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.

Quoting: Purple Library GuyBut 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.

I can confirm this. You know those freelance consultants they bring in to help you make your business more "efficient"? The first thing these so-called "experts" tell you is that wages are the largest and most easily controlled expense of your business. (This is also pushed by books & websites as well.) I dislike the mentality because it treats your employees as if they are resources (like office supplies) instead of unique and valuable individuals contributing to the success of your business. The less you pay your employees, the more turnover you will see. There is a high cost to that as well.

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.

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.

The first point is a perspective. You say the consumer has no power while I say they have 99% of the power. If people stop buying, the corpos go broke. If corpos stop selling... the people don't get trinkets?

On the second point, of course it advocates for propaganda. If you want to learn what your enemy thinks, listen to what they say. If you only read books that are critical of things you already disagree with, you'll never expand your understanding. I read almost exclusively books I disagree with now-a-days. (Another book in that regard would be Cybernetics by Weiner).

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

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

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

Yes, that is what I was saying. I don't like to argue semantics as people call things capitalist and socialist (or any other -ism or -ists these days) when they have little understanding of the roots of the words. I argue that we don't have capitalism today in the USA (or the west in general) and we have a system much closer to socialism.

Now, I'm not saying socialism is bad. But when I look at the redistribution of wealth today it is astounding. The "problem" is the middle class pays (via taxes and manufactured consumption), the poor get bribed with crumbs, and the wealthy accumulate even more. When the fat cats make bets that go awry, they get bailouts or trading is halted. When the bounce goes the other direction no such guardrails are implemented. If we had anything close to classical capitalism, failure wouldn't get bailed out.

All that said, I feel like we are nearing a period when the "free market" (lol) is going to seize up. As you said the pie is shrinking and more people are getting locked out, so-to-speak, of a future. IMHO so much happening these days (Epstein, now Iran, endless things really) are all to distract from the cumbling global economic system. And, if you'll allow me to don my tinfoil hat, when it finally "crashes" the very people that strangled it to death will be waiting with their Hegelian synthesis. I think this will be bribing people with UBI that allows for even more surveillance and control. But again, I'm a tinfoil maniac. 😁

P.S. I really enjoyed this exchange. I like seeing rational opinions that differ from my own without all the name calling and echo chambering I see elsewhere. Cheers!

Quoting: eggrole

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.

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.

The first point is a perspective. You say the consumer has no power while I say they have 99% of the power. If people stop buying, the corpos go broke. If corpos stop selling... the people don't get trinkets?

Unless you are wealthier than most of your peers, you spend most of your income on basic expenses and necessities from retailers you can afford, and maybe spend a relatively tiny amount on a "trinket" only rarely. Not the other way around. You can and should vote with your wallet (I sure do, all the time), but your impact is limited. Actual voting is more effective.

Quoting: eggroleOn the second point, of course it advocates for propaganda.

I simply brought some much needed context. You say "of course", but there's no reason to expect this to be obvious to people on a Linux gaming site. What you wrote, "a really easy read and a good look", comes off as a positive recommendation. The caveat is worth pointing out.

Quoting: eggroleI argue that we don't have capitalism today in the USA (or the west in general) and we have a system much closer to socialism.

No, the USA is undeniably capitalist by any real measure. Your economic system is fundamentally based on private ownership. And more to the point, virtually all of the "means of production" are privately owned. Even most of the ones fully paid for by your taxes. There are regulations, but there's also regulatory capture. Your government sets some limits to the ways a business can harm the people or the environment, but I'd argue not nearly enough, and less than it used to.

No country in the so-called western world is truly socialist, either side of the big pond. But this is one of the subjects where American scholars and analysts tend to disagree with the rest of the world to some extent, simply because your political spectrum is so skewed to the right, especially around economic policy.

Quoting: eggroleAll that said, I feel like we are nearing a period when the "free market" (lol) is going to seize up.

That's the vicious cycle of modern global economics. From one crisis to the next. As someone born to the tail end of Gen X, I've been through a few already. And it's not market regulation that perpetuates this wheel of misery.

Quoting: eggroleP.S. I really enjoyed this exchange. I like seeing rational opinions that differ from my own without all the name calling and echo chambering I see elsewhere. Cheers!

I can't say I've ever actually enjoyed debating politics and/or economics, but you're right; this is a much better forum for civil discussion than most. One of the reasons GOL gets a small amount of cash from me every month.

See? I'm voting with my wallet! 😁

Quoting: eggrole

Quoting: Purple Library GuyThe modern "free market" is a market that actively promotes rentiers. Smith would have hated it.

Yes, that is what I was saying. I don't like to argue semantics as people call things capitalist and socialist (or any other -ism or -ists these days) when they have little understanding of the roots of the words. I argue that we don't have capitalism today in the USA (or the west in general) and we have a system much closer to socialism.

Well, I feel I can't avoid semantics here. I've seen a lot of claims that what we have today is bad, but that's because it's somehow not capitalism, or not "real" capitalism, and if only we had the real thing all would be well. The addition that, since it's not capitalism, and some of the redistribution upwards is aided by government action, that must make it socialism is not something I've seen before but given the basic rationale it sort of follows. But the whole idea is very much a "no true Scotsman" argument. There has never been capitalism that didn't involve government action to privatize profits and socialize loss, so if we're going to say that kind of thing disqualifies a system as capitalism then there has never been any such thing as capitalism and we should never bother using the word again. Capitalism involved major government intervention from its very beginnings in England--the very workforce for capitalists was provided by the Enclosure movement, which drove masses of small farmers off their land, and passed a lot of draconian laws making it illegal for the resulting masses of poor people to either hunt or gather ("poaching") or hang around doing nothing ("loitering"); thus, they had to take paid employment. It was the first major wage work force. Government action has been a big part of capitalism ever since. ECON 101 and so on generally pretend, or at least talk as if, capitalist economics was just something that happened naturally by some sort of laws of nature, but it's a socially created thing like any other part of society--no more and no less than socialism or feudalism or whatever.

So I really think that calling what we have not capitalism because big boys get bailouts is a pretty strained bit of semantics, which leads to problems in calling anything capitalism. Big boys have almost always gotten bailouts throughout the history of capitalism.

As to socialism, the US has a really weird bit of semantics around that. For decades, anyone calling for government action of any kind in the US has been called a socialist, even though they clearly weren't. This would put them on the defensive, claiming not to be one and often backtracking from their positions. Then Bernie Sanders, doing some brilliant semantics, decided to just short-circuit the process and just own the label; he agreed to the US creeping redefinition of socialism as any kind of government action for the benefit of the people and just claimed to be one and challenged anyone to say why that was bad. So now in the US, the word "socialism" is used to describe what everyone else calls "social democracy" and the US used to call "New Deal liberalism". But that isn't what socialism actually is, certainly not what it's rooted in. And just "any use of government to benefit anybody" most definitely isn't socialism.

Socialism is a system in which the workers, either directly or through the government, own and control the means of production, rather than it being owned by private individuals. In theory, but not necessarily in practice, the goal of production under socialism is to improve the common good rather than to create profit. That's it, that's historically what socialism is that makes it not capitalism. The current system shows no trace of anything like that--to the contrary, stuff that used to be public keeps getting privatized.