290°

Microsoft Triumphs In Multiplayer Gaming Patent Battle

"Hochstein and Tenenbaum sued both Sony and Microsoft for patent infringement in 2004, claiming that both companies employed methods similar to the ones described in their patent to allow two players to communicate while playing a video game in two different places."

ironwolf5033d ago

So Sony chickened and settled. I wonder how their lawyers will explain that one to the board and stockholders.

kneon5033d ago

Depends how much it cost them, sometimes it's cheaper to pay than to fight it out and win. Corporate lawyers are expensive.

-LUKE_SKYWALKER-5033d ago

Yeah but since MS won the company that was suing them now have to pay MS legal expenses.

DaCajun5032d ago

Wouldn't have these problems if the patent process actually worked correctly like stop patenting ideas, only actual working products should be patented. Some of these leaches out there look to see what might be in the horizon and patent an idea hoping some big Corporation will invent something similar then wait to see it become a success. Then they go around filing lawsuits. Same leaches all the time.

kneon5032d ago

@-LUKE_SKYWALKER-

In most of the world yes that would be the case, but in most of the US the loser doesn't necessarily have to pay the winners court costs. If they did then there would be far fewer frivolous lawsuits.

nickjkl5032d ago

idk dac

if i had an idea that i could make the most advanced system possible just not the funds to make it mainstream

should i not have the ability to patent it

gamingdroid5032d ago (Edited 5032d ago )

It is costly, but far less than settling. The reason for settling is the drawn out process and the risk of loosing. If you loose you tend to be out far more money than settling. Thus, settling makes it go away, and the loss accounted for up front.

Businesses are averse to risk.

@ironwolf:

Sony can just explain it the same way they did, when ironically MS and Sony got sued by Immersion for the rumble. MS settle, then later got a cut of the Sony-Immersion lawsuit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Then later there were more lawsuits between Immersion and MS. Not sure what the outcome was.

Personally, I wish the government would do something about these screwed up lawsuits. Heck, I have to carry all sorts of insurance just to protect myself. I can't even go to the doctor or have people over without fear of lawsuit/bankruptcy. Albeit this is different than patents, yet the issue still remains.

@-LUKE_SKYWALKER-

Kneon is correct, in the US the loosing party isn't automatically liable for the cost. The original intention was to allow the common man to fight big corporations without fear of major repercussions, unfortunately in the last two decades, it has become an acceptable trend in our society to frivolously sue you.

With the cost of a single stamp, a lawyer in the US can bankrupt any individual without any proof of wrongdoing!

It doesn't mean MS didn't get paid court costs as they can ask for it, and the judge can grant it, but it is not automatic by default.

SITH5032d ago (Edited 5032d ago )

It is not cheaper to pay if you win! You receive lawyer and court cost for winning. It depends on state and or federal cases though.

There are three cases where the losing side generally may be required to pay the winner’s legal fees. This depends on the state if it’s not a federal issue: 

Family law matters, challenges to a will or trust or certain real estate disputes. These are certain types of cases where some state law requires the loser to pay the winner’s attorney’s fees.
If a contract specifically states that the losing side pays the winning side’s legal fees in a breach of contract suit.
Cases that involves violations of state or federal laws, where the law itself requires the loser to pay the other side’s legal fees. These cases are lawsuits against a government entity or a business or organization for violation of privacy, safety or anti-discrimination laws. This is the case in certain civil rights laws and environmental protection laws.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 5032d ago
trikster405033d ago

Corporations don't settle because they are chicken. They do it because they can settle for a price a fraction of the lawsuit. Imagine if the judge hadn't dismissed the case. MS would have had to pay the patent holders millions of dollars.

FYI, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Microsoft settled, Sony didn't. Microsoft "chickened" as you would call it and spent little in doing so. Sony fought it and pretty much lost, costing over $120 million. So, settling is "chicken" huh?

newleaf5033d ago

They didn't pretty much lose, they lost period. All that says is that Microsoft know when to quit and when to stick it out...SONY don't.

Karlnag35033d ago

Oh yeah, newleaf?! Well, my Dad's bigger than your Dad so nyeeeeeueuuuh.

Pathetic.

MysticStrummer5033d ago

@Newleaf - I'm just glad Sony knows when to release a console so that the hardware doesn't fail at an unprecedented rate. It's a shame MS did so well this gen by not knowing how to do that. How either company does in a lawsuit of this kind is none of my concern, but the reliability of any purchased hardware is always a concern, except in the US apparently.

Vega755033d ago

good thing MS know when to undate their security for their network servers and not run with outdated security and lose millions of people personal info. see what i did there

sikbeta5033d ago

You people can bash to each other all day, point is, MS had to actually fight for it because XGC is a key feature for XBL service if not the more important, Sony really didn't push this situation any further because there was no case in it, as you can see, they didn't developed the PS3 with XGC in mind and the idea was to deliver it later by shrinking the OS memory, Sony didn't implemented XGC at the time this lawsuit came out, why fight a battle for a feature they didn't actually bring to PSN in first place?

IdleLeeSiuLung5032d ago

@MysticStrummer - Too bad Sony don't know how to secure their network and allowed one of the biggest security breaches in the history of the internet. It's a shame Sony is doing so well not knowing how to secure customer information.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 5032d ago
Captain Tuttle5032d ago

Good post but for god's sake it's "losing", not "loosing"

SuperKing5033d ago

Some of the software patents I've seen are borderline insanity.

-LUKE_SKYWALKER-5033d ago

Yeah but can you imagine a world with out them.

Samsung could make a game console exactly like the PS3 with Blu Rey and all and put SAMSUNG on it and put it out in the market.

The world would be full of clones and noboby would want to think of something unique instead the will just still the idea form someone else.

Soldierone5033d ago

So who here wants to go think of random ideas for everything, patent them all, but do nothing with it? Then when a company that is actually capable of doing it we can just sue them and get a few bucks.....

That's all I have seen lately with these stories. When people go to court like this, they should have an "intent to use patent" in order to win or justify a case, or have filed it within a year or two. The first one will force the company or person to bring a prototype, blue-prints, and business related items showing they have the funding and capability to do it, along with an explanation on why they sat on it forever.

rdgneoz35033d ago

Yah, if the company / person actually has the intent to create whats in the patent / a a prototype for it, then I can see them winning if the similarities are obvious. But if they're just sitting back and waiting for someone to create something, make millions from it, and then try to sue them over, then they deserve nothing.

sikbeta5033d ago

It's called "Patent Trolling" you can patent whatever the hell you want and wait for some company to actually deliver that thing you patented, then sue them for "using and developing based on your idea", hordes of lawyers will try to win for you IF that patented thing can print cash or if the company is big enough to spend millions... unbelievable, but true...

v1c1ous5033d ago

this is good, it means our multiplayer games aren't in jeapordy

Bigpappy5033d ago

Thanks M$. This helps everyone in the industry, including those who would like to see M$ die and go away. Just shows why hating the compitition is really dumb.

Show all comments (28)
210°

Activision Forces Adverts into Call of Duty Black Ops 6 and Warzone Loadouts

With the launch of Call of Duty Season 4, Activision quietly put adverts inside loadouts for Black Ops 6 and Warzone, sparking a backlash in the process.

13d ago
13d ago
lukasmain13d ago

Putting Ads in a pay-to-play Premium title? Well done Microsoft. Well done /s This is really scummy.

jjb198113d ago

This game will never change because these sweatlords love buying up all the skins and bundles that become obsolete the following year. They're the ones perpetuating Activision's greed.

VenomUK12d ago

If Microsoft introduces adverts into its other games I hope it can do them without disrupting the immersion of the game world. So for example in the new Fable game it would look out of place if there was a billboard advertising Cadillacs.

A far better way to do it would be to have a wizard conjure a 'dream cloud' in front of your character and then in the cloud you can see the Cadillac car and see the text with price and availability and hear a booming sales voice promoting the car. That would work so well as it wouldn't be a billboard and completely, 100%, fit in with your character's adventuring in Albion. Doesn't that sound so much better?!

crazyCoconuts12d ago

@venom, or how about our of 100 farts in Albion, 1 of them has a Cadillac pop out

VenomUK12d ago

@crazyCoconuts That’s undeniably off-beat - but it could really work!

13d ago
Show all comments (19)
410°

Xbox's first-party handheld has been sidelined

Xbox's handheld ambitions continue unabated, but the focus is shifting towards improving Windows 11 for third-party handhelds — for now. The Xbox Series X 'Melrose' successor is safe, with development continuing at full pace.

Read Full Story >>
windowscentral.com
15d ago
15d ago
15d ago
shadowT15d ago

Is there really a market for handhelds next to mobile?

Vits15d ago

If they run the same games as the main home console, then yeah, sure.
But if they need specially tailored games just for them? Probably not, unless there isn't a home console for comparison (see Switch).

RaidenBlack14d ago (Edited 14d ago )

I am kinda low-key happy this happened.
Dont want another Series S situation (games to be designed from 4 to 12TF scale and not 10 to 12TF).
Hope PS follows suit as well. Tablet SKU sharing with console for 10th gen, will just continue the cross gen -esque development/design phase/nature.
Want a proper 20+ only TF rasterized next-gen plz (+ frame-gen and the lot).
If anybody wants to continue the cross-gen, the Series S|X, PS5 will remain for that. And Switch 2, if you gotta go even lower in the TF range.

ABizzel115d ago

Yes and No. All of the PC handhelds combined have struggled to sell 7 million units, which would be a flop for any “console”. So the market is extremely niche because of price and target market (the informed hardcore gamer / casuals aren’t picking these up).

These handheld PCs are $500 or more, and offer at best Xbox Series S performance levels, so it’s best for MS specifically to just partner with ASUS, instead of investing millions if not billions.

Sony can make their own with custom AMD hardware due to their partnership, and stronger global brand for hardware. But even then it brings the question, of being a lower resolution PS5, and what does that mean for PS6 cross-gen (likely another generation where the first 3 - 4 years are just upgraded last-gen games).

Kosic14d ago

Imagine a Wii U style console, where the tablet doesn't rely on the console it's self, you download the game on the console under the TV and play in 4k glory, then you can remote play, get some unique game features if using both console and handheld in tandem. Then you can download the games in 720-1080p to play on the go, continue your progress, and continue on the TV when you get back.

Sony could get away with this due to exclusives, and that would be a reason for sales. Look at the portal.

I can picture seeing new hardware having some sort of GPU dock, where the handheld runs 1080p, and the dock has additional hardware to bring in 4k/60 specs.

I do think handheld gaming is going to be a strong future, imagine Nintendo release a new upgraded GPU dock for the Switch 3, every 2 years. More frames, sharper graphics on the same game for an extra £150 for a dock with a built in GPU chip. Console cycles doesn't have to be renewed, just the hardware can be improved by them reselling docks to us again and again with small/yearly upgrades like mobile phones.

GamerRN14d ago

Did you just imply that Sony can make a better stronger handheld than Microsoft? You do realize we are talking about Microsoft, the tech giant, right? If Microsoft can't make one that's cost effective, Sony definitely can't...

Brand and market share means nothing when you are a trillion dollar company

ABizzel113d ago

@GamerRN

It has nothing to do with what company can do it, or what company can spend.

For anyone taking a basic business class there is a term called ROI, and Xbox home consoles are selling at an all time low, meaning their ROI on a handheld is a risk that doesn’t make sense, even if they can afford it. Businesses are there to make money and it doesn’t make sene for MS to invest in a handheld that’s a companion device when their current home consoles they’ve spent 20 years working on are at an all time-low, when they can invest with little risk with what ASUS already has to offer.

This is why Sony can build a better device, because they have less risk involved, meaning they can invest more in their own product, and they already have an exclusive partnership with AMD on creating features and hardware. So in this specific case, YES Sony can built a better handheld, due to custom hardware, customer tools, low level APIs, compared to an off the shelf product running Windows or a Window Xbox kernel =.

TheEroica14d ago

I play steam deck primarily... Don't play consoles or mobile. The deck covers it all.

badz14914d ago

@shadowT

The Switch is a handheld, so will the Switch 2. what are you on about?

Cacabunga14d ago

To run native games offline? Anytime

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 13d ago
CrashMania15d ago

Funny to see the alt already damage controlling and having a meltdown with multiple accounts in the comments already.

Sad for MS if true, a dedicated handheld would go down a lot better than a rog ally 2 with an Xbox sticker on it I think.

crazyCoconuts15d ago

It couldn't have succeeded for a number of reasons. Now they've retreated to the Windows front and trying to keep that relevant for gaming. How long before Windows Central realizes there won't be a real console successor to Series X either?

Lightning7715d ago

Except there is. That project is reportedly full speed ahead.

Outside_ofthe_Box14d ago

@Lighting77

So was the handheld until today...

Lightning7714d ago

@outside obviously not since they sidelined it and they wanna see how the Asus does. Are you saying they're gonna cancel the next console?

crazyCoconuts14d ago

@lightning - I'm admittedly trying to box you in here - Do you think the next Xbox console will have Steam on it?

Outside_ofthe_Box14d ago (Edited 14d ago )

@Lightning

Here we go with having to spell everything out.

If I told you yesterday that Xbox was going to sideline the handheld console what would your response have been? Probably something along the lines of "I doubt that since Phil has been talking about it for some time now"

My point is just because they are "full speed" ahead now does not mean that will not change in future. As we have seen with the handheld. Do you understand what I'm trying to say now?

Lightning7714d ago (Edited 14d ago )

Box me in? No you said the same thing you've always been saying for years now. Those are the rumors to have Steam integration.

What about it

If you told me they were gonna cancel it tomorrow it would nothing more than fanboy talking points. I only wait for credible sources not what someone else says.

Also this is the handheld not a full blown new console. The Asus is yet to release and they're waiting to see how that thing does. Critical thinking is my strong suit you should try it some time if you can. But Ok cool well you hang your hat on that I guess. Main New console is gonna get cancelled even though the handheld is a different marketing device than the main the console itself.

__y2jb14d ago

I think there is a 75% chance there will not be another Xbox. There is zero reason to buy one now. No way it can possibly sell more than 10m units after Xbox went third party.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 14d ago
BLow15d ago

That's what they do. Goalposts shift like the wind.

I'm really confused on why they are making a "first party" device and also have a Rog Ally with their sticker on it. Make this make sense. How is their own device going to be any different?

Your console doesn't sell and they expect a handheld to?

RaidenBlack14d ago (Edited 14d ago )

The Rog Ally one is gen agnostic ... as you deciphered, it was to be the updated Rog Ally but just with Xbox branding. PC handheld with some Xbox features.
The handheld Xbox is/was supposed to be sharing the same gen/ecosystem with the next-gen (10th gen) Xbox. Think Series S but handheld ... it'll run the Xbox OS or whatever the next Xbox will run.
...
As for anybody wondering/confused why MS is doing another Xbox console ... coz mainly its the 10th gen of home consoles next, which started wayy back in 1972 for the 1st gen. And MS wanna be part in it, in the 10th anniversary gen of consoles. If they gotta bow out, they can't do that at 9th i.e just before 10th. They wanna stick around till the 10th or the X-th gen and check what the fuss happens.

Outside_ofthe_Box14d ago

Curious as to what excuses the spam was saying. Because prior to this news, the Xbox handheld was used as proof that Xbox is still committed to the hardware space. This handheld being scraped is not a good sign...

14d ago
Outside_ofthe_Box14d ago (Edited 14d ago )

@Spam
You can replace scrapped with pushed back if you like. It's not a good sign either way.

14d ago
1Victor14d ago

asq3= obscured: “ What’s your source on the handheld being scrapped? “
Read the article from Microsoft own website and one of your favorite quotations site when it’s something bad about Sony.
Oh BTW good luck with your next SPAM account.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 14d ago
Show all comments (77)
200°

FTC drops case against Microsoft’s Activision Blizzard deal

The FTC has officially dropped its case against Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard.

Read Full Story >>
theverge.com
slate9122d ago

The sweet smell of tax dollars burning

Killa7822d ago

From the unemployment this deal caused, no doubt.

Obscure_Observer21d ago

"The sweet smell of tax dollars burning"

They never stood a chance. It was a lost cause from the start. And yet, still, they´d decided to go ahead and double down on their bs to bleed the taxpayer even more.

dveio21d ago

The IRS demands 29bn USD in not paid taxes from Microsoft.

If we're talking bleeding.

1Victor21d ago (Edited 21d ago )

@slate: “ The sweet smell of tax dollars burning “

The smell of political donations endorsements under the table.
There I fixed it it for you
We all knew Microsoft plan of “10 years of all systems publishing “ and some of its supporters happy that after all the games would be “exclusive to Xbox “ now that things have changed and Microsoft got humbled by the lost of money from CoD going down from OVER A BILLI🤑N to
MILLI😩NS the sales failing of games that would released on PlayStation and be forced by INVESTORS asking for their M🤑NEY to grow faster than the next 10 years it is obvious that it would be a waste of money to continue this litigation.
Edit:@obscured: “ They never stood a chance. It was a lost cause from the start “

Same as your grievance stages.
Have you passed the bargaining stage yet ? Or are you still on the anger stage 🤣

slate9121d ago

I knew my singe bipartisan sentence would bring out the crazies. Thanks for the wall

Astrokis21d ago

Not sure if I’m disturbed or entertained but either way I hope you are alright

OtterX22d ago

I think they're convinced now that MS won't (and can't) withhold releases from conpeting platforms. MS on the street corner now like, "Who wants a taste?!"

PhillyDonJawn22d ago

I wont be too sure of that. Gotta wait and see till after these deals expire

OtterX22d ago

That's how it always starts, "I'll just work this street corner for a short while until I get caught up on my bills..."

Tacoboto22d ago

Oh yeah, they're totally gonna make Xbox exclusives again, with the hardware they're totally committed to selling and making available lol

raWfodog22d ago

As far as I'm aware, the only 'deal' that was discussed was for Call of Duty. Xbox had no obligation to make any of their other games multiplatform. They did that of their own accord.

OtterX21d ago (Edited 21d ago )

**btw, I'm talking about street food vendors, just in case there's any confusion!

https://external-content.du...

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 21d ago
Lightning7722d ago (Edited 22d ago )

I've seen videos and talk a online speculating MS long game. Some think that MS multiplat move is use to appease the FTC so they can buy more and is somehow a move that could get Sony to open up their platform. In other words them going third party and letting their games go everywhere. MS possible scheme and ulterior motives, speculated by Jeff Grubb is that putting Xbox store on PS via regulation Which would hurt PS buissness very badly because that 30% cut would be even less or not a cut at all. MS buys more because they're "playing nice" by opening up its platform to Epic store and steam which would force Apple and Sony to open up their ecosystem to other stores like MS.

If that's the case that'll mean as I said before, PS fans buying Cod on PS via MS store would give 100% maybe even 90% of the money being pocketed by MS while Sony's store front wanes when it comes to third party because guess what? MS is buying more third party and preying off the extreme ignorance of the FTC. Manipulation of the FTC and MS overtaking the PS store and customers

My thing is this. I know it's a opinion and speculation but why does Sony have to open up its store or force them to go multiplat? If they still believe in selling their freakin console then let them do it. If they want to provide the best games and the best content for its fans then let them do it!? Why because the competition is trash at selling games and consoles for 14 years now Sony has to change? MS using the ignorance of the FTC to overtake gaming as we know it?

Again it's just talk and opinion but man this seems very, very possible imo.

dveio22d ago

Well, at the time, I actually did think the FTC and CMA did a poor job in court. But also the judge.

Having said that - it is what it is.

If 75bn mergers in any industry ain't a threshold to deny them, then I don't know what is.

As far as your thoughts about other 3rd parties getting taken over in the future go:

I think publisher buyouts are off the list now. I think it would be reeeeally difficult for MS to win another trial try taking over any other publisher.

But smaller studios ... maybe.

However, right now I can't see studios out there advocating for a buyout from Microsoft.

That isn't to say an announcement of such couldn't drop on Monday already. Because we today know that Microsoft had approached a plethora of other studios in 2018 to 2021, such as IOI, CD Project, etc.

We'll see. And we can't do anything about it. It's up to trade commissions and then probably courts to decide.

Lightning7721d ago (Edited 21d ago )

"I think publisher buyouts are off the list now. I think it would be reeeeally difficult for MS to win another trial try taking over any other publisher."

That's the thing MS is ticking all the boxes by not have anything be exclusive so the CMA/FTC see that they're doing "fair practice" in games and content distribution. Which technically greenlits more aquisions or it makes it easier for acquisitions because MS is a mega publisher now.

"However, right now I can't see studios out there advocating for a buyout from Microsoft."

Hopefully not but them going multiplat could entice Studios to join MS because nothing is not longer exclusive which means more money for them, studio and teams.

We can't do nothing about it but Sony can. They can block xbox games on their console (lose that 30% cut) but Sony won't do that because that's money that will be lost and Sony runs a buissness. That's the only way to hurt or slow down Xbox.

I'm probably over thinking it as I do these things but it's something we shouldn't just ignore and be weary of MS motives here. I'm keeping an eye on them.

Rancegamerx21d ago

The idea that Microsoft is manipulating the FTC and forcing Sony to open its platform is silly and has no evidence to back it up. Microsoft’s multiplatform approach is 100% due to past failures and its laughable position in the gaming industry. Their best attempt was a fluke and a lie, brought on by Sony’s missteps and a poorly made machine that broke down too often.

Sony would never allow themselves to be "forced" to do anything; they control their platform and storefront perfectly fine without the need or desire to add an unnecessary Microsoft storefront. Even if, by some flaw on Sony’s part, Microsoft were able to introduce its store on PlayStation, Sony would adapt rather than collapse. Digital storefront competition already exists (Steam, Epic Games Store, Xbox Store), and PlayStation’s business won’t suddenly "wane."

Also, regulators like the FTC don’t operate on ignorance—they actively assess market behavior to prevent monopolies. Microsoft isn’t secretly overtaking gaming with some ultimate scheme. The industry might be changing or shifting (for the worse, in my opinion), but Sony will continue evolving based on market trends, not because of alleged schemes.

Gaming isn’t about one company "playing nice" or another being "forced" to change—it’s about making money with games, something Microsoft has yet to achieve in 25+ years.

Lightning7721d ago

"The idea that Microsoft is manipulating the FTC and forcing Sony to open its platform is silly and has no evidence to back it up."

That's why I said it was all speculation that's what Jeff Grubb opinion. I made that clear several times. You know what's funny? When Jim was in court ppl got mad at the FTC for protecting Jim Ryan instead of the consumer. Maybe he was right to worry about his business. Now look Releasing Xbox games on PS keeps MS studio an a float. Now Xbox games are all over PS now. Maybe Jim was onto something.

MS is still competing with Sony just in a very different way. The FTC back down mainly means they can buy more and MS next steps can proceed. We'll have to see what happens in the future but I wouldn't be so sure on your stance.

InUrFoxHole21d ago

@Lightning77
MS putting games everywhere is the most consumer friendly thing I've seen a game company do.

dveio21d ago

@InUrFox

What does "putting everywhere" actually mean?

This book has so many pages.

• Xbox was dying in revenue
• Regulators put a 10 year deal on CoD
• Microsoft had to give away the streaming
• Spencer himself only offered 3 yrs initially

And most importantly

• Again, Xbox was dying in revenue

Xbox have the benefit of their actual financial situation giving regulators and courts the impression they release games everywhere, what they actually do.

But for reasons they can't be proven guilty of anything in court.

I'm not judging, it's just what it is.

IF the Series generation would have developed differently and was much more successful, I don't hesitate any second to believe in what Spencer had originally planned to do:

• Make everything Xbox exclusive
• We today know that Spencer had also approached Sega, From Software, CD Project, Nintendo, and even Valve was on their list of buyouts.

MS are playing a card here everyone knows why they are doing it.

Putting Doom "everywhere", which even was it already before it got bought, ain't a MS thing.

It would had hurt them in many ways if they'd put it exclusively to Xbox.

But, no matter what - it is what it is.

Xbox bought themselves back into the game. And I think many people just don't have very fond feelings towards this behaviour, wether on corporate nor private levels.

Let's see how they'll run with it.

In 2030, but most importantly after regulations will have expired we will learn better.

Reaper22_21d ago (Edited 21d ago )

Seemed like a lost cause anyway. Microsoft gambled and it paid off big time. That's what you call a big boss move. Sony played a huge part in the success of that acquisition.

wesnytsfs21d ago

Bout time. Pointless from the start.

Show all comments (26)