In 1994, Peter Hochstein and Jeffrey Tenenbaum patented a technology that allowed users to communicate live while playing the same game in separate locations.
Specifically, the patent in question is for an "apparatus and method for electrically connecting remotely located videogames," reports Patent Arcade.
Eight years later Microsoft released Xbox Live, while Sony launched an online gaming service for PS2.
In the suit - originally filed against the hardware makers in August 2004 - the plaintiffs alleged that both systems' voice and data communications technology infringed on their patent. They sought a permanent injunction and damages.
Sony settled its suit in April 2009, leaving Microsoft as the sole remaining defendant.
nowadays i suspect Steam would be vulnerable and games for windows live perhaps.
seems a bit odd to me that they can sue but if sony settled out of court maybe they felt they had no way of winning so it'll be interesting to see how MS fair.
cause there are still loads of they games going on today. doubt epic are still running servers for that.
Of course the publishers could be sued, after all it is the developers that are infringing on the patent and the publisher has overall responsibility for the game.
I am pretty sure many pc games use the same method as the 360 where one of the players machines is the server.
These articles don't really go into too much detail of why they are suing. I am thinking maybe the methods the companies are using to communicate live while playing are infringing on their patents(well, they are claimed to be by the plaintiffs). Nintendo couldn't sue Sony for their motion tech because the method they use is different. Hoover couldn't sue Dyson for their Vacuum cleaner because even though essentially, they suck up dirt, but the way they work differ in a way that patents do not get infringed. Something like that.
These articles don't really go into too much detail of why they are suing. I am thinking maybe the methods the companies are using to communicate live while playing are infringing on their patents(well, they are claimed to be by the plaintiffs). Nintendo couldn't sue Sony for their motion tech because the method they use is different. Hoover couldn't sue Dyson for their Vacuum cleaner because even though essentially, they suck up dirt, but the way they work differ in a way that patents do not get infringed. Something like that.
Unfortunately tech patents do not seem to follow the same rules.
Amazon for instance have patented one click shopping. Not the implementation but the whole idea. This is just like patenting the vacuum as a whole rather than the way it works.....
You can patent pretty much anything, the key is making it have enough innovative qualities in the first place to stand up as much as possible to potential similar products. As someone said though theres little real info here and no doubt Microsoft either feel they have a good case or intend to railroad the case because no large organisation goes to high profile litigation without a solid standing.
Didn't a similar thing happen with vibration controllers? Sony settled out of court for a few million dollars but MS went to court and really got nailed for tens of millions
Read the article you muppet, sony settled out of court.
@ leefear1
PC games have dedicated servers, that is why you never get a host ended game as the server never stops running (unless it crashes or someone switches it off). Xbox and PS3 games use a console as host, so if the host leaves or quits then everybody in the game gets kicked. Dedicated servers are superior to user console hosting.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
