Nintendo Sued Over Wii Motion Controls

[Andy Chalk]

Nintendo Sued Over Wii Motion Controls

The company behind the Wavit Remote has sued Nintendo, Walmart, RadioShack, GameStop and others over the motion control technology used in the Wii.

ThinkOptics, the company that makes the Wavit Remote [http://www.thinkoptics.com/WavitHome.html], has filed suit against Nintendo over allegations that the Wii console violates its patent for "electronic equipment for handheld vision based absolute pointing system." The suit claims that Nintendo knew the Wii would infringe on its patent because parts of its own patent applications for the Wii were rejected by the U.S. Trademark Office.

Two other patents, one titled "Handheld device for handheld vision based absolute pointing system" and another, "Handheld vision based absolute porting system," were also included in the complaint. ThinkOptics said just about every part of the Wii, even the games themselves, infringe upon its patents; it also claimed that the not-yet-released Wii U does as well.

The California-based ThinkOptics filed its action in the notoriously plaintiff-friendly [http://www.technologyreview.com/InfoTech-Software/wtr_16280,300,p1.html?a=f] U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Texas, naming Imation, Nyko Technologies, GameStop, RadioShack and JC Penney alongside Nintendo. The lawsuit seeks an injunction against the Wii and other related products that violate its patents, along with royalties, legal fees and other damages. And why did it take almost five full years after the launch of the Wii to get around to filing the suit? That, at this point, is anybody's guess.

Source: TechCrunch [http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/07/nintendo-gets-sued-over-the-wii/]


Permalink

 

[yuval152]

I hope that nintendo loses so they will finally drop their rehashes and do original stuff.

I hope that nintendo loses so they will finally drop their rehashes and do original stuff.

You realize this would make more rehashes, right?

Why put out more money on an original idea that might not sell when you can put out a few Mario titles and make a few million in the process?

It's far easier and cheaper to do anything that has an established base than it is to go from scratch.

*raises fist in air* DAM IT NINTENDO STOP MAKING GIMMICKS AND FUCKING REHASHES.Serious>I hope that their new zelda games will fail horribly,and the rest of the rehshes & the WII U.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

There really has to be a clause in these ccpyright and patent laws that says if a claim isn't filed within 1-2 years of the offending product's launch, than it is automatically invalid.

 

[WanderingFool]

I hope that nintendo loses so they will finally drop their rehashes and do original stuff.

This is a Catch-22 of sorts. If Nintendo wins, we wont see more of these bullshit claims (whether there is truth or not, waiting five years kills any chance), but they will keep up with their same shit. Nintendo loses, and we see more bullshit lawsuits... oh, and I doubt Nintendo would stop rehashing from such a lose...

 

[DeadlyYellow]

Old hat. Seriously.

 

[Mr. Omega]

Well, if they were just going after Nintendo, there might have been something to worry about, but considering they are going against tons of people who sell it and everyone who makes motion controls (thus, all the big 3), there probably won't be that much to worry about. On the other hand, this is the United States Legal System we're talking about...

Also:
>Nintendo is facing a stupid lawsuit
>first thing the escapist community says is "I HOPE THEY LOSE, 'CAUSE NINTENDO SUX!"
>Is not surprised in the least.

 

[Scizophrenic Llama]

I hope that nintendo loses so they will finally drop their rehashes and do original stuff.

You realize this would make more rehashes, right?

Why put out more money on an original idea that might not sell when you can put out a few Mario titles and make a few million in the process?

It's far easier and cheaper to do anything that has an established base than it is to go from scratch.

 

[That Eeyore]

I hope that nintendo loses so they will finally drop their rehashes and do original stuff.

You realize this would make more rehashes, right?

Why put out more money on an original idea that might not sell when you can put out a few Mario titles and make a few million in the process?

It's far easier and cheaper to do anything that has an established base than it is to go from scratch.

Pretty much this. Quoted poster beat me to it.

 

[shadowmagus]

Statute of limitations on filing is three years. They are well outside that, this is a non-issue.

http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2006/03/30/statute-of-limitations-in-copyright-law/

 

[NickCaligo42]

Statute of limitations on filing is three years. They are well outside that, this is a non-issue.

Except that this lawsuit has been bounced around since the Wii was launched. This is actually really, really old news, and Nintendo's been expected to catastrophically lose this lawsuit since it came up.

 

[Jonci]

Get your torches men! We have a patent troll to deal with.

 

[Jumwa]

>Nintendo is facing a stupid lawsuit
>first thing the escapist community says is "I HOPE THEY LOSE, 'CAUSE NINTENDO SUX!"
>Is not surprised in the least.

Ain't gaming communities grand? Such reasonable expression!

 

[Torrasque]

Wow really? Um... Well ok... ?
This is probably the most random news I have heard in a while.
Next, Sony will probably sue Xbox for having a system that uses discs?
Or maybe Sony will sue Nintendo for making a handheld that uses cartridges. TOTALLY stealing Sony's idea.

 

[SpcyhknBC]

Statute of limitations on filing is three years. They are well outside that, this is a non-issue.

http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2006/03/30/statute-of-limitations-in-copyright-law/

The article mentions the fact that the clock doesn't start until either the item which is infringed is taken off the market (In this case, the Wii is still on the market so it's still legitimate) or if the item which is infringed is hidden, the clock starts when the infringement is discovered. In this case, the patent holder could claim that it was only now that they were able to look at the code and discover that their patents were being infringed. It could also have come down when they found out that the Wii's patents were rejected, they saw that their patents were cited as reasons. As far as I can tell, this lawsuit is legitimate but who knows how long it'll actually last.

 

[shadowmagus]

I might agree with you, except that's a lot of people they are trying to sue and I'm not sure if this one company has the funds to sustain a court case against all of these defendants. Going after Nintendo alone I could see working, but all of them combined, I simply don't see ThinkOptics having the funds to go into a prolonged court battle.

 

[thiosk]

This kind of thing happens all the time in industry.

 

[GeorgW]

Why would they possibly wait 'til now and also include that many other targets unless they're not serious.

 

[Starke]

There really has to be a clause in these ccpyright and patent laws that says if a claim isn't filed within 1-2 years of the offending product's launch, than it is automatically invalid.

That only makes sense if said company is omniscient. It would render pharmaceutical patents nearly worthless, because it turns out that that illegal pharmacy in Sri Lanka has been producing your product for the past four years, and they didn't have the decency to tell you.

It would maul software patents, see, it turns out now, that your company's patent on an algorithm that controls how much capacitance the touch screen needs to register contact going up massively during a phone call has been ripped off by Tangerine's uPhone, but, because they bundled the damn OS into a hermetically sealed structure, labeled it DRM, and it's only now, six and a half years after launch that a hacker in Malaysia has cracked that encryption open and revealed that all this time they've been infringing on your patent.

I'll admit, it does look a little weird that they didn't respond before now, but I'm guessing this was because they believed that the Wii wasn't infringing on their patent and, through the course of whatever, found out. It's also possible they've been trying to seek to deal with this privately since the Wii went live, and finally said, "fuck it, you're not serious about working with us, we'll see your ass in court."

 

[yuval152]

Well, if they were just going after Nintendo, there might have been something to worry about, but considering they are going against tons of people who sell it and everyone who makes motion controls (thus, all the big 3), there probably won't be that much to worry about. On the other hand, this is the United States Legal System we're talking about...

Also:
>Nintendo is facing a stupid lawsuit
>first thing the escapist community says is "I HOPE THEY LOSE, 'CAUSE NINTENDO SUX!"
>Is not surprised in the least.

1)I'm a terrible guy to choose to present the escapist.
2)Read the post,they don't "SUX" they just keep rehasheing instead of coming up with something original,look at the posts of people that replied to me.
3)they keep making new gimmicks that are unnessacery and wasting their time & money instead of doing something good.

 

[Starke]

Statute of limitations on filing is three years. They are well outside that, this is a non-issue.

http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2006/03/30/statute-of-limitations-in-copyright-law/

The article mentions the fact that the clock doesn't start until either the item which is infringed is taken off the market (In this case, the Wii is still on the market so it's still legitimate) or if the item which is infringed is hidden, the clock starts when the infringement is discovered. In this case, the patent holder could claim that it was only now that they were able to look at the code and discover that their patents were being infringed. It could also have come down when they found out that the Wii's patents were rejected, they saw that their patents were cited as reasons. As far as I can tell, this lawsuit is legitimate but who knows how long it'll actually last.

If you're saying what it looks like you're saying, the clock stops ticking once the court papers are filed. Statute of limitations only prevents you from filing a case, it doesn't in any way prevent you from perusing a case that's already begun. If you're not, then... uh... cookie?

Captcha: introduce xemoss
Somehow I can't see that and NOT think of inglip...