Controller Patent Suit Won Against Sony 38
ivec writes "Immersion Corporation announced that the jury returned a verdict favorable to Immersion in its patent infringement suit against Sony Computer Entertainment. The jury found that Sony infringed all the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,275,213 and 6,424,333 and that those claims were valid.
I was surprised how recent these filings were (2000 and 2001). The patents cover 'vibrating devices' such as joysticks."
NOT FUNNY (Score:4, Funny)
Re:NOT FUNNY (Score:1)
My joystick is a perfect fit for your vibrating device.
Re:NOT FUNNY (Score:4, Funny)
Is that why your teeth are chipped?
n64? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:n64? (Score:3, Informative)
Release Date: Jun 01, 1997
Yup, Starfox was released with the rumble pack in 1997. Equipped with the Rumble Pak, the Nintendo 64 Controller becomes a new implement for fun. Not only does the Rumble Pak provide force-feedback in response to the game action, the Controller's analog Control Stick gives you total, precise control of your vehicle, be it a sleek "Arwing" starfighter, an armored "Landmaster" tank, or the deep-diving "Blue-Marine" submersible.
Re:n64? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or the patents Nintendo has had since 87. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:n64? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:n64? (Score:5, Informative)
Patent 6,200,253 [uspto.gov] is Nintendo's Rumble Pak patent, which came out over a year before the Immersion patent. The thing is, it specifically talks about being a detachable device. The GameCube controller's rumble is built in, so it would seem to fall under the Immersion patent. However, maybe they have some sort of private agreement not to sue since Immersion would likely lose their patent.
Patent 6,743,104 [uspto.gov] is Nintendo's patent for rumble in Game Boy cartridges. This patent references both their Rumble Pak patent as well as the Immersion patent.
It's also interesting to note that something like a dozen Immersion patents specifically reference the Nintendo Rumble Pak, Sony Dual Shock, and sometimes the Sega Jump Pack. Clearly Immersion was well aware of force feedback devices and who was actually using them. I'm not sure what took them so long to try to make a claim on it.
All that said, by the manner in which the Immersion patent in question reads, they pretty much patented every possible alternate configuration of a force feedback/rumble device (different housing, different actuators, different shaped eccentric mass, etc). In being so general however, you'd think that vibrators would be prior art as the first sentence of the patent reads "A man-machine interface which provides tactile feedback to various sensing body parts is disclosed."
Re:n64? (Score:1)
Re:n64? (Score:2)
OK, now that's just taking the mick - certainly if any of those patents were before this first one of their's (May 2000).
'Cos by acknowledging and referencing another company'
Prior Art... (Score:5, Informative)
http://vsmca.tripod.com/sxd.pdf
If these don't count as prior art for vibrating joysticks, I don't know what does.
Re:Prior Art... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Prior Art... (Score:3, Funny)
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns
Not only was this granted, but was granted on appeal.
Similar Microsoft lawsuit (Score:5, Informative)
Subsequent to the settlement, Microsoft bought a large number of shares in Immersion, and also obtained the rights to sub-license the technology to other parties, including Sony.
This has been used cellphones for . . . (Score:3, Informative)
Wired News carried [wired.com] the story
Sony, Microsoft, no Nintendo? (Score:5, Interesting)
The "Prior Art" section of the Rumble Pak patent [uspto.gov] states that "Furthermore, computer games have been known, in which a vibration generating source is provided in a joy-stick, and a vibration is generated at the time of an attack to an own fighter from a player's enemy fighter in a shooting game, for example."
Since Immersion's patent apparently only covers Joysticks it might not conflict with the Rumble Pak Patent, but the Rumble Pak patent clearly states that there has been prior art for joysticks (and that the Rumble Pak has no prior art since it isn't a joystick).
It lists Research disclosure 28373, "Joystick with Tactile Feedback", disclosed anonymously Nov. 1987., perhaps that's our prior art. Can anyone get that document?
Re:Sony, Microsoft, no Nintendo? (Score:2)
Re:Say it ain't so, Dual-Shock... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is also known as 'licensing'.
(ACK on the Dual-Shock being the best design ever, by the way...)
Is it just me? (Score:3)
- From the Patent
Is it just me or does this patent sound a heck of a lot like a vibrator from the abstract?
Re:Is it just me? (Score:2)
lame (Score:2)
Sex/porn industry? (Score:2)
"can you supply any evidence?"
"...look in every lonely girl's pantie draw and you have your evidence"
Isn't the timing in Sony's favour? (Score:3, Interesting)
Not knowing all of the details I can't be sure, but if this is to do with the DualShock controller and vibrational feedback in games then the timing has to be in Sony's favour.
I followed the links to the two patent applications, and the earlier of the two was filed in May 2000. The DualShock controller and games were out before that. I know that Final Fantasy VIII was out in Japan in 1999, and that definitely had feedback during the Summons.
Having said that the article (and other articles linked from it) don't clarify whether it was the DualShock or the DualShock2 that was the culprit. Changes for the PS2 may well have infringed on the claims - but otherwise the controller was out before the claim was made.
It seems to me, then, that either the judges goofed or that there's more to this than is apparent from what the media are telling us.
Either that or you can sue for infringement fo a patent in a device that was built before your claim - which seems kinda daft to me, but wouldn't exactly surprise me anymore.
I Have Only One Question (Score:2)
and
b) Does it implement every possible implementation of the device/process/method as claimed in the patent
and
c) As the patent has been freely submitted to a public patent office am I not entitled to view, freely and unrestrictedly, all blueprints/designs/source code describing the device/process/method
I think this implementation satisfies a) and c) OK, but where would I get with this if I applied it to say MS Patents?
Re:I Have Only One Question (Score:2)
Dammit (Score:1)
Original Patents go back to 1995. (Score:2)
The patents referenced do have 2000, 2001 filed dates. But those patents are continuations of patents that go back to 1995 that were never issued.
It's a convoluted process, but it's possible to go in an make alterations or additions to patents after filing, but before they are issued.
A prior art claim may have to go back earlier than the 1995 file date.
In a patent, the abstract section doesn't mean much, it's the claims that matter. In patent 6,275,213 claim 35 is one that is pretty specific to a "
Re:Original Patents go back to 1995. (Score:2)
OK, this is where I get confused. Very confused.
I freely admit that I know little-to-nothing about the patenting process, but I still find that some of this looks very odd and need to make sure that it is what it looks like.
So from the looks of things someone can apply for a patent in Year 1, but then it not be granted any time soon. (How long does it usually take for patents to be approved or denied anyway?)
If another company uses the same process in 4 that at the time wasn't covered by patent but the