*spin-off* Use of BD & Java, "blue" laser (405nm) etc

Only if the runtime is an exact match (no supersetting/subsetting) to Java SE. If Oracle wins in it's case v Google, then this goes away too. For Java ME and others, there is no patent grant.

According to Oracle, they do need a license even if they don't call it java. We'll have to see if the judge in that case buys it.

That would depend on BD-J being an exact subset of Java SE. My hunch is that it isn't.

 

Its very easy, if Microsoft needs a license, they will pay. Its business and its all about the bottom line.

I believe Deadmeat is wrong (atleast how I understand his interpretation of the MS/Sun result) , the Sun settlement just means that MS can not make their own version of Java VM with propitiatory extensions and distribute it AND call it Java. It looked to be the fabled brace and extend move that MS have done successfully before, that Sun called out and blocked.
Now if Oracle gets what it wants from the Android case, then its a different game, but who knows how that will end. It probably will kill Oracle to, since Java API is quite similar to other older API's and from what I believe they are shooting themselves in the foot over that one.

Does it make business sense for MS to use Blue-ray as an optical solution, I have no clue, but if it does, then an XBox Live addon pack for x USD to get Blue Ray movie playback is a solution. Or like some of the stuff on the PS3, you need to opt-int and most likely Sony pays more royalty per activated license.

Since BD-J is mandatory for all new Blue-Ray players (movie), then I sincerely doubt that anybody is barred from using BD-J in the BD player, if they license the stuff to make a BD player.

 

I'm sure I follow that lawsuit significantly closer than you do. Did you not listen to the evidence entered by Schwartz, who at the time was the Sun CEO, where he explicitly spelled out that you do not need a license to develop but only need one for the Java Branding and the Java TCK ?

And the mere existence of a lawsuit does not mean anything legally.

 

You didn't qualify the assertion "MS will not have a BRD drive" with, "because...", and the implication makes no sense. BRD drive is just an optical drive technology, like a DVD drive in a platform that can't play DVDs (Wii). The reasons for choosing BRD in XB3, even without film playback, are cheap, mass produced, mass storage.

That's just silly. People can and do play BRD movies on their Windows PCs, no? By buying an application that has the necessary licenses and/or protocols and/or software layers. Do you honestly believe that if MS include a BRD drive in XB3 without movie playback as standard, that they are legally prevented from offering a purchasable application or kit that enables BRD playback exactly like they did on XB?

So in summary:

1) If not allowed to add BRD playback as standard, it should be possible to add BRD playback (and value) via as a download or upgrade kit

2) Even if banned from playing BRD movies forever (which BRiT has some words about), that doesn't preclude the use of a BRD drive, exactly the same as Wii not playing DVD movies still uses a DVD drive

 

Citation needed. Until then you're FUDing.

MS strictly does that because of license costs and their own self-serving political outlook. Have a look at how they plan on doing Media Center with Windows 8 for that.

 

Hmmm. With your definitions, you'd sort of have a point. However, I regard Wii's drive as a DVD drive on account of it being software modifiable to read DVDs. There isn't anything different in the way the thing is built that makes it not a DVD player. Likewise, taking a BRD drive and tweaking it to have a different read structure for game discs still makes it a BRD drive by my reckoning. Thus if the optical drive in XB3 is BRD based, I'd call that a BRD drive. If you wouldn't, then there's your argument there that Ms won't use a BRD drive, but then a 3rd party being able to sell an app that plays movies would render your argument moot.

 

So you are stepping back from the fire you set and agree that the java case has absolutely nothing to do with supporting Blu-Ray Movies on a Microsoft platform?

If those that license Blu-Ray (for movie playback, weird how that got important to point out) would have to license every little tidbit that makes up the Blu-Ray standard, Blu-Ray would be dead in the water. The Java part is just one small fragment of it all. Amazing your argument got so far. I hope you bring some hefty evidence to this thread or i would call it an elaborate troll.

 

All due respect, but his are always elaborate trolls. That's why several forums have banned him, his IP, and permutations of his screen name. He's been at it around a decade, ranging from neogaf to opaages to psinext/e-empire and here. He's always had a hardline anti-sony bent that's the cornerstone of his arguments and he typically can't see beyond it. It's strange to see him still pull an audience though.

 

But it's not a DVD drive. Does it read a DVD? No. Can a DVD drive read Wii disc? No.

Yet the sad drive cannot read Blu-Ray discs, and vise versa.

Test you hypothesis by sticking a Blu-Ray disc into such a drive.

And why would Microsoft pay $20 or so in royalty so that some 3rd parties can sell $50 apps? How does that make Xbox 3 competitive?

I stand by argument that Microsoft is legally banned from developing Java run-times per the terms of 2001 settlement.

Paying $20 in Blu-Ray royalty to have the ability for some 3rd party to sell $50 playback software doesn't make financial sense, thus Microsoft like Nintendo will go with a proprietary drive format if they decided to stick with an optical drive solution.

 

I am not against the PSX4. In fact, Hirai made a right decision regarding its position as a developer-friendly off the shelf architecture designed to a specific cost target, the first "sane" manager of Sony's console business. My criticism on the PSX2 and PSX3 stem from their "insane" architectures that tortured developers.

Although I am afraid Hirai came in too late to salvage SCEI's business now, I do wish the best for him. Having a Microsoft monopoly does not make the console business better, we always need a two-horse race.

 

You are good at making up your own rules and standards. How about getting back to earth and align with the rest of us. Makes the discussion a hell of a lot better.

If a DVD or a Blu-Ray production line can stamp the discs it's ok to call it a DVD or a Blu-Ray disc. Just because the copy protected CD's really isn't living up to the Redbook format, we still call them CD's.
And just because the disc structure is different the under lining technology is the same as on DVD or Blu-Ray. Same capacity, same production lines, same laser tech, same drives, same same..

And afaik the Wii was hacked and was able to play DVD Movies, so what gives?

Show us the proof, there clearly must be something that you are able to show us, something that makes it clear that even though the technology is already licensed by the Blu-Ray Association Microsoft wont be able to use it.

Completely different argument, which have been covered endlessly before, just make it an option, and show me a $50 dollar player that will be able to compete on speed with a next gen console.

 

You're banned and have no voice here and I won't reply to futher dummy account posts, but Wii can read a DVD with a software download (homebrew running MPlayer Wii). Ergo its a DVD drive.

 

Thread locked on account of the troll being removed from the discussion so that we don't need waste our virtual breaths trying to reason against FUD.