Microsoft Sued over Xbox Live

fiorenza writes "Ars Technica is reporting that Paltalk has sued Microsoft in the Eastern District of Texas over its Xbox Live service. The suit alleges that Microsoft's Xbox Live infringes on two of its patents, and that the company has suffered damages 'in at least the tens of millions of dollars,' which raises obvious questions about why they waited four years to file the suit (Xbox Live was launched in late 2002)." From the article: "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. After five pages of this, Paltalk simply claims that "gameplay on the Xbox or Xbox 360 through the Xbox Live online gaming service infringes the Paltalk patents," then goes on to ask for a jury trial. Presumably, actual information will be released once the trial begins."

Comments

actual information?

[gEvil (beta)]

Presumably, actual information will be released once the trial begins.

I don't know if I'd make that assumption anymore. (see SCO v. IBM)

Give with one hand, take with the other

[legoburner]

Even Microsoft must be getting fed up with the instability caused by the patent system in the US. Do they benefit enough from having such a large number of patents that they would not put pressure on the system for change, or is everything building up to one big patent-lawsuit blowout with IBM/Sun/Every other major computer player (or does that work more like cold war style M.A.D.)?

Re:Give with one hand, take with the other

[cybermancer]

Actually a cold war is fairly accurate. Many patent rich companies use the patents they hold, that they know others are infringine upon as a defense to keep other patent rich companies from suing them.

Anytime a patent infringement lawsuit comes in they will examine the business of the one suing them to see which patents they can counter-sue on. Their goal is to counter sue for enough damages to exceed the original complaint.

Most companies in the computer industry know not to sue IBM because they hold so many patents that everyone is most likely infringing on. Occasionally some small company does attempt to sue them and IBM makes an example of them.

Now,

[joe 155]

I wondered how I felt about this, and I've decided this is a very good thing. I dislike MS as much as the next Linux user* but I also dislike patents. So what I hope will happen, and what I assume will happen, is that MS will be sued, but will win and these stupid patents will be invalidated. The patent trolls lose their patents and MS loses a lot of money on lawyers. yay!

*It is said "BSD is for those who love UNIX, Linux is for those who hate M$"... which I like so much I'll bring up now

"Microsoft Sued over Xbox Live"...

[RealGrouchy]

This just goes to show you how useful technology is becoming for real-life scenarios.

MS sued over Xbox live? Tremendous progress! I mean, you don't see many law suits taking place over AIM, TTY, or even IRC!

- RG>

Re:Is this really such a big deal for Microsoft?

[cybereal]

You seem to have missed about half the point here. You are correct about the costs being insignificant to the XBOX project for Microsoft. Well, not entirely insignificant, but certainly nowhere near untenable.

However, the real point of this article is about the patent trolls. If you look at it as a case as MS having to decide if paying for trials or paying the desired settlement (which is bound to be less than what is asked in the trial itself) then you'll see that MS may be better off just paying these guys without a trial. This is a serious problem with the legal system.

You see, if Microsoft decided to take this to court, and they won, then a precedent would be set for similar cases in the future. This precedent would serve the smaller companies that can't really afford to pay out settlements. But instead, MS will probably just settle and give into this extortion and future cases just like this will continue to come about with no new ammunition against them.

It's unfortunate but, our legal system relies heavily on precedents and if none are set, well, no progress is ever made.

Re:Patent apparently about internet audioconferenc

[EEBaum]

While the program is running, a Paltalk representative arrives at your house, kicks you in the shin, deposits a dog turd onto your carpet, and spits in your mouth. And for those with a sixth sense, he imagines kittens being thrown into a wood chipper.

Re:Patent apparently about internet audioconferenc

[edremy]

How the fuck do I enjoy voice and video with all of my senses?

I'm not totally clear on that but I'm sure the porn industry will lead the way.

Microsoft Sued over Xbox Live?

[Evro]

That's an odd way to sue someone, I'd think they'd do it in a court of law.

Does /. not know how to read anymore?

[Janthkin]

From TFA: "The two patents at issue are the '523 patent and the '686 patent, both of which involve server-group messaging."

I read every comment that was posted prior to starting to write this. Lots of babble about "Oh, Battle.net predates this" and "it must be about voice over Live". Read, people!

The '523 patent, from a cursory reading of the one independent claim, looks to involve transmissions from a collection of host computers (think individual Xboxen), back to a central server, where the data is aggregated, and then returned to one of the host computers. Interesting bit is that it's dealing with a unicast network and payloads, which doesn't sound like packet-based transmission. See the long, boring words of the patent for more details.

The '686 is an extremely narrow-looking patent, addressing the creation of a "group" of computers for messaging purposes. See Claim 1 - there are 6 ennumerated elements, each with subconditions, and a final non-ennumerated element; infringement would have to touch each and every one of these elements.