Microsoft Sued over Xbox Live 68
fiorenza writes "Ars Technica is reporting that Paltalk has sued Microsoft in the Eastern District of Texas over its Xbox Live service. The suit alleges that Microsoft's Xbox Live infringes on two of its patents, and that the company has suffered damages 'in at least the tens of millions of dollars,' which raises obvious questions about why they waited four years to file the suit (Xbox Live was launched in late 2002)." From the article: "Microsoft, as a company that runs multiplayer game servers, is alleged to be violating these patents. It's not clear how they're doing so--the initial complaint provides literally no evidence of Microsoft's guilt. The filing instead describes the Paltalk patents and the dates that Xbox Live went, err, live. After five pages of this, Paltalk simply claims that "gameplay on the Xbox or Xbox 360 through the Xbox Live online gaming service infringes the Paltalk patents," then goes on to ask for a jury trial. Presumably, actual information will be released once the trial begins."
actual information? (Score:5, Funny)
I don't know if I'd make that assumption anymore. (see SCO v. IBM)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They really don't have many more options to drag things out.
IIRC, SCO is fighting the Judge's decision(s) on IBM's motion(s) to dismiss/limit various aspects of the case... a motion IBM could make because SCO has yet to show any proof.
Anyways, trial is set for Feb 2007. If the judge hasn't forced something substantive out of SCO in the next 6 months, I imagine it won't be
Give with one hand, take with the other (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Its more the latter (M.A.D.). See the SCO v IBM case for an example. SCO sued IBM for, among other things, violating some patents they may-or-may-not hold (as a result of the "asset transfer"). IBM then countersued SCO for, a
Re: (Score:2)
Companies with huge patent portfolios (IBM, Microsoft, Intel, etc) will usually set up cross licensing deals in the settlement process from an infringement lawsuit that will allow them to use patents without fear of suit.
I'd say it's c
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Give with one hand, take with the other (Score:5, Insightful)
Anytime a patent infringement lawsuit comes in they will examine the business of the one suing them to see which patents they can counter-sue on. Their goal is to counter sue for enough damages to exceed the original complaint.
Most companies in the computer industry know not to sue IBM because they hold so many patents that everyone is most likely infringing on. Occasionally some small company does attempt to sue them and IBM makes an example of them.
Re: (Score:1)
Most companies in the computer industry know not to sue IBM because they hold so many patents that everyone is most likely infringing on. Occasionally some small company does attempt to sue them and IBM makes an example of them.
But surely the solution is simply to sell your offensive
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Give with one hand, take with the other (Score:1)
However, if you get sued by some one that don't produce anything then all your own patents are useless, unless you can prove that you have already patented what is being contested, and your patent preceedes theirs.
Now, (Score:4, Interesting)
*It is said "BSD is for those who love UNIX, Linux is for those who hate M$"... which I like so much I'll bring up now
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
-Eric
More likely (Score:2)
Microsoft would rather lose the lawsuit and pay a few million rather then invalidate a tool that they can use aganst other companies.
Microsoft will either buy the company or tie them up in years of lawsuits (which will kill the company). In the end, chances are Microsoft lawyers will either find a problem with the suit or the holding company will get so tired they will just settle out-of-court.
Is it any wonder... (Score:1)
It's rediculous, and patent reform is the only way out. These are major companies, too. Average Joe stands no chance in court against the big dogs.
Wave Net (Score:1)
hhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Mortal_Kom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Wavenet [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
new link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Mortal_Komb
Not prior art (Score:2)
However, there is not
Millions and millions... (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, there is something SCO-like [wikipedia.org] stinkin' here...
Is this really such a big deal for Microsoft? (Score:3, Insightful)
In the worst case Microsoft is seriously guilty of the claims of infringement. They end up paying a few tens of millions of dollars and having to pay to liscense the stolen technology in Live. But considering that Microsoft makes billions of dollars each year as a whole company and that the Xbox division dropped something like $4 billion on the Xbox, and probably a few extra billion on the Xbox 360 at this point, does an extra ten or twenty million dollars really matter?
Considering that Live is one of Microsoft's big selling points for their console, I seriously doubt that they would put themselves into a situation where they could no long offer it until they fixed parts to work around the infringement. Either they throw some chump change at some company or they don't. Business as usual in that the only real winners are the lawyers.
Re:Is this really such a big deal for Microsoft? (Score:5, Interesting)
However, the real point of this article is about the patent trolls. If you look at it as a case as MS having to decide if paying for trials or paying the desired settlement (which is bound to be less than what is asked in the trial itself) then you'll see that MS may be better off just paying these guys without a trial. This is a serious problem with the legal system.
You see, if Microsoft decided to take this to court, and they won, then a precedent would be set for similar cases in the future. This precedent would serve the smaller companies that can't really afford to pay out settlements. But instead, MS will probably just settle and give into this extortion and future cases just like this will continue to come about with no new ammunition against them.
It's unfortunate but, our legal system relies heavily on precedents and if none are set, well, no progress is ever made.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the effects of patent trolls is to raise the legal costs of doing buisness to the point where only big corporations like Microsoft can afford the legal costs of fighting patent trolls.
Patent apparently about internet audioconferencing (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Patent apparently about internet audioconferenc (Score:1)
Re:Patent apparently about internet audioconferenc (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Patent apparently about internet audioconferenc (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not totally clear on that but I'm sure the porn industry will lead the way.
Re: (Score:1)
Patents v. Trademarks (Score:2)
Why don't patents have a "genericized" sort of clause like trademarks do? In the trademark world, if you don't protect your trademark by at least pretending to control its use, then after a reasonable period of time you lose the right to control it. Is this not a reasonable stance to take on patents? Cases like this seem to have become more and more common with popular products violating patents.
If someone is violating your patent, you should be required to ask them for compensation within say, a year, or
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The entire point of patents is to protect an innovator from losses if/when some entity tries to profit from the innovator's hard work (without licensing it from the innovator.) If nobody's profiting (actually, if the innovator isn't losing anything -- an "entity" similarly can't start making widgets they don't own or license the pat
Re: (Score:2)
No, that was the point of patents. The point of patents with our current system is to protect megacorporations and make the process of getting submarine patents and other applications which should be thrown out immediately through the system.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
But patents are completely different. A patent is a property right granted to an inventor that gives the inventor a reasonable period of time to profit from their invention without fear of infringement. Whether or not the inventor has profited from the patent
Isn't the speed of this "innovation" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It is logically untenable to state that building upon existing technologies to create new technologies makes those existing technologies more obvious for the purpose of undermining a patent. Our collective comfort level and familiarity with technologies as time goes on is something different entirely.
I am too ignorant of scien
So its sorta like (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"Microsoft Sued over Xbox Live"... (Score:3, Funny)
MS sued over Xbox live? Tremendous progress! I mean, you don't see many law suits taking place over AIM, TTY, or even IRC!
- RG>
I'm rooting for Microsoft (Score:1, Funny)
Microsoft Sued over Xbox Live? (Score:4, Funny)
Be an American! Sue somebody! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Driving them to financial/personal ruin and possibly bankruptcy.
Does /. not know how to read anymore? (Score:4, Informative)
I read every comment that was posted prior to starting to write this. Lots of babble about "Oh, Battle.net predates this" and "it must be about voice over Live". Read, people!
The '523 patent, from a cursory reading of the one independent claim, looks to involve transmissions from a collection of host computers (think individual Xboxen), back to a central server, where the data is aggregated, and then returned to one of the host computers. Interesting bit is that it's dealing with a unicast network and payloads, which doesn't sound like packet-based transmission. See the long, boring words of the patent for more details.
The '686 is an extremely narrow-looking patent, addressing the creation of a "group" of computers for messaging purposes. See Claim 1 - there are 6 ennumerated elements, each with subconditions, and a final non-ennumerated element; infringement would have to touch each and every one of these elements.
xbox live is "peer to peer" for the most part.. (Score:2)
There are games - specifically EA games that use servers, but i'm not sure how the voice is handled on them or if the servers are for games, stats or data gathering or other purposes.
Statue of limitations (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Is this for voice or game servers? (Score:1)
Voice: Ventrilo and other such Voice communication software packages. Heck, many of the newer games, Battlefield 2 and UnReal Tournament 2004 for instance, have VOIP built into the software.
Games: Pretty much any PC game out there, which has a multiplayer option, has to connect to a "server" and get the packet updates for the game from that computer. How is it that they are willing to su
About... (Score:2)