British Telecommunications suing Valve over alleged Steam patent infringement - Polidicks

Sources: [url]https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/08/31/bt-valve-patent-infringement-lawsuit/[/url] [url]http://gadgets.ndtv.com/games/news/bt-suing-valve-over-alleged-steam-patent-infringement-1452743[/url] (Warning: Anti-Ad Block source) [url]http://www.espn.com/esports/story/_/id/17424409/new-lawsuit-targets-steam-alleges-patent-infringement[/url] [quote][B]British Telecommunications (BT) have filed a lawsuit against Valve claiming patent infringement. The action was brought “based on Valve’s continued willful infringement” of four patents (I’ll go into what they are in a moment) and was filed in Delaware on 28 July.[/B] [...] Anyway, let’s take a look at the filing. It specifically mentions that Valve “offers a broad range of products and services which incorporate technologies invented by BT. These include, inter alia, Valve’s Steam Library, Valve’s Steam Chat, Valve’s Steam Messaging, and Valve’s Steam Broadcasting.” It states that BT has notified Valve of the alleged infringement on multiple occasions and has requested discussions to address the issue, giving a licensing arrangement as one possible option. The filing continues “Valve has failed to respond to BT’s correspondence, at all, and chosen instead to continue to infringe the Patents-in-Suit willfully and wantonly.” Further correspondence from BT’s intellectual property rights counsel to Valve has, it says, been ignored. “BT brings this action to recover the just compensation it is owed for Valve’s past infringement, and to prevent Valve from continuing to benefit from the patented inventions in the future without authorization or compensation to BT.” The four patents mentioned in the suit are the Gittins Patent (US Patent No 6,578,079), the Newton Patent (US Patent No 6,334,142) the Beddus Patent (US Patent No 6,694,375) and the Buckley Patent (US Patent No 7,167,142). [...] The Gittins Patent is about customers being provided with content originating from multiple subscription services through a single portal and being able to retrieve that which they have rights to access. There are more details in the filing and in the patent description itself but essentially this relates to Steam’s basic structure for customers. The Newton Patent is included as BT says it pertains to Steam Chat and relates to a method for delivering messages to “an intended audience in a reliable and predictable manner. Messages are stored as files at a server for retrieval by the intended clients. Each client transmits requests for messages to the server at automatic and periodic intervals.” The Beddus Patent is to do with the provision of different communication mechanisms and associated call control protocols. With regard to Valve, the filing references the communication network on Steam where you can use text chat or VoIP calls, each of which are associated with call control protocols. Also of note here is that the system monitors the user’s status and changes to that status can determine which communication methods are available to them. The Buckley Patent is the one which BT say relates to Steam Broadcasting. It “relates to a multi-user display system and method for controlling a communal display that includes at least two independent workstations and an interface server for connection to a data network.” As per the filing: “Steam Broadcasting controls a communal display that allows a game player to share a streaming video of their game play with one or more second users. Steam Broadcasting also uses an interface server that manages the users and their requests.” [/quote] The lawsuit details: [url]https://search.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/12085257[/url]

Patent trolls are the worst. Steam's been doing this for how long, and they just now bring it up?

Software patents should not exist, they just make no sense.

Steam chat and messaging? Really? What about literally every other instant messaging client on the planet? And Steam Broadcasting? What about Twitch or streaming clients like OBS and XSplit? Idk about Steam library but I don't see how that could be infringing on anything either. Sounds like they're just trying to make a quick buck, unless I'm missing something.

Ye these guys can go fuck themselves. Valve should sue BT for suing them.

[QUOTE=RenaFox;50978792]Patent trolls are the worst. Steam's been doing this for how long, and they just now bring it up?[/QUOTE] Uhhh BT aren't exactly just a patent troll. They own the vast majority of phone and internet infrastructure in the UK.

This actually sounds pretty plausible: [quote]The filing continues “Valve has failed to respond to BT’s correspondence, at all[/quote]

The chat application I made in Java at the uni for an assignement would fall under the Newton patent... Such a flawed system.

[QUOTE=Morgen;50978817]Uhhh BT aren't exactly just a patent troll. They own the vast majority of phone and internet infrastructure in the UK.[/QUOTE] Just because you own a lot it does not mean you are necessarily good or not a troll though. Look at telefonica.

[QUOTE=smurfy;50978821]This actually sounds pretty plausible:[/QUOTE] Yeah because it's a fucking stupid request Where was BT when every middle schooler had AIM

[QUOTE=smurfy;50978821]This actually sounds pretty plausible:[/QUOTE] True, the flaw here is that Valve, and a whole host of other people and companies, should instead tell BT to go fuck themselves in to a hole in the ground.

[QUOTE=smurfy;50978821]This actually sounds pretty plausible:[/QUOTE] They probably mistakenly filed their complaints as a support ticket

[QUOTE=eirexe;50978828]Just because you own a lot it does not mean you are necessarily good or not a troll though. Look at telefonica.[/QUOTE] BT definitely aren't good. I wouldn't say they are trolling though. The Gittens patent has previously held up in a court of law in a case against Google. They may very well have a legitimate case here (regardless of how shitty software patents are).

[QUOTE=Morgen;50978918]BT definitely aren't good. I wouldn't say they are trolling though. The Gittens patent has previously held up in a court of law in a case against Google. They may very well have a legitimate case here (regardless of how shitty software patents are).[/QUOTE] While they may not be a patent troll, they may exhibit patent troll behavior due to incentives provided by the patent systems in place. Since they won the case against Google they are probably pressuring Valve to settle with them...

[QUOTE=RenaFox;50978792]Patent trolls are the worst. Steam's been doing this for how long, and they just now bring it up?[/QUOTE] They had to let the steam lawsuit buyoff grow just a little bit fatter before harvest. [editline]31st August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=eirexe;50978800]Software patents should not exist, they just make no sense.[/QUOTE] Same with digital documents or data imo. its just nonsense.

[QUOTE=eirexe;50978800]Software patents should not exist, they just make no sense.[/QUOTE] You do realise that without the patent system there would be no software development aside from a small ideologically motivated one, and thus our world would end up halting? Yes, the system is being abused and needs to be cleaned, but without it we wouldn't be able to live like we do today.

i can imagine several dozen services you could sue with same patent argument ironically some are older than those patents gittins Publication date Jun 10, 2003 Filing date Oct 14, 1998 Priority date Oct 22, 1997 newton Publication date Dec 25, 2001 Filing date Apr 8, 1998 Priority date Apr 15, 1997 beddus Publication date Feb 17, 2004 Filing date Nov 24, 1998 Priority date Dec 4, 1997 so while they might be older than STEAM itself, they hardly original and if someone put real digging $ into it, prior art (even in opensource world) will be found ...

[QUOTE=jiggu;50979040]You do realise that without the patent system there would be no software development aside from a small ideologically motivated one, and thus our world would end up halting? Yes, the system is being abused and needs to be cleaned, but without it we wouldn't be able to live like we do today.[/QUOTE] You dont know what you are talking about... the most influential software has always been either open source publicly available or CC If anything our software is halted through closed cycle developing and copyright... Software is a service sold as a product... it makes no sense.

[QUOTE=jiggu;50979040]You do realise that without the patent system there would be no software development aside from a small ideologically motivated one, and thus our world would end up halting? Yes, the system is being abused and needs to be cleaned, but without it we wouldn't be able to live like we do today.[/QUOTE] That isn't true at all :v:

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50979066]You dont know what you are talking about... [b]the most influential software has always been either open source publicly available or CC[/b] If anything our software is halted through closed cycle developing and copyright... Software is a service sold as a product... it makes no sense.[/QUOTE] windows / dos, os x / ios (you can argue that darwin is open source but people don't use apple products for the kernel it uses), adobe products, autodesk products those are all pretty influential pieces of software

[QUOTE=jiggu;50979040]You do realise that without the patent system there would be no software development aside from a small ideologically motivated one, and thus our world would end up halting? Yes, the system is being abused and needs to be cleaned, but without it we wouldn't be able to live like we do today.[/QUOTE] What dimension are you living in for that to be a reality?

[QUOTE=Exploders;50979106]What dimension are you living in for that to be a reality?[/QUOTE] How exactly do you intend to pay your devs if you can't charge for your product? You won't be able to charge for your product because anyone and everyone can simply take it. It's a simple necessity as digital goods can simply be taken. Nice avatar btw

[QUOTE=Joeyl10;50979099]windows / dos, os x / ios (you can argue that darwin is open source but people don't use apple products for the kernel it uses), adobe products, autodesk products those are all pretty influential pieces of software[/QUOTE] And 90% of the Internet runs on Unix systems. This disproving the point that there would be no software without commercial software. There would be less software though.

[QUOTE=froztshock;50979135]And 90% of the Internet runs on Unix systems. This disproving the point that there would be no software without commercial software. There would be less software though.[/QUOTE] That is an absolute bullshit number unless you count network devices that use Unix as a base but charge for their products(such as routers, switches etc), which disproves your own point.

Best of luck to BT. This is the part where Valve get mad and ban anyone using BT as an isp. (They wouldnt but it would be funny)

[QUOTE=jiggu;50979166]That is an absolute bullshit number unless you count network devices that use Unix as a base but charge for their products(such as routers, switches etc), which disproves your own point.[/QUOTE] Well, to be more precise, 68%-98% depending on how much you bias your search towards the top million websites on the Internet, but it's still a hefty market share regardless of which statistic you use. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Public_servers_on_the_Internet[/url] Both I and these statistics refer to Web servers, not routers or other facilitative devices.

[QUOTE=froztshock;50979262]Well, to be more precise, 68%-98% depending on how much you bias your search towards the top million websites on the Internet, but it's still a hefty market share regardless of which statistic you use. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Public_servers_on_the_Internet[/url] Both I and these statistics refer to Web servers, not routers or other facilitative devices.[/QUOTE] This number refers to the amount of servers that uses Unix, not the amount of "internet that runs on unix". Granted, it's still a huge amount of Unix, but you still fail to address how any business is going to sell their product without any kind of patent or copyright. I still agree that the system is shitty, but without it it'd be far more shitty. [editline]31st August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Matthew0505;50979276]What do patents have to do with that? Microsoft makes money from their OS and office suite and they haven't patented the concept of an OS or office software.[/QUOTE] Microsoft has a myriad of patents though?

[QUOTE=jiggu;50979133]How exactly do you intend to pay your devs if you can't charge for your product? You won't be able to charge for your product because anyone and everyone can simply take it. It's a simple necessity as digital goods can simply be taken. Nice avatar btw[/QUOTE] You can charge for your product without patents and no one can "simply take it" because patents and copyright are two entirely different things. You really don't know what you're talking about. Anyone can try to replicate it, sure, but if it was as easy as that, LibreOffice or OpenOffice or Google Docs would have replaced Microsoft Office entirely years ago. You can charge for your product even when other people are providing free/cheaper alternatives simply by providing a better product (and/or marketing); no patent bullshit required.

[QUOTE=jiggu;50979294]This number refers to the amount of servers that uses Unix, not the amount of "internet that runs on unix". Granted, it's still a huge amount of Unix, but you still fail to address how any business is going to sell their product without any kind of patent or copyright. I still agree that the system is shitty, but without it it'd be far more shitty. [editline]31st August 2016[/editline] Microsoft has a myriad of patents though?[/QUOTE] I'm not making an argument against the idea of software copyright or patents (though the latter is the shittiest of the two), I'm arguing against the notion that there wouldn't be software without commercial software development. I understand however that many types of software would not be made if there was no impetus of profit in it. Also, if we're not talking about servers or routers when it comes to what the "Internet runs on", then what are we talking about? I don't know what the fuck the telecoms use for the backend of their systems if that's what you're talking about, but I was never referring to that. I understand that my language was imprecise but I had figured that "websites" would be my understood meaning.

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;50979331]If they don't patent every little thing then some patent troll will use it against them.[/QUOTE] Or because they want to protect their invention and make sure others can't simply steal the idea and work? [QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;50979306]You can charge for your product without patents and no one can "simply take it" because patents and copyright are two entirely different things. You really don't know what you're talking about. Anyone can try to replicate it, sure, but if it was as easy as that, LibreOffice or OpenOffice or Google Docs would have replaced Microsoft Office entirely years ago. You can charge for your product even when other people are providing free/cheaper alternatives simply by providing a better product (and/or marketing); no patent bullshit required.[/QUOTE] This is right though, I'm more arguing about copyright, so I'm sorry for mixing it up. [QUOTE=froztshock;50979388]I'm not making an argument against the idea of software copyright or patents (though the latter is the shittiest of the two), I'm arguing against the notion that there wouldn't be software without commercial software development. I understand however that many types of software would not be made if there was no impetus of profit in it. Also, if we're not talking about servers or routers when it comes to what the "Internet runs on", then what are we talking about? I don't know what the fuck the telecoms use for the backend of their systems if that's what you're talking about, but I was never referring to that. I understand that my language was imprecise but I had figured that "websites" would be my understood meaning.[/QUOTE] You said that 90% of the internet runs on Unix, and then posts a number saying 60% of servers(which is far from all that is internet) is Linux and Unix. But I'll stop either way since I'm kind of mixing things up.