| (Pages: 1, 2) | |
They're screwed :( | |
"Reviewing" of technology aside it sounds like a pretty weak case. I'll be curious to see how it all pans out in the end. | |
They're probably gonna get out of it in some odd, odd way... | |
People are so retarded sometimes... | |
As a PS3 owner, I would like to see Microsoft get screwed out of some hard cash. It does sound like a pretty weak case to me, but 90million is still a HUGE amount of cash, even Microsoft has to be careful with the whole "global recession". | |
Microsoft gets sued all the time, if they have to pay then its nothing of their 100 trillion dollar enterprise | |
Yea this isn't going to go through at all. All they have to do is say "Here we go, this is the company we went with, this is how they work, this is how HearMe wanted to work, this is how it doesnt match up. Thanks for your time have a gold plated sucker." | |
If Microsoft loses this somehow, it won't get whatever this company is called 90 million dollars. It sounds like they went in, saw how much halo made, then asked for 10%. If Microsoft had actually contracted the use of the technology, it probably would have only cost them 20-30k. But since Microsoft is using it's own type of voice communications tech, I doubt very much this is going to get this company a dime. I think the company is going under and is trying to get this cash to keep afloat. | |
If only microsoft did make more than the Earth's gdp.... | |
Patent campers make me sick. I actually doubt this is anything MS actually did, it looks like all the other ones this past year. | |
Really? Just because you own a PS3, you want another game company to lose a crap-load of money? I just don't understand a fanboy's mind. I'm a PC gamer, and own a Wii60, but I still don't want the PS3 to burn. Sure, I take amussement in their original BS, and how everything turned out, but I wouldn't want a game company screwed, especially in a patent camping case like this. I can't imagine they're gonna win, and nor should they. I'm sure the failing company id hoping MS will settle out of court. I say MS should nail them to the wall. Even sue to recoup the legal fees of a BS suit. If nothing else, it'd be a good lesson for future campers. | |
Read with your eyes open. Anyhoo, it really does sound like an extremely weak case. Even if it DID go through, & MS DID lose $90 Mil, I don't think we'd really be bothered, would we? However, it's the principle of the matter, which looks like it's bound to fail. On another note, is it just me or has there been little really interesting news lately? | |
Aaaaaaaaannnd Microsoft has been sued for the...1024,463th time, seriously though, Microsoft gets sued as often as it rains. | |
Sounds to me like someone's just trying to get some easy money to stay in buisness. Also sounds like they're kinda reaching in their case - "They went with another company that does what we do better....sue them..." | |
You mean like the patent Microsoft is suing TomTom for. A vehicle computer system has a housing sized to be mounted in a vehicle dashboard or other appropriate location. A computer is mounted within the housing and executes an open platform, multi-tasking operating system. The computer runs multiple applications on the operating system, including both vehicle-related applications (e.g., vehicle security application, vehicle diagnostics application, communications application, etc.) and non-vehicle-related applications (e.g., entertainment application, word processing, etc.). The applications may be supplied by the vehicle manufacturer and/or by the vehicle user. | |
it's kinda late to do that when halo's been out for about a year and a half now, isn't it. but then again, it's never too late to sue someone. hopefully microsoft can keep it together | |
Intriguing. The relevant improvement over prior art there would be the integration of vehicle functions into something with an OS and computer functions and the part relating to a special case designed for auto mount, otherwise it's just a laptop with a cigarette adapter or GPS/security system, not both. I assume the case is the part they're mainly going after TomTom for. In any case I hadn't heard about that one yet. Does MS have something cooking in that area? What mainly annoys me in patent cases are dog-in-the manger cases when a company casts its bread on the waters (never really working toward use of the patents or making their systems workable) and hopes to be vague enough that someone will slip up while making money. What I meant by patent-campers were the run of similar cases in which a number of companies held patents they had never exercised and came out of the woodwork: the controller patent case against Sony and Nintendo, the suit that Virtual Worlds brought against NCSoft for essentially the idea of an MMO, Gibson's lawsuit against Activision, and others. | |
I've always wondered, why do some reports put some words in square brackets? | |
Funny that you should choose that exact number =P Indeed it seems like they are just looking for some easy (?) money to keep the boat floating. I kinda hope it's going do have at least some kind of bad effect on the suers for this. Because this is fairly ridicioulus. No matter how fun it would be to have seen Microsoft having stepped in the salad, this is just not resonable. | |
Because that word has been inserted into the quote, to make sure it makes sense out of the context of the rest of what was said. | |
So basically, Microsoft talked to these guys once. Then they made alot of money. CLEARLY THEY OWE THEM MILLIONS! I bet this won't last a week, much less two. | |
yeah. i own a ps3 too much i wouldn't want to see microsoft sell out, they do make some really good games, the only reason i have a ps3 is from the free internet if not i would have a 360 | |
The main case against TomTom is that they use FAT to read flash .The other patents ,like the one I've before mentioned, are just thrown in to waste time and effort on the other side to dispute them. | |
Well, say if the person being quoted had said this; "They're suing us for $90 million. Their technology may be worth $200,000, but certainly not $90 million." and the editor of the piece only wanted to quote the part that told how much the technology is not worth. He would take out the rest, leaving "certainly not $90 million." but of course this makes no sense out of context. So the editor would put in square brackets a word to put the sentence into context. I think that's the reason.
But really PS3 owners need Microsoft, and the other way round. Competition makes the two companies want to compete for lowest prices, and better games. | |
Oh no! We should all send money to Microsoft during this hard time! No seriously the other company just wants a share (cause it sucks), common, your not getting that much $ out of such a big comp | |
it hope microsoft looses, if they lose this, they are screwed, just buy a mac now so you can be prepared... | |
You're kidding, right? | |
Perhaps you should read the line RIGHT before your bolded line. The part where he states that he wanted Microsoft to lose because he's a PS3 owner... Yeah, that one... I know you're suppossed to blink, but when reading, you should pick up where you left off. See, I did keep my eyes open... WHEEE! Now, my whole point (To avoid further missread confussions) is that regardless of his two points of view, he still thought it'd be good to a degree. My question, once again, is how does that make a gamer a gamer? To want the faliure of a game company. As much as I may dislike Sony's system (For my own reasons), I want them to do well, because only one hardcore system is a bad thing. Think things aren't great with one system? Imagine if they didn't have competition to help keep them straight(er?). I'm glad I had to point out your mistake and take extra time to explain further what was already obvious and stated, but next time, maybe I could just spend that time not doing that, and watching the latest Zero Punctuation (New every Wednesday, only on the Escapist!). | |
MPlayer fucking sucked. It was slow as hell, and you could never find a match in Close Combat with it. Actually, now that I think about it and Halo 3 Matchmaking... | |
oh noes, they stole my idea of voice chat in game. | |
mmmm U make a good point. But then again, what I was trying to say is that that's just natural talk among a buncha buds. In other words, CHILL DUDE! ur being too serious :P | |
But if I do that, then who will be the voice of the anti-monkeys?! Certainly not me... No, I must stay serious to prevent the Monkeys from destroying our civilization... What? I'm not crazy. | |
I'm surprised they didn't settle out of court. | |
Well in this economy I guess they have got to try to make a buck any way they can. | |
| (Pages: 1, 2) | |
Extra Punctuation
MovieBob: Intermission
Experienced Points
First Person
Exploding Barrels
Miracle of Sound: Encore
Special Attack
Loading Time
Backchat
Drinking Games
Escape to the Movies
Escapecraft
Escapist News Wrap - Premium
Escapist Podcast
Feed Dump
GinxTV
Jimquisition
LoadingReadyRun
Mahalo
Meatbag and Co
Media Sandwich
Miracle of Sound
No Right Answer
Pro-Gamer Gauntlet
Reviews
Space Janitors
Tales from the Table
The Big Picture
The Escapist Presents
The Retro Show
Trailers
Unskippable
Zero Punctuation
Max Payne 3 Review
Company of Heroes 2
XCOM Enemy Unknown
Black Ops 2
Diablo 3 Review
TERA Review
Firefall Beta Preview
Starhawk Review
Critical Miss
Name Game
Microsoft Sued, Again
PalTalk Holdings is seeking $90 million from Microsoft in a lawsuit that claims the Xbox 360 console and Halo infringe upon two of its patents relating to multiplayer online games.
The suit claims that both the console and the hit game make unauthorized use of technology developed by MPath, "a pioneer in the online video industry in the area of real-time, multiplayer online games," PalTalk's attorney told the jury. "Microsoft had many meetings with MPath regarding their technology, and Microsoft found the technology to be very valuable."
Microsoft admits that it did "review" the MPath technology but elected not to use it, saying it was for older dial-up methods of communication between computers. "The patents don't cover the way the Halo games work," Microsoft's lawyer said. "Microsoft decided to go in another direction and work with another company. Obviously, this was upsetting to PalTalk and its employees."
Furthermore, he added, the technology in question is "certainly not [worth] $90 million," claiming that PalTalk bought the patents for less than $200,000.
MPath Interactive was the parent of MPlayer, an online multiplayer gaming service that was popular in the late 90s. Among its features was integrated voice chat, which proved so popular that it was ultimately spun off as HearMe, a general VoIP service. MPath actually changed its name to HearMe and in 2000 sold the unprofitable MPlayer business to GameSpy. In 2001, MPlayer was shut down in favor of GameSpy Arcade.
But HearMe didn't fare much better, going out of business itself in 2000. PalTalk acquired the rights to its technology later that year and, in 2007, relaunched HearMe as a VoIP and videoconferencing service.
The trial is expected to last two weeks.
Source: Seattle Tech Report, via Gamasutra
Permalink