Nintendo Sued over Wiimote Trigger 229
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."
Um, prior art? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Um, prior art? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Um, prior art? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Um, prior art? (Score:4, Informative)
I also think it fails the non-obvious test pretty dramatically. Handheld clicky remotes are at least as old as slide projectors. The only difference is that this one has a button on the bottom as well. How is that not obvious? Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if some of those old slide projector controllers had buttons on the bottom too.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
IANAL (yet) but I'm not aware of any case where fictional descriptions of an object were used as prior art to invalidate a patent under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. If someone could produce a proper citation, I'd be *very* interested to read about it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So obviously not realistic, but when you get down to it and consider the purpose of patents, it would be a good rule IMO.
Re: (Score:2)
Existing patents can already be a case for invalidation. Couple that with the fact most patents are already strictly fiction in that they describe something that doesn't work, has never and will never be built, or when implemented doesn't exactly follow the intention
Doggy doorbell patent knocked out by UK comic! (Score:3, Interesting)
See http://www.innovation.rca.ac.uk/PD/sw/IP/st_right
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I hate to be the one to have to tell you this. I never like being the bearer of bad news. Star Trek isn't real, dude.
Re:Um, prior art? from the 80s (Score:4, Interesting)
Sounds like someone trying to make a fast buck.
Re:Um, prior art? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The NES gun was wired and had only one button. The patent [uspto.gov] actually covers a wireless device where there are two buttons: one on the underside, a "trigger", and a second on the top surface, near a natural position of the thumb while the hand is in position for the index finger to use the trigger. Each claim of the patent includes a button or trackpad-like surface on the top side, opposite of the trigger.
Re:Um, prior art? (Score:5, Informative)
The button on the bottom of the device is hard to see in the pic on the Wikipedia page, but it's on the back of the hand grip. There are multiple buttons on the top of the device.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You guys are going to have to come up with new input devices that don't involve small entities with two toggleable states.
Re:Um, prior art? (Score:5, Funny)
I propose some kind of 'bacon-activated' controller.
Prior Art (Score:3, Informative)
You know somebody was going to have to post it... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Note: I am in no way saying they have a case or a good patent, just pointing out that simply calling up a list of devices that use triggers and calling them 'prior art' is a big waste of time.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I feel like we may have just discovered a new corollary to Godwin's law.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hehehe. Nah. I've worked on patent applications before and it has given me a different perspective on cases of prior art than most Slashdotters have. Patent applications are meant for something specific, not broad. You couldn't patent using a database for everything in the world, but you can at least attempt to patent using a database in an MP3 player because it's specific enough to say "MP3 player". RCA had a patent on drawing a
Obvious? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
i claim patent rights!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ummm (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_Hunt [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_64 [wikipedia.org]
Can you say N64? (Score:2, Insightful)
since it's not a mouse... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't look like those guys have any money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hope when (if) it goes to court Nintendo just brings in examples of the Zapper, Super Scope, N64 controller. Having a trigger button on a Nintendo console controller is just brain-dead obvious, because all the previous ones except the Gamecube had one too!
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the wiimote can be used as a mouse for power point presentations [slashdot.org] too!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
in fact, thats a really good idea. too bad youd need a sensor bar to really make it work. maybe the portable sensor bar project really is going to come in handy...
Re: (Score:2)
Hint: look through yesterday's Slashdot game section stories (or at another of my posts in this thread).
Re: (Score:2)
heh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
no they didn't. the Nintendo rumble implimentation doesn't violate the patent that MicroSony violated.
Article snipit is missleading (Score:4, Insightful)
FTFA:
Do I think that Nintendo riped these people off? No
Do I think that they are patent Trolls? Probably.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From my quick research, they really are not Trolls, using the regular definition. They did not sit on a patent for years and pop up with it blindly. They actually do sell products on their website, and have been signing licensing agreements for their patents with large electronics companies since the 1990s. These are not the typical moves of a patent troll. NTP is a patent troll. They had an invention, which they could not sell. RIM makes a product t
Re: (Score:2)
However I am starting to be curious my self (after looking on their website)
From here [interlinkelectronics.com]
mabey they actualy are suing over the friken trigger. TFA makes it sound like they (Gamespot) don't kn
And just how else (Score:2)
This is why I hope the Sumpreme OCurt rules against such obvious patents.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And how else is one going to reduce a commercial transaction to one click?
Re: (Score:2)
Put a trigger on the top of the device, then turn it upside-down?
Wiimote PC driver (Score:2)
Hmm. "reduced sales and/or lost profit", eh? Their patented device is for use with a PC during slideshow presentations. I don't see how the hell a videogame console controller would ever have any impact on that at all. Well, unless Nintendo licenses out *shudder* Powerpoint to run on the Wii.
Then again, with the Wiimote PC drivers
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The lost profit easily comes from the loss of royalty fees. Also, note that there has been software written for Mac that allows control using the Wii remote. So they could actually attempt to use this against Ninte
Help me out here... (Score:2)
(Nearly) every flightstick ever made
NES Zapper
N64
Dreamcast
Xbox
Xbox 360
Wii
Any particular reason why the Wii is the only one getting a suit against it? Oh, because they filed a patent in 2005...maybe Nintendo should file a COUNTER-suit against THEM!!!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's because the Wii controller also looks like a remote -- what this company is actually upset about is how similarly shaped the two things are. The patent is on the trigger, though, so that's listed as the reason for the lawsuit.
Personally, I think that if the patent had been on the shape of the device instead, this company would have a better case (not that such a patent wouldn't be asinine too, of couse...).
Trigger prior art (Score:2)
Impossible to ask (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the
Re: (Score:2)
That said, the issue here is patents. What you described in points 1 and 2 is, by the way, pretty much what filing a lawsuit does. The problem here is that you are assuming the validity of the patent. Few people go into court blindly, and those that do are destined for failure. Usually when a complaint is filed
Re: (Score:2)
My write-up of this (Score:5, Informative)
http://jointstrikeweasel.blogspot.com/2006/12/how
I hope this helps. Analyzing patents is much more fun when you understand how to do it.
Re:My write-up of this - I think I understand (Score:3, Informative)
Best image is here
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/news/12/ 08/90interlink_screen005.jpg [com.com]
I have to admit that I can't think of a ano
Wow... (Score:4, Funny)
*cough*
Not Infringing? (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe someone with a little better understanding of patent law, and/or has time to read the patent can enlighten me?
Okay... (Score:5, Informative)
1. N64 is not prior art. Nor is anything else not seen until after Sep. 5, 1995. This patent was filed in 1997 as a continuation of another application filed on the date I provided. If you want prior art, please pre-date 1995. (Note: N64 was first shown in Nov. 1995.)
2. The use of this device as a "mouse" is irrelevant. The patent claims are broad enough they can be construed to cover a gaming console. I have to given them some credit for that claim wording, it made me shake my head.
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?
4. They really are not trolls. They have been making these products and making amicable licensing agreements with other companies. I still think this patent might be bogus, but I would not know without doing a full patent search.
So to recap, prior art must be before 1995, read the claims and ignore most everything else, and they are not really trolls, but this patent is probably pretty weak, especially if you consider it took almost 10 yrs to issue and there are a good number of reference arts provided.
Re:Okay... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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. Pu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like you're saying the patent office definition of "obvious" is "there exists prior art in the form of a patent or design". I'm no patent lawyer, but I know that isn't true.
My
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Okay... (Score:4, Interesting)
If you want prior art, please pre-date 1995.
OK, here you go. Patent 5724106 (issued to Gateway 2000). This may not be as early of an example as the all the other things people post, but so far I have to believe it is the most relevant, because
1) It has a patent with an original filing date that predates the one in question (continuation of a patent filed Jul. 17, 1995)
2) It is literally a remote control with a trigger
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5724106.html [freepatentsonline.com]
Also, check out the images on the
USPTO website [uspto.gov] (or get them off that site...you can log in with bug-me-not or create a free account)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The patent says it's for a computer not a console (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course IANAL but would this kind of argument stick in court?
Even More Prior Art (Score:2)
patent triviality (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
2c
Re: (Score:2)
Your prior art has arrived. (Score:2)
No, it's not wireless, which may be the plaintiff's whole spin, but still...
And in case your wondering, I actually owned one of these and it was as hideous as it looks.
Re: (Score:2)
Otherwise I've got a trigger operated remote control device that works nicely on people (it's an OFF switch). It's not even electrical.
Prior Art: Zenith Flash-Matic, 1955 (Score:3, Informative)
This is the Zenith Flash-Matic, from 1955. It's a very early remote control... and the first appearance of the mute button. It was designed to 'shoot out' the sound from commercials.
http://www.deadmedia.org/notes/49/497.html [deadmedia.org]
Think this qualifies?
Crush them. (Score:2)
Why not say something sooner? (Score:2)
Why wouldn't Interlink say something sooner to Nintendo. It's not like the Wii controller was kept a secret until release. If Interlink really feels that they are suffering from reduced sales or loss of profits due to Nintendo selling an infringing controller, why wouldn't they mention it when the controller style was first announced and seek license revenue then rather than wait unti
It's has two AA batteries too.. (Score:3, Funny)
A Quick Analysis & Rebuttal to Interlink's Pat (Score:4, Informative)
NINTENDO, HERE'S SOME IDEAS:
I'm not a patent attorney, but I do have some experience with patents. A notable, and key element of the patent is that "a LED device for emitting an infra-red output signal for transmission to the receiver for operating the computer", However, as I understand it, the Wiimote communicates via bluetooth and uses the IR purely for reference, but NOT for communication with the Wii.
Further the patent seems to imply that the pointing controls and mouse movement are controlled by buttons, not actual physical movement, and that the trigger mechanism is purely used for selecting or clicking. This is another key difference. The only true similarity seems to be the physical trigger button, which is also present on many other devices, such as the Xbox and Playstation controllers, and various other gaming peripherals (Remember the Super Scope?).
Since the patent was issued to a device containing a trigger element, and its not a patent ON ALL trigger elements. Lastly, this is a utility patent under class 345/158 (Including orientation sensor e.g., infrared, ultrasonic, remotely controlled) & 345/157 (Cursor mark position control device).
An strong argument can be made that the patent and mechanisms describe NO REASONABLE PROCESS OR OPERATION for accomplishing the functions defined in its patent class. It does NOT provide a means to control a cursor mark position. And Nintendo's Wiimote does in a wholly different manner, using gyros and other methods.
These may be key differences that could be used to circumvent (and possibly invalidate) the patent. There's no reason to settle or pay up to something that has no real claim. Especially when the patent in question was never intended to operate in the manner that the Wiimote does.
So yeah, That's my 15 minute analysis. Feel free to counter/deconstruct.