What the hell is a Wavit remote? Come to think of it, what the hell is ThinkOptics? Am I the only one that wasn't informed of their existence up until now?
Nintendo Sued Over Wii Motion Controls
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Texas, not California.ecoho said:hey now our judges tend to think things through....but then its California.....wait no this is already over with this much money involved even California wouldnt fuck this upMr. Omega said:
And the suits against loads of people that are getting tossed lately tend to be file sharing cases where a company has identified five thousand John Does, and wants the court to allow them to find out who these people actually are.
This is completely different. Most likely they're being named as a negotiating tactic against Nintendo.
Yeah, unfortunately even Harrison Ford knows this isn't patent trolling, and now he's messing with you.Treblaine said:
>Vaguest patent idea possibly relating to Wii Motion ControlsStarke said:Yeah, unfortunately even Harrison Ford knows this isn't patent trolling, and now he's messing with you.Treblaine said:I'm going to go with President Ford on this one:
''We do NOT negotiate with Patent Trolls!''
>waits 5 years to file a claim
>sues everyone even remotely related to it
>not a troll
Get off my plane.
>Actually involved in marketing a product.Treblaine said:>Vaguest patent idea possibly relating to Wii Motion ControlsStarke said:Yeah, unfortunately even Harrison Ford knows this isn't patent trolling, and now he's messing with you.Treblaine said:I'm going to go with President Ford on this one:
''We do NOT negotiate with Patent Trolls!''
>waits 5 years to file a claim
>sues everyone even remotely related to it
>not a troll
Get off my plane.
>No transfer of patent ownership.
>Delay between becoming aware of the infringement, and a lawsuit.
>You know, things you don't see from patent trolls.
>Brings a banana to a gunfight... um... okay.
A banana can be handy in a gunfight. Rich in potassium and a key source of fibre while still being delicious. Plus it's a great distraction. Anyway, the most valuable thing you can have in a gunfight is a mate, one more person to fight and one more person they are shooting at other than you!Starke said:>Actually involved in marketing a product.Treblaine said:>Vaguest patent idea possibly relating to Wii Motion ControlsStarke said:Yeah, unfortunately even Harrison Ford knows this isn't patent trolling, and now he's messing with you.Treblaine said:I'm going to go with President Ford on this one:
''We do NOT negotiate with Patent Trolls!''
>waits 5 years to file a claim
>sues everyone even remotely related to it
>not a troll
Get off my plane.
>No transfer of patent ownership.
>Delay between becoming aware of the infringement, and a lawsuit.
>You know, things you don't see from patent trolls.
>Brings a banana to a gunfight... um... okay.
Also, BUUUUUULSHITE there was a "delay in becoming aware of infringement". Something like that is classic Patent Trolling. Everyone has known what the Nintendo Wii is for the past half-decade.
If every patent troll got their way, we'd still be in the stone age with some bastard demanding 20% of all food that is cooked by fire.
Patents should be for INVENTIONS not vague ideas. Anyone can have an idea, but an idea that WORKS! Like patenting a lightbulb design using a carbon-filament treated in a certain way. Not the "idea" of somehow using electric current to generate light. There is a valid patent for a levitating car, the holder has no idea how to make a levitating car but whoever does figure it out must pay that twerp whatever they demand because "Huuur, I had the idea first"
By the way, they filed for this patent in summer 2005. The same time Nintendo hosted the Wii at E3.
That's copyright law. This is about patent, however. Basically, you're not dealing with a statue of limitations in that case--but you can only claim damages up to 6 years back.shadowmagus said:
[link]http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_286.htm[/link]
See this is what I don't get.yuval152 said:
-Nintendo first party games have always been good, objectively speaking. Whether you particularly like them or not, they universally sell well and universally get great reviews
-There exists 2 other console-companies, countless third party developers, not to mention all the PC developers, who collectively pump out large quantities of original franchises
-No "gimmick" Nintendo has ever put into their recent consoles has ever detracted from their bread and butter games, and in some cases improved them (as evidenced by the DS's sales). This shouldn't even be an issue unless you have a HUGE problem with a simple wrist flick or two, have arthritis of some kind, lack arms with which to touch a screen, or can't arse yourself to turn off 3D effects you don't like.
Considering these points, what's the problem, exactly? Why must Nintendo produce new franchises when the gaming industry has plenty of those? Their first party titles continue to dominate the market, why fix what isn't broken? They're not stealing sales from anyone.
My only issue with Nintendo is their third part philosophy, which they claim to be working on... even if they fail that again, its no reason to rage against them simply for being successful on first party titles alone.
The Nintendo hate up in here is baffling.
Like someone just said, they make quality games that get favorable reviews because they are made with care and are fun to play. Ive seen people hate their franchises and newer games for no reason, when they are built great, have good controls with maybe a minor wrist flicking motion or two, and arent about story or graphics, but what a game should be, an enjoyable experience. You have to be a cold hearted person to not like any of the games Nintendo made for the Wii or 3DS at this point.
Like someone just said, they make quality games that get favorable reviews because they are made with care and are fun to play. Ive seen people hate their franchises and newer games for no reason, when they are built great, have good controls with maybe a minor wrist flicking motion or two, and arent about story or graphics, but what a game should be, an enjoyable experience. You have to be a cold hearted person to not like any of the games Nintendo made for the Wii or 3DS at this point.
>implying you aren't enjoying this shit as much as I am.SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
>implying such a trivial subject as patent trolling lawsuits deserve better than 4chan-level discourse
>implying the hating thing is to be taken in any way seriously
>implying that implying means what either of us thinks it means
>2011
>still can't transmit sarcasm
meme.jpg
OT: (because something has to be) My main reason for dismissing this claim is this patent was filed right when Nintendo first unveiled their new system. That's prior art right there. That and everything else they have done indicates an unusually bold troll attempt that just might work for how many different pools they have pissed in.
Yeah, but you covered this later.Treblaine said:A banana can be handy in a gunfight. Rich in potassium and a key source of fibre while still being delicious. Plus it's a great distraction. Anyway, the most valuable thing you can have in a gunfight is a mate, one more person to fight and one more person they are shooting at other than you!Starke said:>Actually involved in marketing a product.Treblaine said:>Vaguest patent idea possibly relating to Wii Motion ControlsStarke said:Yeah, unfortunately even Harrison Ford knows this isn't patent trolling, and now he's messing with you.Treblaine said:I'm going to go with President Ford on this one:
''We do NOT negotiate with Patent Trolls!''
>waits 5 years to file a claim
>sues everyone even remotely related to it
>not a troll
Get off my plane.
>No transfer of patent ownership.
>Delay between becoming aware of the infringement, and a lawsuit.
>You know, things you don't see from patent trolls.
>Brings a banana to a gunfight... um... okay.
Also, BUUUUUULSHITE there was a "delay in becoming aware of infringement". Something like that is classic Patent Trolling. Everyone has known what the Nintendo Wii is for the past half-decade.
The point is, yes, they did know what the Wii was, but not, you know, how it worked. But we'll get to that.
And if every idiot was banned from using the internet I'd be very lonely online.Treblaine said:
Yes, they are. The method Nintendo used was either close enough to, or identical to the method this patent protects for this to have been cited against Nintendo. And again, it's not them saying "huuur, I had the idea first," it's "huuur, I filed for the patent first." Which means that unless Nintendo can prove they stole the idea from them, or that the patent citation five years ago was invalid, they pretty much decided to sit in a corner, shit themselves, and say "huuur, I'm Nintendo, no one can fuck with me because they're afraid of the stench."Treblaine said:
And yet, when Nintendo filed for their patent, they had this one cited against them. That is to say, these people were filing for a patent, while Nintendo was doing marketing with unpatented hardware. That is about sixteen kinds of stupid. But, again, if this were some kind of trolling, they would have had to look at the Wii, psychically know how it processed movement, and then filed a patent before Nintendo could, on their own work.Treblaine said:
Finally, and here's the real bullshit coming out of your post. A patent troll is a company that owns patents, that's HOW THEY MAKE THEIR MONEY. They don't go into production with the shit they own patents to, they license the patents out, or they sue. It costs one metric fuck ton to produce consumer electronics, especially niche gadgety shit like this. Patents aren't like trademarks, if you patent something, and just sit on it, it does NOT go into the public domain any faster.
The other part, and this is the fucking mindblowing part from a legal standpoint is, Nintendo applied for a patent, were denied because their application had an already awarded patent cited against them, and they went ahead with the roll out anyway. Now maybe this was a cultural misunderstanding by a manager in Japan who didn't realize this mattered, but this is grade A stupid by any measure.
I think it's obvious why they want to sue them.
It's the only way their idiotic little gadget will make money!
It's essencially a mouse for a PC that works like a WiiMote. Anyone who's tried to use their Wiimote to surf the internet knows what a pain that is. The difference is that being a portable mouse isn't the Wiimote's primary function, whereas this is the Wavit's ONLY function! These morons came up with an idiotic, overly complicated mouse and were shocked to realize that nobody wanted to give up the ease and comfort of their regular mouse for an awkward little pointer. Now, five years later, these idiots have sunk all their resourses into one device and are seeing nothing for it.
But wait, says one idiot, The Wii just so happened to come out the same year we made the Wavit. If we patented it first, we can sue Nintendo for the rights and make an assload of cash. And why stop there? Lets sue everyone who makes third-party peripherals for the Wii too and make more money.
I prey to Kaiser that these morons lose. Mediocrity should not be rewarded. Let's all hope that Nintendo has their paperworks together enough to whup these morons asses.
It's the only way their idiotic little gadget will make money!
It's essencially a mouse for a PC that works like a WiiMote. Anyone who's tried to use their Wiimote to surf the internet knows what a pain that is. The difference is that being a portable mouse isn't the Wiimote's primary function, whereas this is the Wavit's ONLY function! These morons came up with an idiotic, overly complicated mouse and were shocked to realize that nobody wanted to give up the ease and comfort of their regular mouse for an awkward little pointer. Now, five years later, these idiots have sunk all their resourses into one device and are seeing nothing for it.
But wait, says one idiot, The Wii just so happened to come out the same year we made the Wavit. If we patented it first, we can sue Nintendo for the rights and make an assload of cash. And why stop there? Lets sue everyone who makes third-party peripherals for the Wii too and make more money.
I prey to Kaiser that these morons lose. Mediocrity should not be rewarded. Let's all hope that Nintendo has their paperworks together enough to whup these morons asses.
The problem with patents is they HAVE to be public, and that can betray your whole strategy.Starke said:
So Nintendo developed this technology a whole two years in advance, and before this patent was filed at E3 Nintendo did test a live demonstration but they didn't consider the prototype ready for the public. Plenty of opportunity to steal the idea. or maybe it was jsut a case of convergence, either way, Nintendo had a product ready and rearing to go, they had more than an idea, they had a whole invention ready to actually be sold. You know, what patents are supposedly there to protect!
So Nintendo got fucked not because they didn't put in the hard work, they did, but because some troll beat them to the patent-office's rubber stamp.
And though you are happy to directly call me an idiot, you are idiotic enough to defend these guys to have somehow taken FIVE YEARS to realise the functionality of the single biggest selling home electronics device of the past decade! No one is that stupid.
I'll tell you what I think, Wavit KNOW that Nintendo have prior art on them. But Maybe they need the money now and they are trying to cash in on the broken patent system. Wavit may have a remote, but that's just a part of what makes a gaming system. You really think Nintendo should have just given up when Wavit beat them to the stamp? You think Wavit could have created a games console as good and as successful as the Wii? It's an integral part but it's not all there is.
I don't see the point in patents. So many people work so hard only to be beaten to the patent office by someone who "somehow" came up with the same idea. Convergent discoveries? Plagiarism? Does it matter? It's holding back progress.
While it's true that patents have to be public, not patenting something because you want to maintain the surprise, or because you want to protect a marketing strategy is still grade A stupid. It means that from the time you get a workable design, to the time you want to release a product, anyone else working on a similar project could come along and patent your invention, or patent something close enough to your invention that your product would have to be licensed. After you've spent the money on R&D, not securing the results of your work is just plain massively stupid.Treblaine said:
So, either the '05 E3 was a demonstration of Nintendo having the business sense or a lobotomized iguana or it was a mockup and the tech wasn't really there yet, which does in fact happen at trade shows. I don't know which it was.
Again, this assumes that Nintendo disclosed some pretty sophisticated information about how the Wii proceeded data specifically, and then DID NOT PATENT IT, or even apply for the patent before showing it to the public. So, again, either someone at Nintendo was criminally incompetent, and the company that did this possessed psychic powers and slurped down the brainwaves of Nintendo techs at E3. OR, this was, as you point out, a case of convergence.Treblaine said:
I did nothing of the sort. Though if you'd like to stand up and be counted among those numbers, far be it from me to deny you.Treblaine said:
You were however making a "if things were different, they just wouldn't be the same" argument, which are, on their face, pretty much invalid.
A thing about lawsuits, and this is kinda critical. When a lawsuit like this makes headlines is when the case is filed. This isn't when a suit starts, however. Under normal circumstances a lawsuit can easily percolate for years of negotiations before a case ever begins. If a case is settled before it's filed, it's pretty rare anyone will ever no anything about it outside of the participants, and it's not at all uncommon for negotiations during torts to run right up to the filing deadline.
So, for someone who doesn't understand civil law, it's pretty easy to look at something like this and say, well they were fuckin' around for five years, but anyone with even a few undergraduate law classes under their belt can tell you, this is actually the norm, unless one of the parties decides they don't want to play ball.
While it's somewhat of an estimate, it's entirely likely they found out about this in '08, and this has been percolating for the last three years, both through investigation and negotiations, and either the negotiations broke down, Nintendo told them they could to fuck themselves, or some deadline for filing the case was rapidly approaching.
Ironically, patent trolls tend to go to court quickly because they are less interested in negotiated settlements, and more interested in jury awards, because the latter tends to favor them more.
Funny thing, trade secrets are actually excluded from prior art claims, at least in the US. So, if Nintendo was trying to keep the Wii under wraps, they actually lost the ability to claim prior art. Again, with patent law, it doesn't matter who started working on an invention first, just who finished their design and filed first.Treblaine said:
Software patents? Sure. Some high level technical stuff edges into that range as well, but in general, patents provide a financial incentive to advance technology, of any flavor. The conventional argument goes that if you spend $10m inventing something that costs $0.35 to make, and the guy across the street can make it the instant you're done with it, why bother?Treblaine said:
Patents provide a short term protection for a given method of doing something. And that's something that's kind of critical here. Patents aren't forever. They expire after a couple decades and transition into public domain. And, while this does cause problems in the pharmaceutical industry, for the most part it generally ensures that shit like this IS a short term problem at worst.
So, in short, patents provide financial protection for technological advancement.
