Printable View
Only reason we blaim MS on this, is that they bought stock in Immersion after they settled, so that they could controll and gain money off Immersion. Therefor, MS will most likely make Sony pay a ridiculiously large amount of money to use the Rumble feature.
Microsoft has no way to influence the decision of immersion (they don't have a majority of the shares, by far). Sony, even if it bought 51% of the shares, wouldn't have that power either, because there are laws protecting the small shareholders preventing that. The difference is here that MS played it safe (settle + get shares to get a little out of it), while Sony is trying to strongarm its way out.
Also, the first patents filed were in 1995, before the N64 was out.
Well I'll be jiggered. It certainly pays to know all the facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Endless
Stupid media never report on legal matters properly :mad:
I now officially despise Microsoft. I was patient before, but this time you've gone too far.
but wait a second, 1995? patents only last about 7 years. that would mean the patents would have expired by now.
Patents last for 20 years, starting from the date of filing. That said, you can morally condemn Immersion for pulling a "submarine" (*), but legally, they're in their right.
(*) A patent submarine is this: you file a patent, wait a few years to see if it becomes commercially viable; if yes, sue whoever is using the invention commercially. Most of the times, I think it ends in settlements, unless you feel confident the patent shouldn't have been granted in the first place.
Regarding the rumble fedback, Sony will have to demonstate that, and there are forms of prior arts (arcade machines, for example), but so far, it hasn't convinced judges that these patents were invalid.
And I still don't see what you have against MS. They didn't start it, and they don't have the power to stop it.
Wow, handy to know. Learn something new everyday.Quote:
Originally Posted by Endless
So basically, yeah, if Sony had payed to license the technology, they would have saved like $70 million? That's is why the path of least resistance usually appeals to me.
Also, I too would like to know why this is suddenly Microsofts fault? So since they made a smart buisness move and Sony didn't, they're evil?
ah i see. but pulling a patent submarine is an underhanded tecnique(sp), and in the future if people know this it can hurt the company more than help it. So why do something that you know may help in the short run but ultimatly ruin you in the long run?