Network now...NEWS
Xbox Live Patent Infringement Trial Underway
Microsoft is currently defending itself in an Xbox Live patent infringement case.
In 1994, Peter Hochstein and Jeffrey Tenenbaum patented a technology that allowed users to communicate live while playing the same game in separate locations. Specifically, the patent in question is for an “apparatus and method for electrically connecting remotely located videogames,” reports Patent Arcade.
Eight years later Microsoft released Xbox Live, while Sony launched an online gaming service for PS2.
In the suit - originally filed against the hardware makers in August 2004 - the plaintiffs alleged that both systems’ voice and data communications technology infringed on their patent. They sought a permanent injunction and damages.
Sony settled its suit in April 2009, leaving Microsoft as the sole remaining defendant.
Contact Us / About Us / Advertise With Us / BeltwayBlips / TechBlips / MassiveBlips / GamerBlips / FAQ
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
My great-great-granddaddy put a patent in 1884 for "a screen on which things move." We're just waiting for more companies to go into the business before suing the entire world.
Surely the patent must have been more than “apparatus and method for electrically connecting remotely located videogames,” I don't get it. Did they submit circuit designs and protocols for the "apparatus" or was it simply that? Fair enough if MS and Sony ripped off a proprietary system design, but to be able to sue on the basis that Sony and MS have implemented systems which connect gamers to a network and allow them to chat is F'in ridiculous.
apparatus and method for electrically connecting remotely located videogames
Dude, that's called a telephone. But interesting to hear Sony settled. I guess that is their no balls strategy.
Balls are a last-gen feature.
I'm sure Sony settled since they didn't want to have another Sixaxis/Dual Shock problem. It's not a "no balls" strategy, but more of we're running out of money strategy.
Man I'm sick of these lawsuits file for "general" software/technology patents, and the patent holders never even successfully implemented the idea. If the brilliant people in the game industry who have helped push game development technology forward had the mindset of these patent hyenas/vultures, games would be nowhere near where they are today.
And that is why the patent system in the US needs to be completely done away with. There's a long-time debate that copyrights are sufficient and I think I tend to lean in that direction. Either way the USPTO has asked for help in stopping BS tricks like this but there are no legal ramifications for using submarine patents so this garbage will continue until something changes.
I'm all for patents, but there needs to be some finalized design of on actual product prior to approval. I also think there should a window after approval to get it there to retain the patent.
It's ridiculous how you can patent an idea of something, without knowing how it could be done.
On a lighter note, I myself have patent# 5,467,293-1A pending on a Mega Man Buster Beam. I'll tell you how it works out
The concept has to be protected before a finalized design is settled upon, because the people who came up with the idea then have to work with industrial designers and manufacturers to develop prototypes and, ultimately, the finished product. If the overall concept isn't patented, any number of people in the manufacturing process (not to mention people involved in peripheral ways, e.g. shipping, telecom) could then take the idea and run with it, achieving a finished product sooner simply because they are better capitalized. Your assertion that only a finalized product design should be patentable will always favor only the richest, most well-established companies.
The system already typically favors the richest or at least those with enough money to keep frivolous cases like this in court. One real issue is being able to produce some form of proof that you are actively working to implement your design.
Even in the case you have given as an example, that is a physical patent, not software. And I'm firmly against software patents of any kind.
I can't believe I'm actually rooting for Microsoft in a patent trial.
Their best bet is to convince the judge that the drunken ramblings of Halo-playing college students doesn't qualify as communication.
Yes, but what about Alien Front Online for the Dreamcast with its real-time voice chat? When was that? 2001? Did these jokers sue SEGA?
Then again, I think it would be best if no only going after Sony and Microsoft, but they should also go after the Internet itself.