Valve wins legal battle against patent troll Rothschild and associated companies

HUGE W

What's more interesting for me here is that the patent lawyers themselves (Meyler Legal PLLC and the lawyer himself Samuel Meyler) got held responsible for filing without due diligence. This I think is the first time a PLLC has consequences for patent trolling, up to now PLLC's have been in the shadows when it comes to patent trolling.

Hopefully this will mean that lawyers will be more resistant to being complicit in patent trolling. That could change the whole landscape.

Also, wow, that verdict document is properly damning.

$150,000 seems too small of a penalty. They should have added another zero.

Quoting: Mountain Man$150,000 seems too small of a penalty. They should have added another zero.

As far as I understood (which is very limited), this is just this step and this actually sets Valve up further action. So I'd expect much more in the future.

Not the smartest move to try and screw over a company that actually has the resources to fight back.

Of note with this case is that Valve had already bought a licence for the patents. Then they got sued. So there was a case where they said, "actually, we already paid for this." Then they got sued again, so they took the gloves off.

Quoting: Mountain Man$150,000 seems too small of a penalty. They should have added another zero.

Even that isn't enough. Businesses like that have no right to exist. They should have seized the entire thing and shut them down.

Valve have big pockets and can afford to drag this in courts for years. But there are patent trolls going after the small companies and try to defeat them only trough legal costs.

Quoting: Kimyrielle

Quoting: Mountain Man$150,000 seems too small of a penalty. They should have added another zero.

Even that isn't enough. Businesses like that have no right to exist. They should have seized the entire thing and shut them down.

I'm really torn over this. On one hand I'm pretty pro-capitalism (with the understanding that all -isms need some guardrails) but I'm also very much against owning "ideas". Maybe there could be some kind of middle ground where you can sue for patent infringment if you are actively using the patent in a product. But, if you aren't using it then you lose you ability to sue for infringment. Heck maybe even move the patent to the now producer of said patented product.

Still, it all is so tiresome trying to figure out a million laws/ways to stop everyone from screwing each other over. Why, oh why, did so many of us allow money worship to be such a central focus... :(

Quoting: eggrole

Quoting: Kimyrielle

Quoting: Mountain Man$150,000 seems too small of a penalty. They should have added another zero.

Even that isn't enough. Businesses like that have no right to exist. They should have seized the entire thing and shut them down.

I'm really torn over this. On one hand I'm pretty pro-capitalism

Quoting: eggroleWhy, oh why, did so many of us allow money worship to be such a central focus... :(

Um, capitalism. That's kind of the point.

Quoting: M@GOidValve have big pockets and can afford to drag this in courts for years. But there are patent trolls going after the small companies and try to defeat them only trough legal costs.

I think that the legal system should be basically all public defenders/prosecutors. If you want to sue someone, you file the lawsuit, you get assigned a lawyer, the person you sue gets assigned a lawyer, they go at it, you both get assessed a fee based on ability to pay. If it's a complex case, maybe more lawyers, but you both get assigned the same amount of legal team. Maybe there's a step in there for a quick determination if the case is obviously frivolous it just gets dumped before the government has to spend money on you.

Quoting: eggrole

Quoting: Kimyrielle

Quoting: Mountain Man$150,000 seems too small of a penalty. They should have added another zero.

Even that isn't enough. Businesses like that have no right to exist. They should have seized the entire thing and shut them down.

I'm really torn over this. On one hand I'm pretty pro-capitalism

Quoting: eggroleWhy, oh why, did so many of us allow money worship to be such a central focus... :(

Yeah, I, too, used to think that consumerism (over-consuming/producing) or something is to blame for many of our society's woes. But over time I learned that capitalism is the system that incentivizes breaking any guardrails ("lobbying", illegal bribing, monopolization, public opinion manipulation, promoting polarization, promoting other kinds of distractions, destabilizing states) and if you add enough guardrails to stop that, there is nothing left to justify still calling it capitalism.

Capitalism is also inherently anti-democratic - those with more money/capital have much more of a say in society. And why do some people have more than others? Even if their recent-most earnings (of power) are by-the-rules (who made the rules? - the ruling class), the origins of those differences of capital (why they got a million loan from daddy and you didn't) always trace back to historical injustices and abuses of those who couldn't defend themselves.

In my country, the wealthiest people today - are those who were close to wealth in the 90s (buying up businesses and resources). Those who got wealthiest in the 90s - were those who stole the most public resources at the dissolution of the Soviet Union. And the people with best opportunities to steal - were those who were near power in the Soviet Union...

So capitalism isn't, strictly speaking, the feudalism of old (born into the status of your ancestors) but it might as well be feudalism in a trench coat and in those fake glasses with a mustache attached.

Last edited by chr on 27 Feb 2026 at 4:38 pm UTC

Quoting: chr

Quoting: eggrole

Quoting: Kimyrielle

Quoting: Mountain Man$150,000 seems too small of a penalty. They should have added another zero.

Even that isn't enough. Businesses like that have no right to exist. They should have seized the entire thing and shut them down.

I'm really torn over this. On one hand I'm pretty pro-capitalism

Quoting: eggroleWhy, oh why, did so many of us allow money worship to be such a central focus... :(

Yeah, I, too, used to think that consumerism (over-consuming/producing) or something is to blame for many of our society's woes. But over time I learned that capitalism is the system that incentivizes breaking any guardrails ("lobbying", illegal bribing, monopolization, public opinion manipulation, promoting polarization, promoting other kinds of distractions, destabilizing states) and if you add enough guardrails to stop that, there is nothing left to justify still calling it capitalism.

Capitalism is also inherently anti-democratic - those with more money/capital have much more of a say in society. And why do some people have more than others? Even if their recent-most earnings (of power) are by-the-rules (who made the rules? - the ruling class), the origins of those differences of capital (why they got a million loan from daddy and you didn't) always trace back to historical injustices and abuses of those who couldn't defend themselves.

In my country, the wealthiest people today - are those who were close to wealth in the 90s (buying up businesses and resources). Those who got wealthiest in the 90s - were those who stole the most public resources at the dissolution of the Soviet Union. And the people with best opportunities to steal - were those who were near power in the Soviet Union...

So capitalism isn't, strictly speaking, the feudalism of old (born into the status of your ancestors) but it might as well be feudalism in a trench coat and in those fake glasses with a mustache attached.

I think blaming our current state of affairs on capitalism is an extremely weak position. It wouldn't matter one iota what economic system is in place if corruption is allowed to flourish. In capitalism or socialism, you'd see the same bribing, fraud, neopotism, etc that you see today. Think about the bailouts circa 2008 (and beyond). That isn't even close to capitalism. I'm reminded of the saying "capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich". Heck, even Carnegie said "competition is a sin".

In the USA we have social welfare, a socialist military, extreme restrictions on business, etc. Now, I'm not against any of this. I'm no full-blow laize-fair advocate, but (at least here) we don't have anything close to what Smith or Ricardo described in their seminole works.

I DO blame over consumption. Those people that get ultra wealthy (on top of the corruption, which should be public enemy #1) got there because millions of "little people" gave them their hard earned money. Maybe you could argue that people will only buy what they think will improve their lives, but I think that comes back to a branch of corruption. The media portrays a lifestyle of luxury that will make you happy. They sell their wares with beautiful people and promises of fulfillment, but it is all hollow. Not long after you purchase something, the newness wears off and you are back to longing for the next thing. If you're interested check out Propganda by Bernays for a really easy read and a good look at how this works.

I've checkout out of this system by-and-large via a general boycott. I barely spend money on things I don't need and then try to support companies doing things I like. IMHO this is the only way to bring about any kind of social change - by essentially crashing* the (global) economy. Accelerationism in short. I believe that the people are completely able to build a better (hopefully more local) system and keep corruption in check, but right now there is no incenetive to break from the line. If the economy were in shambles, I think a lot of the distractions and bullcrap would fall away and people would be motivated to build something (whatever it is they decide - not for me to say) better.

And even given a crash and rebuild, it will only be a matter of time before corruption bleeds in again as people get fat and happy and content. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".

* General boycott leads to lower revenue leads to layoffs (yes this will be economically painful - that is the point) leads to even lower revenue leads to a deflationary death spiral.

Quoting: eggroleIn the USA we have social welfare, a socialist military, extreme restrictions on business, etc.

Hah, good joke. Neither your regulations nor your social welfare hold a candle to the ones in the EU, and the EU is undeniably a union of capitalist nations. You clearly bought the very American BS that any time a government spends money in a way that does not directly relate to commerce, military power or law enforcement, it is somehow anti-capitalist and therefore socialist. Regulated capitalism is still capitalism, and money has to flow up or there's nothing to trickle down (as if that ever happens).

Quoting: eggroleI DO blame over consumption.

Sure. Why blame the system when you can blame the ones with no power. You're blaming the addicts, not the pushers. You're blaming the players, not the ones writing and enforcing the rules.

You're right in that voting with your wallet or in elections are the only ways most of you (and us living in slightly more functional capitalist democracies) can hope to make a slight impact, but ultimately what you need is government oversight and regulation of markets to keep them from inevitably working against the interests of society. Exactly like Smith prescribed.

I have to concede that you'll have a very tough time trying to find two notable sources that agree on the particulars of either capitalism or socialism. Par for the course when discussing politics or economics.

Quoting: eggroleIf you're interested check out Propganda by Bernays for a really easy read and a good look at how this works.

As long as you keep in mind that it's not an objective, much less a critical look. It's written by one of America's leading advocates of propaganda.