Slashdot Mirror


Yahoo! Sues Xfire For Patent Infringement

CheesyPeteza writes "GameSpot is reporting that the popular game messenger client Xfire is being sued by Yahoo for patent infringement. The patent was originally granted to two Yahoo employees who developed GameProwler for Yahoo Messenger. It describes a system which "allows users to use a game server in connection with a messenger server to permit 'buddies' to know when other 'buddies' are playing games online, and easily join such games." One of these employees then left Yahoo to work for Xfire. Xfire denies infringing on Yahoo's patent, but with the costs estimated at $2 million to defend this cas, will the startup company Xfire be able to stand up to the Yahoo giant?"

12 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. Gamespy is guilty too by X0563511 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, then Gamespy is guilty. Buddy Tracker and Chat system. Integrated (if you are subscribed)

    So is Steam. Buddy system and Chat system. (integrated)

    So are half-a-dozen other serverbrowsers that have a buddy list.

    What a stupid patent! This is why patents should not be allowed to exist in software.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    1. Re:Gamespy is guilty too by tambo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What a stupid patent! This is why patents should not be allowed to exist in software.

      I agree with your first statement.

      As for the second: By the same token, no one should be driving, owning a gun, or drinking alcohol. And half (give or take 0.5%) of America shouldn't be allowed to vote in presidential elections.

      Keep in mind that here at Slashdot, you're only likely to hear about the bad patents. That's like formulating an opinion on the safety of driving by reading the police blotter.

      - David Stein

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    2. Re:Gamespy is guilty too by tambo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Are you for having all drugs legalised then?

      Interesting that you followd this up with, "in the real world things aren't black and white" - I think that's an apropos response to this statement.

      Must this be a choice of extremes? Patent no software, or throw open the floodgates and allow all of them? Is it impossible to find a middle ground where we allow patents for new and useful software, and not allow patents for the rest (including this one?)

      As for the "endless supply" of bad patents: The "endless" stream that Slashdot posts, maybe 20 a year, is a tiny percentage of the number of software patents issued per year.

      - David Stein

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
  2. Shove this patent up your @#$ by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Insightful
    allows users to use a game server in connection with a messenger server to permit 'buddies' to know when other 'buddies' are playing games online, and easily join such games

    Oh you mean, kind of like when you join IRC and you say "hey John, you're there? how about we go on Playsite for a nice game of gin eh?"

    I was doing that (or some version of that, before Playsite was around) for at least a decade. Which leads to the following questions:

    Does is look like prior art or what?

    Since I'm not particularly bright for having "invented" that method, and everybody and their dogs has been doing it forever because it's freaking obvious, does this patent look like yet another something-that-I-may-sue-someone-over-in-the-futur e patent application?

    Shouldn't they replace the monkeys at the USPTO by humans at some point?

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Shove this patent up your @#$ by maglor_83 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Shouldn't they replace the monkeys at the USPTO by humans at some point?

      Maybe they should replace the humans with monkeys.

  3. Yahoo! just took over the All-Seeing Eye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Well, they acquired it in September, but they just recently made it into spyware and adware (even for registered users - until they stirred up a shitstorm in the process).

    How did Yahoo! get so much money, anyway? WTF do they do? What have they ever done, or made? I think there's an untold story as it relates to Yahoo!'s rise to success, and I strongly suspect it has to do with an intimate relationship with spammers.

  4. Re:Yes by RonnyJ · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This might be a dupe, but the other article only recieved 23 comments since being posted yesterday, probably since it wasn't posted as a headline on the main page (and I for one didn't see it). To me, it does seem like a topic that should be on the front page.

    At least now, a lot more people will notice it, and offer more opinions/information on the matter than in the previous posting.

  5. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    At least now, a lot more people will notice it, and offer more opinions/information on the matter than in the previous posting.

    There'll be a lot more posts, certainly, but I'm not sure whether 85 "Dupe! Dupe!" posts qualify as "on the matter".

  6. Re:I'm gonna say what I said last time. by westlake · · Score: 4, Insightful
    What do you think?

    I think there is nothing in this world more unlikely than a successful gamer-geek boycott launched from Slashdot.
    It's like trying to herd cats.

  7. Defensive patenting by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let this be a lesson to anyone who thinks big companies will only use patents "defensively". I guess defending the company from competition is part of defensive patent strategy.

  8. Re:Steam by obsid1an · · Score: 2, Insightful
    As far as I know XBOX live has its own buddy list that allows people to voice chat and join each others games. Does Yahoo want to go after MS too?

    That may be true, but who would you rather sue. Microsoft or Xfire?

  9. Re:Sue the USPTO by Sebby · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Has anyone considered a lawsuit against the USPTO for issuing frivolous patents, hence necessitating enormous legal costs for the patent "infringers"?


    I've been saying this here quite a lot, as I don't see the fairness of the monkeys at the PTO creating a mess that someone else has to pay to clean up (or simply "pay for").

    I wish a group of companies that were shutdown, sued out of existence, or whatever would sue the patent office after patents to were used to shut these companies down was proved invalid.

    Then the PTO might finally realize software patents are going to be a liability to the PTO.

    But there is only stumbling block: apparently there's an idiotic law that says you can't sue the goverment without the government's approval (as if the government 'could do not wrong!'), so we're left with the monkeys stamping everything that comes across their desks.

    Maybe I should pay my taxes with bananas this year....

    --

    AC comments get piped to /dev/null