Originally posted by ChiknLitl:

---

Essentially, what Datel is arguing is that MS manufactures a console and won't let a 3rd party provide peripherals. To play devil's advocate, in the name of profit why would MS let them make peripherals? ---Chikn

---

Originally posted by emugamer:

---

I think Datel has this case in the bag. I've tried to see how MS could justify their move, but really nothing justifies it. It's anticompetitive and anticonsumer any way you slice it.

---

Originally posted by ChiknLitl:

---

The only problem with Datel's argument is that the xbox is a microsoft product. It is not the only gaming machine around, i.e. MS did not stop every console on the market from using Datel's product, only their own consoles. For this to be a monopoly they would have to control the entire console market. If you don't like what MS has to offer their are other choices, hence no monopoly. While I think it's a DB move on MS's part, I am not so sure that it's illegal. Essentially, what Datel is arguing is that MS manufactures a console and won't let a 3rd party provide peripherals. To play devil's advocate, in the name of profit why would MS let them make peripherals? ---Chikn

---

Quote:

---

It doesn't work that way. To have monopoly power for purposes of the antitrust laws, you don't have to be the only game in town; you simply have to have the ability to control prices or exlude competition. The fact that MS can charge more and render the competition inoperable means they have monopoly power, for purposes of the antitrust laws.

This one is really a no-brainer. I'm amazed that MS's legal department let this one get off the ground, especially after the hammering MS took in the last antitrust case.

---

Originally posted by SoTired:

---

For what it's worth, I'm an attorney in the US with 20 years experience in business litigation, including antitrust matters.

Here's the bottom line: No amount of "proprietary rights" allows you to keep a competitor from selling an accessory or peripheral that consumers can use with your product. Like it or not, that's how the antitrust laws work.

This case is really not that different than the prior Microsoft antitrust case. In that case, a federal judge concluded that Microsoft had violated antitrust laws by trying to prevent competitors from making and selling internet browsers compatible with Windows. That case cost Microsoft many billions of dollars, and Bill Gates has acknowledged that the stress of that litigation played a significant part in his decision to retire. Beyond that, the federal prosecutors ultimately forced Microsoft to turn over its proprietary source code to its competitors so that they could develop internet browser add-ons that would compete with Internet Explorer. The courts in that case said what every antitrust lawyer will tell you: You don't get to keep competitors from making accessories/peripherals for your product -- not even in the name of "proprietary rights" or "guarding against piracy."

The laws may or may not make sense to you, but that's how they work. Microsoft is going to get killed in this one.

---

Originally posted by trainmstr:

---

the issue:

Retailers selling xbox360/ps3 consoles and games make zilch on either. Yeah, a big goose egg.

So, companies like MS and Sony sweeten the deal by also giving the retailers high-profit items such as controllers, memory cards, or any other peripherals.

If MS steps up and fights... they sit well in the end with all the retailers because they can go back and say hey we tried knowing all well they don't stand a chance.

Lastly, this is no different than saying you cant use a. model headphone with b. model mp3 player.

---