So if Paltalk settled out of court with MS, then does new new suit against SOE and others have any precedent set for games/systems that are around 10 years old?

Obviously MPlayer was around before EQ1 was released, but why wait to slap this patent troll lawsuit on now if the MS one was settled out of court. Does settling out of court have any weight on future lawsuits?

Very interesting...I would think if no suits where filed within 7 years of something use the same or similar technology, no suit could be filed...but apparently I'm clueless on this stuff.

There should be no such thing as a software patent.

Period.

End of story.

Someone, please fix the US patent system and make it stop leaching creativity away from developers/engineers.

Because they're money grubbing, greedy little bastards and it's all the rage to sue gaming related companies because they've made something similar to what you have patented because that's where the money is these days. I don't think it really even matters if the item in questions is violating the patent, as long as it's similar enough that stupid people will believe it, it's probably going to happen. Not saying that legitimate violations don't occur, but seems to be a trend towards trying to get money out of the gaming industry.

Andrew hit it on the head.

This is ridiculous. Unless they out and out stole the codebase almost line for line, this is a farce.

I agree. Unless it's line for line, or obviously modified, it's a steaming load. And that's unlikely. And something so broad should not be allowed to be patented. That's like Eggo patenting round waffles and then going around suing everyone who make round waffles or round waffle irons. That would never stand up in court and this is just as ridiculous.

Sweet they goofed their are several MMO that predate 1999, no more patent. Most patents are really hard to challenge until the person tries to enforce them and they get found invalid. Like claiming technology from before your company existed, AC1 November 2, 1999 Turbine named in the suite. Then again if you follow groklaw you may notice that none of the software patents are actually valid.

Well I hope their lawyers follow groklaw then and give them a sound thrashing with "The Book," or at the very least throw it at them as the saying properly goes.

When I read this story yesterday, I did a little research (and am doing more) and sent it off to PJ at Groklaw.com. She's added it to the news picks section, let's hope that that generates some additional interest.

One of the things that I thought was incorrect with the story was that it said that Microsoft settled a $90 million lawsuit. Although the story does say that the terms were undisclosed, the story still implies that Microsoft might actually have paid out that much. I suspect that that is very far from what happened. It would not surprise me in the least that four days into the trial that Microsoft might have settled secretly for $0 down and $0 licensing going forward. Because even this would be a win for both companies. PalTalk gets to walk away saying that they won, that their patents were valid, and have a (dubious) precedent; Microsoft keeps quiet, gets to use/license the technology for free and all of it's competitors now have to worry about being sued, defending themselves and otherwise paying one way or the other just to stay in the game. Not to mention all those independents developers working away in their garages that might decide to no longer even bother.

Then of course, there is nothing stopping PalTalk from moving on to other sections on the Game Industry that uses online features in their games. Until the patents are invalidated, companies and individuals will have to defend themselves of buy PalTalk off. It's a self feeding cycle. Well, here is hoping that the settlement between PalTalk and Microsoft can be used in discovery (if this latest lawsuit makes it that far).

Now, with luck, all the above could be mute if the patents, 6,226,686 [http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetah
tml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=6,226,686.PN.&OS=PN/
6,226,686&RS=PN/6,226,686] and 5,822,523 [http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetah
tml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=5,822,523.PN.&OS=PN/
5,822,523&RS=PN/5,822,523] could be invalidated, and given the new climate towards software patents (Bilski [http://endsoftpatents.org/bilski] may not apply here), it might now be easier to have these patents reviewed and invalidated, or at least have their scope reduced and better defined. So, if you are interested, read them and look for valid prior art.

By the way, if you are interested in patents as they relate to software (and you should be), might I recommend the patent section [http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20050402193202442] at Groklaw as a good starting place.