| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (13)

Posted: Sep 15th 2006 7:07PM Captain Obvious said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Better get ahold of a copy of Ace Attorney. There are no guilty/not guilty verdicts, as this is a civil matter. You're looking at judgment for the plaintiff vs. judgment for the defendant.

Posted: Sep 15th 2006 9:06PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Is patent infringement not a crime?

Huh. Who knew?

Posted: Sep 15th 2006 10:46PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This has the beginnings of a nusance suit.

Paltalk has sued Microsoft over two patents (No. 5,822,523 and No. 6,226,686)

Patent 5,822,523 (filed February 1996) seems to be method of distributing content from a host to a group in a controlled manner. Basically network control. The benefit being that it'll reduce network traffic and latency. It was issued to Mpath Interactive.

Patent 6,226,686 (filed September 1999) is word-for-word indentical to patent 5,8222,523 (it's the same thing!), but instead was issued to HearMe.

Their claim, from what I understand is that their patent could be used in gaming, and as such Microsoft has infringed upon them.

Neither patent mentions gaming specifically.

And if I'm reading the patent correctly, it can be applied to just about any network traffic between a host and a group, which is a bit vague. You could just as easily say these patents infringe on any email system or a website you access.

Curiously, if you dig a little deeper, I found that Mpath Interactive was one of the supporters (among others) of Microsoft's DirectPlay initative announced in 1997 that would simplify matchmaking (lobby) services, according to a press release on Microsoft's own site. This occured 2 years before Mpath filed the patent which they're now using to sue Microsoft.


Posted: Sep 15th 2006 11:10PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm sorry, towards the end I was thinking MPath filed in 1999. It was 1996 (duh!), a year before DirectPlay.

But even then, why join forces with Microsoft in collaborative gaming back in 1997 and then wait another 9 years to sue about it?

Posted: Sep 16th 2006 9:35AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I personally think this is just another attempt for some company to make money from another (Microsoft) though a suit. This kind of thing happens all the time.

If Xbox Live is infringing a patent, so is Sony's service and Nintendo's WiFi Connection, so is every IM program out there, etc.

This suit has no ground, and I am sure it won't go though.

Posted: Sep 16th 2006 10:50AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
God i hate these patent portfolio leeches.

Posted: Sep 16th 2006 6:01PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wow, i live in east, texas. I must be some kind of pain in the ass being a "subscriber"

Posted: Sep 17th 2006 1:44PM quanta said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ah, another patent troll, it appears...

They chose East Texas mostly likely to get the court in Marshall, TX...it is a favourite for patent attorneys because the district judge has historically sided against the plaintiff (88% of the time!).

With those odds, this means a patent troll can often force a defendant to settle rather than face a likely defeat.

Here's an article about that:
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=16280&ch=infotech

Posted: Sep 17th 2006 4:39PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hmm, even with those odds, take your chances, and appear in court. If you lose. Appeal.

You need to stand up to those with nusance suits seeking greenmail.

If you don't stand up, they'll simply go after the next guy, who will now have to deal with precident. Microsoft is big enough to fight this.

Posted: Sep 17th 2006 7:34PM Kruegmeister said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Maybe if Microsoft stopped Stealing Ideas and Started Hiring Talent.

Posted: Sep 17th 2006 8:02PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
LOL @ 10

Care to enlighten on that?

Posted: Sep 18th 2006 3:04AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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.

Posted: Sep 18th 2006 6:27AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
A method for deploying interactive applications over a network containing host COMPUTERS and group messaging servers is disclosed.

Didn't courts already say that the PS2 was NOT a computer (so they couldn't avoid taxing in foreign countries). So then the 360, or Xbox, should also NOT be computers. They are Game systems. End of lawsuit right there!!

Featured Stories

Image

Now Playing: May 21-27, 2012

Posted on May 21st 2012 2:50PM

Image

Diablo 3 review: Hitting the jackpot

Posted on May 21st 2012 12:50PM

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW