Nintendo Sued over Wiimote Trigger

kaizokunami writes "A company named Interlink Electronics, Inc., creator of interface devices has filed a suit in US District court against Nintendo of America, claiming the Nintendo the trigger on the bottom of the Wii controller infringes on their patent. The article includes images submitted with the patent application." From the article: "The complaint alleges that the trigger on the bottom of the Wii controller infringes on Interlink Patent No. 6,850,221 (Trigger Operated Electronic Device), which the company secured on February 1, 2005. Nintendo president Satoru Iwata first presented the Wii controller to the public not too long after that date, during the 2005 Tokyo Game Show."

Obvious?

[GeckoX]

It's a trigger on the bottom of a controller.

If that's not obvious, what is?

I don't care how you use it, where you put it, whatever. Once a button, always a button.

Can you say N64?

[ravenshrike]

The only real difference is the shape of the controller, I get the feeling this is going to be thrown off the deep end

Article snipit is missleading

[Thansal]

The device patented looks frighteningly like the WiiMote. It is an infrared device that is set up similar to the WiiMote (if it can be ussed as a pointing device, I dono). I am not sure why they specificly say that the trigger is what infringes

FTFA:

The drawings (above) that accompanied the patent application--first filed on September 17, 1997--do look suspiciously similar to the Wii trigger, but in the filing, Interlink offers scant detail of exactly how Nintendo currently infringes on the '221 patent, stating only that "Nintendo has made, used, offered for sale and sold in the United States, and continues to make, use, offer for sale and sell in the United States one or more controllers which activities infringe, induce others to infringe, and/or contributorily infringe the '221 patent."

Do I think that Nintendo riped these people off? No
Do I think that they are patent Trolls? Probably.

Re:heh

[archen]

There seem to be a lot of innovations in the Wii. If they just pay them off, then I'm sure they're opening the flood gates from lawsuits from all directions. Especially for the trivial stuff that is rather obvious, like this appears to be. I'm willing to bet that motion based interfaces is actually a patent minefield no one has ever forged across before.

Impossible to ask

[ZDRuX]

How can one possibly be sure that you're not violating anybody's copyright when creating something so complicated as a console system? With thousands of different copyrights protecting hundreds of different idea's, how do you as a company protect yourself from litigation? Assuming Nintendo did not willfully violate the copyright, is there anything they could have done to prevent this, apart from going throught thousands of patents trying to see if what they're doing falls under any one of them?

I think there should be a law where you as a patent holder must warn the company that violated your copyright, at which point that company (Nintendo in this case) can either:

1. Change the design of the device and pay you royalties on the ammount of devices produced with the old design

OR

2. Continue to design the controllers in the same way, but agree on royalties, avoiding any legal costs in the first place.

Re:Help me out here...

[thebdj]

Um, the patent was filed in 1997 with priority to 1995. Therefore you can erase, Wii, Xbox360, Xbox, Dreamcast, and N64, as established in prior postings.

Now, the NES zapper might be close, but I have to more closely read the claims then my cursory glance. The same for your flightsticks. I will admit there has to be some very close art for it to take almost 10 yrs to get these claims patented.

Re:Okay...

[Phisbut]

3. No matter how many people "came up" with the idea, it does not matter. The patent definition of obviousness is not the human definition. It might seem obvious to place a button in such a location, but did anyone file a patent or design such an item before them? If not, then was it really that obvious for someone to do it?

Sometimes, you can come up with an idea (putting a button under a device instead of over it) that is so obvious that you don't consider it worthy of your time to apply for a patent. Putting a button on a device is obvious, and *where* on the device you put it really shouldn't matter. Every monitor I've seen have the on/off button on the right-hand side. That doesn't mean I can get a patent on a monitor that has a on/off button on the left.

patent triviality

[Tom]

Once upon a time, patents were awarded for breakthrough inventions. You know, the stuff that really changed the way the game was played. The original patent system was designed for a small number of those, maybe a couple a year. On that scale, prior art and researching claims by comparing them other other patents works, and at that small number you can expect experts in a field to know the few relevant patents that exist.

But that's been perverted long since, and today you can get a patent for things as ground moving, earth shaking and future creating as the placement of a button on an input device. I'll let the other posters discuss obviousness, I'll just stand here in the corner and shake my head that such trivial nonsense is supported by an artificial exclusive monopoly system. It certainly took years of research to come up with this revolutionary idea, and thousands upon thousands of tries to get the details right, so a patent is surely adequate.

My suggestion for patent system reform: If it obviously took longer to write the patent application than to invent the thing in question, reject and have the applicant pay a fine for the wasted time of the patent office.

Re:Article snipit is missleading

[blueskatz]

It looks like a WiiMote, only because it looks like any other remote control, except with a trigger button. The Wii controller was specifically designed to look like a TV remote control.

If you look at the complaint [kotaku.com], it doesn't specifically say what part of the patent is being infringed upon. But considering the patent is called "Trigger Operated Electronic Device", and the provided diagrams don't indicate any other outstanding technology (pointing mechanisms, accelerometers), you've gotta assume the trigger is what the complaint is about.

Look at the front of the remote in their patent diagrams. All it has there is an infra-red LED, just like any remote you have at home. And even though they call it a pointing device, there is no pointing mechanism. Under "Example 1" they say that in order to move the cursor, you use your thumb to press the digital buttons on the top of the remote. Just like a DVD player remote.

So, I'm no patent expert, but it seems clear to me that this complaint is B.S.

Re:Um, prior art?

[Meagermanx]

I'll patent the buttons themselves.
 
You guys are going to have to come up with new input devices that don't involve small entities with two toggleable states.

Re:Okay...

[justchris]

No. Does interlink claim to have patented wireless technology? If not, wireless would be a logical extension to an existing idea over time. They created the NES zapper. They created a wireless controller for the GC. At some point they decided to converge the two technologies, and therefore that is not a valid argument.

Re:Okay...

[Lehk228]

that's just plain retarded, the wireless portion of the controller is simply the logical evolution of the wire and plug previously used. claiming that is a valid basis for a patent is like claiming it's valid to patent "use of a steering wheel" to "control a flying car"

Re:Um, prior art?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well speaking for a majority of Americans I believe I can tell you on their behalf to "go fuck yourself."

Tech Patents are Outdated

[Tarinth]

I'm amazed that any trigger on game controller could possibly be considered non-obvious at this point. This is just another example of our outdated patent system... Has this company done anything with their government-sponsored patent-monopoly to create a market out of it?