Microsoft Getting Sued Over Scratching Xbox 360 Games
Microsoft is getting sued.
A lawyer from Fort Lauderdale has filed a lawsuit against Microsoft, claiming that the Xbox360 video game console can cause “destructive scratches” to game discs.
What are the details on this lawsuit against Microsoft?
South Florida attorney Jeffrey M. Ostrow, on behalf of his client Jorge Brouwer, stated that the laser which reads the video game discs permanently ruins the video games by scratching them permanently, leaving them unplayable. Mr. Ostrow states that Microsoft is culpable and that not only should they pay to resolve the problem in their manufacturing process but also to pay individual game owners for games destroyed due to manufacturing error.
What’s Microsoft’s position?
Microsoft is adamant in their refusal to replace or give monetary compensation for damaged games, according to Ostrow.
Has Microsoft done anything about this issue?
Microsoft has recently extended the Xbox 360 warranty to three years. They admitted that many of their consoles experienced “general hardware failure.”
What complaints have Xbox 360 gamers submitted?
Players of the console complain that the disks have been scratched by the console’s laser. This has been most prevalent when the Xbox 360 is moved from horizontal to vertical, or vice versa, during game play. “They don’t tell you not to move the tower,” said Ostrow, who is seeking a class-action status for the suit against Microsoft.
Has Microsoft replaced any scratched games?
There have been some scratched disks that Ostrow admits have been replaced by Microsoft. However, Microsoft charged the consumer $20. New Xbox 360 games cost about $50.
IGT Suing Bally Over Wheel of Fortune Patent Infringement
From 43(B)log:
IGT v. Alliance Gaming Corp., 2007 WL 911773 (D. Nev.)
The parties are competitors in the market for computerized gaming machines, specifically “wheel of fortune” type machines. IGT sued defendants (collectively Bally) for patent infringement. Defendants counterclaimed for declarations of invalidity, noninfringement, and unenforceability, as well as antitrust violations and false advertising based on IGT’s allegedly fraudulent acts in receiving its patents and claiming on its website that Bally was an infringer of those patents.
Usually, it’s difficult to maintain a false advertising claim based on a competitor’s statements about IP violations. The exception, which applied here, is when the relevant consumers are sophisticated businesses that can be expected to pay attention to allegations of patent infringement. The remaining hurdle is that courts generally impose an intent requirement – indeed, a bad faith requirement — not otherwise present in the Lanham Act, in order to allow people to make good-faith but mistaken claims about patent validity. Bally avoided summary judgment on this issue, because of disputed factual issues about what IGT knew about the validity of its patents when it issued a press release claiming that it filed a patent infringement case to “stop [Bally] from misappropriating IGT’s patented innovations.†Given the factual issue on bad faith, Bally could also take advantage of the presumption that intentional deception actually deceives the public.
Another potential issue is whether press releases count as “advertising or promotionâ€; again, at least with sophisticated consumers, it’s likely that they do. Indeed, Bally submitted evidence that it received numerous concerned inquiries as a result of the press release and lost at least one order for 100 machines. Given that patent owners can pursue end-users of infringing devices, Bally’s customers were right to be concerned. IGT did, however, win summary judgment on Bally’s intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claim, because there was no evidence IGT knew about this particular lost order.
