Nintendo Sued Over Wii Motion Controls

[algalon]

I predict that the E.T. burial site will soon be repurposed. Nintendo and Wal-Mart will dismember ThinkOptics like hungry sharks, leaving Sony and MS to feed off the remains in case it attempts to make an aggressive move or glance. Motion controls are just a piece of modern tech that everyone is invested in. It's like suing Vizio for using liquid crystals, or Paramount for printing films on "compressed disk-shaped media". Some things are just too big. I really hope Obama's new bill kills frivolous lawsuits like this.

 

[ServebotFrank]

Strange. I mean, the odds of this company winning do not seem very good at all. Nintendo has basically moved onto the Wii U. And Sony's motion controller is basically the same gimmick with the only difference being a color changing ball versus infrared.

Good luck to them.

Also, all the hate on Nintendo in this thread is ridiculous. Even if they lost, there is virtually no incentive for them to change how they make certain games. We haven't seen a big Zelda title in 6 years. I know it's basically the same as the Nintendo 64 titles, but who really cares. No one has any right to ***** about it when you think about all the companies that do that same thing, just much more often (BF, CoD, etc.). No to mention, Zelda title tend to be really awesome and fun to play with lots of open world exploration. I mean, Zelda has been open world since the first iteration of it.

Most of the people hating on Nintendo are only doing it because Yahtzee does it. I've noticed that alot of the people on this site will just bring Yahtzee's points up when most of time his opinions should be taken as seriously as Jack Thompson in a chicken suit.

OT: This is ridiculous there should be rules on this sort of thing this just wastes money on a un-winnable case.

 

[James Raynor]

On one hand it's obviously a troll.....

On the other I reeeeeally want to see Nintendo drop the gimmicky wii motion controls.

 

[Treblaine]

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?

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.

Yeah, well things have obviously gone fucked up here as Nintendo invested all this money in R&D yet they are being sued for making and selling a product THAT THEY DESIGNED!

Who cares if this patent expires in 30 years, Nintendo can't wait for 30 years for Wavit to make fail-attempts at motion gaming. That is too god damn long, if we had to wait 30 years for an expiry on the monopoly on innovation that slows the pace of progress to medieval levels.

The problem is these days devices are made up of so many different distinct components, one part being critical but by itself is useless. So ThinkOptics greedily wanting this tech all for themselves is not going to mean they make the Wii instead, the Wii is so much more than just the Wii-mote yet without it it isn't the wii.

But most notably of how utterly redundant and pointless patents are: The Wii did so well without a patent. Doesn't this show how pointless patents are?

These companies operate in completely different and non-competing space. Nintendo exclusively for their console (where ThinkOptics have no stake nor interest nor anything) and ThinkOptics as a PC Peripheral (Where nintendo has no stake, nor interest nor anything).

This patent trolling achieves nothing but the GREAT being dragged down by the SMALL!

 

[The Lugz]

PLEASE SUE RAZOR AS WELL!! they made a wiimote for the pc. also they suck, does that count? it must count.

( I don't like razor they sell overpriced pointless crap, there becoming apple mark 2 )

 

[Captain Bobbossa]

I think this is great news. Nintendo really just needs to realise it's to old and to senial for this now, hand in it's guns and find a nice retirement home somewhere.

 

[kwagamon]

Just idiots suing something successful because they want some free money. Nintendo had a good idea that while it's been done in similar forms before had never been a main part of the console, and now that it's a mega-hit with an audience that gaming consoles used to only rarely reach these guys (who's technology probably barely affected Nintendo's design and they just both had the same idea) want to get a cut of the profit that they've done nothing to deserve.

 

[SD-Fiend]

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


*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.

excuse me but what is your definition of original?

 

[Tanfastic]

The only good thing Nintendo has rehashed in the past couple years is Pokemon and Zelda. Which will most likely always be well done, I was disappointed by Galaxy 2 and DK country returns. Hopefully when they rehash in the future they put a lot of good ideas and time into it.

OT: this is the equivalent of Nintendo suing Sony for their Wii with bright balls at the end. They should just stop, also their website's sound when you mouse over something is atrocious.

 

[PinkiePyro]

this whole thing is just freaking stupid troll company is troll

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

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.

Hope you don't play CoD, Halo, or a Madden game or you are eating your own words.

 

[tk1989]

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.

Wouldnt that be in conflict to the whole idea of filing a patent in the first place? There have been many cases where patented ideas have been used unbeknownst by the patentee by rival groups for years before being found out.

Granted, this whole thing seems very fishy... I mean, its not like the Wii is a random unknown product, everyone knows about it. In no way would this product have gone unnoticed by the company if they hold a patent that would allow them to take such action against it.

 

[orangeapples]

Now I'm not a legal expert, but I went to the ThinkOptics website, and they started in 2006. The wii remote itself was revealed in 2005 with development of the thing going as far back as 2001. Everything about thinkoptics points to it being developed AFTER the Wii Remote. Also, ThinkOptics is still waiting for the patent to clear...

And I don't really know how ThinkOptics wavit works, but from everything I am seeing on the site, it does not operate by triangulating its position by the use of a series of IR indicators.

 

[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.

Wouldnt that be in conflict to the whole idea of filing a patent in the first place? There have been many cases where patented ideas have been used unbeknownst by the patentee by rival groups for years before being found out.

Granted, this whole thing seems very fishy... I mean, its not like the Wii is a random unknown product, everyone knows about it. In no way would this product have gone unnoticed by the company if they hold a patent that would allow them to take such action against it.

I'm just saying that there should be something in place to prevent these ludicrous lawsuits.

Now I'm not a legal expert, but I went to the ThinkOptics website, and they started in 2006. The wii remote itself was revealed in 2005 with development of the thing going as far back as 2001. Everything about thinkoptics points to it being developed AFTER the Wii Remote. Also, ThinkOptics is still waiting for the patent to clear...

And I don't really know how ThinkOptics wavit works, but from everything I am seeing on the site, it does not operate by triangulating its position by the use of a series of IR indicators.

In other words, ThinkOptics case is a complete load of hot air and bullshit.

 

[Saelune]

I dont understand copyright laws. There are copies of everything everywhere...what counts as compyright infringement and what is competition? Hell, what is just similar happenstance and is that even illegal!?

 

[Starke]

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?

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.

Yeah, well things have obviously gone fucked up here as Nintendo invested all this money in R&D yet they are being sued for making and selling a product THAT THEY DESIGNED!

No, they're being sued for designing, marketing and selling a product that infringed on an invention someone else patented, and when Nintendo was informed of this fact, they said "fuck you, we're going to go ahead and do what we want." This whole situation is a lot like ignoring a speeding ticket. There were probably ways out of it if they'd bothered to show up, or at worst it would have been a fairly cheap expense to pay, but once it's ignored it gets bumped up to a much heftier fine, because the speeder decided not to respond.

And again, you seem to have a hard time with this concept. No one gives a flying fuck about the patent, that's not what is at issue, what is at issue is, Nintendo was informed there was a patent issue, and they fucking blew it off.

Who cares if this patent expires in 30 years, Nintendo can't wait for 30 years for Wavit to make fail-attempts at motion gaming. That is too god damn long, if we had to wait 30 years for an expiry on the monopoly on innovation that slows the pace of progress to medieval levels.

I'd have to double check, but I'm pretty sure the Wavit isn't a gaming console at all. Also, a patent doesn't mean no one else can use that thing you invented, god, if it was they'd be worthless, it means no one else can use that thing you invented without your permission. Licensing patents out is the norm.

The problem is these days devices are made up of so many different distinct components, one part being critical but by itself is useless. So ThinkOptics greedily wanting this tech all for themselves is not going to mean they make the Wii instead, the Wii is so much more than just the Wii-mote yet without it it isn't the wii.

Again, no one is fucking hording a goddamn thing. And again a patent does not fucking mean the technology is verboten for everyone else on the fucking planet. You have a cellphone? It's using hardware that's patetned, dollars to dead prostitutes it is using hardware that was patented by companies other than the name slapped on it.

But most notably of how utterly redundant and pointless patents are: The Wii did so well without a patent. Doesn't this show how pointless patents are?

No.

Though it might show how little regard Nintendo has for other people's intellectual property.

These companies operate in completely different and non-competing space. Nintendo exclusively for their console (where ThinkOptics have no stake nor interest nor anything) and ThinkOptics as a PC Peripheral (Where nintendo has no stake, nor interest nor anything).

Again, not how any of this shit works.

This patent trolling achieves nothing but the GREAT being dragged down by the SMALL!

Right... I'm sorry, you don't know what a patent is. You don't know what patent trolling is. You don't know what "great" means. The only thing "great" here I'm seeing is Nintendo's arrogance. You'll have to forgive me, but you really need to take a step back and spend some time learning about what you're railing against. A difference of opinion is one thing, but failing to understand key aspects of what a patent is and does really undermines any argument you're trying to forward.

 

[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.

Wouldnt that be in conflict to the whole idea of filing a patent in the first place? There have been many cases where patented ideas have been used unbeknownst by the patentee by rival groups for years before being found out.

Granted, this whole thing seems very fishy... I mean, its not like the Wii is a random unknown product, everyone knows about it. In no way would this product have gone unnoticed by the company if they hold a patent that would allow them to take such action against it.

I'm just saying that there should be something in place to prevent these ludicrous lawsuits.

It's called a motion to dismiss.

Honestly, and no offense, the reputation for excessive litigation in the US is a bit unwarranted. It's easy to point and say "look at all those idiots suing each other" without realizing that, because of the expense involved, most of them, even the ridiculous sounding ones, tend to have legitimate causes of action.

Of course there are ones like that kid who decided to sue Microsoft because he revised his Xbox live terms of service... but, you know... that's just comedy.

Now I'm not a legal expert, but I went to the ThinkOptics website, and they started in 2006. The wii remote itself was revealed in 2005 with development of the thing going as far back as 2001. Everything about thinkoptics points to it being developed AFTER the Wii Remote. Also, ThinkOptics is still waiting for the patent to clear...

And I don't really know how ThinkOptics wavit works, but from everything I am seeing on the site, it does not operate by triangulating its position by the use of a series of IR indicators.

In other words, ThinkOptics case is a complete load of hot air and bullshit.

More likely it was a slightly spurious citation. The patent office does throw a gear once in a while and cite something they really shouldn't against a patent. The procedure in these cases is either to refile or appeal, and as I've said earlier, I don't remember which. But, regardless there is a process to effectively swat the patent office upside the head and say "oi!"

The issue here is really that Nintendo didn't do this. So they were told they couldn't have the patent because it would infringe on another patent, and instead of responding, or saying, "there's some serious technological differences between our hardware, this isn't just the same invention twice", Nintendo apparently said "meh", and went ahead anyway.

Apparently the Wii actually infringes on multiple patents in this case, though, I haven't seen the details. If the motion tracking technology is significantly different, Nintendo may be able to credibly claim that that citation was in error. Though, because they didn't respond at the time, it may be a bit late for that response.

 

[Starke]

Sorry about the Triple post.

I dont understand copyright laws. There are copies of everything everywhere...what counts as compyright infringement and what is competition? Hell, what is just similar happenstance and is that even illegal!?

I'm not sure what your level of understanding on the subject is, so I'll try to give you a good snapshot overview:

Copyright is one part of intellectual property laws. The three parts are Copyright, Patent, and Trademark. As a general rule, intellectual property laws are a bit of a tangled mess.

Copyright protects your artistic work. Things you write, songs you compose or preform, films you make, things like that.

Under US law, there are certain things that Copyright doesn't protect, this is called "fair use". I'm probably forgetting one, but: parody, educational use, and non-commercial use (with a lot of caveats) are the major parts of fair use. Parody means you're actively mocking something else. Educational Use protects teachers when they are using copyrighted material. Non-Commercial is tricky, but basically means you're not infringing to make money off of it.

Patents protect things you invent. New technology, mostly.

Under US law patents require that you submit your invention to the US patent office. You can elect not to for several reasons, but it will mean your invention is not protected. If your invention is accepted you receive a patent, which allows you to develop your invention without fear that someone else will rip you off.

After submitting your invention, your invention, you may be informed that it infringes on a previous patent, which you must then review and decide to accept that solution, or respond with an explanation that yours differs from the previous patent in some critical way.

Trademark protects, well, trade marks. Logos, product names, and the like.

Unless you really want me to, I'm going to basically leave this at that.

For the most part all of this is part of what's called civil law. That is to say, breaking it isn't actually illegal, but it can (and usually does) result in someone being sued.

Now, wholesale commercial duplication of an existing product, called bootlegging, is illegal (again, in the US (it varies from country to country, though most do have laws against this)). This differs from intellectual property infringement in that you intend to deceive the recipient into believing they're buying an authentic product. It's a specific fraud charge (if I recall correctly).

I hope that cleared things up some. I'll admit, this is one of the more obtuse chunks of the law.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

Unreasonable IP law.
Terrible adjudication system.
Lack of understanding of modern technology.
Ability to file claims where they're most likely to be upheld.
Cost of settlement versus cost of prolonged court battle.

By your powers combined, I am stupid lawsuit angling for an enormous settlement!

 

[QuantumT]

The fact that they went and filed the lawsuit in Texas, instead of where either company is located (Nintendo in Washington and ThinkOptics in California) just smacks of someone trying to make a quick buck, as opposed to someone who's actually interested in justice.