PS3 Finally Ready to Rumble?

An anonymous reader writes "Sony has finally settled its longstanding legal dispute over infringement of Immersion Corporation's force feedback patents, which reportedly led to Sony's decision to remove rumble technology from the PS3 controller, by agreeing to pay Immersion at least $150.3 million in damages and royalties. The agreement presumably will result in rumble and perhaps other of Immersion's force-feedback technologies being incorporated in future Sony controllers. Microsoft previously settled a similar lawsuit brought by Immersion, but Sony hung on tenaciously despite complaints about its controller products and disappointing PS3 sales." There's no guarantee that the tech will show up in the Sixaxis controller, of course. After all, rumble is a 'last-gen' feature.

They should have noticed

[Macthorpe]

Really, when Microsoft rolls over and just pays out the license fee for something, you should start thinking that you could be in the wrong.

Re:O Rly?

[hansamurai]

BIZ: A lot of gamers, including myself, enjoy the controller's motion sensing at times, but we still miss rumble. If gamers want it and are vocal enough, will Sony reintroduce the force feedback at some point?

PH: We have no plans to do so in the standard controller that ships with PlayStation 3. I believe that the Sixaxis controller offers game designers and developers far more opportunity for future innovation than rumble ever did. Now, rumble I think was the last generation feature; it's not the next-generation feature. I think motion sensitivity is. And we don't see the need to do that. Having said that, there will be specific game function controllers, potentially like steering wheels that do include vibration or feedback function--not from us but from third parties.

http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=1534 2&ncid=AOLGAM000500000000026 [gamedaily.com]

Re:Where's Nintendo in this?

[wynler]

Nintendo's rumble-pak technology was based on a different design to a patent that Nintendo holds.

Re:What did Mircosoft pay?

[gEvil (beta)]

Or who knows maybe Sony got a deal by putting up a fight.

I don't think so. Sony was sued for $300 in "damages", which we know is always on the high end of things. They're settling for half of that. From the numbers in the article, it looks like they could have licensed the tech for about 50 million (or less), since they've already paid 30 million in compulsory license fees, plus another 20ish for licensing through 2009. Of course, this also isn't factoring in any court fees or their own lawyer costs.

Re:What did Mircosoft pay?

[Rycross]

Microsoft apparently paid 26 million. [com.com]

Re:Cool!

[Dogtanian]

But will it be worth $832? FYI the PS3 is £425 in the UK which is how I got to the above number.

That likely includes VAT (i.e. 17.5% sales tax); ex. VAT it's £362.

If I'm right, listed U.S. prices don't normally include sales tax; and however much- if any- they have to pay is irrelevant, since Sony don't get any of that money (nor have any choice in whether to charge it or not).

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a look at Immersion's web site: http://www.immersion.com./ [www.immersion.com] Sure doesn't look like a patent troll to me. They have a number of product lines in addition to gaming, including medical (through their own subsidiary), automotive and cell phones.

Re:Wait...

[enharmonix]

But I don't see any actual products, just products by other companies that licensed their technology. [www.immersion.com] I guess if they made a piece of hardware that Logitech just sticks in their joystick that would be one thing, but their website is pretty vague about what Immersion itself actually creates. Theres a lot of talk about licensing, and I did find a snippet about some middleware, but thats about it. I'm not saying that they don't have their own products, but their site doesn't seem to indicate whether or not they actually develop the hardware or technology, thus my original question.

Going out on a limb here, but I don't think that in itself would necessarily qualify them patent trolls. The point of patents is specifically to protect inventors without investors - they have a good idea but are unable to develop it, or are unable to compete with bigger companies who could manufacture and sell the product for less. The whole point of patents is to allow inventors to license them to other people. What makes somebody a patent troll is when that's their business model - they don't develop anything, not even a prototype, they just buy up broad patents and attempt to extort royalties from anybody selling a similar product who happens to have deep pockets. In this case, Immersion really doesn't strike me as a patent troll - they sell a service, provide the equipment (whether or not they manufacture it themselves), developed SDKs, and their business model specifically seems to relate to force feedback solutions. Not a typical troll, if you ask me.

Re:wow

[joystickgenie]

I'm pretty sure it doesn't have to do with the implementation of the rumble but that Nintendo is clear from this because of prior art.

The rumble pack for the Nintendo 64 and the one for the game boy both came out years before and were patented before the immersion vibration patent. So Nintendo is getting a free ride because they were actually there first and immersion doesn't want to start a feud over who actually owns the idea of rumble in games.

Re:What did Mircosoft pay?

[gamer4Life]

http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/myturn/?id=13861 [gamedaily.com]

Nintendo did it first.

And seriously, "game controllers and other devices to vibrate in response to certain events that happen during a game" - how hard is it to think of that? Cellphones, pagers and vibrators were already vibrating in response to certain events. It's a patent that didn't require much to think of, and should never have been awarded.