Indication that PS3 is getting vibration
- Thread starter 22psi
- Start date
thatdude90210
Regular
Not money. MS are paying to license Immersion's tech, and Sony the same. You don't pay your customers the takings from other customers! Perhaps MS wants in on the tech Sony are supposedly getting, and think under the old licensing agreement they're entitled to it?
deathkiller
Newcomer
I think that Immersion paying MS if Sony pays Immersion was part of an agreements made when MS controlled Immersion (MS brought part of Immersion and sold it after the agreement).
I suppose that is something in the terms of "I have exclusive rights of the patent and if you license it to someone else you have to pay me".
No doubt, MS was putting pressure on Immersion to go after Sony as well, similar to MS getting sued by Wang over COM patents, MS investing in Wang, and then pressuring Wang to sue Netscape during the browser wars.
The whole patent system is now nothing more than a joke, a playground for underhanded anticompetitive tactics and fly-by-night IP-holding law-shark firms who make a business out of doing nothing but buying defunct patents and finding people with money to rape and pillage.
The whole patent system is now nothing more than a joke, a playground for underhanded anticompetitive tactics and fly-by-night IP-holding law-shark firms who make a business out of doing nothing but buying defunct patents and finding people with money to rape and pillage.
If the details are correct, this is the most comprehensive telling of the story that I've seen:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...rsion-you-owe-us-for-the-sony-settlement.html
Basically, there was a sub-clause in MS's settlement with Immersion that required Immersion to pay MS a minimum of $15m if Immersion settled with Sony (i.e. not an ongoing royalty based on Sony deals, but a once-off). If the settlement with Sony exceeded $100m, it would be more. MS's complaint is two-fold - 1) that Immersion is trying to characterise their deal with Sony has being different than a settlement (i.e. 'licensing' in order to avoid that payment, and 2) that the actual settlement was for a sum greater than the $90m that was announced, and exceeded $100m. MS wants that the $15m payment to be made, in addition to some compensation apparently.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...rsion-you-owe-us-for-the-sony-settlement.html
Basically, there was a sub-clause in MS's settlement with Immersion that required Immersion to pay MS a minimum of $15m if Immersion settled with Sony (i.e. not an ongoing royalty based on Sony deals, but a once-off). If the settlement with Sony exceeded $100m, it would be more. MS's complaint is two-fold - 1) that Immersion is trying to characterise their deal with Sony has being different than a settlement (i.e. 'licensing' in order to avoid that payment, and 2) that the actual settlement was for a sum greater than the $90m that was announced, and exceeded $100m. MS wants that the $15m payment to be made, in addition to some compensation apparently.
I stand corrected. I forgot MS bought up some of Immersion, and so yeah, they're wanting some legally valid (in their opinion. The lawyers will be rubbing their hands with glee on both sides!) payback.
Didn't they go after all three at the same time, just Sony were the only ones that didn't give in straight away. (I believe both Microsoft and Nintendo bought shares in Immersion although I don't think the poster that says Microsoft "controlled" Immersion is correct, I don't think they bought a controlling share)
I will never understand the patent system, it seems you can be extremely vague about you technology/idea and get it passed through without any problems.
Nintendo is not involved with Immersion.