Nintendo Patents Online Console Gaming 395
MagicDude writes "Nintendo has patented key console online gaming features. Specifically, it has received patents on things such as player league tables, voice communications and online gaming host services. While the article doesn't address how Nintendo will use these patents, it makes you wonder if this is the first step for Nintendo to become a major player in the online gaming market."
Obviousness? (Score:3, Informative)
Wow, they just patented telephones, VOIP, MMORPGs, etc... Sheesh, shouldn't something like this be a LITTLE obvious?
Way to go, USPTO!
Re:Obviousness? (Score:5, Informative)
Even as a Nintendo fanboy, I'd call this questionable given Xbox Live, and whatever it is Sony have, but you can't pull them up on trying to patent telephones.
Priority date is earlier than you think (Score:5, Informative)
Even as a Nintendo fanboy, I'd call this questionable given Xbox Live
It appears you didn't read the article:
Which Xbox Live service are you talking about that was around before April 1999?
Re:Priority date is earlier than you think (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Priority date is earlier than you think (Score:3, Insightful)
There needs to be a
Re:Priority date is earlier than you think (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure about that but there's an old Mac game called Marathon which was released nearly when Doom was released that had the in-game voice communication feature.
What's that? Like 1992?
Re:Priority date is earlier than you think (Score:2, Informative)
If that stuff is integrated into the console, the patent doesn't apply.
No doubt they filed this to stop third parties from offering their own add-on devices, like lets say, CD-64 rom copying units.
It's the same strategy they took with NES and SNES. They patented the "keying" mechanisms that authenticated real NES carts, and sent the hordes of lawyers after third parties who tried to release products. Game Doctor, et
Re:Priority date is earlier than you think (Score:2)
Re:Obviousness? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Obviousness? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Obviousness? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, that is going to have interesting consequences. As the latest economy laptops now support advanced texture mapping, they could make an good alternative to buying a console system + wide-screen TV.
It's also hard to believe that Nintendo would attempt to extract royalties from this patent, so it must be an attempt to build up a defensive patent portfolio.
Re:Obviousness? (Score:5, Interesting)
My hope is that if enough ridiculous patents are issued (I'm reminded of the guy that patented "swinging on a porch swing sideways" and "swinging on a porch swing sideways while making 'tarzan' sounds") they may revamp how the patent process works.
Oh yeah I also submitted a patent for spinning in an office chair, don't be jealous...
Re:Obviousness? (Score:3, Funny)
Damn, and I was just doing this before I remembered I hadn't gotten my Slash fix this morning yet...
{sigh} How much do I owe you for the following:
an unlimited spinning licence
a million spin licence
a thousand spin licence
per spin licencing
a redistributable billion spin licence?
-nB
Re:Obviousness? (Score:2, Insightful)
It really isn't the USPTOs job to weed through prior art and do all that investigative legwork. That would be nearly impossible, they'd need to employ top experts in every scientific and industrial discipline.
No, it's up to your peers to challenge your patents by showing prior art or obviousness to a judge. The problem as I see it, are the financial barriers that keep the small guy out of court, not the USPTO
Re:Obviousness? (Score:4, Insightful)
No. It is their job, and they're not doing it. The USPTO should be applying at least a tiny level of common sense to these patent applications. Their mandate is to "promote the progress of science", and there's no way a kitchen-sink patent like this could possibly fit that goal. Even IF there were valid "inventions" in there, they'd be separate ideas- not one monstrous conglomeration of "stuff we can converge".
Patents should be about HOW, not WHAT. Arthur C Clarke didn't deserve a patent on the TV relay satellite, because although he was the first to think of it, he couldn't plan it in specific technical detail. Nintendo has done no better. And need I point out that Nintendo filed their patent [uspto.gov] 5 years ago, but STILL haven't built a machine embodying it (or specific blueprints for that machine).
I understand that patent examiners follow restrictive rules, so that individually they can argue "Not my job". But those rules are made by the USPTO, which is truely shirking it's public responsibility by being too lazy/corporate-friendly.
Re:Obviousness? (Score:2)
*Sigh* no. They did not patent telephones and VOIP. The context is games here, and patents are VERY context sensisitive.
BTW, obvious has nothing to do with it. VOIP is not so easy. Consider how little horsepower the N64 had and that most of it went towards the game, and you may see what I mean. Solving the problem is what patents are about, not obviousness. Otherwise I'd patent matt
If Nintendo's worried about online game sales... (Score:2, Insightful)
Player? No. (Score:4, Insightful)
it makes you wonder if this is the first step for Nintendo to become a major player in the online gaming market
s/player/litigator/g
Re:Player? No. (Score:2)
Since there's only one occurrence of "player" per line, the g isn't needed.
DON'T PEDDLE YOUR VILE CANDY TO ME CANDY MAN! (Score:5, Funny)
Great (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
All the patents go to the guys with the weakest online system.
The Cube has the fewest number of online titles, to be sure. But the system itself? It is at least orders of magnitude better than the XBox, which requires going through XBox Live! to play online (legally speaking of course). The Cube online system is actually the most open system available, the lack of publisher support for it may make it appear that the system itself is weak -- support from publishers in the form of compelling titles is what is really lacking.
For example: if a large number of XBox developers wanted to provide their own gaming network... guess what -- they can't. XBox Live! only.
There's actually nothing stopping you or me from developing our own Cube online gaming network and working with publishers to use this network.
Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Microsoft (Score:2)
You can have Nintendo, but Miyamoto goes to Sony!
Re:Microsoft (Score:4, Informative)
And I patent...... (Score:2, Insightful)
Patents - to encourage innovation? (Score:3, Insightful)
In another patent (Score:5, Informative)
Not even the USPTO would grant this patent (Score:3, Insightful)
Dang. The USPTO examiners would have to smoke something really good to grant this. Most of the claims of Sony's patent application [uspto.gov] look like any other triangle filler. The only difference between claim 1 and the prior art is "at least 16 pixels per clock cycle," which is no different from patenting a car that can move "at least 100 miles per hour."
Re:Not even the USPTO would grant this patent (Score:2)
Re:Not even the USPTO would grant this patent (Score:2)
Or what else they have planned... (Score:3, Informative)
No chance for prior art on this one either from what I can tell I'm afraid. These were amended to previous patents and refer specifically to consoles. It looks like these predate the Dreamcasts online gaming and with the console specifically mentioned they could easily avoide the PC Prior Art argument.
Re:Or what else they have planned... (Score:2)
Re:Or what else they have planned... (Score:2)
The trouble with software patents in general is they are fundamentally different than hardware patents; hardware patents patent an implementation of something, where software patents (an
For their own safety? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Prior Art (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure i remember shouting at my opponents while playing games before.
Another Twist (Score:2, Redundant)
Best case scenario, Nintendo is getting ready to enter online gaming in a big way and want to get their ducks in a row. If true, I think this means that Shigero Miyamoto has something ready to go online. You can be
Re:Another Twist (Score:2)
How about you use I didn't RTFA also. Had you read the article or even the posts you would have seen that this was filed years ago. Well before the Xbox came to the seen.
Actually this makes me happy in a wierd way. I 'd much rather see Nintendo get this patent than Microsoft. I have no doubt in my mind that if they could have gotten this pattent they would have used it to beat up on Nintendo, just so they could get of one more player and do what they love to do in markets. Now maybe someone can do it
Re:Another Twist (Score:2)
I'm not a huge Nintendo fan, but I would like to see them get into the online fight, just not in
Xbox Live (Score:5, Insightful)
The article was light on details; if you read the text of the patent (which I have not, to be sure) it's most likely describing a specific implementation, or has key features that the generic technologies being described in the early replies to this thread don't have.
It's fun to get your panties in a knot about every patent filed by every company, but they are just trying to cover their bases. If they (companies) don't patent everything they possibly can, someone else will turn around and do it. Better to have a patent thrown out for prior art than to risk having to pay massive royalties for something that one of your engineers claims to have invented (and may in fact have.)
So tell me, who would you rather hold the patent on these things, Microsoft or Nintendo?
Re:Xbox Live (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Xbox Live (Score:4, Interesting)
Honestly? MS. Or MS and Sony. Nintendo has a vested interested in keeping software piracy controlled to the point that they didn't want any games online. Sure, the PR was that "no one wanted online gaming", but come on. Everyone wanted online gaming. The truth is Nintendo wanted to take every possible easy avenue away from pirates (what better way to get ISOs on an Xbox than by the network).
Nintendo doesn't "get it". They haven't gotten it in 20 years. Their controls drive away users and piss off players who'd like to play online.
Re:Xbox Live (Score:4, Informative)
Now that means that 1 million people are using X-Box Live and just over two million people are using their PS2 online. These may seem like huge numbers, but they're pathetically small compared to the entirety of the market. So no, 'everyone' does not want Online gaming. The majority of gamers don't give a rat's ass about online gaming for this generation. That may change in the next generation, but since no one knows what the capabilities of everyone's next console is we have no way of knowing how seriously each company is taking it. A few rabid fanboys and early adopters do not market forces make.
What waffle. (Score:2, Interesting)
League tables: Since Quake 1 (various) Barrysworld
Voice communication: Counter strike (et al)
Online game host services: GameSpy, Barrysworld
I am suprised they haven't patented online console credit card authorization or advertising, or just the Internet.
What kind of low life scum work at the USPO? (unless this ain't a US patent, I mean, it is Nintendo...) What kind of people have never played an online game, and couldn't see this for what it was?
'Home Game Video Systems' can mean anything from you mobile
Re:What waffle. (Score:2)
Rumors and Poker (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, their patent is for "league gaming" et al., and it may be possible to apply that methodology to online poker rooms. Is it possible that the patents will cover certain types of online gambling as well as actual games [groupshares.com]?
Re:Rumors and Poker (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Rumors and Poker (Score:2)
If it does, then there is plenty of prior art. The slightest expansion of the scope of the patent makes it invalid. If "home video game system with a hard disk drive" == "desktop computer", then there is prior art on every aspect mentioned in the article.
What's funny is that the USPTO would allow a patent that depends on "home video game system with a hard disk drive" != "desktop computer".
I guess ev
Glimpse of N5 (Score:2)
Is this the Revolution for the Big N?
YABP (Yet another bolloxy patent) (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just another one of those patents on existing and obvious functionality, but in a slightly different environment/platform. Nothing new is invented here; it is only marginally more creative than all those patents for "Obvious and millennia-old activity X.... on the Internet"
console/PC (Score:2, Insightful)
64DD (Score:5, Informative)
Filed in 1999, (Score:2)
I am pretty sure the concept of playing games online was well established in 1999, even voice (on lan gaming).
So how does this even have a chance, other than to say, look, it'll cost you either way.
Microsoft are filing 3000 patents a Year, that is 8.21 a day, and each one can take MONTHS to work over. How big is the patent office?
Perhaps the patent office should have a commitee of representative consumers who can veto patents?
Re:Filed in 1999, (Score:2)
As I understand it, it takes a period of months to come to a judgement on a patent application, but it only takes the USPTO a day or two of actual work for each patent.
Actually, since they grant ridiculous patents, perhaps they really need a few months to get their knowledge up-to-date.
Nintendo Online (Score:2)
Ah well, time will tell.
Patents always been part of Nintendo business (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a patent for the Nintendo 64 disk drive (Score:5, Informative)
Here is a link [gamespot.com] I got off the Penny Arcade message boards wherein Nintendo confirms this:Of course, it's too late; the slashdot blurb has done its damage and this story will likely be filled with nothing but alternating "OMFG THE REVOLUTION" and "they patented the internet!" comments. But, if you were curious, this is what is actually happening here.
Re:This is a patent for the Nintendo 64 disk drive (Score:4, Informative)
Now I question if this is really true or not and if so to what extent it is true. Surely there are mechanisms in place to limit how much one can add and if one can patent something through an addition to the original patent already in the marketplace and still be granted protection from the original patent application date. The Register article was light on these details.
Re:This is a patent for the Nintendo 64 disk drive (Score:2)
Re:This is a patent for the Nintendo 64 disk drive (Score:2, Funny)
Seperate Device (Score:3, Informative)
So I don't think XBox would have any problems (its network and hard drive aren't expansion), but the PS2 might be(Network adapter is attached to back of unit, but the hard drive does sit within the PS2, just connected to network adapter)
But what do I know, I am NAL.
How about a less paranoid article? (Score:2, Interesting)
This patent was about the 64DD add-on device..
US patent 6,769,989, which was granted on the 3rd of August, refers to a console add-on device which would modify an existing system to include "additional communication and storage capability via a modem and hard disk drive."
blah blah blah
However, despite only being granted this month, the original patent was actually filed back in 1999, and the picture attached to the patent clearly displays a 64DD unit attached to
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:"It's ok, they never used patents aggressively" (Score:3, Insightful)
Quite possibly true with Microsoft, but I would disagree with that statement as applied to IBM (or for that matter any major IT service-oriented company).
The logic being: most IT service/solution oriented companies make their money from support contracts. IBM, Sun, Novell - they all do it. A proper support contract with something l
Patent Details (Score:4, Informative)
Abstract:
An existing video game system is modified to include additional communication and storage capability via a modem and hard disk drive. The modification may involve the use of an expansion device coupled to a video game system port. A cable TV tuner is also included in the expansion device to assist in providing a unique picture-in-picture video capability. TV signals are coupled to the expansion device via the RF input from either cable TV or off-air signals. These RF signals are blended with the output signals from the video game system. A user may, for example, watch TV while viewing overlay information from the video game console. A user may receive a TV channel guide downloaded via the Internet, spot a program which the user desires to view and immediately access, via an IR input, the desired channel through the expansion device TV tuner. A user may also watch TV while simultaneously logging onto the Internet. A hard drive permits downloading from the Internet of entire games.
Claims:
We claim:
1. A home video game system for executing video game programs and for generating game play graphics in response to player controller control signals generated by a player operating a player controller for display on a television, said home video game system including a removable memory insertion port for receiving a removable memory storing video game program instructions, comprising:
a game processing system including a main processor, operatively coupled to receive video game instructions from said removable memory when inserted into the removable memory insertion port for executing a video game program, and a graphics coprocessor for processing graphics information under control of said main processor, and being responsive to said player controller control signal for generating game play graphics for display on a television;
communications circuitry, coupled in use to said game processing system and to a user's communications network, for linking said game processing system to the Internet and permitting communication from the player to another party over the Internet;
a writeable mass storage device coupled in use to said game processing system for receiving information downloaded from the Internet; and
cryptographic processing circuitry, coupled to said mass storage device, for decrypting at least some of said information downloaded from the Internet.
2. A home video game system according to claim 1, further including
audio circuitry coupled to said video game processing system.
3. A home video game system according to claim 1, wherein said communications circuitry and said mass storage device are housed in an expansion device and said video game processing system is housed in a separate video game console which is coupled to said expansion device.
4. A home video game system according to claim 1, wherein said communications circuitry comprises a modem, ethernet port, or wireless connection circuitry, and further including a controller for controlling said mass storage device and said communications circuitry.
5. A home video game system according to claim 1, wherein said mass storage device comprises a hard disk drive which stores a network browser program.
6. A home video game system according to claim 1, wherein said mass storage device is a flash memory storage device.
7. A home video game system according to claim 1, wherein said mass storage device stores information downloaded from the Internet.
8. A home video game system comprising:
a removable memory insertion port for receiving a removable memory storing video game program instructions,
a game processing system including a main processor, operatively coupled to receive video game instructions from said removable memory when inserted into the removable memory insertion port and a graphics coprocessor for processing graphics information under control of said m
Give me a break (Score:3, Insightful)
And what about voice comm in Half Life? Personally, I think all online multiplayer games that don't have voicecomm are just plain inferior. And I may be striking a chord here with some of the "gamers" who play MMOPRS, but really... what are you doing the whole time? Are you dodging rockets or typing to people on your keyboard? No faimbait intended - whatever game tickles you pink is fine with me. A game that doesn't utilize the latest in technology - a way to save yourself a little carpal tunnel, but still, to each his own.
I have a great idea for a business plan patent... (Score:2)
Re:XBOX Live? (Score:5, Informative)
What they've been awarded is an addition to a patent they filed for back in 1999, long before Xbox Live existed.
The thing is that a lot of this technology already existed prior to the patent application in PC online gaming. Nintendo has just patented the same thing on a different technology.
N64 DD (Score:3, Informative)
Everything [ign.com] you wanted to know about the 64DD...
Re:XBOX Live? (Score:2)
Not even that, it's essentially the same technology. The difference between consoles and PCs is very minor, especially considering both the GC and Xbox use essentially "off the shelf" processors and memory.
Same thing on the same technology, IMO.
Fuck the U.S. PTO, I wish everyone working there a great deal of harm. They so fucking deserve it with how much harm they are causing people.
Disclaimer: that's not a threat, just a wish.
Yes, but before XBL... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.megspace.com/entertainment/neskingdom/
As far as I know it was indeed the first online capable console. There were quite a few games for it, only in Japan, like a special version of Zelda.
Re:Yes, but before XBL... (Score:2)
With all of the screaming I'm reading here, claiming that the X-Box live system is prior art... seeing prior art predating the patent application by eight years is impressive... more so when that prior art is from the applying company.
It will be interesting to see what they do with this patent.
Re:By November? (Score:2, Informative)
For those not familar, it makes gamecube games that are LAN compatable work over the internet. Its a beautiful thing.
Re:Homer, hmmmm patents. Yum (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Homer, hmmmm patents. Yum (Score:4, Insightful)
I understand how the law works here, I'm just really at a loss for WHY?
Shouldn't there be or isn't there something that prevents companies from keeping hold on these patents after other companies have already used the ideas heavily without any litigation? Much like trademarks?
Re:Why? It's a money maker cash cow... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are NO laws passed that large international corporations DON'T want.
I call bullshit. Workman's comp, minimum wage, environmental protection, corporate taxes, to name a few.
I think that many people in the government are there for the right reasons, and are trying to do the right thing. They might not be very good at it. They might not agree with you how to go about it. They will make mistakes. They might get disillusioned with the whole beurocracy and stop trying. They're human, just like you. How often do you risk your job to do what is best for your company?
Historically, governments have a tendancy to either grow to oppression or shrink to ineffectiveness (and then get removed). We try to avoid the former through turnover, our leaders can't guarantee that they'll be in office in a few years, so they have to think about what happens if they aren't. I think we should get rid of a lot of the special treatment given to officials to make them think about it more, though.
Now, patent applications make money for the gov't. Patent enforcement loses money (courts). I don't think any government agency should be self-supporting, the free market idea doesn't work if it's not free. If the PTO didn't care about the revenue stream, maybe they'd be a little more critical.
(BTW, if you want to rant, fine. If you want to try to improve things, you should be a little more balanced, and try to offer suggestions for how to make it better.)
Re:Homer, hmmmm patents. Yum (Score:2)
Look up the word console.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=console
The c64 matches the criteria for a console (computing device interface such as a keyboard) and it played games. What did you use your c64 for mainly?
Re:Homer, hmmmm patents. Yum (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Homer, hmmmm patents. Yum (Score:3, Interesting)
Lemme get this strait. You're saying this technology is patentable because it is being applied to purposely "crippled" hardware when it has existed for years on normal hardware?
ie: console = a computer purposely crippled into only doing *some* of the normal functions of a computer.
So uh, the selection mask for "crippled system" is patentable? Seems pretty silly to me. Maybe Microsoft can just rename their console and call it a "GamePC" and sidestep the whole patent?
Re:Homer, hmmmm patents. Yum (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Homer, hmmmm patents. Yum (Score:4, Informative)
The Famicom had a modem that could check stocks, and download some games I believe... it was only released in Japan though I think, and I my memory of it is sort of hazy. It did have some connectivity stuff though, take my word for that.
The American SNES had full online play via a modem, where you could compete with other people. The Japanese Super Famicom had a system where you could download games from a central server.
The N64 had an add-on device called the 64DD. It is for this that the patent in question is being disputed here. It had a modem built into it that could be used for online stuff. I believe that only one 64DD game actually used it though.
GameCube has an expansion slot that can be fitted with either a broadband adaptor or 56k modem.
Re:Homer, hmmmm patents. Yum (Score:3, Insightful)
If *anyone* deserves credit for online console gaming, it's Nintendo. That's why they have a patent for it.
Re:Homer, hmmmm patents. Yum (Score:5, Insightful)
due to their popular franchises around the Mario character, and so far, i didn't see any development by Sony or Microsoft to really threaten this dominance.
Anyway, i can understand why they file such patents. If they don't, they get exposed to another company filing them later. Though they suck, the IP laws exist, and a business has no other choice than to play according to those rules...
Re:Homer, hmmmm patents. Yum (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Homer, hmmmm patents. Yum (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe these are just the product of one IP lawyer to many. Perhaps they have a staff of 30 IP lawyers and they really only need 26. 4 guys are sitting around going "We're going to be fired, we have to invent some work" but maybe they're lazy. Wallah- patent some prior art and look like the almost hero. If they pull it off they may be up for a promotion, or a free gameboy...
Re:Homer, hmmmm patents. Yum (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Homer, hmmmm patents. Yum (Score:3, Funny)
-Jesse
Re:Homer, hmmmm patents. Yum (Score:3, Insightful)
Good point. As usual, the conclusions people draw are based entirely on the opinion they already have...
Re:Homer, hmmmm patents. Yum (Score:3, Informative)
But it does make the random rantings of people about how Nintendo's panicing, how they have too many Patent lawyers, how netcraft confirms Nintendo is dying, etc rather funny.
Now, what IS slightly newsworthy is that th
Re:Homer, hmmmm patents. Yum (Score:3, Funny)
The bizarre thing is that I've never, ever seen anyone mis-spell Gesundheit.
Back further... (Score:5, Informative)
I believe that this predated even the Japanese BS-X (Stellaview) system, but I could easily be wrong on that point.
Re:Weird.. (Score:2)
Re:Weird.. (Score:2)
Since Dreamcast doesn't have hard disk, so the problem is with X
Re:xbox live prior art? (Score:2)
Xband, on the other hand...
Exactly my first thought ... (Score:2)
But my other question is in exactly what way does the progression of
o Console games
o PC games
o Internet
o Internet PC games
o Internet console games
Not completely obviate the patent?
I mean, the current trend is to make everything connected to the internet. I completely fail to see how hooking the 'net up to a new device is patentable.
Can I file a patent to make a watch internet enabled? What about my coffee cup? My pen?
At what point does the obvious application o
Re:This is so sad (Score:5, Interesting)
Nintendo were always a mean, litigious, predatory outfit, some of whose business practices would make Microsoft blush. They had a near-monopoly in the NES days and they used every trick in the book to maintain it as long as they possibly could.
They focused on world domination, and screwed over everyone and everything in their path. The only reason they're not still what they were is that they screwed over Sony on the SNES CD project and Sony screwed them right back.
Do not expect Nintendo to play nice with a patent like this one. They'll sue everything in sight to ensure online dominance for their next console.
Re:This is so sad (Score:2)
Re:Umm... (Score:2)
Xbox was announced in 2000, so it may infringe.
Re:Start with... ANYTHING online (Score:2)
They may actually be planning to litigate to delay the competition.
I hate to sound like the typical Apple Basher - but once the PSP comes out and has a healthy list of titles, Nintendo is dead - their new DS is ugly and doesn't do half of the PSP. It's only lead at the moment is base and game selection.