Microsoft, Nintendo Hit with Controller Patent Lawsuit

[NFS4]

http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=13431

Anascape filed suit against Microsoft and Nintendo in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas this past Monday. Anascape has accused the companies of infringing on a dozen different patents that were issued between 1999 and 2005. The patents seem to deal with almost every aspect of today's modern video game controller, such as analog controls, analog pressure sensors for buttons, vibration and tactile feedback, and more. One would think that Sony's PS2 controller would come into conflict with these patents as well, so it's not clear why Anascape has targeted Microsoft and Nintendo and has not included Sony in the suit.

Anascape is looking to be reimbursed for damages along with interest. The company also has requested a tally of the revenues that Microsoft and Nintendo have generated from the use of these 12 patents. Furthermore, if Anascape is not successful in having a judge issue a permanent injunction against Microsoft and Nintendo, the company wants a enforced licensing fee to be instituted.

 

[mugs]

Assholes. Who the hell are they? Nobodies. They just want to steal a little of the big boys' mojo (and money).

 

[mugs]

Wait a second, they're saying analog controls infringed on a patent issued between 1999 and 2005? N64 came out in 1996. N64 had an analog stick. And analog sticks existed long before that.

 

[Baked]

Be funny if they win the case like WWF against WWF.

 

[BoldAsLove]

wtf

 

[drinkmorejava]

I thought sony already had the patents for force feedback.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: drinkmorejava
I thought sony already had the patents for force feedback.

Sony, pwned

 

[jagec]

I love how they wait until the companies have been building the product for years before they whip out the lawsuit.

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: drinkmorejava
I thought sony already had the patents for force feedback.

Various companies do. The USPTO just rubber-stamps prettymuch every application these days due to overloading, and lets the courts figure out which one was dated first or who had prior art.

 

[potato28]

Wat a stupid lawsuit....

 

[watdahel]

I think the Wii controller uses a gyro for the motion detection. I think someone has a patent on that. That could be a blast in court.

 

[SampSon]

Patent laws are ridiculous for the most part. The fact that you can patent an "idea" borders on preposterous in so many situations.
Litigation based on intuitive ideas already implemented into the market is simply a legal form of extortion.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: SampSon
Patent laws are ridiculous for the most part. The fact that you can patent an "idea" borders on preposterous in so many situations.
Litigation based on intuitive ideas already implemented into the market is simply a legal form of extortion.

You can't patent an idea.

 

[SampSon]

Originally posted by: tk149

Originally posted by: SampSon
Patent laws are ridiculous for the most part. The fact that you can patent an "idea" borders on preposterous in so many situations.
Litigation based on intuitive ideas already implemented into the market is simply a legal form of extortion.

You can't patent an idea.

Ok chief.
Most patents are for inventions that don't actually exist yet. People patent ideas on a daily basis.

 

[EarthwormJim]

Originally posted by: tk149

Originally posted by: SampSon
Patent laws are ridiculous for the most part. The fact that you can patent an "idea" borders on preposterous in so many situations.
Litigation based on intuitive ideas already implemented into the market is simply a legal form of extortion.

You can't patent an idea.

You don't think a non-existant invention that exists only on paper isn't an "idea?"

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

Originally posted by: drinkmorejava
I thought sony already had the patents for force feedback.

Various companies do.

The USPTO just rubber-stamps pretty much every application these days due to overloading, and lets the courts figure out which one was dated first or who had prior art.

Don't give the USPTO a free pass. What they are doing is essentially the same as China but in reverse.

China rules