The Big N gets caught on the wrong side of patent laws. Again.

[SilentHunter7]

http://videogames.yahoo.com/feature/nintendo-facing-patent-lawsuit-over-ds/1226062

Supposedly Nintendo illegally violated a patent that protects "an improved method of operating a touch screen on a CRT or ICD computer screen [that] uses finger release as input registering" in "an electronic game device system [which] is switchable between an amusement mode and a gaming or gambling mode and is useful for vehicles such as airplanes or boats..."

The patent was originally filed 10 years ago.

So now in addition to loading screen minigames, motion sensitive controls, and featuring zombies in mini-malls; touch-screens on hand-helds are illegal. Christ, I won't be surprised if someone comes forward with a patent on 'a device designed to entertain.'

 

[Ultrajoe]

this only convinces me that i should buy patents like hot-cakes...

Lets see... immersion gel?

full body feedback suits?

im off to the patent office right now.

 

[stompy]

I reckon that some measures should be put in place to stop people from just buying up patents and suing other companies putting them to use, when the technology wasn't even used before. It's a shame really...

 

[TheKnifeJuggler]

Screw the patent system. It makes no sense.

 

[clarinetJWD]

I think by now we're all tired of patent trolls...the system just doesn't work anymore. I'm thinking that once a company has a patent, they should a) have to have some physical product to back it up (even if it's just a part of another product), and b) have a time limit to get there. We've been seeing more and more decades old patents being brought up against new and innovative products by companies who never produced anything under the patent anyways. It's just plain bad for the consumer

 

[Calobi]

Wouldn't Apple, Microsoft, and probably dozens of other computer manufacturers be liable too if they make touch screen computers? Why did they sue Nintendo first and only? This seems more like someone trying to get attention then an actual complaint. Although Nintendo is the biggest "offender" I would go for the most people to increase my chances of winning something, if I had that patent that is. And cared enough.

Edit: I think clarinet is on to something. But besides needing a physical demonstration of the patent, they shouldn't be able to sue years after a product's release. There should be some statute on how long a company can wait, that way people can't get greedy and wait for something to get huge then decide that they want to sue this suddenly wealthy and wide-known company.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

A patent does not make it illegal, just you need to pay royalties to use it. Not the first time Nintendo has been under fire and won't be the last. Not quite as awesome as the Blackberry lawsuit in my opinion, though right up the lines.

 

[Ultrajoe]

Wouldn't Apple, Microsoft, and probably dozens of other computer manufacturers be liable too if they make touch screen computers? Why did they sue Nintendo first and only? This seems more like someone trying to get attention then an actual complaint. Although Nintendo is the biggest "offender" I would go for the most people to increase my chances of winning something, if I had that patent that is. And cared enough.

you would go against Microsoft in a legal dispute?

Your balls are bigger than watermelons my friend, i bow to you.

 

[SilentHunter7]

Wouldn't Apple, Microsoft, and probably dozens of other computer manufacturers be liable too if they make touch screen computers? Why did they sue Nintendo first and only? This seems more like someone trying to get attention then an actual complaint. Although Nintendo is the biggest "offender" I would go for the most people to increase my chances of winning something, if I had that patent that is. And cared enough.

Well Apple and Microsoft's touch enabled devices aren't "electronic game device system". So there's no violation.

I think by now we're all tired of patent trolls...the system just doesn't work anymore. I'm thinking that once a company has a patent, they should a) have to have some physical product to back it up (even if it's just a part of another product), and b) have a time limit to get there. We've been seeing more and more decades old patents being brought up against new and innovative products by companies who never produced anything under the patent anyways. It's just plain bad for the consumer

Just playing devil's advocate: Under that system: if a simple guy with no corporate backing comes up with a great idea, he's fucked if he tries to patent it. He cant sell it to a corporation, because the time limit devalues the patent. They know he wont be able to market it, and all they'd have to do is wait until the patent expired.

IMO, the best solution would be to cap the amount of money you can get in back-royalties. Somewhere low, like $500,000. That would discourage people from sitting on a patent, waiting until a company hits it big, and then torpedoing them for a big payout. Future royalties could be left uncapped, or capped at a moderately high percentage, because the company can pass the cost on at that point.

 

[666thHeretic]

A patent does not make it illegal, just you need to pay royalties to use it. Not the first time Nintendo has been under fire and won't be the last. Not quite as awesome as the Blackberry lawsuit in my opinion, though right up the lines.

They used to play mean, apparently. Drove a lot of rival companies out Wal-Mart style before they finally got investigated. The punishment was to issue a $5 discount for any game playable on the NES. Science has been unavble to determine how this hurts Nintendo in any way, but it's all ancient history by now.

 

[Sylocat]

So, trolling internet forums isn't enough for these attention whores anymore, now they want to break into the realm of frivolous lawsuits, which was originally reserved for people who just wanted to make money without working. What a lucrative field.

 

[Lord Krunk]

This is the Princess Diana and Chamberlain Case all over again...

If he really did patent it, why didn't he sue earlier?

My opinion: This guy's American. Don't trust him. (Excuse my rant)

 

[SilentHunter7]

My opinion: This guy's American, and they love to get something for nothing.

Hey, hey, hey, now there's no need for that.

That said, being American, I can't say I disagree.

 

[Lord Krunk]

My opinion: This guy's American, and they love to get something for nothing.

Hey, hey, hey, now there's no need for that.

That said, being American, I can't say I disagree.

Sorry, edited that. Don't want to be a hypocrite: everyone wants something for nothing.

 

[ElArabDeMagnifico]

Time to patent "the human body" so being alive costs you a certain fee each month. Does anyone have "Earth" patented? How about the moon? Every time you look at it you owe me a nickel.

Now I just have to patent oxygen and water, every breath and sip = 5 cents each.

(I heard Gene Simmons patented the phrase/term "O.J." for orange juice, so if you say "hey pass the O.J." or "O.J. IS GUILTY DAMNIT!" then you have given Gene a nickel. I also heard someone patented/claimed the rights to the "Happy Birthday" Song. Everyone just wants money for free don't they?)

 

[olicon]

I have a silly question: how exactly can companies protect themselves from these patent ghouls? I have heard of patent lawyers, but I heard they deal with helping to get patent registered. How can you protect yourself from using a product that you never knew exist?

 

[MRMIdAS2k]

But in the patent it says the RELEASE of the finger causes the input.

Correct me if i'm mrong, but the DS registers an input as soon as you TOUCH the screen.

Case dismissed.

 

[Soycopter]

There have been stupid patents, but there have also been STUPIDER patent lawsuits. This is a prime example. Plus, the guy above me is correct.

 

[SilentHunter7]

I have a silly question: how exactly can companies protect themselves from these patent ghouls? I have heard of patent lawyers, but I heard they deal with helping to get patent registered. How can you protect yourself from using a product that you never knew exist?

By searching through every patent ever registered, and either not making anything that remotely sounds like a patented idea, or contacting the holder of the patent, and working out a deal.

 

[olicon]

I have a silly question: how exactly can companies protect themselves from these patent ghouls? I have heard of patent lawyers, but I heard they deal with helping to get patent registered. How can you protect yourself from using a product that you never knew exist?

By searching through every patent ever registered, and either not making anything that remotely sounds like a patented idea, or contacting the holder of the patent, and working out a deal.

Holy crap.. for real? That's just stupid! I don't know how many patents are out there, but I hope the records are well cataloged in digital format so you can just search it up like Google. Or else it'd be a total failure on the system's side.