PuffNStuff Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 Thats right. Microsoft isn't the only one who steal idea's. http://www.popsci.com/abby-seiff/article/2008-08/wiive-lost-control I remember reading about this too before the wii steering wheel thing came out. I was wondering why it didn't impress me as much as it should have. Because it was alreaady done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Krystal Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 This lawsuit is bogus. The company that made this device, from what I can tell was created AFTER the Wii came out. Meaning the company copied the Wii, tricked the patent office into thinking they were the first person to think of the idea, and then sue the original creator. This has been happening a lot lately. At the very best, Nintendo and Hillcrest invented these two devices at the same time, in which case there was no intentional copying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owner/Technical Admin Sideways Posted August 21, 2008 Owner/Technical Admin Share Posted August 21, 2008 I'm sure Nintendo will win the suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NS-Games Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 I'm sure Nintendo will win the suit. That's what I thought about the Anascape suit. There was no hard evidence in that suit to suggest Nintendo ripped off any patents, but the judge ruled against Nintendo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Krystal Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 That's what I thought about the Anascape suit. There was no hard evidence in that suit to suggest Nintendo ripped off any patents, but the judge ruled against Nintendo. "Where there is money, lawyers will want some of it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DZComposer Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 Well, at least this company actually has a product. These are two of the patents claimed: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,414,611.PN.&OS=PN/7,414,611&RS=PN/7,414,611 The Wii launch predates the filing of these one. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,262,760.PN.&OS=PN/7,262,760&RS=PN/7,262,760 The other two date back to 2005 and 2001: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,158,118.PN.&OS=PN/7,158,118&RS=PN/7,158,118 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,139,983.PN.&OS=PN/7,139,983&RS=PN/7,139,983 (This one is different. I think they are claiming that the channel layout of the Wii Menu is the culprit here) I didn't sift through them with a fine-toothed comb, but they appear to be pretty broad. It seems that any motion sensing device could violate them. I don't think Nintendo stole anything. This will be interesting. Nintendo has stated that they started working on Wii's controller in 2001. That is also the year that Hillcrest started their development. That could make the Wii itself prior art to three of these patents. The fourth I think is obvious, and is therefore bogus. The thing that angers me about this is that instead instead of filing this suit at Wii announcement, they waited until the Wii became the #1 console worldwide. It makes it look like a cash-grab. The company is currently VC funded. I sense a settlement. Nintendo has way to much to lose with this one. These types of suits tend to be decided by people who do not know anything about the subject at hand. If the jury find for the plaintiff, then the wiimote could be barred from sale in the US. That would be a disaster for Nintendo. The US patent system needs reform badly. The intent of patents is to encourage innovation, but lately patent lawsuits have been stifling innovation. Ever wonder why Japan and Europe get so many more cool gadgets than we in the US do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Krystal Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 I heard that the patent office will begin phasing out the ability to get patents on software techniques, only copyright on code and art, since they now recognize that they cannot keep up with the industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DZComposer Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 Definately a step in the right direction, but there is much more than that needed. Patent Trolls need to be curbed. They are doing more damage to innovation that software patents alone. They need to prohibit the selling of patents (exclusive licenses can still be lucrative) and put restrictions on patent holding companies to prevent this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuffNStuff Posted August 23, 2008 Author Share Posted August 23, 2008 So what youre saying is that people who invent stuff only to have it ripped off by a large corporation and lose their chance at making money off their product is okay? I would HATE that. As an engineer (in the making) That would damage the way we innovate things. I was thinking that they would just throw a bunch of money to Hillcrest to shut them up and make them happy. That would be the easiest thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star Fox Runner Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 This is all just bogus, I think these people are trying to make a fast buck. If you think they stole your idea, don't wait until 2 years later to try and get it back! That's just common sense! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DZComposer Posted August 24, 2008 Share Posted August 24, 2008 So what youre saying is that people who invent stuff only to have it ripped off by a large corporation and lose their chance at making money off their product is okay? I would HATE that. As an engineer (in the making) That would damage the way we innovate things. I never said that. I said that you need to try to market your idea before you can file a lawsuit. That way you don't have these patent trolls whose sole source of income is patent litigation. Imagine this scenario: Say you invent a widget on your own. You are successfully able to market the widget and build yourself a profitiable firm around it. The widget sells very well. Suddenly, at the height of your success, you get a letter from a company called "Troll Holdings" that claimes you violate three patents and wants an amount of money that vaporizes your profit and wants an injunction against you selling the widget. The lawsuit is filed in Marshall, Texas (there is a store selling your widget in that town). You inspect the patents and find that they are very very broad, maybe even obvious, and could cover a lot of things. You do some research and learn that Troll Holdings is registered to a residence in a nice neighborhood in a large city. Troll Holdings has no product, and seems to only have one employee, yet they have several hundered patents covering all sorts of things from airplanes to watch circuitry. All this company does is buy patents and sit on them waiting for a popular product that it thinks violates one of the patents. When that happens, Lawsuit Time! You think that the patents are bogus, so you go to court and the court finds against you. You are now financially ruined and your widget is unable to be sold. Doesn't that "damage the way we innovate things?" I would think so. Google "Patent Troll" and you'll see that this scenario is very real. I mentioned Marshall, Texas for a reason. The court here is famous for rubber-stamp judgments in favor of the plaintiff on patent cases. That is why you lose your case. I was thinking that they would just throw a bunch of money to Hillcrest to shut them up and make them happy. That would be the easiest thing to do. Whether or not Nintendo ripped-off Hillcrest is unknown. Though I agree that there will likely be a settlement. Nintendo has way too much to lose on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuffNStuff Posted August 24, 2008 Author Share Posted August 24, 2008 Well, the widget would have to have been unveiled in a publication. Just to prove that he made it. And if that widget company made and sold it, it would be their fault for not doing the research. Sounds harsh, but, of course that would be a worst case scenario. The lawyers would be the lynch pin. Besides, I am haoppy that nintendo is getting something like this because its not microsoft for once lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Krystal Posted August 24, 2008 Share Posted August 24, 2008 Even if something is exactly the same, I believe the law allows two companies to make it so long as the non-patent holder can prove that they did not copy the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DZComposer Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Well, the widget would have to have been unveiled in a publication. Just to prove that he made it. And if that widget company made and sold it, it would be their fault for not doing the research. Sounds harsh, but, of course that would be a worst case scenario. The lawyers would be the lynch pin. Besides, I am haoppy that nintendo is getting something like this because its not microsoft for once lol. So, it is completely okay with you to found a company that simply buys patents with no intention of marketing them and sues people for it's revenue? As far as research, I doubt that there is any one person that can read the text of all of the currently valid patents. The number is in the millions. If you want to go global, then you've got an even more daunting task. Plus, even if you did research, you idea is stifled because of the patent troll. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries This clause in the constitution establishes patents and copyrights in the US. It is the only mention of them in the entire document. It could be argued that patent trolling is unconstitutional. How is sitting on patents just so you can sue someone promoting the progress of science and useful art? I think it does the opposite. Plus, this doesn't even address the ridiculous patents being awarded as of late. You could probably patent breathing if you worded it right. Plus, the broadness of many of the patents used by trolls is an issue as well. Patents need to be specific. There are actually patents out there tat are worded like this: "a method for moving air using a set of panels connected to a motor." That patent would cover every fan design and is not really innovative. Of course that is an extreme example, but there are patents that are like that. The Anascape patent that Nintendo was hit with over GCN and Classic Controllers was essentially a linear potentiometer, something that has existed for decades. It broadly described using it to send data to software in a way that made pretty much any use of a linear pot in a computing setting an infringement. I'm sorry, that is not really innovative. That patent should never have been awarded. And there is this one: Clicking on a button on a webpage to instantly order a product, drawing payment and customer info from a database rather than from customer input. A damn hyperlink to a script. Bloody obvious, not really innovative. Amazon.com has used this as a bludgeon against other online commerce sites. Overly broad patents do not promote the progress of science and useful arts either. Once again, they do the opposite. Even if something is exactly the same, I believe the law allows two companies to make it so long as the non-patent holder can prove that they did not copy the idea. Not exactly. If the other firm sends a notice of infringement and you don't license the patent, you are now willfully infringing on it. Provided that your idea actually infringes on the patent, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuffNStuff Posted August 25, 2008 Author Share Posted August 25, 2008 So then make an amendment to change it to make it illegal to buy and sell patnents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Krystal Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 So then make an amendment to change it to make it illegal to buy and sell patnents. That would restrict the legal use. A lot of people don't have the personal resources to manufacture a product, even if they want to, so they license it to a company for a cut of the profits and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DZComposer Posted August 26, 2008 Share Posted August 26, 2008 Notice he said sell, not license it. There is a difference. When you license a patent, you still retain ownership. One of the patent troll issues is the selling of patents. IE, you give up your ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuffNStuff Posted August 27, 2008 Author Share Posted August 27, 2008 Giving up ownershit should be the only thing illeagalized. You make it, it is yours. Don't want it? Too bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts