Steam hit by patent troll - British Telecommunications (BT)

[Jim K Global Moderator]

https://www.unitedstatescourts.org/federal/ded/59950/1-0.html

 

BT is accusing Steam of breaking four of their patents ... which include ....

Quote

 

27.  The Gittins Patent relates generally to providing users with content that originates

from multiple subscription services and delivering it through a single portal where a customer

may access content for which it has access rights. The user requests content directly from the

portal instead of requesting content separately from each of the subscription services. The portal

can obtain the items from the remote sources or, alternatively, from readily-accessible storage

associated with the portal where the items were previously stored so that they are available on

demand.

 

29.  As described in detail below, Valve’s Steam infringes the Gittins Patent as

construed by this Court. Valve’s Steam locally stores third-party content, such as video games,

and, through the Steam platform, makes them accessible to users who have access rights,

precisely as claimed.

(so...watch out Apple, Google Play, Netflix, etc.)

 

31. The Newton Patent relates generally to a method for delivering structured

messages comprised of information and data parts 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.

 

 

32.  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. The Valve

software client transmits requests for messages to the Valve server at automatic and periodic

intervals, which are subsequently displayed at user terminals.

 

34.  The Beddus Patent relates generally to a communications system in which a user

is provided with different communication mechanisms and each mechanism is associated with a

call control protocol. The user’s status is monitored, and when the user is determined to be

logged out of the system, persistent communication mechanisms are available and at least one

non-persistent communication mechanism is unavailable.

 

35.  As described in detail below, Valve’s Steam Messaging infringes the Beddus

Patent. Valve operates a communications network to support Valve Steam Messaging where

users are provided with different communications mechanisms (e.g., text chat and VoIP calls),

and each mechanism is associated with a call control protocol. A user’s status is monitored, and

when the user is determined to be logged out of the system, text chat (here, a persistent

communication mechanism) is available and VoIP calls are disabled.

 

37.  The Buckley Patent generally relates to a multi-user display system and method

for controlling a communal display that includes at least two independent workstations and an

interface server for connection to a data network.

 

38. As described in detail below, Valve’s Steam Broadcasting infringes the Buckley

Patent. Steam Broadcasting controls a communal display that allows a game player to share a 

streaming video of their game play with one or more second users. Steam Broadcasting also

uses an interface server that manages the users and their requests.

 

Let's not forget ... BT also sued Prodigy over hyperlinks back many years ago....and lost.

BT has lost its controversial bid to sue Prodigy Communications over a patent that it claimed covered the use of hyperlinks. US District Judge Colleen McMahon awarded Prodigy its motion for summary judgement to have the case dismissed, saying that no jury could find that Prodigy infringes (BT's) patent.

 

I would write more ... but I gotta take off for work. 

 

[Danielx64]

I hope that BT lose and is forced to pay Steam a huge amount of money.

[Hum]

I thought of it first

[Louisifer]

Maybe BT should have brought this up 10 years ago before everything on the internet does one or more of these patents.  BT vs. The World aka "sorry rural customers no upgrades for you while we pay legal costs."

[+DonC Subscriber²]

Gotta pay for Brexit somehow!

[FloatingFatMan]

1 hour ago, DonC said:

Gotta pay for Brexit somehow!

Huh? BT is a private company... It's nothing to do with Brexit!

 

Pretty sure these patents will get invalidated as either too obvious, or because they've just left it too long and now the whole planet does what's covered by them.

 

Also, they really really REALLY need to prohibit the sale of patents to other companies to shop this crap from happening!  Only the originator of a patent should be able to sue.

[+Red King Subscriber²]

Valve's reaction to the original lawsuit tho

[+E.Worm Jimmy Subscriber¹]

39 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Huh? BT is a private company... It's nothing to do with Brexit!

 

Pretty sure these patents will get invalidated as either too obvious, or because they've just left it too long and now the whole planet does what's covered by them.

 

Also, they really really REALLY need to prohibit the sale of patents to other companies to shop this crap from happening!  Only the originator of a patent should be able to sue.

I only agree if this is not a patent in active use by a company, and not used by many others.

 

If one tech company sells it's tech to another, so another company can now manufacture the patented product,  the new company should be able to enforce.

 

patent collecting with the only goal of enforcing, not using... now that should stop

[FloatingFatMan]

6 minutes ago, E.worm Jimmy said:

If one tech company sells it's tech to another, so another company can now manufacture the patented product,  the new company should be able to enforce.

I don't agree that patents should be transferable, at all.  They should forever remain the property of the original registrar and only a license to USE the patent should be saleable. They should also be time limited and only transfer ownership to beneficiaries of any will should the originator die.

 

There also needs to be a strict time limit outside of which you cannot sue. No more waiting for a product to be a big seller before trying to rape someone's bank accounts.

 

This keeps the power to sue with the originator, and lets them earn money from the patent for a reasonable length of time before it becomes public domain. It also stops dead any and all patent troll companies.

[+E.Worm Jimmy Subscriber¹]

1 hour ago, FloatingFatMan said:

I don't agree that patents should be transferable, at all.  They should forever remain the property of the original registrar and only a license to USE the patent should be saleable. They should also be time limited and only transfer ownership to beneficiaries of any will should the originator die.

 

There also needs to be a strict time limit outside of which you cannot sue. No more waiting for a product to be a big seller before trying to rape someone's bank accounts.

 

This keeps the power to sue with the originator, and lets them earn money from the patent for a reasonable length of time before it becomes public domain. It also stops dead any and all patent troll companies.

makes sense