backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 50 comment(s) - last by richfox305.. on Jun 23 at 5:17 PM

Microsoft asks Immersion to pay up after Sony regains rumble rights

While Immersion may have closed its books on its legal battle with Sony over the patent rights to force feedback controllers, its chapters with Microsoft on the matter are about to be reopened. Microsoft said on Monday that has filed suit against Immersion for contract breach as a result of the Immersion-Sony settlement.

"We entered into a binding licensing agreement with Immersion and are seeking to have that agreement honored," Microsoft Associate General Counsel Steve Aeschbacher said to CNET in a statement. "Microsoft licenses technology both in and out and relies on these agreements to be honored and enforced. Our request to the court is that all companies and industry partners should play by the same rules and that the binding agreement we signed with Immersion be honored."

During 2002 to 2003, Immersion was in legal battles with Microsoft and Sony over its vibrating controllers. While Sony fought and eventually lost the case (and later came to an agreement), Microsoft negotiated a royalty payment program with Immersion. As part of Microsoft’s deal, Immersion will pay Microsoft should a settlement with Sony be reached.

The lawsuit (PDF), as noted by Seattle P-I’s Microsoft blog, details Immersion’s financial commitment:

"In particular, it provides that if Immersion settles the Sony Lawsuit ... for an amount up to $100,000,000, Immersion shall pay Microsoft the sum of $15,000,000. If Immersion settles the Sony Lawsuit for an amount between $100,000,000 and $150,000,000, Immersion shall pay Microsoft an additional amount equal to 25% of the amount of the settlement in excess of $100,000,000. If Immersion Settles the Sony Lawsuit for an amount in excess of $150,000,000, Immersion shall pay Microsoft an additional amount equal to 17.5% of the amount of the settlement in excess of $150,000,000."

Immersion acknowledges its agreement with Microsoft in its Form 10Q filing, but deflects any form of payment obligations:

"The Company has determined that the conclusion of its litigation with Sony Computer Entertainment does not trigger any payment obligations under its Microsoft agreements. However, in a letter sent to the Company dated May 1, 2007, Microsoft disputed the Company's position and stated that it believes the Company owes Microsoft at least $27.5 million. If Microsoft brings a lawsuit to further dispute the Company's position, the Company intends to oppose Microsoft's claims and vigorously defend the Company's position."

Immersion’s contract with Microsoft outlines a payment should a settlement be reached with Sony, which Immersion believes that it hasn’t as it terms the recent deal as a business agreement. In its annual report, Immersion did spell out to its shareholders that Microsoft could pursue legal action as a result of its agreement with Sony:

"The Company believes that it is not obligated under its agreements with Microsoft to make any payment to Microsoft relating to the conclusion of the patent litigation with Sony Computer Entertainment. However, it is uncertain that Microsoft will accept the Company's position or that the Company will ultimately prevail with its position... In the event that Microsoft were to prevail, the Company would be obligated to pay Microsoft a minimum of $15.0 million for any amounts received from Sony up to $100.0 million, plus 25% of any amounts over $100.0 million and up to $150.0 million and 17.5% of any amounts over $150.0 million."

Immersion has yet to publically respond to the Microsoft lawsuit.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

With Microsoft on this one
By FITCamaro on 6/19/2007 7:17:37 AM , Rating: 5
If Immersion signed the deal then they're obligated to pay up. Say that Microsoft is money hungry all you want but the Sony vs. Immersion case has been settled (for $97.2M in a quick search I found) so by the terms of the agreement, they owe Microsoft $15M.

Now why Microsoft says its $27M I don't know. But they definitely owe money to Microsoft. They even admit the contract exists. So why are they fighting it. They just got $97M dollars for doing nothing. They'll still have $82M afterwards. Plus the twenty something million they're getting as royalties for the next few years from Sony. Plus the money that Microsoft paid them.

In a side note, does Immersion actually make any products? Or are they just another company that managed to get some patents and sues anyone they can that develops something that uses it. Until this case I've never heard of them and force feedback has been around for years. Are they suing Logitech as well? Does Logitech pay royalties to them? How about Nintendo? The N64 had a rumble pack.




RE: With Microsoft on this one
By CyborgTMT on 6/19/2007 7:46:33 AM , Rating: 2
Yes Immersion makes products. Their force feedback system is used in many things beyond gaming such as medical, industrial, and robotic industries. Immersion has been around since 1993 and has been working in the gaming segment since 1995.

http://www.immersion.com/gaming/video_pc/platforms...


RE: With Microsoft on this one
By AvidDailyTechie on 6/19/2007 9:28:04 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry, but I missed the page that listed Immersion products. I see they license things out, but as far as PC products go, I can't find a product.

Ok, so they license the tech. out... I guess that's a step above sitting on patents... isn't it?


RE: With Microsoft on this one
By Microsapper on 6/20/07, Rating: -1
RE: With Microsoft on this one
By ZeeStorm on 6/19/07, Rating: 0
RE: With Microsoft on this one
By GreenEnvt on 6/19/2007 8:28:07 AM , Rating: 3
Thats not the issue here, MS didn't lose a patent case, they settled/came to an agreement.

Immersion sued MS for patent infringment.
They came to an agreement where MS would pay royalties for the ability to use the technology. As part of the agreement, MS stated that if Immersion did also settle with Sony, then MS wanted money.


RE: With Microsoft on this one
By ZeeStorm on 6/19/2007 9:23:59 AM , Rating: 2
Ahh ok. That still sounds weird, that they would be required to pay MS money if they settled with Sony. Thanks for the clarification :) Just hope I wasn't the only one confused o.O


RE: With Microsoft on this one
By 9nails on 6/19/2007 10:13:06 AM , Rating: 2
It absolutly sounds weird and I'm also confused. My only speculation is that Immerson sued Sony for an amount less than what the full license fee would cost. I'm guessing the sued for a practical amount that could legally be argued and possibly win. Microsoft essentially is saying that if the court rules and Sony can pay less than a full license fee for the same technology then so should Mocrosoft also have that right, therefore should realize a rebate from Immerson.

That's just my opinion...


RE: With Microsoft on this one
By LogicallyGenius on 6/19/07, Rating: -1
RE: With Microsoft on this one
By mars777 on 6/20/2007 6:11:27 PM , Rating: 2
Every corporation wants this.


RE: With Microsoft on this one
By Proteusza on 6/19/2007 8:20:56 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
So why are they fighting it. They just got $97M dollars for doing nothing. They'll still have $82M afterwards.


Why? Because they are greedy, thats why. Its quite simply, they want to dodge their contract with Microsoft.

They want to keep the $27 million for themselves. However, I dont that is an option in this case, they owe MS the money, they must pay up.

Its not like MS really needs the money, but they negotiated that contract pretty well.


By psychobriggsy on 6/19/2007 8:27:19 AM , Rating: 5
But the lawsuit wasn't settled, the article says: "if Immersion settles the Sony Lawsuit"

Sony fought the lawsuit, lost, stopped using the technology, then came to a post-lawsuit agreement. Now it ain't black and white and it's worthwhile for Microsoft to explore whether they can redefine "settle the lawsuit" as "win the lawsuit, then later license separately", or claim that Immersion acted in bad faith because Sony didn't come to a settlement during the lawsuit but waited until afterwards.

Microsoft should have asked for a portion of revenue of future licensing fees relating to the technology - like Apple put into the agreement with Creative last year that they settled for $100m.


RE: With Microsoft on this one
By borismkv on 6/19/2007 2:45:46 PM , Rating: 3
There's an obvious problem here. How exactly does Immersion owe MS $27M, when the Sony deal resulted in less than $100M? Did the MS accounting team fail at math? The contract spells out a $15M payment for amounts up to $100M. Also, Immersion didn't get $97M for doing nothing. They patented a type of technology. The court determined that Sony infringed upon the terms of that patent, and MS settled out of court (Either knowing they had infringed or feeling that a payout was worth the trouble of lawsuit, but since Sony lost the original case they probably knew they'd screwed up), with the little caveat to try and keep Sony out of the vibrating controller market.

Now, the interesting thing is that Sony *lost* the original court case and were barred from using Immersion's technology in the future. In that case, Immersion received a $90.7M judgment for past infringement and a court ordered injunction preventing Sony from shipping any devices that broke the patent. From there, Sony went to the appeals stage of the game, trying to convince a higher court that they were in the right.

The big problem is that the contract doesn't state what it means by "Settle." Yes, this is very important. Can you settle a lawsuit when a court has already determined that one party is already in the wrong? Or does a settlement involve the defendant ever giving money voluntarily? That's a pretty big distinction that should have been spelled out in the contract. The fact of the matter is that since it apparently wasn't spelled out the way it should have been, both sides can argue that they are right and then it's up to the court to decide based on precedent or good judgment. Ultimately, this is a *failure* for either Microsoft's or Immersions contract lawyers.


RE: With Microsoft on this one
By Murst on 6/20/2007 5:16:49 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft will most likely argue that the settlement was not only the 97.5 million, but it also included license fees which were an additional sum. So, in fact, the settlement will be above the 100 million mark. (Actually, pretty close to the sum MS is requesting).


RE: With Microsoft on this one
By Mitch101 on 6/19/2007 1:07:42 PM , Rating: 2
You know a lawyer somewhere is saying we can get Microsoft to settle for half the amount and someone is buying into it otherwise they would most likely settle. This looks pretty cut and dry to me.

This is just another case of lawyers telling clients they can do whatever they want especially where there is money to be made whether they win or lose. Lawyers still get paid.

In the real world I would like to see cases be brought against law firms and judges pass some sort of a frivilous lawsuit act of some sort that basically says if you start enough frivilous lawsuits you lose your liscense. Since attorneys have nothing to really lose its a free ride to filing more lawsuits that are un-necessary clogging up the court systems on real issues.

I know I am a bit off track now but I hope Microsoft makes an example out of this company and attorneys involved who is obviously in the greed zone.


Ahhh...
By Cunthor666 on 6/19/2007 7:06:02 AM , Rating: 1
Another day, and another patient case...




RE: Ahhh...
By Cunthor666 on 6/19/2007 7:09:26 AM , Rating: 1
And yes, it's meant to say "patent" case... No edit button...