pay the money....there is no expectation of anything else.

http://www.blu-raydisc.info/faq.php

Real quick.

1. PC gamers are a small minority of the entire gamer population with the bulk of PC game sales coming from only 2 games, World of Warcraft and Half-Life 2.

2. Even in the case of a non-exclusive license, a license by definition may be rejected if allowed within the group's internal rules. BDA has such a rejection method. The BDA may vote to grant or deny any license application for BD.

3. There's more to getting a license from BDA than just filling out paperwork and paying money. The board still has to vote on it.

Real quick.

1. PC gamers are a small minority of the entire gamer population with the bulk of PC game sales coming from only 2 games, World of Warcraft and Half-Life 2.

2. Even in the case of a non-exclusive license, a license by definition may be rejected if allowed within the group's internal rules. BDA has such a rejection method. The BDA may vote to grant or deny any license application for BD.

3. There's more to getting a license from BDA than just filling out paperwork and paying money. The board still has to vote on it.

lolfaqs

You don't know how many people the NPD surveyed so it is hard to say how well it will do. Even if the surveyed 15,000(which is being INCREDIBLY generous) people, that is still a drop in the bucket of the amount of gamers there are in the US.

Secondly, for the points that majority of the people have made in this thread they have provided some sort of a link. You have provided zero links that support your claims besides to a NPD survery which we have no statistics over besides precentages, wikipedia for VC-1, and a list of licensors of VC-1.

I'm pretty sure MS and their "Xbox originals" were available before this through DD.xsubtownerx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_Network

[QUOTE="LosDaddie"]

[QUOTE="JLF1"]
That doesn't change the fact that Sony is pushing further with DD than MS is doing right now.JLF1

For games; possibly. I'd say the x360 is still no slouch in that category.

For movies; I think MS is "dominating" as XBL Marketplace has far more content than PSN.

:)

Then the link is wrong as MS clearly stated that movies/vids were the type of DD they wanted to focus on. :)

And PSN only has "more variety of content" if you limit the content to recent games. If so, then yes, PSN does have more variety. But you'd be ignoring all the XBox1 games, XBLA games, DLC & Expansion Packs, Movies, TV Shows, Netflix, Music Videos, Game-help vids, etc.

MS could not do what Sony is doing, and that stems from MS's bungle of not having a standard HDD. So for that one, good on Sony, but I will continue to buy physical copies, as they have more value than digital copies.SpruceCaboose

[QUOTE="lolfaqs"]

Well, it's been fun, but I have to head out for a bit. To recap.

MS lost the format war after backing HD DVD.

MS has not and likely will not get a seat on the BDA's board of directors.

MS either has not pursued a BD license for the 360 or was denied one.

MS is now pushing DD hard now despite 75% of gamers still preferring a retail box + disc copy.

spinecaton

To recap the parts where you are wrong or have no information to back up your claims(in red)

I have to congratulate you guys on thoroughly owning lolfaqs. REading the last 10 pages has been a laugh. :lol:

He ( she? ) really lost the argument when he tried to argue that MS wouldn't be able to get a BD license if they tried because Sony would block them. When in reality, the BDA would love to have MS on board with them, pushing their prized format/product.

Heck, considering how influential MS is, I'd say they'd be able to get on the BOD if they wanted to.

These last few pages of this thread have made me slam my head into a wall upon seeing the numerous claims that defy even the most basic of business and economical practices. It is seriously mindboggling how people can be so wrong, and yet be so convinced they are right. "There is teh honors in teh businessez!!!1" Ah, humanity.

I mean, really, a single company blocking another one from entering an entire business board because of some petty console war between the two that are a sideshow of their respective businesses? I'm almost speechless. Almost.