Comments on: Xbox Live leads to Microsoft being sued

By: Danielcraig24

Danielcraig24 — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 03:24:37 +0000

Hai,Very interesting post.It contains more information.Thank you…
************************************
Daniel
Visit Sexxat.com - Free Live multi cam videochat community

By: kzpy wkms

kzpy wkms — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 05:12:45 +0000

njkb mdnh hlaetkn jduglb tmrqjoc ljom ryxbtl [URL]http://www.yafsr.yeszhtw.com[/URL] crzumphag bkownag

By: uvwmxifge topm

uvwmxifge topm — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 05:12:09 +0000

ykdgbjn gqxau jozwkqpfg bzkewyfa drkanpu cuhjqva jlmq

By: The_Glovner

The_Glovner — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:17:09 +0000

MS should just pay someone to go and burn down their offices.

By: cujoe45

cujoe45 — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:06:28 +0000

So does this mean that MS will pay them in large sums of 1 dollar bills, like the picture above shows?? :p

By: The_Glovner

The_Glovner — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 13:14:44 +0000

Well I patented the idea of allowing a global communication network being utilised through home PC’s 40 years ago, pay up bitches you all owe me cash!

What a lot of fucking nonsense, good mind to patent the idea of giving these people a fucking slap, because I should be able to cash in on that one pretty soon.

By: Matt0817

Matt0817 — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 21:37:35 +0000

$5 says microsoft buys the company

By: steve fajita

steve fajita — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 21:31:16 +0000

What will they do? Do what they should. Pay the highest price lawyers in the world to make this go away. And they will.

By: trj156

trj156 — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:33:15 +0000

HAHAAH simply shut down xbox live, imagine that. “we are sorry, xbox live no longer exists. thank you and remember to check out other microsoft products!”

By: Aziraphale

Aziraphale — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:27:05 +0000

Yes that’s the difference between patents and copyright. You patent an idea and/or own the copyright over one particular implementation of that idea. That still doesn’t make software patents valid in Europe, though

To be honest I doubt that anyone else is paying Paltalk for using technology such as this, because if it’s as vague as Rossko seems to think it is the vast majority of games with Internet multiplayer are in violation of it. I can’t imagine all of these companies paying royalties.

It sounds to me like it’s just another company patenting the obvious in the hope of getting other companies to pay them royalties in fear of being sued if they didn’t. Patents take too much money to question, and they aren’t examined properly prior to acceptance so we have all these patents that either patent the obvious or patent ideas that have been around for years prior to the filing of the patent.

It’s a nice system, but it’s so badly flawed.

By: honus

honus — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:59:00 +0000

It seems unlikely that it patents exactly what you quoted. It probably patents one solution to that problem, which apparently they think Microsoft is doing.

That does not boil down to MS using chunks of Paltalk’s code. Paltalk’s code implements a solution to the problem of online gaming and communication and if Microsoft implemented the same solution then the patent is violated, regardless if they used Paltalk’s code, or had even heard of the patent before.

By: Stonie

Stonie — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:17:32 +0000

In the UK the legal rights last for a maximum term of 20 years from the date of filing of the patent application at the Patent Office. The patent has to be maintained by payment of renewal fees. Once the 20 year term has expired or the patent has lapsed through non-payment of renewal fees, the invention can be worked by anyone as long as there are no other intellectual property rights associated with the invention.

By: DJ_Giver

DJ_Giver — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:08:07 +0000

tens of millions my a$$

By: AZ I BORICUA

AZ I BORICUA — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:04:10 +0000

I am going to file for a patent right now. Patent: Stepping on any surface with your feet. Pay up everyone!!!!!!

By: TEC9000

TEC9000 — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 12:51:30 +0000

This is called a submarine patent. A company files a very generic patent for a technology. Then they sit and wait for other companies to come along and actually develop the technology necessary to violate the patent. Once the technology becomes pervasive, and profitable…like a submarine, the company pops up and sues everyone…instead of torpedoing them;)

By: Hologuts

Hologuts — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 12:16:52 +0000

If this company has a case, it would be a good company to buy (or buy shares in), allowing Microsft to licence it out to others. Sony soon jumped away from the vibration function when Microsoft paid up and bought shares in that company.

I don’t enjoy gaming without voice communications. It just kills off team play. BF2 is a great team game to play, but has been effectively made into a single payer game (online) because the communications don’t work (and seems never will in that game).

In game voice is important.

Of course, if Microsoft believe this company doesn’t have a case, then, let them pay everything they have to sue Microsoft. It would be costly for them, and If Microsoft stick to the usual tactics of delay after delay, eventually the costs will be so high this company will have drowned before even getting near a court.

By: Raldanash

Raldanash — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 11:59:38 +0000

You’d have to look at the technical level of the claim. Just the idea of using WANs for gaming has been around for longer than 4 years, and I don’t think you can patent at that level. It would have to be implementation specific. Now in a way the cutting hints at it when mentioning group servers, messaging and matchmaking. Again - that has been done before 2002 (Gamespy is a case in point I think, can’t remember exactly when they started up).
Obviously I am completely incompetent in patent law, but my gut feel is that this won’t amount to much.
patent laws in general however are very valid and important, because who would invest in research, often taking a decade to get right, if any competitor can then just take your product and copy it without the extensive investment you just made.

By: Dirty Duck

Dirty Duck — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 11:22:25 +0000

a company trying to get some cash from a large company nothing changes!!

By: j0k3r360

j0k3r360 — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:56:35 +0000

Reason why i hate these stupid patents!
Its plain stupid in my opinion! Nuthin will happen

By: voodooboo

voodooboo — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:55:21 +0000

Sweet lordy me, someone just shoot these stupid little complanies…

By: Farstarbuck

Farstarbuck — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:52:35 +0000

Its a blip, nothing will happen. Sure Microsoft may pay loads to this company, but im sure the judge will also see this as a P.R stunt. Either way, im sure we’re not about to be charged any more for xbox live. For all the patents Microsoft have broken, then everything would have went up in price. But alas, they havent. Im sure they will do the respectable thing and buy the majority holding share in the company. LOL

By: unleash

unleash — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:37:13 +0000

surely this only applies if MS use Paltalks technology. Maybe MS have their own technology that does the same job, they don’t have to use Paltalks. Also why leave it til now to speak up? I think MS should fight!

By: kineticonline

kineticonline — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:37:03 +0000

From what i can understand from the pdf i cant really see where the problem is. Is sounds like a small company trying to get money / publicity for nothing. The claim basically is that “we patented online gaming and communication across the internet and microsoft with the xbox and xbox360 break the patent because you can play games and communicate” Unless MS have used chunks of their code in creating xbox live i cant see any problem and whoever is incarge of the case will end up just telling paltalk to beat it. (on the other side it could be MS employing a all publicity is good publicity tactic and have asked paltalk to file the claim)

By: hurricanepilot

hurricanepilot — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:24:07 +0000

I think 17 years is the standard expiry for a patent in the UK and US, I’m not sure under what conditions you could extend that though.

By: Rossko UK

Rossko UK — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:16:44 +0000

It patents the bit I quoted- the use of Wide Area Network communications. Paltalk provide technology that better handles the problem of communication across the internet, and feels everyone should use it when playing online games. Read the case, I think you might enjoy it.

I wondered about it affecting other people, but there is no concrete evidence as to whether or not Sony pay royalties to Paytalk or not.

And Immersion hold the patent for the vibration.

By: Aziraphale

Aziraphale — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:05:00 +0000

So what exactly does this patent? Because it sounds to me like a software patent and we’ve established that they aren’t actually valid in Europe…

Regardless MS will probably fight it in court for a while and if they lose or get bored they’ll just pay up. In the controller vibration patent issue mentioned, Sony removed vibration from the PS3 (with a really lame excuse) while MS just paid whoever holds the patent in question.

Surely this patent would also affect Sony too (maybe every company making online games? I can’t really say since I can’t be bothered to find out exactly what this patent is for), unless Sony are already paying Paltalk royalties…

By: Rossko UK

Rossko UK — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:00:45 +0000

Patents can expire, so you have to keep renewing them if you want to continue to hold exclusive rights to the idea.

By: hurricanepilot

hurricanepilot — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 09:58:55 +0000

I imagine microsoft will initially counter that it’s an obvious solution to the problem.

Be nice to know if patents work like trademarks, as you can lose a trademark if you aren’t seen to be actively protecting them….and 4 years is a long time have not noticed xbox live.

By: Vidic

Vidic — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 09:31:03 +0000

What will MS do?
Pay liability and the story will fade away

he joys of being one of the largest companies in the world.. unlike Sony