Originally Posted by Footloose301
You must be blind. How would you feel if you were Bungie or Microsoft and some clown decided to make a program to run Halo 3 on the PS3?
I probably wouldn't like it. But then again, I identify much more strongly with the average consumer than I do with businesses and their cherished business models. If I had already purchased a PS3, and not an Xbox, I'd probably be very happy to be able to pay for Halo 3, but not for a whole new gaming system, and still be able to play Halo 3.
Microsoft may well have planned to make money on selling more Xboxes via sales of Halo 3, but why on earth should they be guaranteed
that this business model will work for them? If someone finds a way to run Halo 3 on a PS3, why should my tax dollars be spent on law enforcement and court costs to kill that off? Because Microsoft getting what they want is more "fair"? Because I dream of the day it'll be me raking in the big bucks, and I care more about laws favoring the hypothetical wealthy future me and less about the current me?
There's only one really good reason for IP laws to exist in my opinion -- and it's not the "It's mine! It's mine! I get to decide TOTALLY and COMPLETELY what anyone can do with my IP because it's mine, mine, mine!" attitude that a lot of people on these forums seem to favor.
The best reason for IP laws IMHO is to encourage innovation
. IP law needs to be just good enough
to inspire people to innovate -- to invent new things, develop new services, write new songs and stories and software. IP law certainly doesn't need to anywhere near as extreme as it has become these days, with insanity like lifetime plus 75 year copyrights and such.
I'm quite happy to see people well rewarded for good ideas and good work. I think it's good that a few people can get quite wealthy that way in fact. But the laws should keep in mind the real desired end result -- encouraging innovation, not the creation and protection of billionaires. Making a game that once could only run on Xbox run on PS3 is a useful innovation. Making an iPhone run on T-Mobile instead of just AT&T is a useful innovation.
Are the potential profits from an unlocked iPhone or a run-anywhere Halo 3 so dismal that no one would bother to create such devices and games without the legal guarantee
of the extra measure of profit that artificial exclusivity provides? If that's not the case, why should our law enforcement agencies and court systems be wasting our tax dollars to help enforce and foster a world with less innovation, but more profit for certain individuals?
If Apple can't make money on an unlocked iPhone, enough to keep it profitable and worthwhile for them, then they should figure out how to reduce costs and increase value until they do make money on the iPhone, or simply suffer defeat in the marketplace.
If Microsoft can't generate extra dollars selling Xboxes because Halo 3 suddenly runs on PS3, they should play cat-and-mouse with the hackers (with no protective laws helping them in this battle, just their own cleverness), improve the Xbox so that Halo 3 and/or other games play better on an Xbox than a PS3, make Xboxes more expensive, or simply suffer defeat in the marketplace.