Inventor Calls Out Nintendo for 3DS Patent Infringement

[JakobBloch]

I don't get this idea of patenting concepts. Methods, technology (as actual parts) and products are fine. But concepts like "glasses-free 3D" should not be accepted and if that is the basis of his claim (which, if Unmotivated Slacker is correct, it is) he should be sent packing... and maybe gets slapped with a fine because I feel bad tempered.

I like patents as a concept really, but it seems to me that too often they are used for someone to make a quick buck, much like people that hold silly copyrights (though the patents are worse). When you patent concepts the idea of "the better mouse-trap" goes out the window. "I made a better mouse-trap." "I got a patent on mouse-traps so I am suing you." "What?". It doesn't even have to be a better mouse-trap it could just be another type of mouse-trap (which I wager these to different methods represents).

Patents that just constitute a method or a blueprint is fine if the patent is well documented even without a full working prototype. This gives less well funded inventors a chance to make some money of ideas they have even though they don't have the means to build the thing (high tech tools might be needed). If they could not the companies they tried to sell the product too could just steal the thing, make a prototype and take out a patent, while the actual inventor gets left behind with his willy hanging out.

It is a murky area but sometimes patent offices should have the option to say: "you can't patent mouse-traps."

 

[Togusa09]

Yeah, that's what I thought too. There was a few stories about a 3D screen sharp was planning to put into mobiles around the time the 3DS was announced.

And who didn't think of the idea of stereoscopic 3D using eye position relative to the screen? If he did R&D on it, and it was nicked fair enough, but as it looks like no research was done on the screen manufacturer, I doubt it.

And the claim is being filed now...?

 

[CrystalShadow]

Ugh. OK, yes. It's possible. But at this point patent lawsuits are so common you might as well ask what the patent system is even doing these days?

Especially since the patent holders in these cases rarely actually build anything they hold a patent on. (which, you know... used to be required?)

As for 3d, what about those cheap parallax barrier things? Who owns that patent? How would it relate to this?

The guy's genuine (he is, as for how much ground his claim has I wouldn't know). Apparently several other companies have licensed his tech and he got the patent approved in a country that isn't the US(!).
Not that this will stop idiots from calling him a patent troll, but whatever.

And yeah, it would be nice if you had to build the stuff instead of submitting a somewhat vague idea about how it might work, but that would also be a dick move to small companies and private individuals without the proper funding.

Well, yes, it sucks for small developers, but the problem is the systems that are in place make it trivial to hoard patents you never intend to use, the concept of 'prior art' is rarely given the weight you would expect, and there's a few too many overly broad patents that somehow get through...

For instance, is the patent in question here about a specific technique for creating glasses-free 3d displays?

Or is it the very concept of a 3d display without glasses?

The first, seems like a reasonable enough patent, (though why it would apply to nintendo, and not the manufacturer of the 3d display itself...)

But if it's a patent on the very idea of glasses-free 3d displays? That's ridiculous, to be honest.

 

[kebab4you]

Aren't you required to do something with the patent in a certain amount of time? Like 2 years or so else you will lose the patent, or was that one of the suggestions to the patent law to stop stuff like this?...

 

[Salad Is Murder]

Aren't you required to do something with the patent in a certain amount of time? Like 2 years or so else you will lose the patent, or was that one of the suggestions to the patent law to stop stuff like this?...

I'm sure there's a time frame, why can I not think of the word (because you're a microbiologist not a lawyer, Salad), in which you can take legal action but we've also got a "defend it or lose it" kind of patent law here in the states as well. Like, if someone is [allegedly] infringing on a copyright, not pursuing legal action is a tacit approval of the infringement.

Both parties are pretty suspect here; Tomita's patent seems tenuously applicable, but I'm also sure Nintendo has no problems with not paying for using a patented thing if they don't have to.

 

[dfphetteplace]

This type of activity is what halts innovation.

 

[Kenji_03]

Oh Jesus CHRIST!! Another asshole with a get-rich-quick-scheme. These pricks seem to come out of the woodwork when a successful product is launched, don't they?
I seem to recall a similar case shortly after the Wii was released.

My thoughts exactly. If they weren't building anything with the patent, they are just slime trying to rip people off.

Google "MMO lawsuit" for an amusingly similar case regarding City of Heroes (one of the earliest MMOs still around) and some prick claiming he owned the patent for MMOs