Immersion Corporation sues Valve over Steam Deck and Valve Index haptics tech

The Deck is definitely hitting success milestones: the Steam Controller and Index didn't hit the levels that were worth suing over rumble (although the Steam Controller hit the level where it's worth suing over back paddles). Onward and upward!

Is this the same company that already sued because of the Steam Controller a while back?

Edit: ah back paddles it was. So probably a different company.


Last edited by Julius on 17 May 2023 at 11:59 am UTC

i know that will sound like conspiration theory, but.. who else thinks microsoft is behind this?
that seems like an familiar situation, microsoft funding someone else to sue...

https://youtu.be/u4kMUk7sCUs?t=709


Last edited by elmapul on 17 May 2023 at 12:31 pm UTC

i know that will sound like conspiration theory, but.. who else thinks microsoft is behind this?
that seems like an familiar situation, microsoft funding someone else to sue...

https://youtu.be/u4kMUk7sCUs?t=709

And it happens days after the ROG Ally launch... Mmmm...

Not really versed in patent stuff, but most of these are just concept with no actual design... Like putting words on already existing concepts and turning them into patents... For trolling.


Last edited by Mohandevir on 17 May 2023 at 12:58 pm UTC

i know that will sound like conspiration theory, but.. who else thinks microsoft is behind this?
that seems like an familiar situation, microsoft funding someone else to sue...

Microsoft have helped out with legal attacks against their rivals before, but it's not really necessary in this case: Immersion are plenty aggressive already. Sony tried to front out that "customers don't really want rumble anyway" with the first PS3 controllers because they were being sued by Immersion, before ultimately caving. At most it would take "that Steam Deck is doing quite well" to some Immersion executive.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Regardless of what this may or may not entail, there is nothing you can do or say to me that makes me believe patents and copyright aren't the love children of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Zedong.

I guess the only good news is that at least 1 of those patents expires this year, and another one in 2024, since rumble and touchpads aren't that new.

I guess that might explain why they sued now. They might be trying to squeeze a bit more out of them before they finally lose them.

The newer ones seem to be mostly related to VR and AR, and seem to be mostly software rather than hardware? Reading patents is such a pain in the ass, they seem to be made to deliberately obscure how the supposed invention is designed, the opposite of what patents were meant to do.


Last edited by Aeder on 17 May 2023 at 2:06 pm UTC

Skimming the wording on their site, it seems that they offer an API and "fine tuning" services… but the wording on their patents are pretty damned broad spectrum.

You can't poop without being sued.

Regardless of what this may or may not entail, there is nothing you can do or say to me that makes me believe patents and copyright aren't the love children of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Zedong.

IDK. Copyright ils definitely way too long, and it's absurd that it outlasts patents.

Patents on the other hand, are quite interesting, though they have been subverted with time (as with anything when lawyers get involved). They offer companies to publish their trade secrets against time-limited exclusivity. Sounds like a good deal, as it avoids "well, that is something only company X knew how to do, but they went belly up 50 years ago" situations. Also, you need to pay (more and more with time) to extend them, up to 20 years.

I'm looking into patenting an electronics circuit myself (PhD results), which is quite innovative. If the patent sale or licensing could give me a few funds to pursue more research, I'd be happy with that. In this situation, I see the patent system as "outsourcing R&D".

I'm a bit sad that you need a lawyer to draft them up though, that makes patents expensive to do for individuals like me (yeah, patenting through my lab is... complicated, and I'm not employed anymore anyway).
Also, most companies take the approach of "describing as little as you can", which is against the spirit.

And then there's patent trolls and patents of little substance. You're not supposed to be able to patent an idea, and I believe patents to last way too long for software, where time-to-market is much, much shorter than, say, the 5-10 years it generally takes in electronics or other industrial domains (not even counting the time to obtain funding if you are starting a product from scratch as a startup).

I can't really judge for this situation, maybe their claims are legitimate? I'd have to read the patents :|


Last edited by MayeulC on 17 May 2023 at 2:22 pm UTC

I believe patents to last way too long for software

Patents on software are prohibited, although that hasn't stopped patent filers and the CAFC from trying to slip them through anyway - generally with the figleaf that a machine that's running software is an entirely different machine to one that's running different software.

i know that will sound like conspiration theory, but.. who else thinks microsoft is behind this?
that seems like an familiar situation, microsoft funding someone else to sue...

https://youtu.be/u4kMUk7sCUs?t=709

Ah, the trial where the Amiga was given kudos for having virtual workspaces before Unix.

Regardless of what this may or may not entail, there is nothing you can do or say to me that makes me believe patents and copyright aren't the love children of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Zedong.

Copyright has been extended many times by the likes of Disney. Not quite as murderous as those three, but they definitely are greedy bastards.

Patents are well intended to make it so an inventor can get some money to pay for the invention, but the patent system is heavily abused these days for ridiculous things, and really only given to people who have the money already.

Now with this lawsuit now - I don't see any connection. MS again releases games on Steam, MS does not have any Deck competitor, nor mobile gaming device. It is in the interest in MS that the Deck is a success as it means MS can sell more games to potential customers.

I think the time is over to think of MS as the pure evil in a company form.

then i think you should watch the rog ally presentation.
not only they have an device to compete with the deck (an partnership with the vendors of one) but they spread FUD and miss information there.

i mean, they implied you cant do your homework on steamOS... (they said you can do it on the ally because its running windows)
implied you cant use xcloud (despite the fact that they thenselves officially support it)
implied you cant use netflix.
implied that windows is more compatible (when we know its the opposite, games that are compatible with it not the other way arround)

not to mention: MS interest is keeping their OS monopoly as well as sell stuff in their own store, having to support linux on their store, and support games purchased there runing on linux is out of their plans.

IDK. Copyright ils definitely way too long, and it's absurd that it outlasts patents.

Patents on the other hand, are quite interesting, though they have been subverted with time (as with anything when lawyers get involved). They offer companies to publish their trade secrets against time-limited exclusivity. Sounds like a good deal, as it avoids "well, that is something only company X knew how to do, but they went belly up 50 years ago" situations. Also, you need to pay (more and more with time) to extend them, up to 20 years.

I'm looking into patenting an electronics circuit myself (PhD results), which is quite innovative. If the patent sale or licensing could give me a few funds to pursue more research, I'd be happy with that. In this situation, I see the patent system as "outsourcing R&D".

I'm a bit sad that you need a lawyer to draft them up though, that makes patents expensive to do for individuals like me (yeah, patenting through my lab is... complicated, and I'm not employed anymore anyway).
Also, most companies take the approach of "describing as little as you can", which is against the spirit.

And then there's patent trolls and patents of little substance. You're not supposed to be able to patent an idea, and I believe patents to last way too long for software, where time-to-market is much, much shorter than, say, the 5-10 years it generally takes in electronics or other industrial domains (not even counting the time to obtain funding if you are starting a product from scratch as a startup).

I can't really judge for this situation, maybe their claims are legitimate? I'd have to read the

Judging from their Wikipedia page I'd wager they're patent trolls. They have tens of millions in revenue while having only 26 people employed and owning tens of thousands of patents by buying up companies, particularly in the medical field. They actually worked with Microsoft in the late 90s but the sued them in 2002... Here's the kicker. They sued based on a patent they acquired from another company in 98.

This is 100% a patent trolling company.


Last edited by LacSlyer on 17 May 2023 at 3:28 pm UTC

This is 100% a patent trolling company.

Of course it is. But that's a not-yet-illegal-in-the-US and very lucrative line of business to be in. Although I believe they prefer the term "Non Practising Entity."

This is 100% a patent trolling company.

Of course it is. But that's a not-yet-illegal-in-the-US and very lucrative line of business to be in. Although I believe they prefer the term "Non Practising Entity."

Apologies I quoted the wrong post in my original.


Last edited by LacSlyer on 17 May 2023 at 3:27 pm UTC

Regardless of what this may or may not entail, there is nothing you can do or say to me that makes me believe patents and copyright aren't the love children of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Zedong.

IDK. Copyright ils definitely way too long, and it's absurd that it outlasts patents.

Patents (in software) takes away the right of others to do R&D and develop new software and cash in on that R&D. Copyright allows you to protect your design.
This is especially true in software.
A lot of patents in the USA are laughable and have prior art. For instance the patents that NVidia used to destroy 3DFX were things I learned on school, so that's about 15 years prior.
People supporting patents are usually people that are not smart enough to do smart things, or don't want innovation but full control and lots of money for little innovation.
The most important thing is the TRIPS agreement which states that patents should only be used in a market if it would help innovation in that market.
The USA is the biggest offender of the TRIPS agreement and wants the rest of the world to suffer the same faith.
So why does the USA do that? Well, the USA is a land of opportunities if you have a lot of money: you can lobby that your TRIPS violations are tolerated, and you can lobby the government that other countries should follow that.

Oh boy... I am back at my 2003 ranting about the attempts from big money to get frivolous patents in the EU.
And yes, we assume that Bill Gates was a supporter for that.

The patent system is completely broken. FUBAR.

This is an NPE (Non-Practising Entity) in patent-system slang, meaning they don't produce anything, they were just able to secure a patent for some reason, that's suing a company that produces something. It's called extortion everywhere else.

And while the patent system might have been put up with good intentions, it only ever works for chemicals as intended (because CHOOH2 is an entirely different chemical than CHOOOH2, and not a derivative, and this is well understood); everywhere else it serves as an intertwined mess of a hedge that prohibits newcomers to enter a market, or as weapon of corporate warfare for incumbents to kill startups.

This is a relatively recent paper on this:
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.27.1.3

And here is a rant from 1851(!) in "The Economist"(!) that already understood why a patent system is total dreck:
https://seegras.discordia.ch/Blog/voices-against-the-patent-system-the-economist-1851/

And here is a rant from 1851(!) in "The Economist"(!) that already understood why a patent system is total dreck:
https://seegras.discordia.ch/Blog/voices-against-the-patent-system-the-economist-1851/

Wow, that article is incredible. And it describes a 6 month period for patents whereby "good inventions will find a market". I feel like the whole patent trolling bullshit we see today could be solved by introducing that exact barrier. By all means patent your idea, but if no products are created for market within 6 months (either by you or others), then the patent is invalidated. Or even better, become open source, since the idea was publicly registered. You'd turn patents from a barrier into a rich source of idea generation.

Maybe 6 months is too short a period?

And I've no idea how to treat existing patents, except to arbitrarily scrapping them.