His mouth is moving?Echolocating said:How can you tell a lawyer is lying... ?
Patents, really seem to do nothing but hindering things.
His mouth is moving?Echolocating said:How can you tell a lawyer is lying... ?
they're very useful.....Zukhramm said:His mouth is moving?Echolocating said:How can you tell a lawyer is lying... ?
Patents, really seem to do nothing but hindering things.
The N64 stick is actually very different to the ones in other controllers. It's a little work of engineering art with gears from the stick driving the sensors. In terms of accuracy it's ahead of the sticks used today, but more expensive and ultimately less reliable (the gears wear out).TheGreenManalishi said:1. Nintendo reveals first controller with an analogue stick for the N64. It's primitive by today's standards but it is successful and works well
It's not so much the components that get patented, but the processes and techniques. And that's where the grey areas come in. The more vaguely you can describe a process and get a patent for it, the easier it is to sue other people for infringement/demand royalties. Got a patent for infra-red movement detection? Sue every computer mouse manufacturer that uses infrared mice (or demand royalties). It's easy as that (says the non-lawyer).The_Mop said:As far as I've gathered after a quick google search, Anascape design sensors. It doesn't suprise me that something like this has come to light. The amount of licensing that goes into components of pretty much any electronic device are ridiculous, and some of it is a very weird grey area.
Think about it, how many parts in your average iPod do you think are made by Apple?
How do you judge which person is "stealing" and who's being "stolen" from? What if both companys designed this separately? What if Nintendo filed patents in America, but Anascape's came out first? What if Anascape filed an extermely primitive design for patent, then brushed it up and updated it as time went by, revising the patent?L.B. Jeffries said:Whether or not they're taking advantage of the system, if everyone is using a technology they patented in their controllers then it at least raises the question of who is stealing whose ideas.
Well, they sure as hell didn't get into a lawsuit because one of them called their mom a rude name. I'm sure Nintendo has a good argument against all this or they wouldn't be appealing.Necrohydra said:I really don't know enough of patent law practices to make a knowledgeable call on this. But, I know enough to see the current system allows for "think tanks" companies to think up ideas, then collect licensing/suing for other companies remotely imitating their designs, just as much as they allow for the honest design submissions.
Good points, however Microsoft and Sony never really had a case, however Nintendo is probably arguing that they had these joysticks being developed long before Anascape filed for the patent. However, one of Anascapes reasons for this lawsuit is it's intent to enter the market, which bemused me a little as it *almost* prooves they are a patent troll because:L.B. Jeffries said:Well, they sure as hell didn't get into a lawsuit because one of them called their mom a rude name. I'm sure Nintendo has a good argument against all this or they wouldn't be appealing.
I dunno man, I'm not going to argue something I know nothing about beyond just dispelling the basic myths floating around. I don't know what to make of patent law. The s*** they pull here is nothing compared to what goes on in software patenting. Reading about how someone wants to patent a 2-D block puzzle is a good way to lose your faith in humanity.
But take the guy who invented the PS3 transistor. The main reason those things dropped in cost so dramatically was some tech guy had invented a transistor that worked perfectly with the PS3. It was way, way cheaper to make with his new model and much more efficient at getting the PS3 to cool down. It would be pretty dick if Sony just took his ideas and never cut him in on the action, despite the fact that he basically made a product and then waited for a game console to need it. Instead, Sony cut him a licensing deal and now he's laughing his ass off someplace beautiful.
But yeah, there's a lot bulls***. I just don't really know if these guys are guilty of it yet. The Federal Courts, Microsoft, and Sony don't seem to think so.
The problem with patent law as it stands is, you don't have to MAKE a product in order to sue someone for stealing your idea. You can just get a patent for it, sit on your ass for years, and when someone finally puts out a similar thing on the market and makes money off it, you can sue them for copying a product you never actually made.L.B. Jeffries said:But take the guy who invented the PS3 transistor. The main reason those things dropped in cost so dramatically was some tech guy had invented a transistor that worked perfectly with the PS3. It was way, way cheaper to make with his new model and much more efficient at getting the PS3 to cool down. It would be pretty dick if Sony just took his ideas and never cut him in on the action, despite the fact that he basically made a product and then waited for a game console to need it. Instead, Sony cut him a licensing deal and now he's laughing his ass off someplace beautiful.
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe patents and licensing are the work of money-hungry capitalists and lawyers all the time. Credit (and a share of the profits) should be given where it's due. Heck, instead of spending the time reasearching it yourself, it's often cheaper to just buy a method developed something else. There's always something to be said for time saved.L.B. Jeffries said:But take the guy who invented the PS3 transistor. The main reason those things dropped in cost so dramatically was some tech guy had invented a transistor that worked perfectly with the PS3. It was way, way cheaper to make with his new model and much more efficient at getting the PS3 to cool down. It would be pretty dick if Sony just took his ideas and never cut him in on the action, despite the fact that he basically made a product and then waited for a game console to need it. Instead, Sony cut him a licensing deal and now he's laughing his ass off someplace beautiful.
That's why if anyone breaks into your house, you shoot to kill. He cant testify against you if he's dead.Ibuki said:For example (slightly off topic) a robber brok into a familys house,
and their dog attack him causing him to be cuaght. He tuns
around and sues h family for his injuries from the dog, and the bail money
he had to pay to get out of holding.
Still begs the question, why Nintendo? It also begs the question how in the Hell did that patent get verified.L.B. Jeffries said:This is the patent in question, issued June 14, 2005. For those bitching about them not suing Nintendo when the Gamecube came out, the patenting process was initiated in November of 2000. It takes a long time to verify a patent. They could not sue until the patent was verified.
Its because something doesn't have to be new or unique to be patented, it might be something that already exists but the company that gets their patent filed first gets the rights to it in that particular territory, I would guess that's whats happened here.fix-the-spade said:Still begs the question, why Nintendo? It also begs the question how in the Hell did that patent get verified.
PS1 analogue controllers (and Dreamcast for that matter) work roughly the same way as the doohicky in the patent. But both are from before the year 2000, so how did the US patent office conclude the idea was unique?
I suppose they would argue that Sega and Sony are Japanese rather than American companies. So US patent doesn't apply to them. But that's pushing things when the products were freely available in the US for 2-3 years beforehand.
They don't want to lose any money. I think nintendo is going to sue anascape until anascape has no money left and has to give up, then nintendo will either stop or sue anascape and force it to pay nintendo all the costs back that they have made in court.(basically saying to the world "we have money, F- you all, try to mess with us and we'll take you down even if we did steal your idea")the monopoly guy said:too little too late, with the Wii doing as well as it is I'm surprised Nintendo cares.
There in lies the stupidity of the US patent system.Darkong said:Its because something doesn't have to be new or unique to be patented, it might be something that already exists but the company that gets their patent filed first gets the rights to it in that particular territory, I would guess that's whats happened here.
I think you're wrong, given Anascape is getting money from Sony and MS and had strong cases against them.Flour said:I think nintendo is going to sue anascape until anascape has no money left and has to give up, then nintendo will either stop or sue anascape and force it to pay nintendo all the costs back that they have made in court.(basically saying to the world "we have money, F- you all, try to mess with us and we'll take you down even if we did steal your idea")
yeh i have to say you may be right on the money there...still not a bad ideaDarkong said:Looks like Nintendo will have to follow what MS did and settle up with Anascape.
To be honest this whole thing sounds to me like Anascape made a patent and sat on it until a situation like this occured where they could sue a couple of bigger companies for money and then get licenses afterwards to sue the tech.