JaGeX Killed a Patent Troll

[Big_Stingman]

This is waaaaaay old news.

[darkblade986]

As many people will say, while the Patent system is necessary, it's woefully underdeveloped when it comes to software patents. There are far too many ways for a general statement to perform the same action. Patents for mechanical devices or designs require a rough blueprint included with the patent - with which, there really is only one way to design it although with multiple ways to present it (think front loading washer vs top loading washer). With software patents, not only are there multiple ways to perform the same function, there's the multiple coding languages to put it in too. The main problem with this is the youth of the consumer computer system. It was only 15 years ago that Windows 95 was released - the first of many user friendly operating systems and one of the first to include internet functionality as well.

 

The more patent trolls that get killed like this, the closer the system will get to reform and the less we'll have to deal with this. All we can really do at this point is support the companies fighting the trolls, assuming the patents they're fighting really are vague and trollish in nature. While I can understand the patent when it was first released, after a while, such ideas become such common and necessary that enforcement of them will stifle more creativity than they create...

 

 

...

 

Dang it, I'm preaching to a crowd that probably doesn't care. Good job JaGeX for not giving up like Microsoft did. While it's a shame, as was said, that the US doesn't have frivolous prosecution statutes, the reason behind this, I'm sure, is to prevent people from counter-suing frivolously in turn. That, of course, is not to say we don't have malicious prosecution statutes, which is something completely different.

[jjjon123]

THIS ISN'T COMMUNISM VS CAPITALISM DEBATE CLUB SO ALL YOU FAT UGLY TROLLS, STFU AND GET A LIFE NOW

 

On topic:

Gj jagex :thumbup: , I cant say the same for microsoft, i'm surprised they bought that garbage lawsuit

[sees_all1]

How can it be proven in court that someone had knowledge of something? Is internet history the only way? I feel like even if you had proof that soemone visited a page, they could claim not to have read anything on the page, and what evidence can you provide to prove otherwise?

 

Not meaning to sound assholish or anything I am genuinely interested.

Biggest thing is that if you're trying to write a game, or some other thing, and it turns profitable, you might be infringing on outstanding patents. If they try and sue you, they'll do everything in their power to prove that you had prior knowledge, meaning they want triple damages.

 

Protect yourself, and don't go looking at patents if you're going to develop something.

[Aeon_]

Well, if the company that held the patents went bankrupt in 2000, how did Paltalk end up getting it in 2008 (when their 'preview' version was released)?

[sees_all1]

Well, if the company that held the patents went bankrupt in 2000, how did Paltalk end up getting it in 2008 (when their 'preview' version was released)?

Patents are viewed as an asset, when a company goes bankrupt several things can happen. It appears in this case its assets were sold off and the company was monetized. Whoever acquired the patents are then granted the IP they contain.