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.

Quoting: tuubi

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.

Another way to look at it is that Industrialism needs Consumerism in order to move all the products the factories are manufacturing. Capitalism is just the economic means being used to do this. Are there other ways to distribute Industrialism's production? Certainly, but Capitalism suits the Western elite.

Most of us have been conditioned from early childhood to do our part in keeping this flawed economic system functioning. We are trained to be good, replaceable factory cogs and kept in a perpetual state of childhood through poor education. The goal is to keep us consuming, so that the system keeps functioning and the wealth continues to trickle upwards. It's gotten so bad that we are now actively encouraged to go deeply in debt just to keep this Consumerism ball rolling.

Advertising and propaganda are the primary evils in this system. Thanks to a nephew of Freud, Freud's therapeutic techniques are being employed to manipulate us into being good consumers (and obedient citizens). It encourages this almost child-like tendency @eggrole described of "not long after you purchase something, the newness wears off and you are back to longing for the next thing." The key to breaking out of this system is to avoid the advertising(*). This is why advertising has become so pernicious and can be found almost everywhere. The system that benefits the elite needs the rest of us to consume or it cannot survive. The flipside is that we common folk do not actually need the system to survive or thrive. With a change in mindset, we can manage quite well without it. The propaganda is just designed to manipulate us into believing that Consumerism is the only alternative.

(*) Getting out of debt also helps.

Last edited by Caldathras on 28 Feb 2026 at 7:16 pm UTC

Quoting: eggrolebut (at least here) we don't have anything close to what Smith or Ricardo described in their seminole works.

One thing to keep in mind about the old school guys, Adam Smith et al., is that when they said "free market" they meant something very different from what modern free marketeers mean when they say "free market". In some ways the two concepts are directly opposed.

So when modern free market guys talk about "free" markets, they mean completely unregulated markets, in which capital gets to make money however it wants--constraints are bad because markets are magic and inherently efficient as long as you don't interfere. And, just to be clear, this is not true. The theory of efficient markets is rubbish if you look at it for more than ten seconds, and the practice makes clear that unregulated markets are fraudulent markets.

But that is most definitely not what Smith was talking about. When the classical economists talked about "free" markets, they meant free of economic rent. That is, they meant markets where there were no monopolies, no barriers to entry, in general no way for capitalists to extract windfall profits. Markets, in short, where capitalists were forced to do things like compete on price, thus allowing Smith's "invisible hand" to operate. Getting markets to be remotely like this requires strong regulation. And Smith knew it, and was well aware that tradesmen and captains of industry were constantly scheming to get around such issues the better to extract money from the public.

The modern "free market" is a market that actively promotes rentiers. Smith would have hated it.

Quoting: eggroleI 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.

There's a few things about that. The fundamental thing about capitalists is that their job is to invest capital, so that they can produce something (goods, services . . . what Marx called "commodities") to sell, and to do it in such a way as to earn a profit which they can then reinvest. The name of the game is to maximize profit.

OK, so to make a profit that way, people need to buy the stuff. Capitalists long ago realized that they need to create demand if there isn't enough. They do that in various ways--advertising and PR to make people think they need whatever stuff, planned obsolescence so people have to buy the same stuff again, credit so people can buy the stuff even if they don't have the money. So, consumerism is an inevitable facet of capitalism; it's a way of increasing demand so more stuff can be sold and more profits made.

Another thing is the weird collective action problem capitalists run into. Collectively, they depend on the workers having effective demand--being able to buy products. But individually, they're trying to maximize profit, and there are two basic ways to do that--maximizing revenue, and minimizing expenses. Probably the biggest component of minimizing expenses is not paying workers more than you absolutely have to. Doesn't matter if it's by producing with less labour or paying the labour less, each capitalist is trying to reduce the amount of money going to workers. But if they ain't got no money, they're not buying much of what the capitalists are collectively producing. Again, one big solution to this is credit, but that has limits--the credit is not interest free, which means in the medium term payments on all the debt end up reducing what people can afford to buy. These are reasons why despite claims of being all about growth, places that reduce the bargaining power of labour by crushing unions, creating gig economies and so on, actually show lower growth.

Currently, most of the biggest capitalists don't seem to care about any of this; they seem fine with shrinking the pie as long as they own and control more of it. And the economy has gotten sufficiently deregulated that it is often more lucrative to make profit through fraud than by creating actual commodities, let alone valuable ones that increase society's wealth. I think this is an inevitable trajectory. As capitalists gain wealth making real things, they look for ways to increase profits, and they notice that changing the rules is a very profitable way. As they get involved in politics to change the rules, they gain more power to change the rules more. As the rules change, the playing field shifts and rewards different behaviours, less connected to doing useful things. In the end you have an economy controlled largely by grifters.

This stage leads to instability, which may give you fascism or, if you're lucky, some kind of leftward pendulum swing, maybe to social democracy or "new deal" capitalism with much more regulation and less concentration of wealth and power. But that is just starting the process again if the capitalists are still in place with the same objectives.