Microsoft Sues Immersion Over Rumble Deal

Waaay back in 2003, Microsoft settled with Immersion over the rumble technology found in their Xbox game controllers. Now, Microsoft is filing suit against Immersion, claiming that the company has not paid Microsoft 'based on certain business and IP licensing arrangements.' CNet has the release, and links over to a Seattle PI blog entry with some investigative digging by Todd Bishop. "One provision of the Microsoft-Immersion settlement wasn't reported widely at the time, if at all: Microsoft negotiated rights to a payment from Immersion -- a refund, of sorts -- if Immersion settled its case with Sony ... Here's where the new dispute arises: On March 1, nearly four years after the Microsoft settlement, Sony and Immersion announced that they had 'agreed to conclude their patent litigation at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and have entered into a new business agreement to explore the inclusion of Immersion technology in PlayStation format products.' ... while Immersion and Sony have agreed to conclude their patent litigation, they don't use the word 'settlement,' describing it instead as a business agreement."

Legal Insanity 101

Step 1) By some miracle, weasel a provision into your settlement that forces the other company to pay you some money if your biggest competitor also settles.
Step 2) In a humorous turn of events, watch as the other company reaches a "business agreement" and weasels you out of your money.
Step 3) People's Court.

Get out the popcorn, this is going to be the weaseldom battle of the century.

Obligatory quote:

Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel.

Re:

Not only did MS pay Immersion 26M to settle they also bought part of the company. The 26M was probably to continue using rumble tech in the Xbox controllers and buying part of the company was to lock Sony out. Seems like a shrewd move on MS' part. Pretty s

Re:

A $26M stake in the company is nowhere near a controlling interest. And their agreement has no provisions to lock Sony out. The lawsuit isn't about keeping Sony from using rumble, it's about being paid ~$27.5m under their contract terms.

Re:Legal Insanity 101

Legal Insanity 101

Step 1) By some miracle, weasel a provision into your settlement that forces the other company to pay you some money if your biggest competitor also settles.


If you don't understand the reasons behind this, doesn't mean it's "insanity".

The story is quite logical and sensible if you read more into it.

At the time Microsoft was still beginning its entry into the gaming console market. When Immersion sued them, Microsoft's lawyers analyzed the patent and how this applies to XBox and PlayStation2.

They realized that if Immersion is persistent enough, they'll win out in such a case. But "to be persistent" in the current legal system means you gotta have lots and lots of cache to fund this persistence.

At the same time Immersion was doing quite bad financially and only had a few million dollars profits for the entire year. They needed cash badly.

So Microsoft figured: if they offer enough cash to Immersion in a settlement, Immersion will go after Sony next, which sell a lot more PS2, and hence stand to lose a lot more in such a trial.

But Microsoft has the will, power and money to not do a settlement and protract the case forever, just like they always do. And Immersion knew that as well. Immersion would run out of cash before they could complete the case and end up with empty pockets and a bankrupt company.

So, Microsoft approached them and said "we won't fight, we'll settle with you, and give you the much needed cash to go after Sony. If you fail with Sony, you keep the cash, but if you get them, you return the cash". Since Immersion would end up with a lot more cash (turns out around 120 million dollars) if it won against Sony, they accepted the deal and had fresh 27 million to proceed with their patent trolling.

Now that they got Sony, Microsoft wants its cash back, as per their settlement.

That's all that happened.

Re:

I would probably feel worse if Immersion Corp [wikipedia.org] wasn't a patent troll [gamedaily.com], claiming that a rumble function violates their patent on haptic technology [roblesdelatorre.com]. If haptic technology is novel and non-obvious (patent-worthy), and if rumble technology is any part of haptic

Re:

Apparently, you don't know a whole lot about what you're talking about.

I hate patent trolls as much as the next person, but I don't think Immersion really qualifies as one. If you check their financials, nearly 60% of their revenue comes from actual p

Re:

If you're going to attack someone for ignorance, at least specify a legitimate gap in their knowledge. I'll be the first to admit I don't have all the facts in this case, but nothing you said contradicts anything I said.

nearly 60% of their revenue comes f

Re:

With the elongated shape and "Wii" name, you can use the vibration feature for a lot more than anything from Sony and Microsoft!

Re:Meanwhile...

Gosh, I never thought that the name "Wii" might have a double entendre. Congratulations on your fresh insight, sir.

Re:

They should just give up and call their next console, which by then might be able to be considered generation 7, the Nintendo Piss.

Re:

I am simply going to give you credit for wit of the driest caliber. You Anonymous Coward

Re:

Which reminds me of wondering how the hell Sony is having trouble with controller battery life with their new found attempts at rumble.

Re:

Sony uses an internal battery instead of a pair of AAs.

Re:

Yes but did they pay Immersion for the dubious privilege, especially since they had rumble for their N64 1996/7 as did Sony for their dual-shock 1997 before Immersion got their patent in 2000.

Enough is enough...

Maybe as part of these massive lawsuits that keep happening a federal provision should be setup that say 20% of all winnings in a lawsuit go to educational funds.

Re:

All that will manage to do is make them sue for more to make up for the loss.

How is it something like this would be snuck into a deal ? Did they just want the cash from MS and didn't look at the future ? bad lawyers maybe ? who in their right mind would le

Re:

Please- throwing money at education is not the solution. Poorly-performing inner city public shools receive more money per head than well-performing private schools. Besides, building in additional expense would just increase the cost of the lawsuit. If y

Re:

What about a system where the Plaintiff pays in full for the defendants legal fees as well as the court fees if the defendant is found not guilty?

That would have the benefit of plaintiffs not bringing frivolous lawsuits to court, less they risk losing a

Re:

That's just as bad in the other direction - then nobody can afford to sue anyone larger than them in case they'd lose.

I'd say that we should split costs, especially if one party is much larger than the other. Contribute an equal percentage of your total as

Re:

Yeah, and it would also prevent anyone of meagre means from bringing a legitimate suit against a wealthy defendent, lest they be forced to pay astronomical court fees. "Legitimate" is not the same thing as "guaranteed to win", especially since the latter

Re:

What about a system where the Plaintiff pays in full for the defendants legal fees as well as the court fees if the defendant is found not guilty?

Have you been living under a rock? This is exactly how the US system has been working for a while (in most cases, the judge forces the plaintiff to pay the court's and defendant's expenses if the plaintiff loses). This hasn't been anywhere near effective

Re:

Poorly-performing inner city public shools receive more money per head than well-performing private schools.

They probably also need a whole lot more, given that they can't choose their students, often have students from disfunctional families, and have to get teachers to teach under these conditions.

Re:

And when they get more money, does their performance improve?

Re:

No, it doesn't. You can't buy character. Districts that pay the most money have the worse results and where in the same area there are private/parochial schools with similar demographics (black, poor, fatherless) that succeed with a fraction of the money p

Re:

Yes, because they can hire more teachers and make the classes smaller, which improves the situation tremendously.

Re:

Evidence? 'Cause I've got mine [blogspot.com]. Just because something makes sense at first glance (more money == better schools! smaller classes == better performance!) doesn't make it true.

Conflicts of Interest?

IANAL but isn't it some sort of conflicts of interest? Wow, I am surprised how low M$ will go the outdo Sony.

Re:

Conflict of interest for what? Seriously, I'm curious what derranged explanation you can come up with...

Re:

I guess I'll keep my mouth shut since even I couldn't think of a valid response. But, it just seems wrong since we have 2 rival companies competing in the video game industry and one (M$) attempted to leverage Immersion hurt Sony.

WTFPATENTED

All this shit *should* be meaningless anyway. Patenting a rumble function? Brilliant! While we're at it, let's also grab disc-based game streaming technology, replacable human interface mechanisms, and multiple-resolution selectable display output.

Re:

Immersion patented a specific method for causing haptic feedback. Namely using a rotating off-centred mass to cause a device to vibrate and give feedback to the user. This is a perfectly legitimate patent for a new mechanical contraption.

Re:

Namely using a rotating off-centred mass to cause a device to vibrate

it's hardly original tho. My washing machine does that all the time.

Re:

Your washing machine fits into a game controller?

Re:

Those things have been around since before Immersion Corp existed. If I remember correctly, their patent amounted to "put two vibrators in a gaming controller", and that's the reason Nintendo didn't get sued: they used one.

Good

I don't see the problem here. Microsoft and Immersion signed a contract that said "If the Immersion case with Sony is settled, Immersion pays Microsoft $XXX". They then settled their case, but chose to call it something other than a settlement. As long

Re:

I don't see the problem here. Microsoft and Immersion signed a contract that said "If the Immersion case with Sony is settled, Immersion pays Microsoft $XXX". They then settled their case, but chose to call it something other than a settlement. As long as

Re:

It's going to be a short dance. From a legal dictionary:

"The term settlement is also applied to an agreement by which two or more persons, who have dealings together, so far arrange their accounts, as to ascertain the balance due from one to the other; an

Re:

Sony didn't settle their case... they lost it.

Re:

I agree 100% with you.

I'm no U.S. law expert, but I thought that Microsoft gained something like 20% shares of Immersion during their agreement too. If so, Microsoft should be entitled to part of the settlement between Immersion and Sony... This settlement

Re:

You're definately not a us law expert, and you've obviously never invested any money in stocks.

Company profits don't have to be distributed to shareholders. Microsoft is entitled to a dividend if Immersion pays one out to share holders, but share holders

Mod parent up

Inspiring!

Sometimes..

This is the elusive no. 2 we've been looking for!

1) Settle a lawsuit for infringing on a patent
2) Wait and watch as the company you gave money to gets money elsewhere and breaches the hidden agreement you actually managed to sneak in
3) Profit! (or atleast