[Via CVG]
[image]
[Via CVG]
Reader Comments (31)
Posted: Mar 16th 2009 7:51PM JoshMilewski said
Ugh, so they still got their money *for doing absolutely nothing*.
Reply
Posted: Mar 16th 2009 8:08PM Saria the Cat said
Sorry but this comment infringes on my "complaint" patent. I'm going to have to see compensation for this.
Reply
Posted: Mar 16th 2009 8:15PM (Unverified) said
I'm sure Multiple sclerosis had nothing to do with this.
Reply
Posted: Mar 16th 2009 9:21PM Johnnynumber5 is powered by cell said
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.
Reply
Posted: Mar 16th 2009 10:55PM PoisonedAl said
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.
Reply
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.
Posted: Mar 16th 2009 8:23PM MrCompletely said
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.
Reply
Some companies will even create patents and wait for others to act on the patent just to raise a lawsuit and collect a settlement.
Posted: Mar 17th 2009 4:02AM meth0dical said
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
Reply
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
Posted: Mar 16th 2009 8:39PM (Unverified) said
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
Reply
Copyright != Patent.
http://slashstar.com/blogs/tim/archive/2006/01/02/2286.aspx
Posted: Mar 16th 2009 9:45PM spin cycle said
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.
Reply
This was not a terribly happy outcome for the gamer community, although MS really made it work to their advantage.
Posted: Mar 16th 2009 9:47PM (Unverified) said
considering psn is pretty much like xbox live, i bet paltalk may sue sony as well.
Reply
Posted: Mar 16th 2009 11:34PM vidguy said
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.
Reply
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.
Posted: Mar 17th 2009 12:02AM PoisonedAl said
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!
Reply
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!
Posted: Mar 17th 2009 12:09AM vidguy said
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
Reply
And, as per above, you'd be copyrighting "Q," though it's not sufficiently original to be copyrighted. ;P
Posted: Mar 17th 2009 12:28AM PoisonedAl said
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.
Reply
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.
Posted: Mar 17th 2009 1:32AM (Unverified) said
You can't patent, trademark, or copyright "Q" in the United States, barring some clear oversight by the USPTO or the copyright office.
Reply
Posted: Mar 17th 2009 1:28AM (Unverified) said
This isn't copyright infringement at all. Paltalk was suing for *patent infringement.*
Not the first time Joystiq goofed on this case.
Reply
Not the first time Joystiq goofed on this case.
Posted: Mar 17th 2009 10:09AM (Unverified) said
Sometimes I'd rather just pay the person. Never touch a Wal-Mart employee, or allow them to touch you...
Reply
Posted: Mar 17th 2009 3:08AM juggalotusmx said
so who's the thief now????????? where's the column lecturing microsoft??? yeah i thought so....
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.
Featured Stories
The most popular posts
in the last 7 days
- Vita 'UMD Passport' won't be offered in US 220 comments
- Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning review: A tempting fate 152 comments
- David Jaffe leaves Eat Sleep Play, layoffs hit developer [Update] 107 comments
- Don't call it a remake: Final Fantasy X is a 'remaster,' to be clear 95 comments
- Battleship movie adapted into FPS by Double Helix 93 comments
