I am geussing Paltalk to go bankrupt maybe next year to to the high cost of lawers, such a small company against those big company's.

Well one thing is for sure they do have balls to even consider doing this, but it's very stupid never the less.

Originally posted by streea

Hey, has anyone copyrighted "dining out in an established facility" yet? Because you could make a killing there...

Ahahaha

Ok so it may just be me but I thought that statement was hilarious

Well the main problem here is copyright and patten.  This could drag on for a while.

While Blizzard and Sony has the resources to probably squash this guy like a bug. The other small fires like Turbine don't.  Those small fries are already in finacial trouble  and this could put the cap on them.

This kind of lawsuit is so stupid, its just going to eat up more resources and cash that could be doing other things. I hate this kind of thing becasue no matter how you look at it, it cost the tax payers money to try a case like this, and everybody looses.

What most people seem to have missed here is that the date given only refers to the date he purchased the patient, not when the said software was designed.

If MS folded I'd say this guy had them by the short and curlies, and it's likely others will fold as well or burn more money then they need to throwing it at their legal teams.

companies like this are one of the few circumstances where terrorism is ok.  2 shots in the head of everyone at Petalk or whatever it's called

Originally posted by Antarious

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

Yes I'm guessing all Turbine has to do is point to Asheron's Call which released in 99 and then paltalk won't have a leg to stand on. Same with Sony for EQ, I don't know when those other companies made their first MMOs. Unless Blizzard gets to use it's non MMO multiplayer games as proof.

 

 

They don't really have to point to any specific MMO...

 

Any semi-intellegent company sued over something like this is going to contact Randy Farmer or someone like him.  Who actually have "prior art" dating back to 1985... from a little project made for Lucas Arts called Habitat.

 

He already had an article up about the idiots that filed Suit againt NCSoft.

 

Back "in the day" they didn't patent these technologies because no one thought they were really worth anything.  Farmer actually discussies this directly in many articles he's written.  I think it would piss me off pretty heavily if someone came along decade later and claimed to have invented "my work".

 

One of the main issues he pointed out with the US Legal system is there is no "down" side to filing a lawsuit.  In other countries if you bring something like this to court and lose you are held liable for the cost incurred by the person/people or company you filed suit on.

 

What they really need to do in the US is to have something like that.  If you can't cover the liability the lawfirm who represented you should be held liable.  Then they should permanently disbar everyone working there. (as well as take them out behind the building and put two in their head but I'm just a bit extreme there I guess).

 

Crap like this clogs up the systems and wastes millions of dollars .. for just that... crap.

actually we do have rules against frivilous lawsuits  that can involve holding not only the plaintiff but the attorney who filed the lawsuit liable.  They are just not enforced enough.

reminds me of that guy who sued that chick for wasting his time....i mean...really talk about losing faith in America

Originally posted by CnOath

What most people seem to have missed here is that the date given only refers to the date he purchased the patient, not when the said software was designed.

If MS folded I'd say this guy had them by the short and curlies, and it's likely others will fold as well or burn more money then they need to throwing it at their legal teams.

yep the guy that had that before the firm had gold in his hand 

if it date far enough 

but its still not gona be a done deal,in these thing they could be in court for years 

lot of stuff can happen in 3 years

This News bothers me because first , its stupid and a waste of court time and second it makes me want to defend SOE....I just can't believe that there are Asshats larger then My good friends at SOE. Live and learn and Love that Jestor!

I personally see "technologies for sharing data among many connected computers so that all users see the same digital environment" as pretty ambiguous... All it does is indicate that people do not have free will and cannot create something of their own their own way despite the fact that this would have popped up in the thoughts of many people.

This does not indicate the coding required to file the lawsuit... All it says is that the person that holds the patent holds the patent for "technologies", which does not mean one singular technology, but at the same time does not indicate it owns the rights to every single one either... In fact, if it said that they had the patent for """every""" "technologies for sharing data among many connected computers so that all users see the same digital environment", then I would think it was pretty damn stupid... I mean, it's like saying that you have the patent to the human thought processes and their free will.

These types of patents should not exist.

Originally posted by Expatriate

PalTalk may have offered to settle with Microsoft for $1 just to be able to say they won.

This is like the Linux patent troll.  He got a few settlements, but ended up losing in the long run, so let's hope PalTalk has the same fate, and everyone definitely needs to boycott PalTalk.

In the 90's, the patent office adapted a policy of patenting everything and letting the courts sort it out rather than doing the job they were created for.

The worse thing they did is to let Monsanto patent all the 10,000+ seeds in the government seed bank.

Sorry for going a little off topic but I just finished watching that "The World According to Monsanto" documentary which is pretty sick stuff.

If you haven't seen it and want to know the whole story of Monsanto and their patents, GMOs and their goal of seed (& food?) monopoly watch it. ( www.youtube.com/watch )

 I am curious to how they are going to claim this against SOE for EQ when EQ came out BEFORE they bought the patent I am no patent lawyer but if the release dates of EQ and UO pre-date even the patent date does it not nullify the suit?

I just did some research the patents they are doing this under is first one was dated oct 1998 and other was may 2001.  EQ was released in 1999 UO in 1998 Meridian 59 was 1996 and if I understand things (like I said I am not a patent lawyer or expert) but I did some research and here is what I have found.

"In the United States, a patent may still be able to be applied for under these facts. An inventor has up to 1 year after the first public disclosure, sale, or offer for sale of the invention to file a patent application (assuming the inventor(s) can show they conceived of the invention before that first disclosure). If an application is not on file after a year, the inventors are barred from obtaining a patent in the United States. Most other countries require absolute novelty, meaning a patent application must be on file before the first public disclosure of the invention, so assuming no application was on file when the advertisement was made, foreign patents are almost certainly not possible.

Implicit in the question is whether someone can "take" the idea and patent it. In the United States, only the inventors of a patentable idea may apply for a patent on the idea. So, if someone were to have just happened upon the trade show and saw the product, that person would not be able to patent it themselves, as they did not actually make the invention. As a practical matter, however, it is difficult for the USPTO to discover that kind of behavior. Even assuming a patent issued under those circumstances, it would be invalid based on the earlier disclosure and naming incorrect inventors."

http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-someone-patent-something-that-has-already-been-86450.html

So I would say fight it even though MS settled does not mean it is a valid lawsuit or patent.

Software patents are bad for innovation. Copyright protection is more than sufficient.

Yeah... taking on all the biggest names in the industry at once... that's smart.