Microsoft Settles 90mil Dollar Suit

[Virtuoso]

The company PalTalk has settled its patent dispute (http://kotaku.com/5169532/microsoft-settles-its-90-million-halo-suit) with Microsoft over Halo's multiplayer component, netting, well, somewhere between 200k and 90mil.

Someone at sue-happy company PalTalk just got paid. Microsoft has settled with the company that filed suit against the Xbox 360 maker over patent infringement claims related to Halo multiplayer. Make it rain, PalTalk!

PalTalk hit Microsoft with a suit over a pair of patents in 2006, claiming that the multiplayer tech that powered some Xbox Live multiplayer games violated technology patents for "ways to control interactive applications over multiple computers," according to Bloomberg. Those patents were purchased from MPath Interactive Inc. by PalTalk for a sum of $200,000.

Exactly what denomination bill PalTalk patent holders will be making it rain with is unknown. Microsoft and PalTalk have not disclosed the terms of the settlement, putting the figure likely somewhere between $200,000 and $90,000,000. Microsoft spokesfolk would only say the agreement was "amicable."

[Zecon]

That's right MS, open up that floodgate.

[Johan]

That's right MS, open up that floodgate.

Sometimes, depending on the actual amount, it can be cheaper to just settle. Sad, but financially/fiscally true.

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

This just means we will see Halo 6 in the near future. Gotta get that money back somehow.

[Rirath]

Cheaper, yes, but it's just encouraging this type of asshattery.

It's not like MS can't afford to see this through.

[Rafer]

Sometimes, depending on the actual amount, it can be cheaper to just settle. Sad, but financially/fiscally true.

I remember Sony lost millions fighting that patent over rumble controllers with Immersion. Microsoft settled early on with Immersion and ended up paying a lot less.

[Johan]

Cheaper, yes, but it's just encouraging this type of asshattery.

I wouldn't blame MS for that, myself. I'd blame tort and patent laws...

[baz]

I need to get myself in on one of these suing scams.

[biosc1]

Well, technically, we don't know if Microsoft infringed on their patent or not. There could very well be net code used that was patented by this company.

Here is the patent (technically 2 patents, but they are the same patent)

582 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=5,822,523.PN.&OS=PN/5,822,523&RS=PN/5,822,523)
In its most simple implementation, the method consists of the group server receiving a message from a host containing a destination group address. Using the group address, the group messaging server then selects a message group which lists all of the host members of the group which are the targets of messages to the group. The group messaging server then forwards the message to each of the target hosts. In an interactive application, many messages will be arriving at the group server close to one another in time. Rather than simply forward each message to its targeted hosts, the group messaging server aggregates the contents of each of messages received during a specified time period and then sends an aggregated message to the targeted hosts. The time period can be defined in a number of ways. This method reduces the message traffic between hosts in a networked interactive application and contributes to reducing the latency in the communications between the hosts.

To be fair, it was filed back in 1996. Now, I do want to mention that I think that this idea would have occurred naturally. Unfortunately, PalTalk bought the patent and then sued people over it, which I think is wrong. You shouldn't be able to buy someone else's idea and then suddenly enforce it.

[Reanimated]

Patent law has needed to be overhauled for decades.

[ONI5]

This is bad. Who will they aim for next?

[RMan]

To be fair, it was filed back in 1996. Now, I do want to mention that I think that this idea would have occurred naturally. Unfortunately, PalTalk bought the patent and then sued people over it, which I think is wrong. You shouldn't be able to buy someone else's idea and then suddenly enforce it.
Honestly, I don't see a difference between this, and buying someone else's idea and selling it. The problem is definitely that the patent was issued in the first place. I've yet to see a software patent I thought was a good idea, and if I did, no way does it balance things out. Software patents are stupid and counterproductive for everyone but lawyers.