-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Immersion win $82.0m from SCE, prohibition of PlayStation near?
- Thread starter cja
- Start date
norinrad21
Banned
I have finally witness PURE EVIL
radioheadrule83
Banned
P90 said:
Fixed.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
Haha, I think you'll have to fix it again, because as it is now, it's ridiculously wrong
Not to mention that a successful injunction would require refitting the dual shock line of controllers, wouldn't it? And wouldn't there be potential repercussions for 3rd party controller vendors?cja said:
A business career doesn't require that one act without scruples, Gash.GashPrex said:
DarienA said:
Darien, Darien, Darien. I'm not saying this apparent, I'm not an attorney and I maybe misinterpreting what the documentation actually means, MS practice is a "good" thing at all. Nearly all large companies engage in less than moral practices. Sony is not exempt:
Exhibit a
Exhibit b
Exhibit c
Want more?
kaching said:
you think this is acting without scruples?
How about investing in a company which holds a key patent in an industry that you are heavily involved in that is taking a competitor to court. Not taking advantage of that opportunity would be borderline retarded.
Yes please one more.... one involving Sony Computer Entertainment please. You reference the popular Sony Music one... which was an attempt to manipulate reviews and customers going to the movies. You then referenced Movielink which is a joint movie distribution project, which... was a joint project, you then reference another Sony Music product. Can you please link me the outcomes of all 3 as well? And can you give me one that shows Sony using other company's to do their dirty work while you're at it? Thanx!P90 said:
norinrad21 said:
I'm not seeing any evil here...
Immersion threatens to sue MS and Sony for patent infringements. MS (already overwhelmed with legal issues) decides to settle... Sony doesn't.
MS sees a golden opportunity... a company that owns a patent on a lot of shit, so they invest in said company.
Meanwhile, Sony decides to fight the patent (based on the vagueness) and loses.
jedimike said:
Hey Mike you forgot about the part where MS and Immersion strike a deal where in the public MS pays Immersion 20+ mil, and in the background makes a deal with Immersion where Immersion continues to sue Sony and if they win MS gets back the money it paid Immersion +.
HEADLINE: Microsoft Charged with "Suing by Proxy" with a Lawsuit Filing They Weren't Even Involved In!
"When asked how a company could be held responsible for an action that predated their involvement, internet pundits responded, 'Microsoft is devilishly crafty like that.'
Seriously though, there is nothing unscrupulous about securing the rights of the technology being licensed. If at all possible, that's precisely the option any licensee prefers for the IP they license to prevent themselves from being at the mercy of the original IP holder to periodically renegotiate terms.
Immersion already had suit against Sony before Microsoft made their investment. It's only that Sony was not vigilant enough in securing the rights of the IP they were infringing. Sony is no more morally exempt from being sued than Microsoft was.
As a sublicensor of the technology, Microsoft has every right to be an indirect party to the suit... kind of like what Sony did to SEGA through Rambus back when the Dreamcast had a successful launch.
"When asked how a company could be held responsible for an action that predated their involvement, internet pundits responded, 'Microsoft is devilishly crafty like that.'
Seriously though, there is nothing unscrupulous about securing the rights of the technology being licensed. If at all possible, that's precisely the option any licensee prefers for the IP they license to prevent themselves from being at the mercy of the original IP holder to periodically renegotiate terms.
Immersion already had suit against Sony before Microsoft made their investment. It's only that Sony was not vigilant enough in securing the rights of the IP they were infringing. Sony is no more morally exempt from being sued than Microsoft was.
As a sublicensor of the technology, Microsoft has every right to be an indirect party to the suit... kind of like what Sony did to SEGA through Rambus back when the Dreamcast had a successful launch.
DarienA said:
...and you also forgot the part about Microsoft paying off all of Immersions debts, lending them another $9M, and then funding the next generation of Force Feedback Technology. Not to mention, the price of their stock rose over 300% in one day.
Immersion certainly got a lot more from MS than $26M...
Lazy8s said:
Links? I'd like to read about the Sony Sega Rambus deal. And indirect party? MS getting cash from Immersion for a succesful lawsuit doesn't sound too indirect.
jedimike said:
And MS certainly got a lot more from Immersion than just paying them to go away. Let's be real the deal helped both MS and Immersion. Immersion recieved a MUCH needed cash infusion. MS at the very least received access to new patents, always good for printing future money when those patents need to be licensed out, and as a stockholder they also reaped the dividends of having Immersions stock go up.
P90 said:
Yep, just like I said, this excuse comes up like clockwork.
P90 said:
Yeah, how about a couple hundred more, which would be closer to the scale of Microsoft's depradations. By the way, from Exhibit b, "Department Does Not Find that the Joint Venture Harms Competition or Consumers" has a slightly different connotation than something like, say, "Microsoft Convicted of Antitrust Violations", just for future comparisons.
The Faceless Master
Member
whats funny is mad catz and nyko have licenses so they can make ff controllers for ps2, but with the injunction sony can't
P90 said:
You do realize that until realize Sony wasn't Sony? Each division has been run pretty much as it's own company hell that's one of the reasons so many SCEE titles did not come to the US via SCEA. They were for the most part run as standalone units. I'm not looking for an same exact offense, we've debate the Sony Pictures review thing here awhile go.. it was wrong. Does that make what MS is pulling any less wrong? Is it more wrong? Sony attempted to manipulate people in to seeing a movie... MS struck a deal to continue a lawsuit against a competitor, help fund that competitor and take a cut of the winnings... I guess each of us has to decide which is more wrong... both certainly suck, but is it not possible that one might be a bit more heinous than the other?
As I asked before could you find the results of the movielink lawsuit? Last I heard Movielink still exists.... did it force them to change pricing or something along those lines?
jedimike said:
There is not a rolleyes big enough....
Logistical nightmare, Sony europe dealt with a similar problem when they had to replace controller leads. Sony would surely settle the case asap if the judge does look like granting an injunction. Not sure why 3rd parties should have a problem, Immersion's website lists the likes of Logitech, Madcatz, Gravis, Microsoft, Saitek, Thundermaster, Nyko and others as licensees (here & here).kaching said:
Yeah, I think pretty much everyone agrees that the whole SCO case was funded by Microsoft. Thankfully, they had no case at all, so money down the drain for MS. The problem is, MS has so much money, they can pull lots of stunts like that and never suffer any real consequences. It's worth it for them since they're more likely to sue a competitor out of existance. Takes less money to do that than to actually compete with their competitors.Panajev2001a said:
As for this Sony case, I don't know where that will end up, but it'll be interesting if Immersion and MS can do Sony some real harm or not.
DarienA,
Basically, an injunction was sought against Dreamcast more conspiculously than other allegedly infringing RAM products, and suit was brought against SEGA, Hitachi and any other party that could possibly be sued related to the console. And just as Microsoft benefits from this current situation while being within legal entitlement and rights, Sony could've stood to benefit without anti-competitive involvement by proxy from the suit of their partner Rambus.
Indirect, meaning their share of the money as a sublicensor would be channeled to them through the company who actually won the lawsuit.
Lazy8s said:
Ok I've just read a few places about the lawsuit so I see Rambus was suing basically anyone involved in what it thought were patent infringements but how does this tie back in to Sony? I don't see them mentioned anywhere? Sony used Rambus technology in the PS2 but was not targetted by Rambus.... are their any quarterly reports or news items from Rambus showing that Sony made any types of investments in them?
Gash, this isn't simply about investing in a company that holds a key patent. MS brokered a specific deal as part of their settlement proceedings with Immersion to benefit from any compensation Immersion may receive as a result of a settlement with Sony. If you accept that both MS and Sony were initially in the wrong for patent infringement then how can you consider it scrupulous for either company to attempt to benefit *directly* from the settlement against the other or, for that matter, for any external party to do the same?GashPrex said:
DarienA,
"Industry observers have said Rambus may eventually have to take on all of the many manufacturers and OEMs that use clock-timing technology, or face accusations of singling out one company. Rambus has a vested interest in the lucrative console market, in particular, because it supplies memory technology for Sony's PlayStation2, a direct Dreamcast competitor."
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,39020351,2077958,00.htm
The thing is that Rambus wasn't suing everyone with allegedly infringing IP, so a suit specifically targeting Dreamcast at the time brought the reasoning into question. Here's a piece on industry reaction at the time:
"Industry observers have said Rambus may eventually have to take on all of the many manufacturers and OEMs that use clock-timing technology, or face accusations of singling out one company. Rambus has a vested interest in the lucrative console market, in particular, because it supplies memory technology for Sony's PlayStation2, a direct Dreamcast competitor."
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,39020351,2077958,00.htm
Lazy8s said:
Ok but here's the difference as I see it. Rambus may have targeted Hitachi and Sega... they didn't just sue Sega, they sued Hitachi and then added Sega to the list.
Rambus sued Hitachi what Jan of 2000? Other DRAM OEM's claim the Hitachi lawsuit outcome could be the basis for additional lawsuits based on its outcome. Hitachi then settled with Rambus after Rambus added Sega to the lawsuit from the news articles I've just googled. A few other providers including Toshiba also agreed to pay Rambus licensing fees... There aren't any news reports or even quarterly Rambus statements that show Sony getting any monetary benefits or even a slice of Rambus, they licensed Rambus tech again for the PS3. Could there be an indirect deal in place? Maybe but nothing as direct as the MS/Immersion deal where it says right in the quarterly statement MS gets a slice of any proceeds from the lawsuit Immersion has with Sony if they win.
maskrider:
kaching:
If company representatives only marginally and arbitrarily represent their companies, then it would be said that Microsoft has never done anything wrong... it was all the work of those various people working at various positions within the company.
kaching:
It's Microsoft's entitlement, espeically from companies that are competing against them with infringing technology, as a sublicensor for IP that they were actually vigilant enough to secure. It has normally been Sony's PlayStation business model to make their own parts and own the rights to the IP in most of the pieces of their system; the reasoning is, in large part, to prevent themselves from being at the mercy of licensors and suppliers.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
I can't front, MS is run by some very smart and crafty individuals.
RobotChant
Member
mashoutposse said:
I feel the same way... at least in this case. Maybe Sony should've settled earlier.
I wonder if this affects next gen hardware design by Sony.
Quickie notes about the jury verdict from Immersion's conference call.
Jury of 9 (6 women, 3 men) had to return a unanimous verdict for Immersion to win, they did.
$82m in damages is for August 2001 - June 2004. Sony will be liable for payments after this period and for ongoing royalties.
Immersion had requested $299m if they were to win the case. Sony thought the worth, if found liable, to be $9.4m if both patents were upheld, $5m for just one.
The Playstation, Dual Shock [failed to specify whether they were referring to PS1 and/or PS2, DS1 and/or DS2] and 47 games were given as infringing products (later mentioned 47 games was all that time allowed). A handful of games were found to infringe just one rather than both patents. All other games and hardware were found to infringe 16 claims in the two patents.
It has cost Immersion $16m in legal fees since proceedings began in 2002, $7m this year alone. If Sony do appeal in federal circuit court this will typically take 18-24 months. Appeal process may 'only' cost $1m.
$20m was a figure that an analyst mentioned for interest payments. Immersion couldn't comment since the judge decides that amount but would "aggressively pursue the matter".
An analyst did ask about possible action against other companies, using Nintendo and Sega as examples. Immersion said they couldn't comment on how the jury decision will influence negotiations with other companies.
Immersion confirmed that Microsoft do not give them any royalties and MS may be due payments depending on the final outcome of the Sony case (actually told the analyst who asked the question to refer back to "Note 6"). Immersion said the Sony case was quite different since it had gone to trial.
Sony were not found to have wilfully infringed the patents. The damages are compensatory, not punitive.
Immersion sounded quite conciliatory towards Sony in the call, perhaps open to a settlement with Sony now rather than dragging the process on further. Maybe Sony'll sign a deal and that money will be used to go after Nintendo.
Jury of 9 (6 women, 3 men) had to return a unanimous verdict for Immersion to win, they did.
$82m in damages is for August 2001 - June 2004. Sony will be liable for payments after this period and for ongoing royalties.
Immersion had requested $299m if they were to win the case. Sony thought the worth, if found liable, to be $9.4m if both patents were upheld, $5m for just one.
The Playstation, Dual Shock [failed to specify whether they were referring to PS1 and/or PS2, DS1 and/or DS2] and 47 games were given as infringing products (later mentioned 47 games was all that time allowed). A handful of games were found to infringe just one rather than both patents. All other games and hardware were found to infringe 16 claims in the two patents.
It has cost Immersion $16m in legal fees since proceedings began in 2002, $7m this year alone. If Sony do appeal in federal circuit court this will typically take 18-24 months. Appeal process may 'only' cost $1m.
$20m was a figure that an analyst mentioned for interest payments. Immersion couldn't comment since the judge decides that amount but would "aggressively pursue the matter".
An analyst did ask about possible action against other companies, using Nintendo and Sega as examples. Immersion said they couldn't comment on how the jury decision will influence negotiations with other companies.
Immersion confirmed that Microsoft do not give them any royalties and MS may be due payments depending on the final outcome of the Sony case (actually told the analyst who asked the question to refer back to "Note 6"). Immersion said the Sony case was quite different since it had gone to trial.
Sony were not found to have wilfully infringed the patents. The damages are compensatory, not punitive.
Immersion sounded quite conciliatory towards Sony in the call, perhaps open to a settlement with Sony now rather than dragging the process on further. Maybe Sony'll sign a deal and that money will be used to go after Nintendo.
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
so, they sue MS and Sony, MS settle and given them loads of money...
then it's suddenly a conspiracy that they are suing sony??
Um... didn't they sue *or motion to sue* both companies BEFORE they were helped out cash wise by MS?
How does that fit in to everyones rumour mongering?
Does anyone have any hard evidence as to how MS influenced there patent infringement cases or is it, as i suspect, the usual "defend sony, MS are evil" fucking BULLSHIT... AGAIN?
then it's suddenly a conspiracy that they are suing sony??
Um... didn't they sue *or motion to sue* both companies BEFORE they were helped out cash wise by MS?
How does that fit in to everyones rumour mongering?
Does anyone have any hard evidence as to how MS influenced there patent infringement cases or is it, as i suspect, the usual "defend sony, MS are evil" fucking BULLSHIT... AGAIN?
MightyHedgehog
Member
Meh...much ado about nothing.
The case is clear. This is Sony's bed and they'll have to sleep in it. They will have to settle, regardless of what transpired between MS and Immersion. The suit was filed against both. MS took the easy and more sensible way out and Sony's dragging their heels.
The case is clear. This is Sony's bed and they'll have to sleep in it. They will have to settle, regardless of what transpired between MS and Immersion. The suit was filed against both. MS took the easy and more sensible way out and Sony's dragging their heels.
Yawn. Big deal. All that'll probably end up happening is Sony'll appeal and win at one of the several higher levels where a legally educated person or peoples will decide, not a bunch of morons (i.e. 70% of this country). The legally educated shoot this down just because they don't want Immersion's tricky wording to set a precident, the all important aspect of U.S. law. Might get all the way to the Supreme Court, but at one point we'll get a judge who'll put a stop to this for the betterment of business (10 to 1 odds he/she is a republican).
Sea Manky said:Yep, just like I said, this excuse comes up like clockwork.
Yeah, how about a couple hundred more, which would be closer to the scale of Microsoft's depradations. By the way, from Exhibit b, "Department Does Not Find that the Joint Venture Harms Competition or Consumers" has a slightly different connotation than something like, say, "Microsoft Convicted of Antitrust Violations", just for future comparisons.
I'm not supporting MS' practices at all.Get that through your thick biased heads right now. Nintendo. MS. Sony. All are guitly of pushing the ethical envelope. Some more than others. Funny, but MS has also given the most money to charity. Guilty conscience? Or seeking redemption? Better than Sony or Nintendo when it comes to giving.
Also Sony and DOJ search:
Sony/DOJ