Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

NCSoft sued, Worlds.com owns all MMOs

2

Posts

  • KazhiimKazhiim __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    so what you're saying is, if I get certified with the east texas bar and volunteer to defend patent cases using my rudimentary knowledge of technology at a fraction of the cost other lawyers charge, I will make bank?

    lost_sig2.png
  • s3rial ones3rial one Registered User
    edited January 2009
    see317 wrote: »
    so why is one of these cases so expensive? I feel like there are sooo many lawyers in the world. you would think *one* of them would be willing to work for less than $5mil... or does the free market not apply to the legal system? honestly, I have no idea how this stuff works, but the idea of paying so much money to defend against something so frivolous doesn't make much sense to me. I would think that if it was an easy, frivolous case, it would be cheap to defend against.
    I was going to type up a long winded reason referencing the tremendous amount of money that could potentially change hands in one of these cases (you've made how much money infringing on my patents for the past 5 years?) when I realized I could answer your question in three words:
    Lawyers are bastards.

    Yes, why try to be informative when you can be uninformative and trite?

    I'm going to walk you through an example of a patent case might go, to give you an idea of how expensive it gets and why. This is going to be a primer on patent law, quasi-technical, and long. So if you're not interested in those things, then simply skip this post.

    If you want to learn, though...

    Well, first off, here's the usual disclaimer: this isn't legal advice. If you were to try and prosecute a case based on what I'm going to say, not only would you lose, but you'd be humiliated. I'm a law student, not a lawyer. More importantly, I'm just some schmuck on the internet. I just think it's a god damned shame that so few people understand why lawyers are necessary and how their own legal system works, until someone else elects to drag them through it kicking and screaming.

    Okay, patents.

    Patents are granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). A typical procedure is that you invent some gadget you want to patent, you go to a patent lawyer, he drafts a patent application for you, and you submit that patent application to the USPTO. In about three years, the USPTO will get back to you and tell you whether your patent is granted or not. This is no exaggeration; average turn-around time at the USPTO is that long. The office as a whole is both understaffed, underfunded, and tangled in a beurocratic mess delivered from on high that almost ensures they are utterly incapable of properly doing their jobs. I'd be happy to talk about why, but that's a bit beyond the scope of this post.
    Lesson 1: An enormous number of garbage patents are the fault of the USPTO. Sometimes it's just a lazy piece of crap examiner who grants a patent he shouldn't. Sometimes, the patent is hyper-technical, and the USPTO doesn't have anyone on staff who can actually understand the damned thing. And so you wind up with something like a patent officer who has a 4-year degree in biology from Big State University in 1973 trying to decide if a patent for bleeding edge biotechnology is good or not. I'm not saying that the patent examiners are bad people, it's just that they're not capable of doing their job properly. If you want to blame someone, look at Congress and the White House.

    So, what's in a patent? Well, basically, a patent has sub-parts called claims. Think of them as patents within the patent. The actual patent that's granted is a right to exclude others from using that particular arrangement of claims.

    Claims Illustration: Say you've got a popcorn popper that you want to patent. It's basically a metal pot (A), with handles (B), a heating element (C), and an agitator (D). Your patent would have claims A, B, C, and D. So, if this patent was granted, you could prevent people from making a popcorn popper with that same arrangement of claims. But bear in mind that each one of these claims is described very technically, with descriptions of the materials, craftsmanship, purpose, etc. This is key. Those are the elements of the claims.
    Lesson 2: There are two sort of barriers (or hatchetmen, depending on what side of the litigation you're on) regarding patents, though: novelty, and obviousness.

    In short, novelty says the patent has to be on some new thing that hasn't previously been invented, and obviousness says that the patent can't be on something that would be obvious to someone who has ordinary skill in the art. So, if it has been invented before, you can't patent it (obviously, there are exceptions). If you try to patent some sort of mechanical device, and it's obvious to a mechanical engineer, then you can't patent it. These same criteria that are supposed to prevent a patent from issuing are the same things that can defeat it later on if it does issue.

    In order for a patent to be defeated on novelty grounds, all of the claims of the patented invention need to be present in prior art. So, say you try to patent that popcorn popper above, with claims A, B, C, and D. Thirty years ago, someone patented a popcorn popper with claims A, B, and D. And Twenty years ago, someone patented a popcorn popper with claims A, B, and C. Your patent still survives the novelty issue because, unless you can find prior art that has claims A, B, C, and D, then the invention isn't anticipated. Novelty is usually easy to prosecute, but it's rare that something is defeated for novelty. The USPTO will catch that, usually.

    Obviousness is where litigation gets really expensive.

    Under present case law, you can basically combine claims of prior inventions to say that something should be obvious. So, take the popcorn poppers above, we'll call them PA1 (with claims A, B, and C) and PA2 (with claims A, B, and D). What you can argue now is that it would be obvious to a popcorn-maker-designer that there would be an advantage in combining the claims of PA1 and PA2 to create a single popcorn popper with claims A, B, C, and D, and therefore, the patent's bad. It seems simple, but think of the work that goes into digging this up.

    A quick aside on lawyers' billing:
    If he uses hourly billing, a typical lawyer will charge anywhere from $200-500/hour, depending on experience, expertise, specialization, etc. Various state bar associations have rules about how and what lawyers and charge. Hourly billing sucks. It's a nightmare of book keeping. But given that cases that seem simple tend to balloon way out of control, and that lawyers can lose their licenses (and be sued for malpractice) for giving less than the best representation, most lawyers hedge their bets and go for for hourly, because you don't want to be locked into working 200 hours on a case you only anticipated would take 20 under a flat fee arrangement.

    Where lawyers get the big pay is in contingent fee arrangements. This is where you hear about the lawyer getting rich and all that. It's pretty common in personal injury cases and class actions, and rare beyond that. It happens when the plaintiff doesn't have the money to pay for a lawyer. What happens is that a lawyer might take the case on a contingent fee basis: the lawyer doesn't charge an hourly fee, he pays for all the court costs, experts, discovery (which can be horribly expensive), etc. He's basically paying to work. If he wins, though, he gets a pre-determined cut of the winnings. This cannot legally be more than 1/3. If he loses, he's going to have an angry client who may want to sue him, and be out everything he spent on the case.

    Here's the setting: it's an infringement case. Let's say you run Poppycorn Co., and you make a popcorn popper with claims A, B, C, and D. But now, Jackass Co. is suing you, because they have a patent on a popcorn popper with claims A, B, C, and D. Poppycorn Co. wants to dig up prior art, and use an obviousness argument to eviscerate Jackass Co.'s patent.

    So, now imagine that the prior art - the previous two popcorn poppers - haven't been patented in the past. They aren't just gimmes. You have to actually go find them. PA1 was manufactured in the late 1970s, but Pop Co., the company who made it, went out of business decades ago. PA2 was manufactured by MegaCorp, who is still around and still manufactures PA2.

    Well, you're in New York. Pop Co. was headquartered in Oklahoma. So now, you're paying a lawyer to spend dozens of hours researching Pop Co., tracking down its old facilities, previous management, seeing who is still alive that he can talk to. He has to fly out to OK to meet with some former employees. This takes him several days. He finally manages to track down one of the company's old engineers, talk to him, and convince him to come testify in the case about the design of PA1. So you've got travel expenses for the lawyer and the engineer, lodging for both, etc.

    Now, you want to get PA2 admitted. Well, you can call an engineer from MegaCorp as a witness, but the problem with that is MegaCorp - or any other company - doesn't want to be on the witness stand. There, information about their suppliers, and their profit margins, and all other sorts of things may come to light. So they're going to fight you. It might be cheaper to hire an expert, buy the PA2 off the shelf, have the expert deconstruct it and testify. Now you're going to have to find him, and fly him in, and pay for his lodging, and pay for his fees, too. And for what it's worth, some experts charge thousands of dollars per hour.

    tl;dr: Getting through discovery alone in a patent infringement case is going to cost dozens to hundreds, maybe even thousands of lawyer hours. It's going to cost experts. It's going to cost research, and travel, and lodging. It's going to cost a lot of money and effort.

    All of this? This is just about the costs in the most ridiculously simplistic suit imaginable. It's not even beginning to touch on the other problems in patent litigation (some of which Lum the Mad mentions, like juries and uneducated judges). And this is over a bloody popcorn popper! What's the real value of the sort of thing, maybe a few million dollars at most? Are you starting to see why RIM thought a $600 million settlement over a bunch of bogus claims was a deal worth taking?

    So yeah, snark all you want about how lawyers are the problem. It's not going to fix the root cause, which is bad law. This legal train wreck comes to us courtesy of the United States Congress.

  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Accualt wrote: »
    The patent system in America is true and welly fucked.

    There is not enough lime in the world for this.

    I hearby patent Ultralime

    steam_sig.png
  • tehmarkentehmarken BrooklynRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I'm going to go patent the process of making patents. Every time a government issues a patent, I'll have to be paid a royalty. And every time somebody makes a patents, I get a royalty. And everytime somebody sues somebody over a patent, I get double royalties.

    IDEAS ARENT BLACK AND WHITE, YOU CANT GOVERN PATENTS FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY BASED SOLELY ON LITERAL LAW INTERPRETATION.

    Welcome to the great failure that is a shitty legal system that isn't checked by common sense. Also, I'm going to sue coca-cola for giving me cavities. Wish me luck.

  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2009
    tehmarken wrote: »
    I'm going to go patent the process of making patents. Every time a government issues a patent, I'll have to be paid a royalty. And every time somebody makes a patents, I get a royalty. And everytime somebody sues somebody over a patent, I get double royalties.

    Sorry, there is prior art.

    Some days I just want to smack people with a rolled up newspaper. Or a phone book.
    A folding chair is looking like an attractive option right now too...
  • DarmakDarmak Godking of the Snerkywizards Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    tehmarken wrote: »
    I'm going to go patent the process of making patents. Every time a government issues a patent, I'll have to be paid a royalty. And every time somebody makes a patents, I get a royalty. And everytime somebody sues somebody over a patent, I get double royalties.

    IDEAS ARENT BLACK AND WHITE, YOU CANT GOVERN PATENTS FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY BASED SOLELY ON LITERAL LAW INTERPRETATION.

    Welcome to the great failure that is a shitty legal system that isn't checked by common sense. Also, I'm going to sue coca-cola for giving me cavities. Wish me luck.

    I'm going to sue the internet for making me stupid. And angry. :P

    PIZTDhW.jpg
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Darmak wrote: »
    tehmarken wrote: »
    I'm going to go patent the process of making patents. Every time a government issues a patent, I'll have to be paid a royalty. And every time somebody makes a patents, I get a royalty. And everytime somebody sues somebody over a patent, I get double royalties.

    IDEAS ARENT BLACK AND WHITE, YOU CANT GOVERN PATENTS FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY BASED SOLELY ON LITERAL LAW INTERPRETATION.

    Welcome to the great failure that is a shitty legal system that isn't checked by common sense. Also, I'm going to sue coca-cola for giving me cavities. Wish me luck.

    I'm going to sue the internet for making me stupid. And angry. :P

    Well.... You are going to have to prove that you where not stupid before using the internet. Something tells me that is going to be the hard part.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    East Texas is the mecca for bogus patent claims. Many of which could be solved by requiring the "patent holder" to actually produce something based off of their patent.

    camo_sig2.png
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Tomanta wrote: »
    East Texas is the mecca for bogus patent claims. Many of which could be solved by requiring the "patent holder" to actually produce something based off of their patent.

    I'm fairly certain this requirement does exist, flimsy though it may be.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    s3rial one wrote: »
    Kabooom

    But, isn't technically being a producer of popcorn machines that use A,B,C,D prior art to the patent anyways? If I use lime to brush my teeth and sell it as a product then some jackass patents it 5 years later, I'm still the owner of prior art just out of being the first producer of it.

  • s3rial ones3rial one Registered User
    edited January 2009
    bowen wrote: »
    s3rial one wrote: »
    Kabooom

    But, isn't technically being a producer of popcorn machines that use A,B,C,D prior art to the patent anyways? If I use lime to brush my teeth and sell it as a product then some jackass patents it 5 years later, I'm still the owner of prior art just out of being the first producer of it.

    That gets into a back-dating issue which I was trying to avoid.

    Basically, the US grants patents to the first inventor, who is not necessarily the first to create and sell the thing. Beyond that, it's a race to the patent filing.

    So, to use another example...
    • X and Y both have the idea for an invention on the same day.
    • X and Y both create a prototype for the invention on the same day.
    • X files for a patent in month 1
    • Y files for a patent in month 1 + 5 days
    • X gets the patent, not Y

    What you get a lot of is a situation like this:
    • X and Y both have an idea at the same time.
    • X and Y try to create a product with the idea.
    • Z sees what they're doing and goes and files a patent.
    • A year or so later, X and Y have products on the market, having no idea Z filed for a patent.
    • Years later, Z gets his patent - it's a bad patent that shouldn't have issued because of the prior art, but as far as the USPTO is concerned, he filed first and should get it.
    • Z sees X is a smaller company, and Y is a huge company. He sues X in court, hoping to either A) extort a settlement, or B) get a judgment he can then use to give him extra leverage to do the same to Y.

    So, basically, because the patent office isn't capable of keeping up with industry trends, they'd commonly issue patents for things that were very clearly failing in novelty (and usually obviousness) because they're absolutely oblivious about it. And then it falls to a very expensive court battle to sort the whole damned thing out, and patent litigation is so expensive that it can easily bankrupt small and mid-sized companies. It's usually safer to settle.

    That seems to be what's going on here.

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Well what I'm wondering is:

    You have X and Y, but X has been in business for years and has been selling their product that does a,b,c,d for years.

    Y patents product that does a,b,c,d recently. Then is awarded the patent. Y tries to sue X. Would that even stand a chance? Not even prototyping. It's different if it's a prototype I guess and you're both working simultaneously. But if I have been producing a product for a year and had no intention of filing a patent and then Bogus McFuckerpants sees my product, sees no patent, files one, and then sues me for patent infringement, is that even legal? That's what I'm trying to get away from your post. That's where a lot of this shady shit that happens with patents happens, ultimately.

  • s3rial ones3rial one Registered User
    edited January 2009
    bowen wrote: »
    Well what I'm wondering is:

    You have X and Y, but X has been in business for years and has been selling their product that does a,b,c,d for years.

    Y patents product that does a,b,c,d recently. Then is awarded the patent. Y tries to sue X. Would that even stand a chance? Not even prototyping. It's different if it's a prototype I guess and you're both working simultaneously. But if I have been producing a product for a year and had no intention of filing a patent and then Bogus McFuckerpants sees my product, sees no patent, files one, and then sues me for patent infringement, is that even legal? That's what I'm trying to get away from your post. That's where a lot of this shady shit that happens with patents happens, ultimately.

    That's basically the second example I gave. Would it stand a chance? Legally, or realistically?

    Legally, no. It's failing for novelty. That's as easy as patent cases get.

    Realistically, maybe. The problem is that once the patent is issued, it's presumed valid. So the weight of proving it to be a garbage patent falls on the "infringer's" shoulders. And what usually happens is that if Y is asking for less money than X thinks it will take to defend itself in court, there will be a settlement, and this bullshit just gets foisted onto the next company down the line.

    These are patent trolls. There are a lot of them out there, and because the law is so broken, they're not going anywhere any time soon without significant patent law reform.

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I thought your second example was going that way.

    Companies should defend themselves out of principle, but I guess "make fast money!!1one1!!twelve" takes precedence.

  • ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Needs to be posted.

    20090102.jpg

  • GnomeTankGnomeTank Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Someone mentioned this is in the Lum thread, but I wonder if Blizzard and Sony won't offer a little legal hand to NCSoft? If Worlds.com wins this case against NC, they've set legal precedence in the United States that their patent can be enforced, that would be very bad for Blizzard and SoE, as precedence means a lot in our legal system. You can have all the money and lawyers in the world (Blizzard), or some of the oldest prior art available (SoE), but if legal precedence has been set...good luck.

    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, NintendoID: Brainling, FF14: Zillius Rosh
  • formatformat Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I think blizzard/mythic/sony are probably building their own case rather than trying to help out a competing company.

    You don't know if I am joking or not.
  • korodullinkorodullin What. Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Again, Sony, and thus SOE, is one of Worlds.com's clients.

    impale.png
  • delrolanddelroland Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Did you know Dave Leahy, the "inventor" of the MMO interface according to Worlds.com, has his own public website complete with resume and contact email? Google is neat.

    EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
    "Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
  • Death Cab For AlbieDeath Cab For Albie Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    delroland wrote: »
    Did you know Dave Leahy, the "inventor" of the MMO interface according to Worlds.com, has his own public website complete with resume and contact email? Google is neat.

    " Thesis Title: “Complete Description of the Photoionization Dynamics of Nitric Oxide”"

    Psh - I was writing that thesis's on that stuff in Kindergarten.

    ...we made it cool to wear medallions and say hotep...
  • formatformat Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    korodullin wrote: »
    Again, Sony, and thus SOE, is one of Worlds.com's clients.


    ok so precedent already exists and every mmo company will get sued in turn?

    You don't know if I am joking or not.
  • Bliss 101Bliss 101 Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Pony wrote: »
    i imagine blizzard summons their lawyers with the haunting call of an orcish horn

    I was thinking more along the lines of an infernal summoning ritual.

    MSL59.jpg
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Bliss 101 wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    i imagine blizzard summons their lawyers with the haunting call of an orcish horn

    I was thinking more along the lines of an infernal summoning ritual.

    Didn't infernals have a rather high chance of breaking out and stomping the summoner to death?

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • BlueDestinyBlueDestiny Registered User
    edited January 2009
    Aldo wrote: »
    Bliss 101 wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    i imagine blizzard summons their lawyers with the haunting call of an orcish horn

    I was thinking more along the lines of an infernal summoning ritual.

    Didn't infernals have a rather high chance of breaking out and stomping the summoner to death?

    That was changed in 3.02. Now they stay in control but leave after one minute.

    Any sufficiently advanced friendship is indistinguishable from magic.
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Aldo wrote: »
    Bliss 101 wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    i imagine blizzard summons their lawyers with the haunting call of an orcish horn

    I was thinking more along the lines of an infernal summoning ritual.

    Didn't infernals have a rather high chance of breaking out and stomping the summoner to death?

    That was changed in 3.02. Now they stay in control but leave after one minute.

    Well, there goes that lawyer joke. :P

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • korodullinkorodullin What. Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    format wrote: »
    korodullin wrote: »
    Again, Sony, and thus SOE, is one of Worlds.com's clients.


    ok so precedent already exists and every mmo company will get sued in turn?

    I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that the chances of Sony dropping bank in order to side with NCSoft or anyone else are very remote.

    impale.png
  • Babel_MatrixBabel_Matrix Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    An old online buddy of mine from a few years back told me that when a company's right to manufacture something comes under fire, (through patents,) that company has to stop manufacturing whatever product is currently being challenged.

    Now, as it was told to me, companies that both manufacture things that are similar, (i.e. they both have A, B, C, and D qualities,) don't bother each other because neither wants to lose however many millions they'd lose from ceasing production.

    Then came patent trolls who don't bother manufacturing the goods in the first place, and exist for little to no reasons besides buying (and suing with) patents.

    Is this the law in the U.S., or was he perhaps outlining what happens in some other country?

    I ask because, if this is one of the effects brought about by patent litigation, then wouldn't that mean CoH and NCSoft's other MMO servers would have to be suspended until the courts were finished, IF they went to court?

    mosesisOP.jpg
    Pharaohs need to L2P.
  • Dark HelmetDark Helmet Registered User
    edited January 2009
    I live in East Texas. :( Is there a more specific location when they say 'East Texas'? I live in the Beaumont area. If I wind up on jury duty for this, I swear to you all I will vote for the death penalty for any asshole who is associated with world.com. I just despair that the generalization of a majority of people in East Texas is painfully accurate.

    warrioricon4.pngrogueicon1.pngpaladinicon1.pnghuntericon2.png

    And my poor Death Knight that couldn't afford an icon.
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    save us, blizzard ~~<3

    sc.jpgsc.jpg
  • Waka LakaWaka Laka Faggot of tremendous proportions Melbourne, VicRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
  • DrakeDrake Blow it all up ForeverRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Waka Laka wrote: »
    Tabula Rasa has found it's proper home.
    Spoiler:

    Forgive me for not keeping up, but is it really that bad? I figured Lord British would have another decent game within his lordly sleeve.

  • Waka LakaWaka Laka Faggot of tremendous proportions Melbourne, VicRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Yeah it's pretty bad, fun at first, then it starts to feel off.

    Ultima Online 2 should have been the focus, not Tabula Rasa.

  • ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    An old online buddy of mine from a few years back told me that when a company's right to manufacture something comes under fire, (through patents,) that company has to stop manufacturing whatever product is currently being challenged.

    Now, as it was told to me, companies that both manufacture things that are similar, (i.e. they both have A, B, C, and D qualities,) don't bother each other because neither wants to lose however many millions they'd lose from ceasing production.

    Then came patent trolls who don't bother manufacturing the goods in the first place, and exist for little to no reasons besides buying (and suing with) patents.

    Is this the law in the U.S., or was he perhaps outlining what happens in some other country?

    I ask because, if this is one of the effects brought about by patent litigation, then wouldn't that mean CoH and NCSoft's other MMO servers would have to be suspended until the courts were finished, IF they went to court?

    It's not automatic, the suer has to sue for it and the judge has to agree, iirc.

  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I live in East Texas. :( Is there a more specific location when they say 'East Texas'? I live in the Beaumont area. If I wind up on jury duty for this, I swear to you all I will vote for the death penalty for any asshole who is associated with world.com. I just despair that the generalization of a majority of people in East Texas is painfully accurate.

    Tyler.

    camo_sig2.png
  • WallhitterWallhitter Registered User
    edited January 2009
    Ah well. Another silly asinine lawsuit. Call me naive, but I'm trusting in the little reassuring part of my brain that's going, "This shit'll blow over soon, don't you worry son"

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Tomanta wrote: »
    I live in East Texas. :( Is there a more specific location when they say 'East Texas'? I live in the Beaumont area. If I wind up on jury duty for this, I swear to you all I will vote for the death penalty for any asshole who is associated with world.com. I just despair that the generalization of a majority of people in East Texas is painfully accurate.

    Tyler.

    Which is where I live and work. I told my coworkers about this story and none of them denied what was said.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • BigityBigity Lubbock, TXRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    korodullin wrote: »
    There's a bit more than meets the eye with regard to why Worlds.com is pursuing this lawsuit, why they're targeting NCSoft specifically, and why they're pushing for this to be in an East Texas court system.

    I'll let Lum the Mad explain.

    So basically, East Texans are too retarded to understand technology and will just go in favor of the plaintiff.

    I hate living in retard-central.


    I'm from East Texas and I'm mostly not retarded. So do you apparently.


    Come off it, if it was East Texas it would be rural SoDak or in the middle of corn country Nebraska. Place the hate on the folks manipulating the system here.

    steam_sig.png
  • s3rial ones3rial one Registered User
    edited January 2009
    Bigity wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    korodullin wrote: »
    There's a bit more than meets the eye with regard to why Worlds.com is pursuing this lawsuit, why they're targeting NCSoft specifically, and why they're pushing for this to be in an East Texas court system.

    I'll let Lum the Mad explain.

    So basically, East Texans are too retarded to understand technology and will just go in favor of the plaintiff.

    I hate living in retard-central.


    I'm from East Texas and I'm mostly not retarded. So do you apparently.

    Come off it, if it was East Texas it would be rural SoDak or in the middle of corn country Nebraska. Place the hate on the folks manipulating the system here.

    This is a big problem with patent litigation. It commonly devolves into a battle of the experts. That's not quite so bad when you're in an area like Blacksburg or Boulder or Ann Arbor, because you're likely to get a jury that, even if they don't fully grasp the expert testimony, is capable of telling which expert is the bullshit factory compared to the one who's credible.

    You go out into areas like the eastern district of Texas, and education rates plummet. Suddenly, your expert isn't trying to explain biochemistry to someone who took college-level chemistry courses a few years ago. He's trying to explain biochemistry to someone who hasn't taken a science class since "earth science" in high school 20 years ago and happens to come from an intensely xenophobic part of the country.

    This isn't some sort of senseless bias on Lum's part. There are advantages and disadvantages to filing a lawsuit in any given court. The lawyers know what they are. And the Lum article is spot on.

  • BigityBigity Lubbock, TXRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Oh I completely agree with what was said in the article. However, it's not the fault of East Texans. If not here, it would be in one of the thousands of other areas in the country where people are not as educated or interested in technology. Ranchers and farmers don't give a rat's ass about some idea of bullshit patents or nebulous (to them) concepts of code ownership or intellectual property rights.

    They just want the trial to end so they can go back to work.

    I think they should make the patent office partially responsible for times like this. If you think technology patents are bad, so some reading on stuff like genetics or biotechnology. Or hell, just go read Next by Crichton.

    steam_sig.png
  • s3rial ones3rial one Registered User
    edited January 2009
    An old online buddy of mine from a few years back told me that when a company's right to manufacture something comes under fire, (through patents,) that company has to stop manufacturing whatever product is currently being challenged.

    Now, as it was told to me, companies that both manufacture things that are similar, (i.e. they both have A, B, C, and D qualities,) don't bother each other because neither wants to lose however many millions they'd lose from ceasing production.

    Then came patent trolls who don't bother manufacturing the goods in the first place, and exist for little to no reasons besides buying (and suing with) patents.

    Is this the law in the U.S., or was he perhaps outlining what happens in some other country?

    I ask because, if this is one of the effects brought about by patent litigation, then wouldn't that mean CoH and NCSoft's other MMO servers would have to be suspended until the courts were finished, IF they went to court?

    Your buddy was talking about a preliminary injunction. They used to be, for all practical purposes, automatic. These days, there's a balancing test under Ebay v mercExchange, but they still seem to be granted most of the time.

    You might recall RIM had a problem with this in their case against NTP, and it was only through government entities arguing that they couldn't function without RIM's service that got them out of a complete injunction.

2
Sign In or Register to comment.