All the big MMO's getting sued.

[brekk]

DailyTech - Makers of WoW, LOTR Online, Guild Wars, and Everquest Sued by Patent Firm

technologies for sharing data among many connected computers so that all users see the same digital environment. Paltalk claims that the data-sharing technologies used in games made by Turbine and the other companies violate those patents.

So they basically patented a program sync'ing between multiple users... That is the most bullshit broad patent I can think of.

Does a web browser break this patent whenever you refresh and get the newest information from a website the same updated information everyone else gets?

[Tyen]

For the publicity.

[Vorph]

Marshall, TX should be nuked from orbit.

[AladainAF]

Originally Posted by Vorph

Marshall, TX should be nuked from orbit.

It's the only way to be sure.

[Araxen]

Software patents should be illegal.

[Aulirophile]

The interesting thing about this suit, if it is the same one, is that the patent already held up in court in a suit against Microsoft. Meaning the company almost certainly feels like they have a good chance of winning and just throwing high-priced delay tactics at it probably won't work, if Microsoft can't drown you in legal bullshit no one can.

[Herroick]

Originally Posted by Aulirophile

The interesting thing about this suit, if it is the same one, is that the patent already held up in court in a suit against Microsoft.

I don't think it's talking about the same patent (just the same patent owner).

I don't know that much about patent law, but I do know you can't patent something that's already in widespread use. Technology for sharing virtual environments has been around for a pretty long time, so this patent would have to be pretty old to hold up in any fair court.

[Cad]

If anybody finds the patent # online in any of the news articles, post it, I'd like to read the patent. I did a quick google search and didn't find anything. Paltalk is being represented by Susman Godfrey though, they are pretty good.

[Hachima]

Yeah I wonder what the actual patent covers too. It seems too easy to show there was prior work that did stuff similar depending on when the patent was made. 1995 for 3D mmo type games, and years before that for online MUD games.

[Tyen]

Originally Posted by Cad

If anybody finds the patent # online

PatFT » Page 1 of 1

[Cad]

Originally Posted by Hachima

Yeah I wonder what the actual patent covers too. It seems too easy to show there was prior work that did stuff similar depending on when the patent was made. 1995 for 3D mmo type games, and years before that for online MUD games.

"Similar" isn't enough. I won't go into a big patent lecture here but suffice to say that if there were really obvious prior art it would be brought out by the patent examiner, and if the examiner missed it, it will be brought out by the defendants in the infringement suit. You guys armchair lawyering deciding what is and isn't prior art is mental masturbation of the worst kind.

[Cad]

Originally Posted by Tyen

PatFT » Page 1 of 1

I'm well aware of where to read the patent, I need the patent # in the suit at issue to find the full text.

[ToeMissile]

Man, a friend of mine is an IP lawyer and she works for a firm that does some work for SOE. I'm sure she won't spill anything though, professionalism and all that

[Tyen]

Originally Posted by Cad

I'm well aware of where to read the patent, I need the patent # in the suit at issue to find the full text.

In 2002, Paltalk purchased two patents from a company called HearMe, covering technologies for sharing data among many connected computers so that all users see the same digital environment.

United States Patent: 7206311

United States Patent: 6981223

[ToeMissile]

Can't find anything more than RFCExpress - PalTalk Holdings, Inc. v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. et al seems everything else is locked up.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

PalTalk Holdings, Inc. v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. et al

Lawsuit Details
RFC Case Number: P-P09-274S
Court Case Number: 2:09-cv-00274
File Date: Monday, September 14, 2009
Plaintiff: PalTalk Holdings, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: S. Calvin Capshaw, Elizabeth L. DeRieux, D. Jeffrey Rambin of Capshaw DeRieux LLP
Max L. Tribble Jr., Brooke A.M. Taylor, Kalpana Srinivasan of Susman Godfrey LLP
Michael F. Heim, Douglas R. Wilson of Heim Payne & Chorush LLP
T. John Ward Jr. of Law Office of T. John Ward Jr. PC
Otis W. Carroll Jr. of Ireland Carroll & Kelley PC
Robert C. Bunt, Robert M. Parker of Parker & Bunt PC
Defendant: Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc.
Sony Online Entertainment LLC
Sony Corporation
Sony Corporation of America
Activision Blizzard, Inc.
Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.
NCSoft Corporation
Jagex Limited
Turbine, Inc.
Cause: 35:271 Patent Infringement
Court: Texas Eastern District Court
Judge: David Folsom
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Charles Everingham
Notes: Related case in same court: 2:06-cv-00367-DF

--Ahh, my google-fu is week.

Here's the text in the section of law cited

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS

USC 35 271

Infringement of patent.

Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority
makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the
United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention
during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.

Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an
infringer.

Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into
the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture,
combination, or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in
practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the
invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted
for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or
commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall
be liable as a contributory infringer.

No patent owner otherwise entitled to relief for infringement or
contributory infringement of a patent shall be denied relief or deemed
guilty of misuse or illegal extension of the patent right by reason of
his having done one or more of the following: (1) derived revenue from
acts which if performed by another without his consent would constitute
contributory infringement of the patent; (2) licensed or authorized
another to perform acts which if performed without his consent would
constitute contributory infringement of the patent; (3) sought to
enforce his patent rights against infringement or contributory
infringement; (4) refused to license or use any rights to the patent; or
(5) conditioned the license of any rights to the patent or the sale of
the patented product on the acquisition of a license to rights in
another patent or purchase of a separate product, unless, in view of the
circumstances, the patent owner has market power in the relevant market
for the patent or patented product on which the license or sale is
conditioned.

It shall not be an act of infringement to make, use, offer to sell, or
sell within the United States or import into the United States a
patented invention (other than a new animal drug or veterinary
biological product (as those terms are used in the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act and the Act of March 4, 1913) which is primarily
manufactured using recombinant DNA, recombinant RNA, hybridoma
technology, or other processes involving site specific genetic
manipulation techniques) solely for uses reasonably related to the
development and submission of information under a Federal law which
regulates the manufacture, use, or sale of drugs or veterinary
biological products.

It shall be an act of infringement to submit -

an application under section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act or described in section 505(b)(2) of such Act for a drug
claimed in a patent or the use of which is claimed in a patent, or

an application under section 512 of such Act or under the Act of March
4, 1913 (21 U.S.C. 151 - 158) for a drug or veterinary biological
product which is not primarily manufactured using recombinant DNA,
recombinant RNA, hybridoma technology, or other processes involving site
specific genetic manipulation techniques and which is claimed in a
patent or the use of which is claimed in a patent, if the purpose of
such submission is to obtain approval under such Act to engage in the
commercial manufacture, use, or sale of a drug or veterinary biological
product claimed in a patent or the use of which is claimed in a patent
before the expiration of such patent.

In any action for patent infringement brought under this section, no
injunctive or other relief may be granted which would prohibit the
making, using, offering to sell, or selling within the United States or
importing into the United States of a patented invention under paragraph
(1).

For an act of infringement described in paragraph (2)-

the court shall order the effective date of any approval of the drug or
veterinary biological product involved in the infringement to be a date
which is not earlier than the date of the expiration of the patent which
has been infringed,

injunctive relief may be granted against an infringer to prevent the
commercial manufacture, use, offer to sell, or sale within the United
States or importation into the United States of an approved drug or
veterinary biological product, and

damages or other monetary relief may be awarded against an infringer
only if there has been commercial manufacture, use, offer to sell, or
sale within the United States or importation into the United States of
an approved drug or veterinary biological product.

The remedies prescribed by subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) are the only
remedies which may be granted by a court for an act of infringement
described in paragraph (2), except that a court may award attorney fees
under section 285.

Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from
the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a
patented invention, where such components are uncombined in whole or in
part, in such manner as to actively induce the combination of such
components outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe
the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall
be liable as an infringer.

Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from
the United States any component of a patented invention that is
especially made or especially adapted for use in the invention and not a
staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial
noninfringing use, where such component is uncombined in whole or in
part, knowing that such component is so made or adapted and intending
that such component will be combined outside of the United States in a
manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred
within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer.

Whoever without authority imports into the United States or offers to
sell, sells, or uses within the United States a product which is made by
a process patented in the United States shall be liable as an infringer,
if the importation, offer to sell, sale, or use of the product occurs
during the term of such process patent. In an action for infringement of
a process patent, no remedy may be granted for infringement on account
of the noncommercial use or retail sale of a product unless there is no
adequate remedy under this title for infringement on account of the
importation or other use, offer to sell, or sale of that product. A
product which is made by a patented process will, for purposes of this
title, not be considered to be so made after -

it is materially changed by subsequent processes; or

it becomes a trivial and nonessential component of another product.

As used in this section, the term "whoever" includes any State, any
instrumentality of a State, any officer or employee of a State or
instrumentality of a State acting in his official capacity. Any State,
and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to
the provisions of this title in the same manner and to the same extent
as any nongovernmental entity.

As used in this section, an "offer for sale" or an "offer to sell" by a
person other than the patentee or any assignee of the patentee, is that
in which the sale will occur before the expiration of the term of the
patent.

(Subsection (e) added Sept. 24, 1984, Public Law 98-417, sec. 202, 98
Stat. 1603.)

(Subsection (f) added Nov. 8, 1984, Public Law 98-622, sec. 101(a), 98
Stat. 3383.)

(Subsection (g) added Aug. 23, 1988, Public Law 100-418, sec. 9003, 102
Stat. 1564.)

(Subsection (e) amended Nov. 16, 1988, Public Law 100-670, sec. 201(i),
102 Stat. 3988.)

(Subsection (d) amended Nov. 19, 1988, Public Law 100-703, sec. 201, 102
Stat. 4676.)

(Subsection (h) added Oct. 28, 1992, Public Law 102-560, sec. 2(a)(1),
106 Stat. 4230.)

(Subsections (a), (c), (e), and (g) amended Dec. 8, 1994, Public Law
103-465, sec. 533(a), 108 Stat. 4988.)

(Subsection (i) added Dec. 8, 1994, Public Law 103-465, sec. 533(a), 108
Stat. 4988.)