Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Nintendo and Microsoft in Suit Over Controller Patents

Posted by Zonk on Fri Aug 04, 2006 02:13 PM
from the and-now-it's-time-for-a-shakedown dept.
Businesses Microsoft Nintendo Patents Entertainment Games
Via Kotaku, an article at the Inquirer discussing a patent suit brought against Microsoft and Nintendo over controller technologies. Anascape Ltd, a Texas firm, claims the two companies have infringed on over a dozen of its held patents. From the article: "Anascape alleges 6,222,525 'Image Controller with Sheet Connected Sensors' was also breached, as well as 6,343, 991 'Game Control with Analog Pressure Sensor' and 6,344,791 'Variable Sensor with Tactile Feedback'. As well as 6,347,997 'Analog Controls Housed with Electronic Displays', 6,351,205 'Variable Conductance Sensor' (a different one) and 6,400, 303 'Remote Controller with Analog Pressure Sensor' (a different one)."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Nintendo Loses Controller Patent Lawsuit 324 comments
kryogen1x alerts us to coverage at 1up indicating that Nintendo controller may soon become scarce — Nintendo lost in court to Anascape over analog sticks in their Wii and GameCube controllers.This isn't the first time the big manufacturers have been targeted in lawsuits involving features in their controllers. From the article: "The lawsuit concerns the analog sticks in the Classic Controller and GameCube controllers, which Texas-based Anascape Ltd. claims to hold a patent on that Nintendo violated. The court has ruled in favor of Anascape, and US District Judge Ron Clark has rejected Nintendo's request for a new trial. As a result, Clark said he will put a ban on the sale of the controllers (which includes sales of GameCube systems) starting tomorrow, July 23, unless Nintendo posts a bond or puts royalties into an escrow account."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Nintendo and Microsoft in Suit Over Controller Patents 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • I think I've seen this business plan before
    1. Start a business in an area dominated by MSFT
    2. Sue them for patent infringment
    3. ???
    4. Profit!!!

  • Patent trolls? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by govtpiggy (978532) on Friday August 04 2006, @02:18PM (#15848250)
    So these guys have apparently patented the idea of an analog button doing anything on a display. Smells like patent trolls to me. I just want to know why these seemingly obvious patents keep getting given out.

    United States Patent 6,347,997:
    Devices for controlling imagery shown by a display, and including an analog sensor for creating a varying analog value according to varying depression applied by a finger of a human user to the analog sensor. In one preferred embodiment the analog sensor(s) includes a resilient dome cap for providing tactile feedback to the finger depressing the analog sensor. Circuitry within a housing is connected to the analog sensor for reading the varying analog value from the analog sensor and causing representative varying the imagery shown by the display. The devices can be individually structured as electronic game controllers/systems, telephones, pagers, electronic books, web browsers, global positioning receivers, ovens, coffee makers and personal digital assistants (PDA) to name a few.
    • If every second Slashdot story was a patent applicaton, it would be a start to weed out the patent trolls...

      Sure it wont catch these guys seeing as they submitted it in 1999, but its a start.

      I believe the patent system needs a total overhaul. Technology evolves so fast that perhaps the patent period should be limited to 5 years, and only on the conditon you are selling the product, or the patent is forfeited.
      • So you're telling me that only companies big enough to sell things should be allowed to patent something? A guy can't just come up with a good idea and sell it to someone anymore? I think requiring intent to manufacture something results in a chicken and egg problem for "little people". Not that I don't think there is a serious problem with the USPTO; I just don't think that's the solution.

    • Re:Patent trolls? (Score:5, Informative)

      by fishybell (516991) <fishybell @ h o t m a il.com> on Friday August 04 2006, @02:34PM (#15848361) Homepage Journal
      Devices for controlling imagery shown by a display, and including an analog sensor for creating a varying analog value

      Wow...sucks for them. Too bad both Microsoft and Nintendo use digital controllers. Yes, there are varying values depending on the analog input (all human input is analog after all), but the output is now, always has been, and always will be, digital.

      There is no way that either Microsoft or Nintendo are sending varying levels of voltages to the console when they can send a couple of digital packets that contain all the information on all the buttons in about the same amount of bandwidth (over cord or air). Technically the packets are an analog signal that is encoded to represent a digital value, but there is no "varying analog value," just a series of different combinations of the same value of high and low voltage.

      • I'm no patent lawyer, not even a lawyer at all, but I sometimes find myself describing the values captured from an ADC as "analog," even though it's clearly digital at this point (but still in useless unscientific form). And I have no doubt that the accellerometer on the Wii has an analog output hooked up to an ADC on a microcontroller before it ever reaches the Wii. Meaning that at some level, they are including an analog sensor creating analog values.
      • Wow...sucks for them. Too bad both Microsoft and Nintendo use digital controllers. Yes, there are varying values depending on the analog input (all human input is analog after all), but the output is now, always has been, and always will be, digital.

        IIRC (it's been a while), the N64 'analogue' stick was actually a matrix of either 64x64 or 128x128 values, and therefore digital. So absolutely correct, Nintendo did (and probably still does) use entirely digital control systems, so this patent is even more
    • I just want to know why these seemingly obvious patents keep getting given out.

      The simple answer is because there is no penalty to filing a bogus patents other than the filing fee. A few tweaks to the system to make abusing it carry a cost and the system would work fine. And for that matter software algorithms should be patentable, just like any other process, the real problem is that there are so many bogus software patents like 'clicking a button to purchase goods' that are just criminally stupid.

      * If a
      • Software algorithms are just mathematics, I don't think those were ever patentable. After all maths were around when the patent system was set up so it would have a provision for maths already if that was intended to be patentable.
    • No. The abstract of a patent does not tell what has been patented. Nor does the title, the detailed description, the background...

      You have to read the claims.

      1. A hand holdable electronic device for controlling imagery, comprising:

      a housing sized to be hand-held;

      electronic circuitry located in said housing;

      a general image display located in said housing, said general image display operatively connected to said circuitry;

      at least one finger depressible surface in part exposed on said housing, said at least

    • Apparently all it takes is a sixth grade education to be employed at the US patent office. When they see all those big, strange words, they think "I don't even understand half of this. It must be new and innovative!"

      Why can't they hire real Einsteins like they used to?

  • Prior Art? (Score:5, Funny)

    by twistedsymphony (956982) on Friday August 04 2006, @02:19PM (#15848257) Homepage
    Patents Filed in 1999 eh?

    I guess that box sitting in my basement full of old Nintendo controlers would classify as prior art?
    • Old nintendo controlers are digital, the directional and A-B buttons were either "on" or "off". These patents are for analog controls, which means they determine if a button is 0% down, 100% down, or anything in between.

      -Rick

      • Re:Prior Art? (Score:5, Informative)

        by deadmantyping (827232) on Friday August 04 2006, @02:37PM (#15848382)
        Actually the Nintendo 64 (N64) featured an analog stick, in addition to the digital pads, and the N64 was released in (drumroll please) 1996 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_64 [wikipedia.org]) and it was publically introduced in 1995, so Nintendo can indeed claim prior art.
        • Good to know. I have never actually owned and "entertainment system", only computers. I borrowed a friends original Nintendo once for a few weeks, so that's what I'm familiar with. I have no idea on the release dates of any of the newer consoles.

          -Rick
        • We also had analog sticks in the 80s. Atari made some, plus a plethora of arcade units.
      • Re-read the OP. Please. Then remember that the N64 had all of these technologies incorporated into it's controler. And that it was released in October of 1995. So there is no way this is going to make it past court. As far as anolouge buttons, I'm pretty sure Sony's the first to actually utilize those, and they're in quite a bit of trouble as it is with thier Dual-Shock.
        • Sorry about that. Got sidetracked at work and hit post anyway. Then read the other response to your post.... So, you must have had a life or some imagination to have grown up without any video games.
    • So why not sue Sony as well - the PS2 came out in 2000 with the new controllers that had analog joysticks...
    • I wonder if these idiots have ever heard of an analog input device called a "mouse".

  • Patent with no product using it? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Yvan256 (722131) on Friday August 04 2006, @02:23PM (#15848286) Homepage Journal
    Aren't patents supposed to be allowed only if the company actually has a product on the market using the patented feature?
    • Nope.. that would make sence..

      all you need for a patent is an idea and money (if the idea isn't yours they don't care) - oh and there can't be prior art showing that you are faking it (but remember your the one that has to show them the prior art)

      as far as i am concerned.. people need to get hung/shot for crap like this..
    • No. That would be nice, but I don't know of any country with such a law.

      In fact many companies simply buy patents, being purely tech litigators and having no product or development or technical expertise.
    • A lot of people have replied "No" to this, but it should be pointed out that the presence of a product on the market *can* (AFAIK) affect the amount in damages awarded.
      • But he was in the process of selling the product. He was trying to sell his idea to the other companies. Having the product on the market does not necessarily mean just to the consumers selling it to manufacturer should count as well.

        If after they refused to buy he just threw in the towel and never tried to get in the market again, then it should be fair game.
          • Except when the market for such a product becomes obvious, all a patent holder has to do it go to a bank and say, "Hey I've got this great idea and X company(ies) are simply trying to outlast me. If I actually go to the market with this product, I'll either make a killing or make a ton of cash when I get bought out. Its win-win!"

            Theres a reason why patent trolls ARE called trolls. Currently a person can sit on a patent for DECADES without ever making a product and simply cash in on it later by suing compani

  • THey have their own patents... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by madhatter256 (443326) on Friday August 04 2006, @02:32PM (#15848347)
    Nintendo clearly states the patent number their devices use. I am not sure about MS though. If these patents by the plaintiff were filed in 1999, but if Nintendo has patents on their analog joysticks then this case will be thrown out the window like the million other patent suits brought up against them. I need to hurry up and patent my invention called "Life" and then sue the whole world for patent infringement.

  • what about Sony? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by thoughtlover (83833) on Friday August 04 2006, @02:38PM (#15848387)
    My PS2 controller has analog pressure-sensitive buttons. Why were they excluded from the lawsuit?

    What about any third-party that makes controllers using said technology?
    • "My PS2 controller has analog pressure-sensitive buttons. Why were they excluded from the lawsuit?"

      Which buttons are those? Sorry if that's a dumb question, but they've always felt digital to me.
      • The D-pad (up, down, left, right) is pressure sensitive as are the other buttons. I just finished playing Gran Turismo 4 last night. Pressure sensitive buttons are not just useful, but necessary in the game!

  • Anascape Ltd. ?? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Chaffar (670874) on Friday August 04 2006, @02:52PM (#15848492)
    What kind of company that has patents on GAME CONTROLLERS doesn't even have its own website [google.com]??

    • But wait theres more.... (Score:4, Informative)

      by madhatter256 (443326) on Friday August 04 2006, @03:07PM (#15848581)
      I also found this...

      http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6906700.html?high light=computer,games [freepatentsonline.com]

      According to the google summary. Patent was filed in 2000 and published in 2005. This is purely just another intended patent infrigement suit against a profitable company.

      It is true that the patent system needs some updating because there are old fogies in there who are not up to date with what is going on outside their office walls. This is why you are hearing patent suits of this nature. Some are legitimate while some aren't, while some were clearly made to sue a profitable source. Other than that this is clearly a patent troll.

  • Misleading title (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Chris Pimlott (16212) on Friday August 04 2006, @03:01PM (#15848541)
    The article title makes it sound like Nintendo and Microsoft are suing each other, instead of both being sued by a third party. How about something like "Company sues Nintendo, Microsoft over Controller Patent"?
    • whats nintendomicrosoft? oh theres a teeny tiny COMMA there. Thats a really bad headline from a reading point of view. I would use an 'and' not a comma. "Company sues Nintendo and Microsoft over Controller Patent". If thats too long, you could abreviate microsoft to M$. That would also spark at least a few +5 comments joking, commending or damming the use of the monkier.

      im only replying to this becuase its slow ass friday and im really bored.

  • Injunction probable (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DeadCatX2 (950953) on Friday August 04 2006, @04:25PM (#15849001) Journal
    I thought something was funny when I read about the suit being filed in East Texas.

    According to techdirt [techdirt.com], there's a federal judge in Marshall, Texas (a district in East Texas) who almost universally grants injunctions against patent infringers. Said judge is a favorite of patent trolls.

    According to this pdf [theinquirer.net], the case is filed in...gasp...Marshall, TX.
    • "Make a controller which is wireless AND has an analog button: PATENT VIOLATION, YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT!"

      There is no mention of wireless controllers in this article. You misunderstand what 'remote' means in this context.
    • This is going to be legalese double-speak, but strictly speaking the term 'remote control' does not imply wireless. My grandpa had an old stoneage TV that had a remote control with a wire running to the TV. And it called itself a remote control. So it is undeniable that remote controls with analog buttons in reference to "manipulating images" has been around since the 80s.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.