backtop


Print 92 comment(s) - last by HostileEffect.. on Sep 23 at 7:54 PM


Death Knight [Paltalk lawyer] casts [litigation] for xxx hundred million in damages.  (Source: Tenton Hammer)
Paltalk Holdings Inc. is taking on the MMO industry's biggest players in court

In online games, one crucial aspect of gameplay is to synchronize the scene across a wide array of players' computers.  Events like explosions or special effects must be transferred to and played simultaneously on a broad variety of internet connect machines which is not always an easy task.  In 2002, Paltalk Holdings Inc. of Jericho, N.Y. purchased two patents from a company called HearMe.  The patents cover sharing data among many connected computers so that all users see the same digital environment.

Now Paltalk, a reputed patent monger, has taken many of the massively multiplayer online (MMO) gaming industry's biggest players to court in Marshall, Texas, claiming they violate its patents.  Paltalk hand picked the east Texas court for its long history of favoring plaintiffs (patent holders) in lawsuits.  States Christopher Donnelly, a partner at Donnelly Conroy & Gelhaar LLP in Boston, "The eastern district of Texas is considered a plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction."

Paltalk is suing Turbine Inc. of Westwood makers of the Lord of the Rings Online MMORPG, a popular $15 per month entry; Japan’s Sony Corp., maker of the online game Everquest; Activision Blizzard Inc., whose World of Warcraft is the world’s most popular subscription-based online game; NCSoft Corp. of South Korea, maker of the game Guild Wars; and the British firm Jagex Ltd., which produces the free online game Runescape. 

Noticeably absent in the suit are CCP Games, makers of EVE Online; Square Enix makers of the popular Final Fantasy X11; Linden Lab, which produces the popular Second Life game; and GRAVITY Co., Ltd., which produces Ragnarock online, a game popular for its free servers.  It is unclear why Paltalk singled out the companies it did, while ignoring others, which likely use similar technologies.

Paltalk has a strong legal track record.  In 2006 it took Microsoft, the world's largest software maker, to court over technology in Halo.  The case went to a trial in Marshall, Texas, in March.  Mid-trial Microsoft gave in, conceding the validity of Paltalk's clients and paying it a reportedly massive undisclosed licensing fee.

The firm, like others, looks to continue to milk the patent system -- and the U.S. software industry -- for all its worth in the friendly Texas courts.  Last month a Texas court ordered Microsoft to stop selling Microsoft Word within 60 days, as well as paying $200M USD in damages to another patent monger firm.  The ban has been temporarily lifted, but the damages remain, unless Microsoft can win an appeal.



Comments     Threshold


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

MS Word case
By oldscotch on 9/18/2009 10:19:17 AM , Rating: 5
The MS Word patent case was not against a patent monger, i4i sells xml products: http://www.i4i.com/x4o.htm

It's a legit company with a legit interest in its xml authoring; labelling them a patent monger is shoddy at best.




RE: MS Word case
By omnicronx on 9/18/2009 10:55:23 AM , Rating: 4
Shoddy and just plain untrue, they brought similar technology to previous versions of Word.( a full two versions before MS did in 2003). They have been attempting to get MS to license their tech for years, in which they refused so its not like they were sitting back and waiting 10 years before filling. MS probably won't win the appeal on this one, and rightly so..


RE: MS Word case
By 3minence on 9/18/09, Rating: 0
RE: MS Word case
By deegee on 9/18/2009 7:34:43 PM , Rating: 2
i4i never should have been granted their patent though.
It isn't a new invention or technology, it is essentially just xml with the code and data individualized, not exactly the same but somewhat akin to what css does wrt html. That shouldn't be patent-able.
Maybe I should patent a method of storing web pages where the images are maintained in separate .jpg/.gif/.png files from the html, and sue anyone who does the same... oh wait, that's what most every browser cache does... :-/
That's how stupid these types of patents are.


"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki