what does BT (British Telecom) and ValvE have in common? a patents infringement claim ...

[zMeul]

source: https://search.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/12085257

via: http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2016/08/31/bt-is-suing-valve

 

Quote

This is a patent infringement action brought by BT against Valve based on Valve’s continued willful infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,578,079 (entitled “Communications Node for Providing Network Based Information Service”) (the “Gittins” Patent), U.S. Patent No. 6,334,142 (entitled “Method For Automatic And Periodic Requests For Messages To An E-mail Server From The Client ”) (the “Newton” Patent), U.S. Patent No. 6,694,375 (entitled “Communications Network And Method Having Accessible Directory Of User Profile Data”) (the “Beddus” Patent), and U.S. Patent No. 7,167,142 (entitled “Multi-user Display System”) (the “Buckley” Patent) (collectively, the “Patents-In-Suit”).

 

US of A, the land where everything is possible ...

 

“that originates from multiple subscription services and delivering it through a single portal where a customer may access content for which it has access rights”

what that ^ sounds like? it does sound like STEAM, doesn't it; but it also sounds like Netflix, Amazon or any other on-line services

 

“method for delivering structured messages comprised of information and data parts to an intended audience in a reliable and predictable manner”

every other (on-line) messaging service

 

“multi-user display system and method for controlling a communal display that includes at least two independent workstations and an interface server for connection to a data network”

Twitch, YouTube, FaceBook + Blizzard = love

 

apparently, BT has also sued Twitch and YouTube 

[Syntaxvgm]

this is pure mental retardation 

[patrickjp93]

6 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

this is pure mental retardation 

No, it's someone with a smart, highly-applicable idea getting a patent and not getting properly paid for use of it.

[Syntaxvgm]

1 minute ago, patrickjp93 said:

No, it's someone with a smart, highly-applicable idea getting a patent and not getting properly paid for use of it.

the ability to do this not the ones who do it. 

 

"A court in texas" is becoming the legal version of "a florida man"

[Citadelen]

*patiently waits for Corbyn to nationalise BT*

[AresKrieger]

4 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

No, it's someone with a smart, highly-applicable idea getting a patent and not getting properly paid for use of it.

Patents are not suppose to be vague like this, and have to be "non-obvious" otherwise they are invalid, in general software patents are going to become a thing of the past anyway since they have been grossly abused.

[patrickjp93]

27 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

Patents are not suppose to be vague like this, and have to be "non-obvious" otherwise they are invalid, in general software patents are going to become a thing of the past anyway since they have been grossly abused.

It's completely obvious, but it's also generalizable.

[dalekphalm]

41 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

It's completely obvious, but it's also generalizable.

The problem is that "that originates from multiple subscription services and delivering it through a single portal where a customer may access content for which it has access rights" is way too fucking vague to be legit.

 

You can't patent a single portal where a customer may access content for which it has access rights. That's literally every subscription or service based website in existence.

 

Well, I guess I should say, you SHOULDN'T be able to patent that, because clearly BT already has.

 

If there is some specific technology, piece of code, or proprietary communications protocol that Valve has ripped off, sure BT, sue them. But this? This is the pinnacle of patent trolling. This is just as bad - if not worse - than patenting "rounded edges" on a smartphone.

[Uzukami]

I hope BT wins and gets at least £30billion from these patents.

 

Then I can finally have gb internet.

 

Who am I kidding they'd probably spend it on getting all the premiship football rights.....

[patrickjp93]

14 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

The problem is that "that originates from multiple subscription services and delivering it through a single portal where a customer may access content for which it has access rights" is way too fucking vague to be legit.

 

You can't patent a single portal where a customer may access content for which it has access rights. That's literally every subscription or service based website in existence.

 

Well, I guess I should say, you SHOULDN'T be able to patent that, because clearly BT already has.

 

If there is some specific technology, piece of code, or proprietary communications protocol that Valve has ripped off, sure BT, sue them. But this? This is the pinnacle of patent trolling. This is just as bad - if not worse - than patenting "rounded edges" on a smartphone.

Says you. Just because it is general does not mean it is vague. It's quite specific, but it's highly applicable.

 

No, because this specifies multiple different services.

[laminutederire]

42 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

Says you. Just because it is general does not mean it is vague. It's quite specific, but it's highly applicable.

 

No, because this specifies multiple different services.

It's highly applicable, yes, but it wasn't an application, therefore not a patent. At least that's how patents are filed nowadays.

[ThinkWithPortals]

Slightly off topic: why do I keep saying people formatting it "ValvE"? Why the captial E?

 

Anyway, how can they claim to have patented delivering multiple services through a single user portal? Doesn't that apply to a hell of a lot of services?

[zMeul]

2 minutes ago, ThinkWithPortals said:

Slightly off topic: why do I keep saying people formatting it "ValvE"? Why the captial E?

[ThinkWithPortals]

3 minutes ago, zMeul said:

 

Then it should be "VALVE" since every character in their logo is captialised.

[zMeul]

12 minutes ago, ThinkWithPortals said:

Then it should be "VALVE" since every character in their logo is captialised.

except for the VALV^E

since I cannot use superscript in the title, I write it like that

[Misanthrope]

On 8/31/2016 at 8:10 AM, patrickjp93 said:

No, it's someone with a smart, highly-applicable idea getting a patent and not getting properly paid for use of it.

The patent being granted is mental retardation though. Patent trolls and abusers are just a symptom of the disease. 

[patrickjp93]

7 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

The patent being granted is mental retardation though. Patent trolls and abusers are just a symptom of the disease. 

How so? It was specific, clear, and had never been done before. Just be glad no one ever patented quick sort.

[Syntaxvgm]

6 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

The patent being granted is mental retardation though. Patent trolls and abusers are just a symptom of the disease. 

too add to that, patents like this aren't being used to protect intellectual property, or allow a company to cultivate profits from being the first to produce something using a method unique to them, they're being used to make broad sweeping claims on things that are literally just concepts.  If you tried to patent a screw in this way, "a method of securing a material to another material using something that is not a nail or adhesive" would not fucking fly. But the equivalent happens with electronis, people staking claim on obvious advancements or things, or things already existing like dialog choice in games- EA has a broad fucking patent for a UI for this

https://www.google.com/patents/US20070226648

they literally patent putting dialog choices in a circle, but to my knowledge haven't tired applying this in any way. 

The intent here in these cases of patent trolling is not to protect intellectual property, R&D, or unique technology that these companies pioneer, it's to file something broad and vaguely as possible for it to be accepted, and to later apply it to everything that either already existed or will have existed inevitably when the technology caught up. It's the equivalent of posting FIRST on topic then trying to destroy the life of everyone else who posted, even if they posted before you, not thinking to claim first, or in this case maybe patent something so broad an obvious. 

[Misanthrope]

8 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

How so? It was specific, clear, and had never been done before. Just be glad no one ever patented quick sort.

It's far too broad to be granted I don't think it's specific enough. 

[Thaldor]

30 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

How so? It was specific, clear, and had never been done before. Just be glad no one ever patented quick sort.

Also (few years back) Apples patent of "rectangular object with rounded corners" was very specific?

Really the US should thighten up their patent laws. It just Fing stupid how there companies can pantent things that are so vague that anything can be it. And what's even stupider is that those companies don't even need to use the patent on anything else than milk money from other companies because they have somehow infriged these absurd and vague patents.

[Stadin6]

software patents are dumb. end of story

[dalekphalm]

2 hours ago, Stadin6 said:

software patents are dumb. end of story

Hell this isn't even a software patent. That would be more specific. This is just vague as hell ideas that are the common sense evolution of existing systems.

 

I would also not be surprised if all or most of these patents get thrown out due to Prior Art.

[patrickjp93]

7 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

It's far too broad to be granted I don't think it's specific enough. 

Well patent offices around the world disagree with you. It was very specific for its time. Now, we can all agree tech patents need to have earlier sunsets in a more agile world, but that doesn't change the fact that is a specific patent. It's just incredibly useful.

 

6 hours ago, Thaldor said:

Also (few years back) Apples patent of "rectangular object with rounded corners" was very specific?

Really the US should thighten up their patent laws. It just Fing stupid how there companies can pantent things that are so vague that anything can be it. And what's even stupider is that those companies don't even need to use the patent on anything else than milk money from other companies because they have somehow infriged these absurd and vague patents.

That one was ridiculous, yes.

 

You do realize this same patent is held in the EU and China as well, right? At the time it was made, few people understood the implications. That doesn't make it non-specific.

 

6 hours ago, Stadin6 said:

software patents are dumb. end of story

You spend years architecting an algorithm and see if you'd like to not secure it and sell it. Every high speed trading algorithm is patented. They're not stupid. Someone had to reason it out and engineer it, just like physical objects.

[Misanthrope]

4 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

Well patent offices around the world disagree with you. It was very specific for its time. Now, we can all agree tech patents need to have earlier sunsets in a more agile world, but that doesn't change the fact that is a specific patent. It's just incredibly useful.

I realize. My concern is overall more broad than any one single case as I maintain that the entire system is balanced in favor of the copyright holder far too much. Even if that sounds counter intuitive, the benefits of holding a patent are far greater than needed to the point that it defeats the purpose of being an incentive to invention and progress and becomes a legal tool for law firms.

[patrickjp93]

7 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

I realize. My concern is overall more broad than any one single case as I maintain that the entire system is balanced in favor of the copyright holder far too much. Even if that sounds counter intuitive, the benefits of holding a patent are far greater than needed to the point that it defeats the purpose of being an incentive to invention and progress and becomes a legal tool for law firms.

I do agree patent trolling should be made illegal. Unless the holding company/firm owns/represents a manufacturer, they shouldn't be able to file patent infringement claims.