Nintendo loses Patent lawsuit

It's crazy how many lawsuits there are over video game controllers these days. That being said: Nintendo, once you're done paying off the money to this company, please, please, please make a new Wavebird for the Wii that includes Rumble support. I highly recommend making it white and baby-blue as well to match the other Wii accessories. That is all.
 
Oh yes, I could totally go for a black wireless Wii-enabled Wavebird that also has rumble. That'd be the sweetest thing ever ^_^

I seriously don't get why Nintendo doesn't do this? I heard a rumor that Wii-branded Wavebirds were going to be released in Japan (possibly limited edition) so I hope this lawsuit doesn't affect that. I doubt the lawsuit stops them from producing those controllers anway...probably, they just want to cash in on the ones that were sold and are being sold.
 
This seriously just screams "patent troll" to me. A quick google search of Anascape brings up only articles about the lawsuit, at least for the first ten pages or so. The patents "violated" are as follows:

Patent 5,999,084 - A sensor with a housing
Patent 6,102,802 - Game controller with analog pressure system
Patent 6,135,886 - Variable-conductance sensor with elastomeric dome-cap
Patent 6,222,525 - A sensor conducting sheet for axis controllers
Patent 6,343,991 - Game controller with analog pressure system
Patent 6,906,700 - 3D controller with vibration
Patent 6,208,271 - Remote controller with analog buttons
Patent 6,344,791 - Variable sensor with analog feedback
Patent 6,347,997 - Analog controls housed with electronic displays
Patent 6,400,303 - Remote controller with analog pressure sensors
Patent 6,563,415 - Analog sensor(s) with snap-through tactile feedback

The US patent system is so screwed up with no end in sight. I could not find further information on any of the products that this company produced, so I do not know how these violated patents cut into their business. The patent system really needs reform, and it seems like this case is just another example of why it needs to be done.
 
[quote name='BlueLobstah']This seriously just screams "patent troll" to me. A quick google search of Anascape brings up only articles about the lawsuit, at least for the first ten pages or so. The patents "violated" are as follows:

Patent 5,999,084 - A sensor with a housing
Patent 6,102,802 - Game controller with analog pressure system
Patent 6,135,886 - Variable-conductance sensor with elastomeric dome-cap
Patent 6,222,525 - A sensor conducting sheet for axis controllers
Patent 6,343,991 - Game controller with analog pressure system
Patent 6,906,700 - 3D controller with vibration
Patent 6,208,271 - Remote controller with analog buttons
Patent 6,344,791 - Variable sensor with analog feedback
Patent 6,347,997 - Analog controls housed with electronic displays
Patent 6,400,303 - Remote controller with analog pressure sensors
Patent 6,563,415 - Analog sensor(s) with snap-through tactile feedback

The US patent system is so screwed up with no end in sight. I could not find further information on any of the products that this company produced, so I do not know how these violated patents cut into their business. The patent system really needs reform, and it seems like this case is just another example of why it needs to be done.[/quote]

I totally agree... this seems like just a bid to get money and that's it... I'd like to know if there was any loss of business because of nintendo... :roll:
 
I'm just going to create and patent a bunch of really general things (box with the disc drive, device with buttons, etc.) which will have no impact on the industry and then sue game companies when they evidently happen to make something somewhat similar.
 
[quote name='Vinny']I'm just going to create and patent a bunch of really general things (box with the disc drive, device with buttons, etc.) which will have no impact on the industry and then sue game companies when they evidently happen to make something somewhat similar.[/quote]


You'd be surprised just how many patents are out there just for that reason. What's even worse is the fact that you can also modify your patents years later to combat new patents that are being submitted. Which really sucks cause it put the company I worked for out of busines...

I worked with a research company doing biological research on bacteria. The industrial standard to determine whether the bacteria took up your desired bits of DNA is called positive/negative selection. The company I worked at started a new way to do it, deemed positive/positive selection. While the names sound similar, the techniques were completely different. Our company tried to file a patent for it and the company who started the pos/neg patent got wind of it. They submitted a revision to their patent which basically said they could call pos/neg selection any variation of the two words (pos/pos, neg/neg neg/pos, pos/neg/pos, etc.). Our patent thus got shot down as patent infringement and the company went under. :cry:
 
Wow.

A Japanese company that does all of its R&D halfway across the world can be successfully sued by a small company in bumfuck Texas who is doing the equivalent of domain name parking, merely because they could always maybe possibly could have used similar technology in videogame based applications? I mean there's nothing in place that says you actually have to present proof that someone is moving in on your territory?

Absolutely mind-fuckingly incredible. Didn't Nintendo work with Immersion on their stuff? Didn't Nintendo specifically say before the Wiimote's reveal that they were taking measures to ensure they had patented their stuff and looked into infringement? It just gives me serious doubt that they'd magically forget or overlook something this brazen.

I mean these people sued Microsoft for god's sakes. Sony got sued a few years ago.

Are the juries just full of people absolutely intent on shooting down the big guys because they think they are doing some kind of justice for the universe? I mean I have to assume Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony have armies of high price lawyers at their disposal, and I can't imagine these other people having anything more than Lionel Hutz.

But I don't know all the details so oh well.
 
Nintendo deserves to lose. I feel like crying over my purchasing of the Wii. Worst part is that my younger brother loves the thing, so I can't sell it!
 
This is america where you can spill a hot cup of McDonalds coffee on your fat ass lap while driving your car and sue to get money. I am not surprised by anthing that happens here.
 
[quote name='CouRageouS']Can I purchase the patent for 'website to discuss deals' and a 'bald man in Japan character'?[/quote]

No... because I'm going to patent "thing with text and/or pictures" and SUE YOU ALL! HAHAHA!

This crap is just out of control.

You know, I thought you actually had to show proof that you were actively producing/selling/whatever the things you had patents on in order to keep the patent?

Or maybe I'm thinking of trademarks...

Maybe the jurors were seeking revenge for not being able to find a Wii to buy :lol:
 
Wtf, between 1999 and 2005? The Dreamcast controller had half that shit in 1999 and the other half had been in game controllers for like 20 years before then.
 
It's like some fucking company patented a transport system with a protective shell and 4 wheels and then successfully sued any motor companies??? :shock:
 
[quote name='BlueLobstah']This seriously just screams "patent troll" to me. A quick google search of Anascape brings up only articles about the lawsuit, at least for the first ten pages or so. The patents "violated" are as follows:
[clip]
[/quote]
Patents are infringed, not"violated." FYI.

[quote name='xycury']I totally agree... this seems like just a bid to get money and that's it... I'd like to know if there was any loss of business because of nintendo... :roll:[/quote]

Doesn't matter.A patent grants the right to exclude others from practicing the invention. Infringe the patent, and pay up. Lost business is completely irrelevant with respect to liability.

[quote name='Vinny']I'm just going to create and patent a bunch of really general things (box with the disc drive, device with buttons, etc.) which will have no impact on the industry and then sue game companies when they evidently happen to make something somewhat similar.[/quote]

Good luck getting a patent on those things. Besides costing a lot of money to file and prosecute, patents also undergo substantive examination.

[quote name='PleasantOne']You know, I thought you actually had to show proof that you were actively producing/selling/whatever the things you had patents on in order to keep the patent?

Or maybe I'm thinking of trademarks...[/quote]

Patents do not have to be practiced to be valid. In fact, patents do not even grant the owner the right to make or use their own invention.(See above.) Trademarks, though, are based on use in commerce.

[Just trying to correct a little bit of patent misunderstanding/ignorance in this corner of the internet.]
 
[quote name='xycury']I totally agree... this seems like just a bid to get money and that's it... I'd like to know if there was any loss of business because of nintendo... :roll:[/quote]



+1
 
[quote name='HuppSav']This is america where you can spill a hot cup of McDonalds coffee on your fat ass lap while driving your car and sue to get money. I am not surprised by anthing that happens here.[/quote]

If you actually look into that lawsuit, you'll find that it wasn't quite the case of court system-gone-wild that everyone makes it out to be. McDonalds was at least partially responsible for several different reasons, and all the lady asked was for them to pay her medical bills (should coffee ever be served where it would cause third degree burns and require skin grafts?). She only sued after they refused to help her out.

Seriously though, do a google search. The McDonalds coffee lawsuit was not the bullshit everyone claims it to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top