British Telecommunications suing Valve over alleged Steam patent infringement - Polidicks

[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] I mean really anything that has an operating system and isn't a Windows PC or Server is running *nix Heck even Darwin (and ergo Mac OS and iOS) draws its roots from BSD, a UNIX clone. (also Darwin is a full operating system, not just a kernel. Mac OS and iOS are more or less just a GUI and some frameworks added to Darwin) this is off-topic tho

These patent requests are a massive stretch of the original patent. If the courts have any sanity they'll realize this.

[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] [quote]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.[/quote] this doesn't sound like steam at all to me. Imo stupid cashgrab lawsuit

[QUOTE=Str4fe;50979614]this doesn't sound like steam at all to me. Imo stupid cashgrab lawsuit[/QUOTE] On Steam, you have access to a number of subscriptions. Those subs grant you access to apps such as games.

[QUOTE=jiggu;50979392]Or because they want to protect their invention and make sure others can't simply steal the idea and work?[/QUOTE] You seem to believe that patents work as well in the software world as they do in the rest, however this is not the case, any decently big program you write is likely to be in conflict with a lot of patents, and even if you can prove you reached that conclusion by yourself that's not how patents work. If there were no software patents nothing would change when it comes to innovation or protection, here's a good read for you: [URL]https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/software-patents.en.html[/URL] You seem to believe patents are a necessity for revenue and commercialization, but that's simply not true.

[QUOTE=Darkwater124;50979692]On Steam, you have access to a number of subscriptions. Those subs grant you access to apps such as games.[/QUOTE] On Battle.Net, you have access to a number of subscriptions. Those subscriptions grant you access to apps such as games. On Amazon, you have access to a number of subscriptions. Those subscriptions can grant you access to food. etc

[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] All based on an open source foundation one way or the other. (except maybe dos, but its a clone)

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50979853]All based on an open source foundation one way or the other. (except maybe dos, but its a clone)[/QUOTE] And this shows why patents are not a good idea, software needs clones to progress.

[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] From someone who develops closed source software for a living, this is laughable

[QUOTE=Elspin;50980033]From someone who develops closed source software for a living, this is laughable[/QUOTE] Exactly, the whole software patent debate is a completely different debate from whether or not proprietary software is ethical or not, this is an issue that affects everyone, big and small.

I think valve should respond by checking what ISP the user has on login and if it ends up being BT, it should link to the long and growing list of controversies BT is involved in. They've sold user data to shady chinese companies, helped the US maintain the means to target Yemen and Somalia with drones, and done a number of other anti-consumer things.

[QUOTE=smurfy;50978821]This actually sounds pretty plausible:[/QUOTE] Classic Valve if you ask me, doing jack shit until they get sued :v:

Software patents are insane, no reason at all for them to exist. Thankfully they are not recognized in Europe, but the US is still a very large market and these patent trolls really make things difficult. There are so many idiotic software patents that I bet that any reasonably-complex piece of software, from applications to games, violate a bunch of patents. This is especially true if that software requires any type of web communication.

[quote] 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.” [/quote] Well they can throw this one right out because Steam chat is definitely neither reliable nor predictable.

[QUOTE=RenaFox;50978792]Patent trolls are the worst. Steam's been doing this for how long, and they just now bring it up?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE] This obviously isn't a "they just now bring it up" situation. They've tried other options, now they're going all in. A part of me hopes that Valve loses this. [editline]1st September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=ECrownofFire;50981644]Well they can throw this one right out because Steam chat is definitely neither reliable nor predictable.[/QUOTE] I believe this will be relating to the unread messages function, which does work quite well from experience.

Valve will be pissed, they spent years securing their loose ends, they probably never expected this would occur.

Part of me wants Valve to lose and have to shutdown Steam to rewrite the client. No joke, that'd probably be better for all of us.

[QUOTE=MissZoey;50981825]This obviously isn't a "they just now bring it up" situation. They've tried other options, now they're going all in. A part of me hopes that Valve loses this.[/QUOTE] I hope not because this would be bad for everyone.

[quote]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.”[/quote] This is completely insane. This literally describes all chat clients that deliver messages without both parties being online. Skype, FB Chat, whatever Chat Client Google is pushing now, etc [editline]1st September 2016[/editline] [quote]As described in detail below, Valve’s Steam Chat infringes the Newton Patent. Valve’s Steam Chat delivers messages to users comprised of information and data parts. The messages are stored as files at a Valve server for retrieval by the intended uses.[B](< should this be users? don't they proof read these things?)[/B] The Valve software client transmits requests for messages to the Valve server at automatic and periodic intervals, which are subsequently displayed at user terminals. [/quote]

[QUOTE=MissZoey;50981825]This obviously isn't a "they just now bring it up" situation. They've tried other options, now they're going all in. A part of me hopes that Valve loses this. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=chipsnapper2;50982098]Part of me wants Valve to lose and have to shutdown Steam to rewrite the client. No joke, that'd probably be better for all of us.[/QUOTE] What the fuck no? Thats a fucking terrible idea.

[QUOTE=chipsnapper2;50982098]Part of me wants Valve to lose and have to shutdown Steam to rewrite the client. No joke, that'd probably be better for all of us.[/QUOTE] No guarantee that the rewrite will be better or even that it won't violate another random patent.

Software Patents strike again, good job US.

[QUOTE=jiggu;50979040][B]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?[/B] 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] Definitely not. The difference is with copyright and patenting. Adobe can own photoshop and sell copies without owning the right to "software which manipulates images"

People can just make copies of Photoshop and all the proprietary techniques that have likely taken years of R&D and tons of money to create. But no, they shouldn't be able to patent things they put an immense amount of effort into, anyone should be able to copy them and their features.

At worst this will just get settled out of court.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;50982848]People can just make copies of Photoshop and all the proprietary techniques that have likely taken years of R&D and tons of money to create. But no, they shouldn't be able to patent things they put an immense amount of effort into, anyone should be able to copy them and their features.[/QUOTE] And then everybody gets to pay out the ass for Photoshop and have no alternative whatsoever because Adobe worked ~so hard~. Sounds great! Oh, and you'll also only be using Macs from now on, since if Apple had their way, they would have shutdown Windows with software patents from the getgo. Enjoy paying a thousand dollars more for a computer with lesser hardware because software patents fucked the competition. And again, GIMP exists, Adobe isn't using software patents to fuck with GIMP, yet Photoshop is still hugely widespread and profitable regardless. Somebody being able to replicate a feature of your software doesn't make your software unable to compete in the marketplace. And let's not forget how companies patent software ideas that they didnt even fucking invent. Server-based chat messaging was seen as early as 1990, and even fucking AOL Instant Messenger predates BT's patent by several years. BT didn't invent that shit, so why were they allowed to patent it?

[QUOTE=smurfy;50978821]This actually sounds pretty plausible:[/QUOTE] Honestly, I was surprised when Valve actually decided to appear before court in Australia for the matter regarding breaching Australia Consumer Law.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;50982848]People can just make copies of Photoshop and all the proprietary techniques that have likely taken years of R&D and tons of money to create. But no, they shouldn't be able to patent things they put an immense amount of effort into, anyone should be able to copy them and their features.[/QUOTE] It might have taken years of R&D but you won't be able to do what they have done without also spending a lot of time doing R&D. Replicating a feature yourself is not the same as copying their own work, to replicate something you need to understand it yourself. You seem to use the word "copy" when it has a very specific legal definition that doesn't apply to patents but to copyright, which Photoshop and others have.

[QUOTE=RenaFox;50978792]Patent trolls are the worst. Steam's been doing this for how long, and they just now bring it up?[/QUOTE] 12 years

[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;50982904]And then everybody gets to pay out the ass for Photoshop and have no alternative whatsoever because Adobe worked ~so hard~. Sounds great! Oh, and you'll also only be using Macs from now on, since if Apple had their way, they would have shutdown Windows with software patents from the getgo. Enjoy paying a thousand dollars more for a computer with lesser hardware because software patents fucked the competition. And again, GIMP exists, Adobe isn't using software patents to fuck with GIMP, yet Photoshop is still hugely widespread and profitable regardless. Somebody being able to replicate a feature of your software doesn't make your software unable to compete in the marketplace. And let's not forget how companies patent software ideas that they didnt even fucking invent. Server-based chat messaging was seen as early as 1990, and even fucking AOL Instant Messenger predates BT's patent by several years. BT didn't invent that shit, so why were they allowed to patent it?[/QUOTE] The patent isn't for instant messaging in general. It's for a specific way of doing it. If prior art is found to predate the patent application date then the patent will become invalid.