PlayStation Sales Halted? 581
Narf Narf writes "According to Japan Today, the U.S. District Court in Oakland, California, has ordered Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. and its U.S. unit to pay $90.7 million in damages to Immersion Corp. for patent infringement over controllers used with PlayStation game consoles. In the ruling handed down Thursday, the federal court also ordered Sony Computer Entertainment and Sony Entertainment America Inc. to stop selling the PlayStation and PlayStation 2 game consoles using Dualshock controllers as well as more than 40 game software products." Update: 03/28 04:51 GMT by Z : ...which was followed immediately by an injunction, to allow Sony time for an appeal, and a compulsory licensing agreement.
Order Stayed (Score:5, Informative)
The orders and patents... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The orders and PATENTS... (Score:5, Interesting)
This good enough for you? The force feedback was primitive but you could feel changes in resistance when turning corners, steering would get soggier when leaving the track. I remember wasting loads of time on this when I was a kid. The date says 1989 but I am sure they were around earlier than that in the UK.
Greed at work? (Score:5, Insightful)
from the you'd-think-they'd-have-thought-that-through dept.
You can say that again.
Re:Greed at work? (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps that's exactly what SCO was thinking. IBM and Sony know better - succumb to blackmail once and you're an instant target for others...
Re:Greed at work? (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps, but the earlier of these two patents was filed May 1, 2000. That was the same year the PS2 came out (March for Japan, October for US) and the PS1 had a Dual Shock controller long before that. I am surprised these patents can even apply.
Re:Greed at work? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Greed at work? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Greed at work? (Score:5, Interesting)
But even a day is too long, so it hasn't been completely stamped out yet. (And won't be, at least until we're all off the planet and the control freaks can inherit the Earth from the meek.)
Re:Greed at work? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, that pretty much confirms it's a scam. The game is to file a vague patent application, continue it by incorporating actual technologies brought into use between the two applications, and use the old application to establish priority.
If it was a scam, wouldn't you think that a good set of lawyers would be able to litigate out that point? Wouldn't you say that Sony might have some of the best damn lawyers in the whole world on the payroll?
Face it, if it was a scam, then Sony would have been able to prove it with their unlimited funding for their all-powerful lawyers. They couldn't. So therefore, it wasn't a scam.
All we ever see is giant corporations abusing patents against other corporations. When a smaller business gets infringed by a global, unlimited funds company that is trying to stay ahead of innovation and still make a quarterly report that has enourmous expectations, then you call foul?
Not the best call there my friend.
I for one, don't call bullocks on this one.
Re:Greed at work? (Score:5, Informative)
No, you wouldn't. The patent system has genuine holes in it that allow companies to abuse it, and there is not a damned thing even the smartest lawyer can do about it.
When a smaller business gets infringed by a global, unlimited funds company that is trying to stay ahead of innovation and still make a quarterly report that has enourmous expectations, then you call foul?
Well, I think what one calls it should depend on the details of the patent. I don't know the details of this patent, but I do know that this company did not invent force feedback, not even in game controllers. So, the question is: can you make a good argument for why their patent should be valid? What is the actual novelty contained in their patent? Those are, in fact, I think the first questions we should ask when a patent gets litigated; it's an unfortunate error in our patent system that patents are automatically presumed valid and enforceable when granted.
Re:Greed at work? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Greed at work? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Greed at work? (Score:5, Interesting)
While $90.7M (US) isn't chump change it less than buying Immersion out.
That doesn't even take into account the mood of the Immersion investors. With licensing deals (either patent or SDK) in place with Microsoft, Nintendo, Logitech, and any other FF peripheral maker out there the investors might be more interested in a long term investment, not a quick buck. Sony's going to have to license Immersion's stuff, as they won't hamstring themselves in the marketplace without a FF controller, so there's more money for the IMMR investors after the $90.7M Sony judgement. I would be surprise if Sony didn't do due diligence and investigate buying IMMR. It just doesn't seem as if it would've worked for them, though.
Nintendo (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Nintendo (Score:5, Informative)
I used to be a game journalist, and when the Rumble Pak first came out, a lot of gamers wondered why Nintendo didn't make a controller with vibration functions built in - especially after the PS1 DualShock appeared. The word from Nintendo back then was that someone had a patent on FF in a controller - but an extra device that plugged into a controller wasn't covered by the patent.
What that means for Nintendo now with the GC controller and this case, I don't know.
Re:Greed at work? (Score:4, Interesting)
Couldn't they have only bought 51% of the voting shares, and then drop the lawsuit?
Nope (Score:5, Informative)
No, majority shareholders can't do things like that since minority shareholders also have protected rights as well. Sony would need to buy out the company or it would face shareholder lawsuits and possible SEC sanctions if it tried to buy 51% of the company and drop the lawsuit.
Re:Greed at work? (Score:4, Informative)
The other people will only sell their shares when they are happy with the price offered, they are under no obligation to sell at the stock exchange price.
As soon as it becomes clear that someone is trying to buy a large number of shares, supply and demand kicks in, and the price starts to rise, and everyone becomes a lot less keen to sell, since they now own an investment that is rapidly increasing in value, which makes it very, very expensive to purchase a company this way.
Re:Greed at work? (Score:4, Informative)
Well.... (Score:5, Funny)
Muaha.
Re:Well.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Well.... (Score:5, Funny)
Actually (Score:5, Informative)
These guys thought of it first... [gamegirladvance.com] (Note, saucy picture, oohh!)
Stop selling the PS1 and PS2 (Score:5, Funny)
#1 Reason to Settle (Score:5, Insightful)
Will it effect PS3? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Will it effect PS3? (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't think of a title where the vibration is necessary for the gameplay.
Downright Stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
There's nothing about the PS/PS2's controller design that would make me think "Patent!"
Also, patenet claims SHOULD also include proof that the design wasn't come upon independently and without using any of the claimers work. Patents are supposed to protect against unfair use of one's hard work and effort. If it's their own, it doesn't matter which came first.
Idiots.
Re:Downright Stupid (Score:3, Informative)
You realize, don't you, that this would be nigh impossible to prove except in the most contrived of examples? You can't prove that someone else did not think of something. If you're in favor of just dismantling patent law altogether, since that's what your proposal would do, then just say so.
Re:Downright Stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
It's one thing to even think of something, and its a whole other to design and ramp up a feasible way of manufacturing and selling such an invention.
The patent is completely valid and numerous manufacturers have licensed it for their use. Sony should've settled out of court
Re:Downright Stupid (Score:3, Informative)
It doesn't matter who owns the prior art.
If it did, it would be trivial to have a neverending patent on a device, all you'd have to do is make a trivial change and re-patent it every ten years. You'd always own the prior art.
The suit against sony was based on newer patents of updated technologies developed by immersion and licensed by almost all of
Re:Downright Stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
No, but once you add in winning a lawsuit (which Immersion has done) it sure helps.
Re:Downright Stupid (Score:3, Funny)
You would think so, but these are the same guys who came up with memory stick.
Re:Downright Stupid (Score:4, Informative)
That's the way the patent system works. That's the way it was _designed_ to work.
Patent vs. copyright (Score:3, Insightful)
You're confusing copyright and patent (don't feel bad, everyone else on this site does too). Patents are mutually exclusive and broad. They could have copyrighted their design, and sony still copyrighted theirs.
However, this might sho
Re:Downright Stupid (Score:4, Informative)
That is the nonobviousness requirement, more or less. Basically, to be patentable, an invention must not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time it was made. Obviously, inventions that are obvious in hindsight might still be patentable.
Oh, and the degree of labor is irrelevant; who actually cares if someone comes up with an invention after months or years of labor, or in a single flash of insight?
Also, patenet claims SHOULD also include proof that the design wasn't come upon independently and without using any of the claimers work. Patents are supposed to protect against unfair use of one's hard work and effort. If it's their own, it doesn't matter which came first.
This is completely wrong. It doesn't matter whether someone independently invents something; it can still infringe. Patents are broad that way. Plus, given that they're all disclosed in publicly viewable records, it's not the fault of the inventor if you didn't look through them to see what had been invented and patented already.
Re:Your attitude is absurd. (Score:3, Informative)
A JD is typically acquired in 3 years. I got mine in 2 1/2 by going to summer school. Some people take night classes and get their degrees in 4 years.
I'd probably be a bit afraid of someone who worked 8-10 years on their JD. (Frankly, that's a long time for a JD, LLM, and SJD together!)
90 million dollars? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is slashdot posting a lawsuit of this magnitude but failing to post anything about the world famous (and more relevant) Lexar Lawsuit [mercurynews.com] worth over $460 million [reuters.com] and will cause a massive disruption in the supply/demand equations currently applied to the significantly growing flash USB key and card memory market?
Re:90 million dollars? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:90 million dollars? (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean they patented an unbalanced, rotating mass and they got millions for it?
Empty article (Score:5, Informative)
Here's what gamespot has to say on this [gamespot.com].
Re:my 2 cents. (Score:3, Funny)
$90.7 million dollars???
Pardon me, but do you mind if I pretend to be a hooker while you drive by?
Prior Art: My car (Score:4, Funny)
Would this not be "vibration for tactile feadback"? it's 15years old, so I bet it's prior art....
Re:Prior Art: My car (Score:3, Insightful)
Early Vibration Tech (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Early Vibration Tech (Score:4, Informative)
Why just Sony? What about the other two? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why just Sony? What about the other two? (Score:5, Informative)
Arcade driving games (Score:3, Interesting)
I remember a lot of old arcade driving games that had force-feedback on steering wheels, if the patent was taken out after they came out then that'd be pretty good prior art I'd think.
Also of course for a long time on aeroplanes the control stick used to have a shaker to warn pilots of a stall, I guess that'd probably count as prior art too.
Explanation (Score:5, Informative)
Here are a few Bullet Points:
A man-machine interface is disclosed which provides force and texture information to sensing body parts. The interface is comprised of a force actuating device that produces a force which is transmitted to a force applying device. The force applying device applies the generated force to a pressure sensing body part. A force sensor on the force applying device measures the actual force applied to the pressure sensing body part, while angle sensors measure the angles of relevant joint body parts. A computing device uses the joint body part position information to determine a desired force value to be applied to the pressure sensing body part. The computing device combines the joint body part position information with the force sensor information to calculate the force command which is sent to the force actuating device. In this manner, the computing device may control the actual force applied to a pressure sensing body part to a desired force which depends upon the positions of related joint body parts. In addition, the interface is comprised of a displacement actuating device which produces a displacement which is transmitted to a displacement applying device (e.g., a texture simulator). The displacement applying device applies the generated displacement to a pressure sensing body part. The force applying device and displacement applying device may be combined to simultaneously provide force and displacement information to a pressure sensing body part.
I recall being a kid back in 1993 and going to a shopping mall and visiting EB games. They had this demonstration joystick that you could set to have different sensations and they were very real. Everything from flying to firing a machine gun. That was the technology that they made possible. Sony will have to learn to play ball if they use patented techology. It may be in a US court, but Immersion also has a patent for the same technology in Japan and IIRC, the US has harmonized it's patent system internationally.
Re:Explanation (Score:3, Insightful)
ah to be 13 (or mentally 13) again...
Bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
The patents are 6,275,213 (filed May 1, 2000) and 6,424,333 (filed April 18, 2001). Look them up on uspto.gov.
The Playstation 2 was first demoed in August 1999, launched March 4, 2000 and came with the DualShock II controller.
Now tell me exactly how Sony can be infringing on a patent that didn't exist at the time the claimed infriging device was launched?
Furthermore, Immersion's patents are so broad they encompass anything that a) produces vibration via a mass on a spinning axis that is b) controlled by a processing device of any kind.
A vibrating pager is the most obvious example of prior art I can think of, and Motorola's been making them a lot longer than Immersion's even existed.
Or, as others have pointed out, a vibrator is also controlled by a processing device, albeit an organic one.
Here's hoping this lawsuit will result in a challenge to frivolous patent claims.
cheers
Not only that... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not only that... (Score:3, Insightful)
Issued vs. Pending vs. Filed [Was:Bullshit] (Score:5, Informative)
I have a Logitech "3D Mouse" I bought in 1995 to play Descent and experiment with a cheap (~$50) Six-Degrees-of-Freedom input device for a VR-related project I was working on in college.
It also had a crude feedback mechanism that was licensed from Immersion that was just like the dualshock's offset-balast on a DC-motor with a simple motor speed control. Great device despite it having a slow RS232 interface. Anyway... Immersion was in devices being used for gaming atleast as early as 1995, perhaps even as early as 1994. The patent reference for the "interactive feedback device" is "Patent Pending"...
So, your claim of frivolous patent claim sniping is a bit off-base. The 2000/2001 dates you reference could be the dates of official patent number filing/issuance. Also it is not uncommon for a patent developer to re-file addenda or refinements to patents they have already put in for review if the addenda do not change the nature of the patented item from its original filing.
Immersion had a booth at the Spring 1995 VR Expo mini-con that was held in NYC. I was there. Besides context-variable vibration feedback they also had sample devices using directional linear-bumping feedback using small, variable current solenoids. They're legit...
What's worse in this typical knee-jerk Slashdot goon response that I'm seeing all over this topic is that a JUDGE in a COURT held a protracted HEARING with a lot of EVIDENCE and FACTS in the case and came to an >>INFORMED decision. But one look at the news in the U.S. and one can see that the idea of and respect for the judiciary process is completely lost on most people (including many folks in the legislative domain).
youareaclown,
peace,
and carrots,
Levendis47
Retort (Score:5, Insightful)
That's probably not what they're fighting over, though. It's probably one of the volumes [uspto.gov] of other patents that Immersion has recieved. Let's look at a random one, shall we? 6,563,487 describes using force feedback on the D-pad of a controller. It doesn't describe how this is any different than using force feedback on a button, but there it is. There is also force feedback for a knob (6,636,197) and the terrible idea of the vibrating touchpad (6,429,846). I guess that compliments their vibrating Laptop (6,822,635).
Hey, here is one... (6,693,622) a patent for a vibrating mass inside of a controller, granted on February 17, 2004. 2004? Was the patent examiner in a cave? Every console shipped with vibrating controllers years before this, in exactly the manner they describe.
There is mounds of prior art for a lot of this. The kickback in the guns in POW. Battletech centers. The wheel feedbacks in arcade and home games such as Hard Drivin', etc, etc.
The patent system is broken. This is not just
We need to stop allowing patents of ideas, not implementations. A battery would be the perfect example of a classic patent, as one would have listed out the copper and various other ingredients that went into it, the chemical reactions that take place, and so on. These days, it would just be listed as "a device that stores electrical charge," and left at that to sue everyone who makes batteries, capacitors, carpets, combs, and anything else that happens to eventually fall under that umbrella.
Heck, they patented force feedback over a computer network (6,859,819), last month, 2005. Isn't this what cybersex was supposed to be all about? Wasn't there already teledildontics at that point?
Though maybe I'm just bitter because I work at a company which made on one of the games [playstation.com] on the list. But these patents ring bogus to me, and I applaud Sony's efforts to fight on everybody's behalf.
I'd also like to point out that just because someone has bought a license from SCO doesn't mean SCO has the right to sell a license. Just because Nintendo didn't fight against this doesn't mean that it is valid. And quite frankly, even if it is valid and holds up in court, it's still downright questionable. I'm guessing Immersion just set the cost of licensing the patents at a number smaller than the cost of fighting the patents in court.
Could sony hold prior art? (Score:3, Informative)
Filed: April 18, 2001
Filed: May 1, 2000
They however seem to be holding earlier patents aswell but they aren't mentioned in the suit and are thus void(?).
Submarine patents predate prior art (Score:5, Informative)
Even though the infringed patents #6275213 and #6424333 were issued on August 14, 2001 and July 23, 2002 respectively, they're "submarine patents" originally filed on November 30, 1995.
Until 2003, US patent filers could request repeated continuations to intentionally delay issue of a patent for years, until a practical implementation of a technology appeared. Then they they let their submarine patent surface and collect royalties for 17 years from the issue date. (In 2003, the rules changed so that patents now last 20 years from the filing date.)
Re:Submarine patents predate prior art (Score:5, Informative)
In 1994 the rules changed so that patents received one of two possible terms of protection: 17 years from date of issue, or 20 years from the application filing date, whichever was greater. See 35 U.S.C. 154(a)(2) and http://www.lectlaw.com/files/inp03.htm
These patents do not qualify as "submarine patents" because the patents were filed well after June 7, 1995. At that point, all original patent applications were only eligible for a term extending 20 years from the application filing date. Thus, Immersion Corp was only burning their own term to collect royalties by filing continuations and amending the claims.
The classic "submarine patent", on the other hand, was filed in the early stages of development in a field and then delayed until well beyond the ~17 term that a prompt prosecution action in the USPTO would have obtained, so that the royalties would be collected from a well developed commercial base instead of from a newly developing market. Jerome Lemmelson (and his estate) became a billionaire by exploting this aspect of the U.S. patent system.
/. icons (Score:3, Funny)
As you would expect... (Score:4, Informative)
Different Uses? (Score:3, Interesting)
Feasably, somebody could patent a home video game console with a built in LCD screen and it wouldn't infringe on any past patents for Gameboy/PSP like technology.
Besides, Immersion tried to get Sony to license it, Sony refused, Sony got bitten.
Notice, they can still sell the console, but they do have to start saving up a royalty for every console sold from now on. Sure, they can delay this 10 years, but if they lose, they'd prolly have to pay interest from the start of the case, the original judgement, and licensing fees for the next 10 years on every PS2 sold.
This haptic technology was there in 1996! (Score:4, Informative)
But in 1996 I played with exactly the same kind of haptic technology (or called force feedback) before. It was called Phantom (tm) used in scientific apps:
http://www.sensable.com/products/phantom_ghost/pr
For example you can put on a finger thimble and feel a virtual 3D surface.
I even wrote an SGI program to use it as a flight cnotrol device.
Re:This haptic technology was there in 1996! (Score:4, Informative)
This particular patent APPLICATION was filed in 2000.
The original patent disclosure, which this particular patent quotes verbatim, and which sets the priority date for patentability, was filed in... let's read from the patent:
This is a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/066,608 filed Apr. 24, 1998, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,088,017 which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08,565,102 filed Nov. 30, 1995, abandoned.
November 30, 1995. So, even if the patent claimed every aspect of force feedback that any human being will ever contemplate for all time, what you were playing with and writing in 1996 means bupkiss.
By the way, did you read the patent claims? Did the Phantom(tm) do exactly what was claimed? I sincerely doubt it, since Sony hired a team of lawyers that, as part of their defense of the case, combed through everything that they and the Sony engineers in force feedback development could think of to discover material that could be used to invalidate the patent.
This is not a software patent (Score:4, Insightful)
Sony is not a helpless babe here, they just have to settle their claim...and pay up some license fees.
Re:Millions (Score:3, Insightful)
Immersion's patents (Score:5, Informative)
That is what the patents cover, and you'll notice that Microsoft have already settled with Immersion over a similar suit.
Re:Immersion's patents (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Immersion's patents (Score:3, Interesting)
Seeing as how the patent goes back to 93, are you sure you can continue saying "nothing new"? Do you know for sure that Logitech didn't license the technology?
Re:Immersion's patents (Score:3, Interesting)
Granted, prior art is a lot easier to prove, but more patents fail the "obviousness" test than the prior art test. The problem with the patent system is that they seem to have forgotten that patentability is not merely "is there prior art?" but "is it useful, novel, and unobvious to those skilled in the art?" Yes, two of those three are subjective, but those are the more imporant of the two in my opin
[Slashdotters] gone wild! (Score:5, Insightful)
No it just proves that:
1-Slashdotters don't read the patent.
2-Slashdotters favour a knee-jerk response.
3-Slashdotters don't care about one and two...so there, NYAH!
Re:[Slashdotters] gone wild! (Score:5, Insightful)
1-Slashdotters don't read the patent.
Current research indicates that reading patents is potentially 3x more dangerous than not reading them.
Re:[Slashdotters] gone wild! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:[Slashdotters] gone wild! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:[Slashdotters] gone wild! (Score:4, Insightful)
According to the dictionary, but are you familiar with the term "obvious" as defined by 35 U.S.C. 103 and therefore how the term is used in relation to patentability? It is a completely different concept.
What sort of dope wouldn't think of a spinning eccentric mass.
A spinning mass to induce vibration may be an obvious detail of implementation, however the idea of a vibrating controller is not. For evidence of that, arcade games, home console games, handheld computer games, and PC computer games have somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 years of experience without any sort of "force feedback" or vibrating controller.
The patent office does need overhauled, because the examiners are either idiots or they assume that everybody else is.
What would make someone an idiot? Shooting off at the mouth about a topic you don't understand? I'm sincerely interested in your response.
Both of those patents have more than a page of cited references. You could order the prosecution history to see what rejections the examiner made and how the applicant's attorneys responded to those rejections - including allegations of obviousness based upon the cited references. (Oh yes, obviousness based upon cited references is a requirement of 35 U.S.C. 103, but not a requirement of the dictionary definition of the same term.)
I can definitely respect your opinion of the mechanical details of the invention because I could reasonably presume that you're a ME. Your knowledge of the equally complicated field of IP law appears to be none.
Re:[Slashdotters] gone wild! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Patents gone wild! (Score:3, Interesting)
Lets see now. The patents were filed for, not awarded, but filed, in April 2001, and May 2000.
Sony started selling their dualshock analong controllers in April of 1998. Legitimate or not, Sony was selling these "infringing" devices 2 years before the other company even applied for a patent on them.
are you a lawyer on the case? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently sony thought they could, immersion sued, and the judge ruled that immersion was right.
Total BS.. (Score:5, Informative)
The court is considered by some to have an overly liberal bias, but arguably a majority of its judges are conservatives. While 17 judges have been appointed by Democratic presidents, 5 of those are solid conservatives. Thus only 12 of the Democrat-appointed judges are liberals or moderates, potentially leaving the remaining 15 as conservatives.
It is often called "the most overturned appeals court in the United States", but this is mostly a product of its high caseload. On a percentage basis, the circuit is not overturned much more than any other. (Indeed, in 2003 it had the least reversal rate of any appeals court with more than five cases reviewed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cour
Re:SCO and Godwin's law (Score:5, Funny)
The patents (Score:5, Informative)
X-box controllers hit also. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:uh (Score:3, Insightful)
while the xbox has a good idea of having a long travel analog button at the pointing fingers, it makes the hube mistake of wasting 2 fingers just hanging below
sony has all buttons on the controller 8bit sensitive (256 levels of sensitivity) while as far as i know the S-type does not
also having the 2 joys in an asimmetryc manner is a baad-baad idea, however you can get used to it
the dual sho
Re:uh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:uh (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. T used parts of the control should be in the most accesible positions.
Most games today use analog control mainly. So the left analog stick should be in the main position.
The second stick is used less (except in FPS), so it should be in the secondary position.
PERIOD.
Re:Patent (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:uh (Score:3, Informative)
Here y'go.. a quick google turned up a SNES one here [lik-sang.com] at Lik Sang
Re:uh (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, 99 percent of the time you could substitute -1 Flamebait with +1 Truth. However, he might have avoided that moderation if he put his point across a little more eloquently.
As for the idea that Xbox controllers are designed exclusively for Halo, that's as much as a gross exaggeration as 'Halo is the only good game for the Xbox'. Yes, playing Halo with the Xbox feels bloody comfortable and natural, but I don't know how this equates to it being unusable for every other game, however. Come on, the differences between the three console controllers aren't that radical; look at which fingers are assigned to which buttons/pads/sticks and it's mostly spatial alignment and positioning that varies.
Funnily enough, I quite like the original Xbox controller and it's only second to the DC one.
Re:April the First is Friday (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Legitimate? Maybe... (Score:4, Insightful)
This means basically nothing.
Is Sony notorious for infringing upon patents?
Sony's notorious for being retarded, but I expect they'll ultimately win this case. They should be able to show tons of prior art in this case. See my previous post.
Re:Let me be the first to say... (Score:3)
Yeah, I can really see how the American court system granting judgement to an American company against a Japanese one really sticks it to the E.U.
Re:Let me be the first to say... (Score:4, Interesting)
But I was thinking of this as a WORLD-WIDE phenomenon.
The point I was trying to make, was that courts around the world might start to find companies of other nationalities guilty of 'something.' And then slap them with a major fine- hurting the foreign company, and helping their own economy.
Re:Stand by... (Score:3, Informative)
The last paragraph of this article [gamesarefun.com] deals with the Nintendo question.
Re:N64 Rumble Pack (Score:3, Informative)
The Rumble Pak was a seperate unit that had to be plugged into the controller. Nintendo won that battle because of that key difference.
What's a keyboard, anyway? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Maybe Sony should boycott the US ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Japan holds over $800 billion of US dollars in reserves. China has about $200 billion. That's 10% of the US GDP. They switch and the US might just see some significant inflation and problems in the bond market.
Re:Patent System Corrupt... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now give me the obvious implementation of all these things. Also, just as an excersize, I've like you to provide me with your design for a power steering system.
Your logic is a bit faulty. You're saying since we can see how we like having something once we lose it that anybody could have invented it. That's simply not true. The challenge is being the person to come up with something *before* it's widespread.
Re:Patent System Corrupt... (Score:3, Interesting)