Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Microsoft Sues Immersion Over Rumble Deal

Posted by Zonk on Tue Jun 19, 2007 01:39 PM
from the tit-for-tat dept.
Microsoft Government The Courts Entertainment Games News
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."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Microsoft Settles With Immersion Over Haptic Patent 28 comments
Dolly_Llama writes "Immersion settled their lawsuit against Microsoft over the use of Haptic vibration technology in the XBox controllers. Microsoft paid Immersion $26M to settle and to license Immersion's haptic patents. Immersion has a similar lawsuit still pending with Sony."
[+] Immersion Queries Lack Of PS3 Controller Rumble 117 comments
simoniker writes "Following the announcement that the PS3 controller will lack a rumble feature, Gamasutra spoke to Victor Viegas of Immersion Corporation, which is currently suing Sony over the PS2 rumble functionality, about what he feels the company's reasoning truly is. He claims of the PS3 controller having both rumble and tilt: 'I don't believe it's a very difficult problem to solve', and also said that his employees thought the PS3 controller 'felt light, that it felt cheap and flimsy, and that it lacked weight or substance.'"
[+] PS3 Finally Ready to Rumble? 99 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Sony has finally settled its longstanding legal dispute over infringement of Immersion Corporation's force feedback patents, which reportedly led to Sony's decision to remove rumble technology from the PS3 controller, by agreeing to pay Immersion at least $150.3 million in damages and royalties. The agreement presumably will result in rumble and perhaps other of Immersion's force-feedback technologies being incorporated in future Sony controllers. Microsoft previously settled a similar lawsuit brought by Immersion, but Sony hung on tenaciously despite complaints about its controller products and disappointing PS3 sales." There's no guarantee that the tech will show up in the Sixaxis controller, of course. After all, rumble is a 'last-gen' feature.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Microsoft Sues Immersion Over Rumble Deal 25 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Legal Insanity 101 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MeanderingMind (884641) * on Tuesday June 19 2007, @01:44PM (#19567425) Homepage Journal
    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: (Score:5, Funny)

      by Applekid (993327) on Tuesday June 19 2007, @01:47PM (#19567477)
      Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel.

    • Re:Legal Insanity 101 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by suv4x4 (956391) on Tuesday June 19 2007, @06:04PM (#19571531)
      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.
    • 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 technology, then clearly it is a novel and non-obvious implementation thereof. Sounds like a keyboard patent holder suing a mouse manufacturer for infringement because they're both input mechanisms. But what do I know.. IANAL.
        • 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 from actual product sold, with less than 30% coming from licensing

          That doesn't mean they aren't trying to leverage their patents beyond the scope of what was covered. I'm sure not everything a pickpocket does is bad either, but that doesn't mean we should
  • 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: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by sYkSh0n3 (722238)

        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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by LordVader717 (888547)
        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 (Score:2, Insightful)

    by GWLlosa (800011)
    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 the word 'settle'/'settlement' has a legally definable meaning, and that meaning covers the 'business arrangement' between Sony and Immersion, then Microsoft is owed money. There's nothing insidious or underhanded about it. If Immersion doesn't like i
    • 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 the word 'settle'/'settlement' has a legally definable meaning, and that meaning covers the 'business arrangement' between Sony and Immersion, then Microsoft is owed money. There's nothing insidious or underhanded about it. If Immersion doesn't like it, th

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by DeeDob (966086)
      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 becomes "profits" for Immersion to which Microsoft is entitled an amount at LEAST based on their number of shares.
    • 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... (Score:5, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2007, @01:57PM (#19567621)
        Gosh, I never thought that the name "Wii" might have a double entendre. Congratulations on your fresh insight, sir.
        • They should just give up and call their next console, which by then might be able to be considered generation 7, the Nintendo Piss.

      • Which reminds me of wondering how the hell Sony is having trouble with controller battery life with their new found attempts at rumble.
    • 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.
    • 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 you're hoping to discourage massive lawsuits in general, this is a bad way to do it. If you're trying to discourage only the frivolous sort, you should realize that while this is slashdot and Microsoft is evilbadsuperdumb, they might well have a legit case.
      • 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 bit of money themselves. Not only that it would remove the burden of court costs from the tax payers and place it on those who would bring ridiculous lawsuits to court.
        • 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 assets, split it down the middle.

          The concept of the parties paying was so that society wouldn't have to foot another bill. Really it looks like that was a false savings. If we'd pay the costs up front and fine both parties according to guilt for what they c
        • 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 doesn't exist.

          Would you risk paying Sony's legal fees? No matter how legitimate your beef may be, can you be sure you can beat their high-priced lawyers? And can you risk having to pay for those high-priced lawyers? Especially when we've just given them

        • 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 in stopping civil lawsuit abuse.

      • 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.

        • And when they get more money, does their performance improve?
          • 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 per student. DC is the best example - two thirds of all PUBLIC school teachers send their children to private schools.

            There are a lot of reasons why schools - public and private - fail. They usually get the least intelligent people, on average, as teacher

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.