U.K. Court: Wii Guilty of Patent Infringement Against Philips

Jeroenr

New member
Nov 20, 2013
255
0
0
I hear a lot of people say that the patent system is mest up.
But can anyone realy say whats wronge?

Take this example,
Philips spent time an money developing this tech.
They are entitled to protect their investment.
(that is the basic idea of patents)

Nintendo is using the (semingly) same tech.
they..
a, stole it from philips knowingly
b, developed it them selfs but didn't check if it was already done.
c, it's diferent enough.

With a and b Philips has a legit claim.
C would probably need a courd ruling.

I think the main problem lies with companies that try to do C with the least effort posible.
 

Staskala

New member
Sep 28, 2010
537
0
0
Dexterity said:
It's messed up because it's at a point where people patent extremely generic technology and terms. Surely you heard about the Candy Crush fiasco?

Things like Touchscreens have also been patented in the past. Apple also once tried to patent their page turning animation for the iPhone.

It's basically like you trying to make a chair, but then you get sued for a lot of money because unbeknownst to you, someone else already patented the technology of chair legs.
Candy Crush was a copyright thing, that has nothing to do with patents. Patenting ideas without any concrete proofs of concept is only possible in the US, i.e. also not very relevant in this case. The claim is absolutely legitimate since Philip has sold numerous TVs with motion sensors, it's not like they're just sitting on a bunch of hypothetical patents that were never put into practice. Hence why they won.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Wait, Wii has a camera?

Dexterity said:
It's basically like you trying to make a chair, but then you get sued for a lot of money because unbeknownst to you, someone else already patented the technology of chair legs.
If only there was some way you could research such a thing before going to market. If only virtually every government had some form of searchable database for this sort of thing, or Nintendo was a large enough company to be able to afford to do research before releasing.

I mean, these aren't new patents.

ExtraDebit said:
Can you imagine if the wheel was patented?
You mean if, for a few years in human history, someone had exclusive rights to production of the wheel?

...No, I'm not seeing the problem.

Frozengale said:
What would this even mean though?

Nintendo is a Japanese Company that functions under Japanese Law.

Philips is a Company that is headquartered in the Netherlands.

And this whole thing is going on in the UK?
Where both companies operate. They're doing this in multiple countries, too.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
I have to question why they waited until now to spring this instead of back in 2007 when the Wii launched. Also I've said it before and I'll say it again, patents should become invalid if the technology is not developed within a certain amount of time after the patent is filed.
 

Neurotic Void Melody

Bound to escape
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
4,953
6
13
What can't be patented? This is quite stinking of bullshit money grabbings. So no one can use motion sensors cos they called it first but did nothing with it...or mentioned it till recently? This is quite a high level of cuntishness, i guess a judge has no choice but to follow the rules of the runes, no matter how absurd.
 

Jeroenr

New member
Nov 20, 2013
255
0
0
Dexterity said:
Jeroenr said:
I hear a lot of people say that the patent system is mest up.
But can anyone realy say whats wronge?

Take this example,
Philips spent time an money developing this tech.
They are entitled to protect their investment.
(that is the basic idea of patents)

Nintendo is using the (semingly) same tech.
they..
a, stole it from philips knowingly
b, developed it them selfs but didn't check if it was already done.
c, it's diferent enough.

With a and b Philips has a legit claim.
C would probably need a courd ruling.

I think the main problem lies with companies that try to do C with the least effort posible.

It's messed up because it's at a point where people patent extremely generic technology and terms. Surely you heard about the Candy Crush fiasco?

Things like Touchscreens have also been patented in the past. Apple also once tried to patent their page turning animation for the iPhone.

It's basically like you trying to make a chair, but then you get sued for a lot of money because unbeknownst to you, someone else already patented the technology of chair legs.
If You neglected to check if they are patented or not, then yes they are within right to do so.
Just simpely checking could save day's in court.(and a lot of money)

Patents are intendent to protect against freeloading competiters.
For a large part the do their job well enough.

But software and concept patents on the other hand do miss the point completly.

anyway, patent disputes aren't not just from present day.
Remenber Alexander Graham Bell.
 

Olas

Hello!
Dec 24, 2011
3,226
0
0
The Wii is 7+ years old, it hasn't even been Nintendo's current gen console in over a year. If Phillips was worried about Nintendo benefitting from their idea why did they wait until now, when Wiimotes are barely being used anymore, to speak up about it?

Zachary Amaranth said:
Wait, Wii has a camera?
Every Wiimote has an infrared light camera that detects the 2 points of infrared light on the Wii sensor bar. That's how it knows where you're pointing it with such precision. It also has a gyroscope built into it for when it's not being aimed directly at the sensor bar, but it's less precise.

ExtraDebit said:
Can you imagine if the wheel was patented?
You mean if, for a few years in human history, someone had exclusive rights to production of the wheel?

...No, I'm not seeing the problem.
Then you must be insane, the wheel has been used in virtually every form of transportation since nearly the dawn of civilization. If people couldn't produce wheels it would grind all the world's trade to a halt. TOf course nobody back then would have actually paid attention to such a nonsense claim as it would be utterly unenforceable.
 

Frozengale

New member
Sep 9, 2009
761
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Frozengale said:
What would this even mean though?

Nintendo is a Japanese Company that functions under Japanese Law.

Philips is a Company that is headquartered in the Netherlands.

And this whole thing is going on in the UK?
Where both companies operate. They're doing this in multiple countries, too.
Yes I understand that, that's why I'm asking about the implications of the thing. I'm saying that both companies are technically outside of the UK's jurisdiction, so I'm wondering what the UK court could even do. Which is also why I wonder if it will just mean the stopping of sales of Wii/Wii U in the UK.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Olas said:
Every Wiimote has an infrared light camera that detects the 2 points of infrared light on the Wii sensor bar. That's how it knows where you're pointing it with such precision. It also has a gyroscope built into it for when it's not being aimed directly at the sensor bar, but it's less precise.
I'm familiar with the light sensors, but those aren't typically referred to as cameras and wouldn't apply to one of the patents supposedly infringed upon.

Then you must be insane, the wheel has been used in virtually every form of transportation since nearly the dawn of civilization. If people couldn't produce wheels it would grind all the world's trade to a halt. TOf course nobody back then would have actually paid attention to such a nonsense claim as it would be utterly unenforceable.
Err...Why am I insane again? You're not responding to what a patent actually would entail. Your reasoning here is that it would be a problem because everyone used them (which made this a bad example in the first place), but patents are time limited, so why is this a problem? And why is not being worried about it insane? The first inventor would have limited protection for a few years and then....Everyone could use it just like now.

Which brings up the more appropriate question of: so what? Do you understand how patents work? Do you think that the standard patent of 20 years would have had a monumental impact on a device that has existed for over six thousand years? And that's ignoring the notion it couldn't be enforced, which you have asserted but seems directly in opposition to the notion of the harm of patents.

Frozengale said:
Yes I understand that, that's why I'm asking about the implications of the thing. I'm saying that both companies are technically outside of the UK's jurisdiction, so I'm wondering what the UK court could even do. Which is also why I wonder if it will just mean the stopping of sales of Wii/Wii U in the UK.
As long as they're doing business in the UK, they're beholden on a certain level. I mean, this won't affect sales of the Wii in other countries directly, but the patent ruling here may contribute to rulings on the suits in other countries. But they're ruling as it pertains specifically to the UK.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Xsjadoblayde said:
What can't be patented? This is quite stinking of bullshit money grabbings. So no one can use motion sensors cos they called it first but did nothing with it...or mentioned it till recently? This is quite a high level of cuntishness, i guess a judge has no choice but to follow the rules of the runes, no matter how absurd.
Well, no.

People can use motion sensors. They are limited in the way they are implemented by this patent and others, including patents held by Nintendo (are they money grubbing?). Also, this isn't a new thing with Philips. This is them revisiting the concept.

There's nothing absurd here, and more to the point it's nothing Nintendo doesn't also do.
 

Lunar Templar

New member
Sep 20, 2009
8,225
0
0
o.0

is that jugde fucking retarded or something. The Wii has no camera, never has, it's a pair of sensors.

And why aren't they going after Microsoft? from what I'm reading here, the Kinetic sounds a lot more like this thing then the Wii does.
 

MCerberus

New member
Jun 26, 2013
1,168
0
0
Alright, from what it looks like, Phillips patent at the core of this ruling is for

tracking IR signals from a remote to a sensor bar in order to track motion of the remote. This is both novel and new when it was patented. Probably completely valid.


Patent troll patents are generally for software, particularly broad not implemented "dibs on something we don't know how to do". Legally, the idea for a function can't be patented, just your methodology. Traditional patent courts are not set up to properly judge or recognize this, however, so some judges ruled waaaay too broadly, letting trolls have (bad) precedent. In a sane world, the current law should be recognized as "if you haven't made it, you can't patent it".
 

Olas

Hello!
Dec 24, 2011
3,226
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Then you must be insane, the wheel has been used in virtually every form of transportation since nearly the dawn of civilization. If people couldn't produce wheels it would grind all the world's trade to a halt. TOf course nobody back then would have actually paid attention to such a nonsense claim as it would be utterly unenforceable.
Err...Why am I insane again? You're not responding to what a patent actually would entail. Your reasoning here is that it would be a problem because everyone used them (which made this a bad example in the first place), but patents are time limited, so why is this a problem? And why is not being worried about it insane? The first inventor would have limited protection for a few years and then....Everyone could use it just like now.

Which brings up the more appropriate question of: so what? Do you understand how patents work? Do you think that the standard patent of 20 years would have had a monumental impact on a device that has existed for over six thousand years? And that's ignoring the notion it couldn't be enforced, which you have asserted but seems directly in opposition to the notion of the harm of patents.
So for 20 years, essentially an entire generation and almost as many years as I've been alive, nobody in the world would be allowed to build a cart, wagon, wheel barrel, or anything even related to or based upon these things which were a necessity for most peoples' lives in some way or another. What are you supposed to do if you're a farmer and your equipment breaks? Do you just die? It would be devastating enough to crash civilization into an early dark age. And you don't see any problem with this at all? If you're not insane then you're deliberately fooling yourself.

And of course this is assuming the wheel is being patented back in ancient times too when it was actually an invention of any sort of note. I couldn't even begin to comprehend what would happen if you did it today. You would essentially end the auto-industry, the airline industry, most travel based industries, all industries that rely on mass transit which is nearly all of them to some extent, any businesses that don't do sell primarily to people within walking distance of their stores, the list goes on. The entire world we live in is based upon the assumption transportation vehicles. Banning electricity would be less harmful. At least there was a time in human history when we were able to make due without it. If people were unable to create wheeled devices it would destroy the world economy on every level.

Either this would happen or you'd see the rise of a monopoly more enormous and powerful than anything we've seen in human history. I can't even begin to speculate on the societal impact of this because it's a completely unprecedented scenario.
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
I think this dispute will secretly go the way a lot of them have; Out of court "settlement" that secretly involves the two companies working on projects together.
 

Jeroenr

New member
Nov 20, 2013
255
0
0
Olas said:
Zachary Amaranth said:
Then you must be insane, the wheel has been used in virtually every form of transportation since nearly the dawn of civilization. If people couldn't produce wheels it would grind all the world's trade to a halt. TOf course nobody back then would have actually paid attention to such a nonsense claim as it would be utterly unenforceable.
Err...Why am I insane again? You're not responding to what a patent actually would entail. Your reasoning here is that it would be a problem because everyone used them (which made this a bad example in the first place), but patents are time limited, so why is this a problem? And why is not being worried about it insane? The first inventor would have limited protection for a few years and then....Everyone could use it just like now.

Which brings up the more appropriate question of: so what? Do you understand how patents work? Do you think that the standard patent of 20 years would have had a monumental impact on a device that has existed for over six thousand years? And that's ignoring the notion it couldn't be enforced, which you have asserted but seems directly in opposition to the notion of the harm of patents.
So for 20 years, essentially an entire generation and almost as many years as I've been alive, nobody in the world would be allowed to build a cart, wagon, wheel barrel, or anything even related to or based upon these things which were a necessity for most peoples' lives in some way or another. What are you supposed to do if you're a farmer and your equipment breaks? Do you just die? It would be devastating enough to crash civilization into an early dark age. And you don't see any problem with this at all? If you're not insane then you're deliberately fooling yourself.

And of course this is assuming the wheel is being patented back in ancient times too when it was actually an invention of any sort of note. I couldn't even begin to comprehend what would happen if you did it today. You would essentially end the auto-industry, the airline industry, most travel based industries, all industries that rely on mass transit which is nearly all of them to some extent, any businesses that don't do sell primarily to people within walking distance of their stores, the list goes on. The entire world we live in is based upon the assumption transportation vehicles. Banning electricity would be less harmful. At least there was a time in human history when we were able to make due without it. If people were unable to create wheeled devices it would destroy the world economy on every level.

Either this would happen or you'd see the rise of a monopoly more enormous and powerful than anything we've seen in human history. I can't even begin to speculate on the societal impact of this because it's a completely unprecedented scenario.
some patents are so important to a specific technoligie that the developers are requiert by law to give licence to anyone whose need it fot a fair price.
So you can built the weel barrel as long you pay the lichence to do so.
 

waj9876

New member
Jan 14, 2012
600
0
0
You know what would be nice? If it became required that to have a patent, you actually have to use said patent within a reasonable amount of time. You'd have to release a product that used said patent within two to five years. Failure to do so puts said patent within the public domain.

And then once you do release something, you have to pay for said patent on a...let's say a twice a year rate, so if no one buys it someone else can have a chance to buy it from them. As it just becomes a burden on their expenses if they never plan on doing anything about it. "I'll buy patents and sell them to make SO MUCH MONEY! MUAHAHAHA!...Oh shit, no one wants to buy it at my insane price and now it's hurting my expenses. Shit, I've gotta get rid of this."