-
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
MightyHedgehog
Member
Corporate ethics = normal, everyday ethics? I think not.
MightyHedgehog
Member
IME, corporate dealings and their ethical conduct have little to do with the sort you'd live your life by.
Just saying. It's more about technicality more than anything else.
Just saying. It's more about technicality more than anything else.
DCharlie said:
Uh the link to the quarterly report is right in this thread... are ye daft man?
http://immr.client.shareholder.com/...IMMR&CIK=1058811&FID=891618-04-1004&SID=04-00
Section 6, which is Page 8 in the document. The only thing being discussed here is exactly what's in the report.
Most recent quaterly report:
http://immr.client.shareholder.com/...MMR&CIK=1058811&FID=950134-04-12244&SID=04-00
Section 6, Page 8 again.
Microsoft's actions were incidentals, responses made to action taken against them. They're participating in the existing lawsuit against Sony because they now have rights to technology that Sony, their direct competitor, is infringing upon. Microsoft obtained those rights because they had to secure the IP being used in their Xbox console when they got slapped with a patent suit, not as part of some convoluted plan to eventually sue Sony by first getting sued by Immersion. As the initiative for action did not come from Microsoft, there was no opportunity for manipulation on their part.
Lazy8s said:
I don't want to sound like I an a pro-Sony guy (I simply don't like MS much and that's all, I still like and buy a lot of MS products), but the many divisions are operating like separate companies, they don't normally co-operate, let alone listening and following instructions from someone at the top.
MS is different, the top guys has relatively much higher power over the whole company.
Spiritreaver
Member
This isn't very surprising, it's no shocker MS would eventually start to pull underhanded tricks, or even come up as looking like they did something. They've been at these tactics for how long?
Anyways, this is silly. And it can have some implications on future advance in technology, especially force feedback and other "tactile" feedback. I'm also curious as to why Nintendo isn't involved at all other than the mentioning of the rumble pack.
Anyways, this is silly. And it can have some implications on future advance in technology, especially force feedback and other "tactile" feedback. I'm also curious as to why Nintendo isn't involved at all other than the mentioning of the rumble pack.
This is not a whole lot different than Sony buying Intertrust.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6856
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/12/ms_settles_intertrust/
Summary:
1. In 2001, Intertrust sues Microsoft for certain DRM technologies they allege Microsoft infringes on. These technologies basically ship in like every product MS makes.
2. In 2002, Intertrust ditches their digital video business entirely, and concentrates on the Microsoft suit. Which is thought to be worth billions of dollars at this point in time. Not coincidentally, that exact same month Sony licenses the Intertrust patents for $28.5 million dollars + ongoing royalties.
3. In 2003, Sony along with Philips buy out Intertrust completely for $453m.
3. In 2004, Microsoft finally gives up, says "We don't need this sh*t", and pays Sony/Philips $440 million to license the patents.
4. Sony laughs all the way to the bank. (LOL, we just bought all of Intertrust's patents, and look, MS paid for it!)
So, frankly, this kind of legal crap is not just a Microsoft thing. If you think Sony doesn't play just as dirty, you'd better hope you never end up working at a direct competitor.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6856
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/12/ms_settles_intertrust/
Summary:
1. In 2001, Intertrust sues Microsoft for certain DRM technologies they allege Microsoft infringes on. These technologies basically ship in like every product MS makes.
2. In 2002, Intertrust ditches their digital video business entirely, and concentrates on the Microsoft suit. Which is thought to be worth billions of dollars at this point in time. Not coincidentally, that exact same month Sony licenses the Intertrust patents for $28.5 million dollars + ongoing royalties.
3. In 2003, Sony along with Philips buy out Intertrust completely for $453m.
3. In 2004, Microsoft finally gives up, says "We don't need this sh*t", and pays Sony/Philips $440 million to license the patents.
4. Sony laughs all the way to the bank. (LOL, we just bought all of Intertrust's patents, and look, MS paid for it!)
So, frankly, this kind of legal crap is not just a Microsoft thing. If you think Sony doesn't play just as dirty, you'd better hope you never end up working at a direct competitor.
pilonv1 said:
I don't think so, how would you explain the GC controllers then? They didn't licensed the technology from Immersion, so I am pretty sure Nintendo has their own force feedback patent. I don't know how Nintendo's patent it differs from Immersion.
edit: Hmmm, seems all these "force feedback" and "rumble" just are just various implementations of "Tactile Transducer".
MightyHedgehog
Member
kaching said:
No, I think it's about opportunism that is encouraged in corporate business. All big companies practically have to be this way if they want to survive amongst their competitors. Murder isn't even in this ballpark. It's closer to high-level MtG cutthroat gaming.
Some of you seem to be confused... and unsurprisingly you pulled out the every company does it excuse. Does this change the fact something like this is morally grey? Not one bit. Rationalize the shit however you want, corporate tactics like this are not ethical.... but they aren't illegal either. Which is why so many corps push the line whenever they can...
MrPing1000
Member
does this also mean that since Nintendo had the rumble pack before Immersion had its patents, if Immersion tried to sue Nintendo, Nintendo would probably win? Or even could Nintendo sue Immersion for using patents that it clearly came up with before
MrPing1000 said:
Current conjecture seems to be that either Nintendo's implementation predates the Immersion patents and/or that Nintendo has it's own rumble patents. No one seems to know for sure though.
Interestingly enough look at one of the patents Nintendo holds:
Home video game system with hard disk drive and internet access capability
That includes voice communication and online player leaderboards, etc....
EDIT: And I love you how defenders just rationalize these types of actions by saying... oh it's just the haters that point this stuff out!
PanopticBlue
Member
I love these threads cause they always bring out the headhunters lol... You would think MS killed Darien and Sea Mankys' firstborn. Soo much hate haha.
This is just another level of fanboyism, an opportunity to see who the haters/fanboys are, and not much else.
This is just another level of fanboyism, an opportunity to see who the haters/fanboys are, and not much else.
Dcharlie: smartest man in the thread.
MightyHedgehog
Member
DarienA said:
Who said it wasn't ethically gray? And I really should've said, 'many big, huge companies,' instead of all big companies. And no rationalization, just observation.
P90 said:
Yes, and Microsoft WAY more than all of them. Of course there are ethical violations in business, and if we boycotted every company that ever did something wrong, we'd have to live in the forest making clothes out of tree bark. But there's nothing inconsistent about realizing when a particular company is too far gone over the line to rationalize it. Making statements like, "Oh, all companies do it" is just burying your head in the sand and spreading your asscheeks.
P90 said:
Haha, I love it when this defense comes up too. Did you know that until some years ago, Microsoft gave FUCK ALL to charity? It was an expose about corporate charity donations in a major magazine that revealed that Microsoft was actually the worst when it came to corporate donations. They got a fair bit of bad publicity over it, and then suddenly, Microsoft starts donating like crazy! They're the most benevolent company ever!
Microsoft doesn't do SHIT that isn't in their direct interest unless they're forced to. Even their narrow escape from real punishment in the antitrust conviction hasn't changed their behavior. What you're not getting here is that it's not a single illegal or unethical violation that's behind the anger against Microsoft, it's the extremely long pattern of consistent wrongdoing. If I had to choose between letting someone who had shoplifted a couple times or a compulsive kleptomaniac into my house, you can be damn sure which one I'd pick.
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
"Dcharlie: smartest man in the thread."
actually, after actually reading all the posts, and actually reading Dariens A post regarding the clauses in the agreement, i'd like to withdraw the previously post opinion out from my big fat arse.
This does, indeed, stink (the deal, not my arse... well, okay, both stink....)
actually, after actually reading all the posts, and actually reading Dariens A post regarding the clauses in the agreement, i'd like to withdraw the previously post opinion out from my big fat arse.
This does, indeed, stink (the deal, not my arse... well, okay, both stink....)
I'm glad I wasn't the one that yet again had to bring this up. Everytime someone says something about MS and/or Bill Gate's charitable giving they forget this little tidbit. Just glad someone else brought it up again instead of just me. MS's giving doesn't impress me in the least.
Murder is an example of what happens in spite of a code of ethics but that doesn't mean we should become enablers of such behavior. "Well, you practically have to murder someone to get ahead in this world LOL"MightyHedgehog said:
Opportunism doesn't implicitly imply ethically underhanded behavior.
You may be cynical or disenfranchised about the world around you but we don't get to a better place if you give up and say "everybody else is doing it..."
It's different in a couple of key ways:aaaaa0 said:
Sony wasn't accused by Intertrust of patent infringement. They licensed Intertrust's IP as required.
Sony/Philips didn't broker a deal that included specific language to specifically benefit from any settlement in the MS case. They bought Intertrust.
Neither of these actions are unethical. Unless there's more to the Intertrust purchase, such that it was a hostile buyout and it was somehow against Intertrust's will.
It is egotistical by proxy on MS' behalf to consider that the Sony/Philips purchase of Intertrust was mostly about the MS settlement. If Intertrust truly holds a lynch pin patent in the DRM realm then that has broad ramifications across IT & CE industries. There's going to be a lot more money to make off licensing such a patent than just what MS will have to fork over.
kaching:
Not only does this make it "unethical", it makes it far worse than Microsoft's case here. Microsoft did not have an opportunity to premeditate their participation in the suit against Sony because they didn't want or ask Immersion to get them into all this by suing them in the first place. On the other hand, Sony specifically sought out Intertrust knowing they had legal claims against MS, allowing them to premeditate their involvement and buy their way into a MS settlement offer.
Lazy8s said:
Yeah, it all happened so fast! One minute, Microsoft is minding their own business, and the next, WHAM! They've suddenly got a settlement agreement that has specific language that boils down to an interest free loan from MS to Immersion that doesn't have to be paid back unless Immersion succeeds in their suit against Sony! It wasn't their fault! It just happened!
Your tag suits you, but I can think of an even more fitting one.
Sea Manky:
It's not unethical for a company to promote litigation against a direct competitor that's infringing their IP, and only a conspiracy theorist would believe Microsoft's original plan was to get that IP by executing a devious plot to get sued by Immersion first.
Lazy8s said:
And only a fucking dolt would believe that a simple IP infringement suit is normally settled with the addition of a behind the scenes deal giving the licensor a wad of cash for the express purpose of furthering their suit against a competitor of the licensee.
Actually, now that I think about it, maybe you're just admitting that Microsoft just has a basic spinal reflex where they simply can't engage in any kind of buisness without trying something underhanded. It's like alcoholism or something. It's a disease! ;X
Sea Manky:
Not a dolt, but a business-minded person who understands that settling an IP dispute over technology that'll be critical to their future plans involves securing its rights so as not to be left open to possible later renegotiation and at the mercy of another company.
And this is where I refer you to the last part of my post you quoted...Intertrust's DRM patent has value that extends far beyond the MS settlement, according to the accounts cited.Lazy8s said:
Not to mention, purchasing a company saddles you with the various responsibilities of owning that company. If all that Sony/Philips really wanted out of Intertrust was a cut of the MS settlement, why didn't they just negotiate a "free ride" deal like MS did with Immersion?
1. Sony/Philips specifically sought out Intertrust. They were not named in the initial suit.
2. Intertrust's patents cover digital certificates and cryptographic signing, something pretty widely used throughout the software industry for both DRM and file security and authentication, but not something hardware companies like Sony or Philips heavily used (they STILL aren't heavy users).
3. The ONLY party named in the first Intertrust suit (2001), is Microsoft. It is named because of it's use of digital certificates to protect system files, executables, Windows Media DRM, etc, despite obviously infringing products from IBM, Real, and Apple.
4. After Sony/Philips bought Intertrust in 2002, their lawsuit was widened by a huge amount to practically every product Microsoft was going to release. They go after .NET, because it uses certificates to guarantee file integrity. They go after Windows Product Activation in XP.
Microsoft is STILL the only named party, despite tons of obviously infringing products made by other companies, like IBM, Real, and Apple.
I can only see minor differences between the Intertrust deal and the Immersion deal:
1. Sony/Philips sought out Intertrust. Microsoft was sued by Immersion first.
2. MS didn't buy Immersion outright. They just made a licensing deal with Immersion that stipulated they got some benefit from a sucessful outcome of Immersion's concurrent lawsuits, in return for the royalties they paid Immersion.
Sony/Philips bought out Intertrust completely, and got MS to pay for the purchase.
2. Intertrust's patents cover digital certificates and cryptographic signing, something pretty widely used throughout the software industry for both DRM and file security and authentication, but not something hardware companies like Sony or Philips heavily used (they STILL aren't heavy users).
3. The ONLY party named in the first Intertrust suit (2001), is Microsoft. It is named because of it's use of digital certificates to protect system files, executables, Windows Media DRM, etc, despite obviously infringing products from IBM, Real, and Apple.
4. After Sony/Philips bought Intertrust in 2002, their lawsuit was widened by a huge amount to practically every product Microsoft was going to release. They go after .NET, because it uses certificates to guarantee file integrity. They go after Windows Product Activation in XP.
Microsoft is STILL the only named party, despite tons of obviously infringing products made by other companies, like IBM, Real, and Apple.
I can only see minor differences between the Intertrust deal and the Immersion deal:
1. Sony/Philips sought out Intertrust. Microsoft was sued by Immersion first.
2. MS didn't buy Immersion outright. They just made a licensing deal with Immersion that stipulated they got some benefit from a sucessful outcome of Immersion's concurrent lawsuits, in return for the royalties they paid Immersion.
Sony/Philips bought out Intertrust completely, and got MS to pay for the purchase.
Lazy8s said:
You're joking, right?
If they didn't buy Immersion or the rights in question outright, then they didn't secure a damn thing. If Immersion gets bought out by someone else they're still at the mercy of another company in regards to those rights, Sony suit notwithstanding.
In fact, if their concern is over how vulnerable they are over this IP, then a Sony victory would be ideal, since it would provide a precedent allowing MS to shrug off Immersion's claims against them.
No, it's clear what this is. Microsoft gave Immersion free lawyer time so they could hit a bigger jackpot against Sony. Underhanded sniping tactics, plain and simple.
Please show us these other IP infringement settlements with similar clauses if this is so normal and ethical. Or will this be like when you repeatedly ducked dark10x on his Dreamcast lighting effects question?
Sea Manky said:
(1) says the lawsuit is done.
(2) says Microsoft gets a worldwide, royalty-free (no further payments), irrevocable (it can never be undone) right to use Immersion's patents. This protects them if someone buys Immersion.
(3) says Microsoft gets to independently negotiate deals with THEIR partners (say Flextronics) to use Immersion's patents, as long as THEIR partners also pay Immersion. This means Microsoft is free to negotiate deals to get other companies to make devices using Immersion's technology, as long as Immersion continues to get paid.
(3) also says that in the event Sony loses their lawsuit, Microsoft gets a cut of the patent money.
(4) and (5) basically say MS will give Immersion some stock, and Microsoft will buy some bonds from Immersion.
Sea Manky:
Being a sublicensor implies some extent of ownership claim; being a simple licensee does not. Also, the share of Immersion that MS got out of the dealings gives them a degree of control as well.
No, some ownership agreement is ideal. Precedent helps, but doesn't prevent Immersion from modifying their claims enough and continuing to try to go after them again.
Of course that's their goal; it's their legal entitlement as a company trying to guard IP they have a stake in.
They didn't plot this whole Immersion affair, so it became the incidental course of action for them to take in their position.
Lazy8s said:
Bzzzt. aaaaa0 just pointed out that Microsoft's settlement protected them completely. Going beyond that with additional funding specifically for the lawsuit against Sony is the unethical action being discussed here. It's pretty obvious.
Lazy8s said:
Nobody's saying they planned to be sued by Immersion, I don't know why you keep focusing on this. They certainly DID plot the portion of the settlement in Section 6.
May I point you to this part:
This looks an awful lot like a penalty if Immersion goes easy on Sony.
This part basically nullifies any real repayment to Microsoft in case the lawsuit goes sour in a way outside Immersion's control.
So what do we have here? Immersion gets money from Microsoft. If they back down on the lawsuit against Sony, they have to pay MS $30 million. If they happen to lose, they don't owe MS anything. If they win, they pay MS back and get to keep the rest.
Pretty ironclad way to get Immersion to go for Sony's throat in the suit.
See, normally Immersion would have to balance the costs of pursuing the suit against the possible return on a settlement. Thanks to Microsoft's little addition here, they've been turned into a legal berserker aimed at Sony.
You want to defend this kind of thing as legitimate self protection?
Sickening.
Sea Manky said:
Well one of the possible outcomes of the lawsuit is that Sony invalidates Immersion's patent.
That would not be good for Microsoft, because they paid $19.9 million for the rights to use the patents, which is NOT refundable.
Not quite.
MS pays Immersion $19.9 million for the patent rights. This is non-refundable regardless of what happens.
Immersion gives MS $6 million in its stock. Microsoft agrees to buy $9 million in bonds from Immersion over 4 years.
If Immersion wins the lawsuit against Sony, they pay MS a cut of the proceeds, at a minimum of $15 million dollars (to cover the cost of buying back the stock and bonds).
If Immersion loses the lawsuit against Sony, they still have to buy back the bonds ($9 million over four years), but they don't owe Microsoft anything from the court case, and they don't have to buy back the stock they issued ($6 million).
So to summarize:
MS pays $19.9 million for the rights to use the patents. Immersion keeps this no matter what.
MS buys $6 million in Immersion stock, and gives Immersion a loan of $9 million, to make sure Sony doesn't invalidate the patent.
In the event Immersion wins, MS gets their $15 million back, and some of the winnings from the settlement.
In the event Immersion loses, MS loses their $19.9 million, they loose their $6 million, but Immersion does have to pay them back the $9 million they loaned them through the debentures.
Sea Manky:
From Immersion, yes... that was the whole point of their dealings with Immersion in the first place.
After MS secured rights from Immersion, they then became in a position to have to guard the IP from Sony, a competitor infringing on it. There's nothing unethical about seeking an injunction against a company like Sony who had been refusing to comply with Immersion's claim.
Because Microsoft's actions were not unscrupulous and were only incidental from the positions they were in, so the only way they could've acted "unethically" is if they had somehow manipulated the whole Immersion lawsuit in the first place.
That's quite right: an indirect party to the lawsuit like MS has to get it ensured in contract that Immersion will continue to protect their joint interests in the technology with that lawsuit. MS would lose out monetarily and competitively if they paid for a deal to rights on the technology and then Immersion turned around to Sony, gave up, and acquiesced to Sony's use of it.
The "position they were in" was that they stood accused of patent infringement and held in arrears for license fees owed to Immersion. In acquiescing to a settlement, the only action that was necessarily incidental was to agree upon appropriate compensation which would not in any way have required that they become investors or sub-licensors.
The problem here is that the "series of agreements" that MS and Immersion arrived at are itemized in such a way as to suggest that the lawsuit was settled independent of everything else that MS and Immersion agreed to, when in reality they are all inextricably tied together - the lawsuit wouldn't have been settled if it weren't for one or more of the agreements that followed occurring. But without specificity as to what was actually required to settle the lawsuit they have entangled the investment with the settlement, leading to a conflict of interest.