By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - Microsoft Sued Over Xbox Live

bdbdbd on 03 July 2009

I read the patent, but didn't go too deep into it. But judging by the looks of it, the patent looks like an actual invention about transmitting voice and game data simultanously in (P2P) network, rather than molesting holes in previous patents.

ssj12 said:






PullusPardus said:
do not EVER sue microsoft, they will do ANYTHING to not give you the money.

including taking an even bigger fine (M$ hates the EU, lol)




Indeed it does. And the release of Vista around here is a proof of it.

Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

Around the Network
bdbdbd on 03 July 2009
Mistershine said:






Bitmap Frogs said:







nightsurge said:
^Some balance between the two, then, is needed.

I can see where my idea would be bad for those who cannot afford to make their own prototype right away, but at the same time there has to be some sort of better protection so people can't just patent every idea in the world just to sue others. Some way of deciding whether the patent is genuine? I can't really think of how they would do this......

The whole patent process is flawed because you can use a general patent and so long as your item is not "different" enough from an existing patent, you're screwed.

 


Yeah, shrug.


That's one hell of a pandora's box.




Proof of concept. If you can't afford to make it then you should at least be able to give proof that you have the technical ability/knowledge to be able make it. If the tech doesn't exist to implement your ideas then tough shit, you can't patent something you can't do. Sorry badgenome.




If we take this specific patent in question in the topic, the tech did exist and it was executable back then.

In general, however, you're pretty much correct.

Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

Mistershine on 03 July 2009
bdbdbd said:
Mistershine said:






Bitmap Frogs said:







nightsurge said:
^Some balance between the two, then, is needed.

I can see where my idea would be bad for those who cannot afford to make their own prototype right away, but at the same time there has to be some sort of better protection so people can't just patent every idea in the world just to sue others. Some way of deciding whether the patent is genuine? I can't really think of how they would do this......

The whole patent process is flawed because you can use a general patent and so long as your item is not "different" enough from an existing patent, you're screwed.

 


Yeah, shrug.


That's one hell of a pandora's box.


Proof of concept. If you can't afford to make it then you should at least be able to give proof that you have the technical ability/knowledge to be able make it. If the tech doesn't exist to implement your ideas then tough shit, you can't patent something you can't do. Sorry badgenome.



If we take this specific patent in question in the topic, the tech did exist and it was executable back then.

In general, however, you're pretty much correct.

Did they have the savvy to make it work though? I've no doubt that the tech to make a car powered by chocolate cake exists, but do I have the engineering skill to make it work?



richardhutnik on 03 July 2009
badgenome said:
Rad. Tomorrow I'm going to file a patent for "teleporting from one location to another while masturbating furiously" so that when someone clears that technological hurdle, I can sue the shit out of them.

Go ahead and do it, if you have the skill and time to create patents.  That is how the patent system works.



NJ5 on 03 July 2009
richardhutnik said:
badgenome said:
Rad. Tomorrow I'm going to file a patent for "teleporting from one location to another while masturbating furiously" so that when someone clears that technological hurdle, I can sue the shit out of them.

Go ahead and do it, if you have the skill and time to create patents.  That is how the patent system works.

Have you ever read a patent? It must be the most boring job in the world to read or write those (excluding assembly line work). The way that everything is laid out in minute detail in repetitive paragraphs which get nowhere fast...

The last time I tried to read a patent I was hospitalized due to suicidal tendencies.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Around the Network
bdbdbd on 03 July 2009
Mistershine said:






bdbdbd said:







Mistershine said:



















Bitmap Frogs said:




















nightsurge said:
^Some balance between the two, then, is needed.

I can see where my idea would be bad for those who cannot afford to make their own prototype right away, but at the same time there has to be some sort of better protection so people can't just patent every idea in the world just to sue others. Some way of deciding whether the patent is genuine? I can't really think of how they would do this......

The whole patent process is flawed because you can use a general patent and so long as your item is not "different" enough from an existing patent, you're screwed.



 




Yeah, shrug.




That's one hell of a pandora's box.







Proof of concept. If you can't afford to make it then you should at least be able to give proof that you have the technical ability/knowledge to be able make it. If the tech doesn't exist to implement your ideas then tough shit, you can't patent something you can't do. Sorry badgenome.






If we take this specific patent in question in the topic, the tech did exist and it was executable back then.

In general, however, you're pretty much correct.

Did they have the savvy to make it work though? I've no doubt that the tech to make a car powered by chocolate cake exists, but do I have the engineering skill to make it work?




That's what it looks like. It's a method because it's not specifically related to the tech used in the example.

To simplify it, the patent was about using simultanous dual-frequency transmission, one for the game data and another for voice in (P2P) online multiplayer.

Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

bdbdbd on 03 July 2009
NJ5 said:

Have you ever read a patent? It must be the most boring job in the world to read or write those (excluding assembly line work). The way that everything is laid out in minute detail in repetitive paragraphs which get nowhere fast...


The last time I tried to read a patent I was hospitalized due to suicidal tendencies.


 




Well, working in patent office may cause you wanting to create all kinds of crazy theories that everybody laugh at.

Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

D_Boy on 03 July 2009

I believe Albert Einstein worked in a patent office...and then one day some man came in with his Theory of Relativity. The man was never seen again...but Albert Einstein is now famous for "his" Theory of Relativity.



xax on 03 July 2009

haha thats kinda funny, but kinda sucks for those two with microsoft




^click the license to level it up! Please, and thanks in advance!

=D

 

bdbdbd on 03 July 2009
D_Boy said:
I believe Albert Einstein worked in a patent office...and then one day some man came in with his Theory of Relativity. The man was never seen again...but Albert Einstein is now famous for "his" Theory of Relativity.



It was said, that when Einstein first published the theory of relativeness in 1905, it would have included Mileva Marics (his wife) name aswell, but the name would've been removed from later revisions.

Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.