Microsoft settles Paltalk copyright infringement suit

by Griffin McElroy { Mar 16th 2009 at 7:45PM }

While we were gearing up for an epic, The Firm-esque judicial showdown, it seems Microsoft has settled the lawsuit filed against it by PalTalk Holdings, who claimed certain components of Xbox Live infringe upon two of their patents. Neither company announced how much Microsoft forked over in the settlement -- we assume it was significantly less than the exorbitant $90 million in damages PalTalk was seeking. While we don't know the particulars of how money changed hands in the settlement, a Microsoft spokesperson confirmed it was an "amicable agreement," so it's pretty safe to assume that hugs were exchanged.

[Via CVG]

[image]

Tags: copyright-infringement, court, lawsuit, microsoft, paltalk, settlement, trial

Related From Joystiq

Xbox Live service for Xbox 1 games to be discontinued on Apr. 15
4 days ago
Class-action suit charges Microsoft with fraud
14 days ago
Microsoft files motion to dismiss Datel suit, cites Apple and others in defense
15 days ago

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Josh @ Mar 16th 2009 7:51PM

Ugh, so they still got their money *for doing absolutely nothing*.

Saria the Cat @ Mar 16th 2009 8:08PM

Sorry but this comment infringes on my "complaint" patent. I'm going to have to see compensation for this.

Phantom @ Mar 16th 2009 8:14PM

Surely you two can settle?

Linkario @ Mar 16th 2009 8:44PM

Afternoon - I'm Josh's lawyer. I can assure you that he intended on compensating you after his use of your complaint patent (US#378A73E).

Brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Shmil @ Mar 16th 2009 9:19PM

Why do you keep saying brought to you by Carl's Jr?

vidGuy @ Mar 16th 2009 11:59PM

He obviously got corporate endorsement of his comments. Smart entrepreneur he is.

The Baron @ Mar 16th 2009 8:14PM

Seems like the evidence must have been against MS if they settled. Is that due to broken laws, or actual fault of MS?

Phantom @ Mar 16th 2009 8:15PM

I'm sure Multiple sclerosis had nothing to do with this.

Bissy Boy (PSN johnnynumber5) @ Mar 16th 2009 9:21PM

You are probably right. The fact that they were willing to settle instead of fighting it adds credibility to the claim PalTalk or whatever their name is. It's possible they didn't want to pay the legal fees that it would cost to vindicate themselves but it's not like MS is hurting for money. It's likely they did violate the patents because this settlement happened very quickly.

mynk @ Mar 16th 2009 9:49PM

maybe its cuz they were really rich and didnt wanna fight another lawsuit? and maybe lawyers would cost more than the settlement? maybe there was very little money and a threat to counter sue... you never know.

Poisoned Al @ Mar 16th 2009 10:55PM

That or it would be cheaper to just pay them to go away then fight. Personally, If I had the money Microsoft have, I would make it my personal mission to make the patient trolls life a living hell.

You want free money from me, I'd would take every step to RUIN YOUR WORTHLESS, SPONGING LIFE!

*ahem*

Sorry, time for my pills again.

Powaqqatsi @ Mar 16th 2009 11:11PM

They could have easily settled for an amount less than or equal to the costs of a drawn-out court case.

Adam @ Mar 16th 2009 8:23PM

Not necessarily, Baron, M$ prob settled for less than the lawsuit would have costed them in the long run. It's a pretty common and slimy tactic for smaller companies to get a piece of the pie this way.

Some companies will even create patents and wait for others to act on the patent just to raise a lawsuit and collect a settlement.

LameDuck @ Mar 16th 2009 8:30PM

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/funny-pictures-captain-obvious-cat.jpg

meth0dical @ Mar 17th 2009 4:02AM

um if this were to go to trial and if paltalk were to lose, ms could seek retribution for their legal fees. having money doesnt mean you'll pay out to every small fry that sues you just because "it's cheaper in the long run."
ms probably infringed on the patent unknowingly, or maybe even knowingly hoping to get away with it, and got caught. now they have to pay to use the technology.

ps paltalk has been around for a long time, it's not like they're some unknown in the industry

littletim2 @ Mar 16th 2009 8:39PM

Sigh... They settled a patent infringement suit, not a copyright infringement suit.

Copyright != Patent.

http://slashstar.com/blogs/tim/archive/2006/01/02/2286.aspx

BUGz @ Mar 16th 2009 9:19PM

i hope they gave him a special xbox360 that is gonna RROD in 2months with a gold subscription for 3months :)

-for being a patent troll!

why not the LS2LS7? @ Mar 16th 2009 9:45PM

Hmm. Last time this happened, it was with Immersion. And part of the settlement was that MS was essentially to financially back Immersion as they sued other companies (i.e. Sony) and MS would recoup their costs from the proceeds of those lawsuits.

This was not a terribly happy outcome for the gamer community, although MS really made it work to their advantage.

flanker22 @ Mar 16th 2009 9:47PM

considering psn is pretty much like xbox live, i bet paltalk may sue sony as well.

mynk @ Mar 16th 2009 9:51PM

omg. read comment above you. it all makes sense now.

Powaqqatsi @ Mar 16th 2009 11:21PM

money

vidGuy @ Mar 16th 2009 11:34PM

Again, I give you free legal advice: violation of a patent is patent infringement, not copyright infringement. (see: http://www.joystiq.com/2009/03/10/paltalk-suing-microsoft-for-90-million-for-copyright-infringeme/comments/17583740/)

As to the article, this isn't surprising in the least bit. The vast majority of cases (think 95% or more) settle or are dropped by the plaintiff. Usually in a case like this, the plaintiff knows they don't have much of a case and the defendant (Microsoft) will buy them off it for a small fraction of the alleged damages because it is easier than going to court, even if they have a strong case.

Poisoned Al @ Mar 17th 2009 12:02AM

Is my information wrong, or are patent trolls really just an American problem? Here in the UK, I believe you have to have a working prototype and an intent to manufacture before you get a patent.

It seems all you have to do to get a patent in the US, is wipe your arse on a post-it note and hand it in to the patent office. They don't seem too picky what they let though ether, so I'm thinking of patenting the letter Q.

Every time you use the letter Q, you'll owe me 20 bux!

vidGuy @ Mar 17th 2009 12:09AM

It's obviously more complicated than that. Generally, to obtain a US patent you have to show that the patented invention is different than "prior art" products of the same type - it has to meet a multitude of requirements and is analyzed by patent agents and attorneys with hard science backgrounds (engineering, biotechnology, etc) to ensure that the invention is really something "new." However, AFAIK you don't have to have a prototype or intent to manufacture. Thus, patent trolls.

And, as per above, you'd be copyrighting "Q," though it's not sufficiently original to be copyrighted. ;P

Poisoned Al @ Mar 17th 2009 12:28AM

Actually, as soon as I wrote that I thought, "oh, that's copyright law." Heh

Thanks for clearing that up tho. It's still annoying that people who clearly had no intention of researching or developing an idea can pull this bullshit. In my book, if you're too lazy or cack handed to see an idea though, it's not really yours, and you're not owed SHIT for it.

However, work your guts out and your idea is stolen by bullying arseholes like Ford or Hoover, then all the power to ya. Otherwise, stay under your sinking bridge with all the other hobos.