Slashdot Mirror
Nintendo Patents Online Console Gaming
MagicDude writes "Nintendo has patented key console online gaming features. Specifically, it has received patents on things such as player league tables, voice communications and online gaming host services. While the article doesn't address how Nintendo will use these patents, it makes you wonder if this is the first step for Nintendo to become a major player in the online gaming market."
it makes you wonder if this is the first step for Nintendo to become a major player in the online gaming market
No. It makes me wonder if this is a last gasp from a shrinking company. It congers up images of SCO and the likes - a company embracing thin patents to one day use as litigation cases against it rivals that are beating the snot out of them. All of these patents are prior art.
Wow, they just patented telephones, VOIP, MMORPGs, etc... Sheesh, shouldn't something like this be a LITTLE obvious?
Way to go, USPTO!
feh. stuff.
it makes you wonder if this is the first step for Nintendo to become a major player in the online gaming market
s/player/litigator/g
Trolling is a art,
Anyone heard of this? It can do these things...
NAM37
The two rules for success are:
1) Never tell them everything you know.
Prior art?
That seems rather interesting, given Nintendo's current online policy.
All the patents go to the guys with the weakest online system.
Hopefully they will use some of these patents to bring Metroid Prime 2 online in November. 4-player online deathmatch would be the only thing that could make me look forward to the game any more than I already am.
Is this why Microsoft wants to buy Nintendo, I wonder?
Wouldn't the XBox, or even Dreamcast, have some sort of prior art against this? I mean, the Gamecube has one (that I know of) online game, and it doesn't support most of the things being patented by Nintendo.
"Well, I am mad, and I'm a crazy fucka when it comes to tea"
What next? "System for looking up bank balances & transfering currency on-line" "System for verifying stock levels for multi-location distributor"? This is getting out of hand.
Does this mean that PS2 and XBOX can't do online gaming without royalties?? Help me out!
Everyone knows about that stuff, it isn't new. Nintendo shouldn't be given those patents.
Its like giving Honda the patent for the tire on hybrid cars.
Maybe 100 years ago. This is truly getting ridiculous.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
Sony submit "Game system with graphics processor". Wow.
how is this different from xbox live?
would it count as prior art?
i would think they are either using this as
1. a defense manuever against sony/microsoft
2. push sony/microsoft out of the online community so they get more market share.
i would say more 1 then 2 but if it is 2 would MS/Sony have a defense?
P.S. i love nintendo. MS can go away quietly please. but you have to be fair
Nintendo used to be a productive company that focused on satisfying its customers. Now it appears to be just another non-productive company that figures IP is an easy way to milk the legal system and benefit from government-sponsored privilege.
-- I could tell right away that she was impressed with my HUGE Slashdot Karma.
No chance for prior art on this one either from what I can tell I'm afraid. These were amended to previous patents and refer specifically to consoles. It looks like these predate the Dreamcasts online gaming and with the console specifically mentioned they could easily avoide the PC Prior Art argument.
Perhaps, they plan on making use of online gaming with these features and they don't want someone else to patent it later, and then come asking for a handout. See also: One-Click Shopping, the hyperlink
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Rashly passed, these patents will most likely be shot down once they're challenged.
"voice communications"
I'm sure i remember shouting at my opponents while playing games before.
Can't help but wonder if Nintendo might be getting ready to open a can of lawyer sized whoop ass on their good neighbors over at Microsoft! It would seem to me that Xbox Live and Sega's earlier online Dreamcast efforts constitute prior art. IANAL (I finally get to use that!), so I could be wrong.
Best case scenario, Nintendo is getting ready to enter online gaming in a big way and want to get their ducks in a row. If true, I think this means that Shigero Miyamoto has something ready to go online. You can bet that when Nintendo is ready to go online Miyamoto-san will be leading the way!
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
Even as a Nintendo fanboy, I'd call this questionable given Xbox Live
It appears you didn't read the article:
Which Xbox Live service are you talking about that was around before April 1999?
Nintendo patents Xbox Live! Just kidding...
;-)
The article was light on details; if you read the text of the patent (which I have not, to be sure) it's most likely describing a specific implementation, or has key features that the generic technologies being described in the early replies to this thread don't have.
It's fun to get your panties in a knot about every patent filed by every company, but they are just trying to cover their bases. If they (companies) don't patent everything they possibly can, someone else will turn around and do it. Better to have a patent thrown out for prior art than to risk having to pay massive royalties for something that one of your engineers claims to have invented (and may in fact have.)
So tell me, who would you rather hold the patent on these things, Microsoft or Nintendo?
These patents all stem from patents for the N64DD, the hard disk add-on for the Nintendo 64 that was only released in Japan. (And for good reason. It flopped.)
Whether or not Nintendo will attempt to use them to lock out current competition is another question.
They're just doing this to so Yamauchi can drive up the price for Gates.
The only thing I hate more than hypocrites are people who hate hypocrites.
It seems the government has decided to fight unemployment by creating more jobs for lawyers... pathetic. Since when is a game console anything more than a computer with a funky input device? I thought patents were to protect things you invented, not things you stole.
League tables: Since Quake 1 (various) Barrysworld
Voice communication: Counter strike (et al)
Online game host services: GameSpy, Barrysworld
I am suprised they haven't patented online console credit card authorization or advertising, or just the Internet.
What kind of low life scum work at the USPO? (unless this ain't a US patent, I mean, it is Nintendo...) What kind of people have never played an online game, and couldn't see this for what it was?
'Home Game Video Systems' can mean anything from you mobile phone to your fridge is you are lucky enough to have a posh one.
The best thing we can do is uphold all these daft patents until the world demises into primordial soup again, then find the random protein like structures who think patent system abuse is a good idea, and throw them away from the lightening strike area, so they evolve into fish, and have little influence in modern day computing.
Of course, this all lends weight to the theory of Evolution...
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
it makes you wonder if this is the first step for Nintendo to become a major player in the online gaming market
More like the first step in becoming a major patent whore.
Yes, but before Xbox Live there was this:
s pecial/lottery/
http://www.megspace.com/entertainment/neskingdom/
As far as I know it was indeed the first online capable console. There were quite a few games for it, only in Japan, like a special version of Zelda.
Go here for teh [sic] funny.
Actually, way back when, there was this thing called an X-Band modem, and was available for both the Sega Genesis and Super NES. Using it, you could play multiplayer games over a dialup connection, and even rent and download games to your console (supposedly).
I believe that this predated even the Japanese BS-X (Stellaview) system, but I could easily be wrong on that point.
Happiness is relative, Based upon the way we live.
hahaha, of all the consoles to get these patents. :)
Seriously, I really do hope that the next nintendo console will use all of these features. Right now I've got into xbox live! and have been lovin' it for a while, but if nintendo had the same setup I probably would never have bought an xbox. Maybe I won't need an xbox 2!
As for all the prior art, who gives a crap, microsoft has filed all types of controversial patents in the past, this is just Nintendo's turn.
I heard a rumor awhile back about Microsoft purchasing Nintendo, does anyone have any links relating to this?
Also, their patent is for "league gaming" et al., and it may be possible to apply that methodology to online poker rooms. Is it possible that the patents will cover certain types of online gambling as well as actual games?
-------
artlu.net
The two patents detail a "home video game system with hard disk drive and Internet access capability"
Is this the Revolution for the Big N?
Nintendo has repeatedly proclaimed throughout the life of the GC that online strategy was not their focus and that online gaming was not a necessary component to their success. They have toted connectivity (GBA-GC, GBA Player etc.) over connections and it is only now, as the product cycles for the current console generation wind down, that they are realizing what a mistake they have made.
Dont get me wrong, Nintendo's connectivity features are interesting and have done some cool things for marketing (FF: CC for example) but their origional strategy of shying away from the online marketplace because of its lack of testing and proven track record have only served to cripple them this generation.
The patents themselves are retarded, that much is obvious, but I say look beyond the patent to what it signifies for the company; and that, I believe, is a strong online presence in the next generation of consoles.
Doubtful. Nintendo's initial success came from good, fun games. I suspect they are abandoning their "quality product" business strategy in favor of "restrictive technology".
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
This is just another one of those patents on existing and obvious functionality, but in a slightly different environment/platform. Nothing new is invented here; it is only marginally more creative than all those patents for "Obvious and millennia-old activity X.... on the Internet"
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Since Nintendo's patents are specific to gaming consoles, the PTO probably ignored prior art from computers. However, I think that as consoles get more and more complex, there are increasing similarities to computers ... consoles can be used for web browsing and other PC-like features.
The market seems to be moving towards having one big comprehensive system - a box that serves as a computer, TV, gaming console and stereo. What will happen to all of these patents when we get there?
Not to be a spoilsport, but this news is a week old and ign and gamespot confirmed a couple days ago that it was just an "add-on" patent for the 64DD so it has nothing to do with future consoles. Unless the Revolution is going to have the 64DD attached to it, but then I would just be confused.
"the first filing date, in this case April 1999"
I am pretty sure the concept of playing games online was well established in 1999, even voice (on lan gaming).
So how does this even have a chance, other than to say, look, it'll cost you either way.
Microsoft are filing 3000 patents a Year, that is 8.21 a day, and each one can take MONTHS to work over. How big is the patent office?
Perhaps the patent office should have a commitee of representative consumers who can veto patents?
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Ah well, time will tell.
Prosperity is only an instrument to be used, not a deity to be worshipped. Calvin Coolidge
I suspect that Microsoft will have something to say about all this. Can you say "X-Box Live"? Hell, it even came with the damn McDonald's drive-thru headset! How can Nintendo claim no prior art?
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
Technically, Nintendo has done most of this stuff first with it's miserable failure, the N64 64DD accessory which was released in Japan in 1999. It wasn't a hard drive, but it was read/write storage on a spinning disc in 1999. It also included a modem to access an online service (In Japan). Not many were produced or sold. This device gives muscle behind the original 1999 filing, but not the ammendments.
Everything you wanted to know about the 64DD...
Urge to post... fading... fading... RISING!... fading... fading... gone.
Socom II, anyone? Already used voice technology long before Nintendo.
Nintendo doesn't even fucking HAVE online games!!! Phantasy Star online is the only one, I think. Maybe the Tony Hawk games, but I'd be HIGHLY surprised if they had online play since it's not popular w/ the GC.
What a joke. I should patent breathing.
Dang. The USPTO examiners would have to smoke something really good to grant this. Most of the claims of Sony's patent application look like any other triangle filler. The only difference between claim 1 and the prior art is "at least 16 pixels per clock cycle," which is no different from patenting a car that can move "at least 100 miles per hour."
after all that trouble he went through to save the princess (and still not get any)...he now looks down from the clouds he leaps across only to see his parent Nintendo give birth to a new set of twins: "The Lawyer Brothers"
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
Since those are already in place.
But my other question is in exactly what way does the progression of
o Console games
o PC games
o Internet
o Internet PC games
o Internet console games
Not completely obviate the patent?
I mean, the current trend is to make everything connected to the internet. I completely fail to see how hooking the 'net up to a new device is patentable.
Can I file a patent to make a watch internet enabled? What about my coffee cup? My pen?
At what point does the obvious application of wide-spread technology to Yet Another Device (tm) not become silly.
Unfortunately the patent system has become completely broken, and with US IP laws being foisted on the rest of the world, soon you won't be able to piss in a bucket without someone saying they patented it an you owe them royalties.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
My understanding of the patent system is that you can almost always get a patent if you make the patent claim specific enough. This however results in a mostly worthless patent because anyone looking to avoid violating the patent only needs to change one aspect slightly. They probably only filed to prevent some other companies from providing exactly the same service.
For example, if I get a patent on 3 inch high boots with yellow shoelaces, all my opponent need do is make them 3.1 or gold shoelaces. Off-topic, does anyone want to buy some boots?
Of course, the USPTO's motto has recently been "Let the courts sort it out." The patent law doesn't contain a clause that says essentially, "If you change one component for a component of similar functionality; you don't receive a new patent." This ommission has allowed all sorts of really obvious patents, like Microsoft's ClearType, to be passed without a peep from the USPTO.
Now, that's not to say that the universe isn't without balance. US jurisprudence contains many rules composed from judgements that have the force of precedent and not law. One of these is that one cannot make a change of a single component and automatically recieve a new patent. The analogy at the court level is "you cannot change a steel screw for a brass screw and screw your competitors with a new patent."
Now, whether a console is sufficiently different from the underpowered PCs of yesteryear, on which the patented technology was first reduced to art, is another question entirely. Regardless, this question is not a question the USPTO typically undertakes, but rather they defer to the courts. However, first the patent must go under the scrutiny of the courts and well... Anyone think that will happen soon? Anyone? Anyone?
IANAL, IAALS
Nintendo began as a company making playing card decks, and protecting its brand ferociously. When it went into electronics, making cheap knockoffs was rampant throughout Asia. Their protectionist strategy backfired in getting a library of games to compete with Sony and MS, but Nintendo always has and will continue to feircely protect its intellectual properties.
Here is a link I got off the Penny Arcade message boards wherein Nintendo confirms this:Of course, it's too late; the slashdot blurb has done its damage and this story will likely be filled with nothing but alternating "OMFG THE REVOLUTION" and "they patented the internet!" comments. But, if you were curious, this is what is actually happening here.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
So I don't think XBox would have any problems (its network and hard drive aren't expansion), but the PS2 might be(Network adapter is attached to back of unit, but the hard drive does sit within the PS2, just connected to network adapter)
But what do I know, I am NAL.
Except, when you include the PC stuff, it becomes an obvious extension of stuff that has existed for PCs for several years. As an example: Battle.net from Blizzard. (Let's take this obvious idea, add the phrase "on (the Internet|a computer|a gaming console)", and get a patent!)
I'd say their first step might have been to actually make some sort of presence online in the first place! I remember having discussions at the GDC [www.gdconf.com] with a guy from Nintendo who said they had a modem for the 'Cube ready to go, but weren't likely to release it unless "they needed to".
Bottom line is why patent something you don't even seem intent to use (yet, I guess.) I know, I know... forward thinking and all that, but this is not a company known for their strides in online goodies, from what I recall.
PointlessGames.com -- Go waste some time.
MassMOG.com -- Visit the site; Use the word.
Gamesindustry.biz has a long write up.
This patent was about the 64DD add-on device..
US patent 6,769,989, which was granted on the 3rd of August, refers to a console add-on device which would modify an existing system to include "additional communication and storage capability via a modem and hard disk drive."
blah blah blah
However, despite only being granted this month, the original patent was actually filed back in 1999, and the picture attached to the patent clearly displays a 64DD unit attached to an N64. The ill-fated peripheral offered many of the functions described by the patent, but was unpopular with consumers and was rapidly discontinued by Nintendo.
blah blah blah
This isn't to say that some of that functionality won't make it into Revolution, although in general Nintendo has aimed for pure game devices rather than trying to compete with Sony's vision for building a home media empire based on the PlayStation brand.
Sure they got the patent, it doesn't fit with their plans. And since the patent is for a CONSOLE ADD ON DEVICE, it doesn't apply to XBox or PCs, which have hard drives and ethernet integrated. Like the article said, it really doesn't fit with Nintendo's plans whatsoever.
Did you know Konami has more video game patents than anyone else? Makes sense, with all their specialty arcade hardware. Followed by Sega, then Ninteno.. MSFT is wayyyyy down near the bottom of the list, lower than folks like Tiger Electronics (game.com roxorz!) Just something interesting I stumbled over while googling for that link. Pretty much irrelevant and offtopic, though.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Dammit people, stop thinking like that. I hear it all the time with regards to Microsoft, IBM, Nintendo, pretty much any huge company that has a patent portfolio.
Yes, you are right they have never used them aggressively, it has always been a "defense" war-chest.
Have you ever heard of an "end game"?
Look at SCO, they never used their supposed ownership of Unix aggressively either right? Ooops, they never did until they became completely irrelevant and and felt the need to do something, ANYTHING to resurrect their failed business.
So what happens when (not if) Nintendo, IBM, Microsoft, et al, being to lose significant marketshare? When (either due to competition, crappy economy, whatever) these companies begin the inevitable fall from grace that every company in history eventually has done? When the stockholders demand profit and actions to be taken to get that profit? It will be fiscially irresponsible (and almost criminal) for the management NOT to use their patent portfolio aggressively to regain profit. If they won't the stockholders will oust them and bring in attack dogs who will.
It is almost inevitable that these patents WILL be used aggressively. It is just a matter of time. Consider it corporate insurance that you will never lose your position in the computer industry.
Or look at it another way, consider it insurance that Microsoft and IBM will never be made irrelevent by Open Source, as soon as it gets too popular, it will be litigated away. If the PS2 and X-Box take away too much of Nintendo's market, they will be ligitated into effectively paying Nintendo (licensing fees) for the market-share they took.
Finkployd
Here are the patent abstract and claims from the USPTO site:
Abstract:
An existing video game system is modified to include additional communication and storage capability via a modem and hard disk drive. The modification may involve the use of an expansion device coupled to a video game system port. A cable TV tuner is also included in the expansion device to assist in providing a unique picture-in-picture video capability. TV signals are coupled to the expansion device via the RF input from either cable TV or off-air signals. These RF signals are blended with the output signals from the video game system. A user may, for example, watch TV while viewing overlay information from the video game console. A user may receive a TV channel guide downloaded via the Internet, spot a program which the user desires to view and immediately access, via an IR input, the desired channel through the expansion device TV tuner. A user may also watch TV while simultaneously logging onto the Internet. A hard drive permits downloading from the Internet of entire games.
Claims:
We claim:
1. A home video game system for executing video game programs and for generating game play graphics in response to player controller control signals generated by a player operating a player controller for display on a television, said home video game system including a removable memory insertion port for receiving a removable memory storing video game program instructions, comprising:
a game processing system including a main processor, operatively coupled to receive video game instructions from said removable memory when inserted into the removable memory insertion port for executing a video game program, and a graphics coprocessor for processing graphics information under control of said main processor, and being responsive to said player controller control signal for generating game play graphics for display on a television;
communications circuitry, coupled in use to said game processing system and to a user's communications network, for linking said game processing system to the Internet and permitting communication from the player to another party over the Internet;
a writeable mass storage device coupled in use to said game processing system for receiving information downloaded from the Internet; and
cryptographic processing circuitry, coupled to said mass storage device, for decrypting at least some of said information downloaded from the Internet.
2. A home video game system according to claim 1, further including
audio circuitry coupled to said video game processing system.
3. A home video game system according to claim 1, wherein said communications circuitry and said mass storage device are housed in an expansion device and said video game processing system is housed in a separate video game console which is coupled to said expansion device.
4. A home video game system according to claim 1, wherein said communications circuitry comprises a modem, ethernet port, or wireless connection circuitry, and further including a controller for controlling said mass storage device and said communications circuitry.
5. A home video game system according to claim 1, wherein said mass storage device comprises a hard disk drive which stores a network browser program.
6. A home video game system according to claim 1, wherein said mass storage device is a flash memory storage device.
7. A home video game system according to claim 1, wherein said mass storage device stores information downloaded from the Internet.
8. A home video game system comprising:
a removable memory insertion port for receiving a removable memory storing video game program instructions,
a game processing system including a main processor, operatively coupled to receive video game instructions from said removable memory when inserted into the removable memory insertion port and a graphics coprocessor for processing graphics information under control of said m
Nintendo has always been highly protective of its intellectual properties. Before Sony came to dominate the market,(and before MS entered its console) it was a very profitable strategy. It might be more accurate to say that SCO learned from Nintendo rather than the other way around!
Oh please. For starters, a console is just a computer. A computer which is meant for gaming. And now they patent online gaming? I've been playing games online since 1996 you fucks.
:)
Most likely its something specific else there's prior art
(Btw EFF nominated Nintendo as one of the 10 bad patent whores.)
Although dripping with sarcasm, your reply is not nearly rude enough. From:Angry, Disgruntled Adoptee
And what about voice comm in Half Life? Personally, I think all online multiplayer games that don't have voicecomm are just plain inferior. And I may be striking a chord here with some of the "gamers" who play MMOPRS, but really... what are you doing the whole time? Are you dodging rockets or typing to people on your keyboard? No faimbait intended - whatever game tickles you pink is fine with me. A game that doesn't utilize the latest in technology - a way to save yourself a little carpal tunnel, but still, to each his own.
You guys are fucking idiots. Jesus christ.
...then maybe they should MAKE SOME.
Totally offtopic, but just incase you are interested in playing subspace again, it has been recreated under the name continuum and is freely available (not OS however) at http://www.subspacedownloads.com/
From Marathon 1 game FAQ
"Live Microphone communication between players in LocalTalk or Ethernet"
Wait for someone to create an utterly obvious concept. Wait for someone to implement that concept and make it a success. Patent the concept. Sue, license, then rake it in!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
I'd rate this post as informative, but I think you just misspelled moron. "Get a brain, morans!" Is moran 3133t-speak for moron, or did you just make the most ironic insult I've ever seen?
Socom 1 had voice chat, a player league table (online scoreboard) and online gaming services via GameSpy network (friends list, etc..)
This was 2 years ago...Can we please bomb the patent office?
I think you have passed the point of no-returns. I think slash now has more windows zealots than linux zealots. The MS fanboys in their quest to defend their platform of choice (MS fans defend their platform while everyone else praises their platform), have really shown their meddle in this thread. I think its time to change the name of /. to c:.
Yep.
0 43 48.html
Check it out here.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/08/06/news_61
I'd thought by now everyone had seen this.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
what about the days of good old modem portal games -
dial up to a network, have score tables, game online...
and btw - what defines a console - isn`t playing consoledoom/quake on some kind of old sun sparc on the internet something that is within wide berth definitions of this patent ?
hmmm. just thinking.
"Nintendo has patented key console online gaming features."
Exactly,
Would it make more sense to say "claimed panents for" vs. patented? I was under the impression that the patent office didn't issue a patent, so much as, they recorded your claim. Patents can be claimed by other means. I was under the impression that any patent claim can also be contested.
Cheers,
--The Dude
Like somebody else already said.
0 43 48.html
Microsoft is not buying Nintendo.
Read:
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/08/06/news_61
The input processor of the PS2 is the CPU of the PS1. This is how Sony made the PS2 (like this claim states) backward compatible with the PS1.
What is a console, how is it really different from a computer. Is a gaming console a computer that strictly plays games? Couldn't MS and Sony argue that since their platforms can play DVD movies that they don't fall under a limited definition of "gaming console". As soon as you can muddy the waters about what a console is this patent falls apart on prior art.
Funny this is coming from the company who is anti-online gaming.
And how is a console different from a PC, exactly? They're essentially the same, sans keyboard/mouse.
When was the Dreamcast released?
Did the SEGA channel save scores?
:)
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
Eh, isn't there something about prior work existing that would invalidate these patents?
Can anyone say UTstats (or any other the other stat-logging programs with player league etc built in. And what about teamspeak and the like for voice comms in any game?
... for the government. Just like DUI laws and war on some drugs laws, etc, all the way to the criminal justice "system". Allow even the most ridiculous things to be patented or be applied for. Charge large sums of money for this. Legislate it so it's all "law". Mass profit. It's pretty easy to see, that and the very large corporations want it that way. There are NO laws passed that large international corporations DON'T want. There is no difference between high level politicians and judges and large corporations, they all are major stockholders and etc in various large corps, Demoncrap or Repugnicant, elected or appointed. Even if they cry crocdile tears about this or that in public, if you look closer, they profit, government profits in the gestalt.
Government is the largest corporation, and has the monopoly on that "business". Look at it that way, and it all becomes clearer.
And you always have to think of "government" as a for-profit institution, no different from any other corporation, with the added bonus of they got guys with guns to "enforce" their dictates and to enforce their monopoly, and this monopoly is worth trillions and a ton of command and control they dig on.
Just like the mafia.
And you'll never "vote" it out, either, just won't happen, there's nothing in it, zero, nada, zilch for the politicians or the employees to get "voted" out of artificially created necessity, hence, it never happens, no place.
At least in olden tymes they called a spade a spade, those goofs were called "rulers". We got the same doods and the same apparati now, just they call it something else, but it looks, and acts exactly the same.
It never occurred to the author that a title like "Nintendo Patents Online Gaming" won't immediately spark a flood of "fuck those assholes" even though the article isn't even remotely about that?
It's not the fault of the people who didn't RTFA, but the fault of the author for purposely misleading others.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
I don't think anyone should take these patents seriously. If Nintendo tried to do anything on them prior art is a dime a dozen.
The patent centers around "home video game systems" which are already legally distinct entities from limited functionality computing devices.
The truly interesting aspect of the patent is that it mentions home video game systems "with hard disk drive and internet access capability," something that no Nintendo product has ever had. Nintendo hasn't released a lot of information regarding the GameCube's successor, but I think this is probably a good indication that it has both a HDD and broadband modem out of the box.
Happiness is relative, Based upon the way we live.
This kind of crap has me thinking more and more frequently about leaving high tech and starting a ranch in Montana, or becoming a beach bum. Pretty soon it will be dangerous to breathe without consulting a lawyer.
What I don't understand is how they can be classed as 'Inventing' this, under the US Patent system, when Nintendo has never launched, or mentioned launching something similiar in the US. If it was a Japanese patent (or whatever thier IP laws give) then I can understand. But this is a very big reach by any strech of the imagination. And the best bit, Australia is pulling itself into line with those stupid laws.
Let's see... there was the Famicom Modem. The Super Famicom Modem. The Satallaview and of course the X-Band Modem (which, admittedly, was not a Nintendo product and was also available on the Genesis). And of course the 64DD (which is what I believe these patents were filed for) connected to RandNet, which let them purchase/download games, use e-mail, and chat.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
is it just me, or does it sound like nintendo just patented the ps2 and the xbox / xbox live . . .
This is a pretty interesting move by Nintendo. There current stance on online gaming has been ultra-conservative to say the least. It seems like they are really waiting to move on it until they know they are going to make money off of it. However, as someone who has enjoyed Nintendo's franchise for a while this really makes me happy. It means that while publicly Nintendo has been downplaying online gaming, privately they have always had a huge interest in it. I hope that means that in the future Nintendo will be entering the online game market. Thay has always been my biggest gripe with the GC, the complete lack of online gaming. I don't like PSO at all but would love to be able to play MKDD and others online without some nifty hacks like Warp Pipe.
A few interesting thing from the patent. There is no prior art for this from what I can tell. It applies only to console video game machines. It is pretty broad reaching, I don't see how Xbox Live gets out from it currently. The patent specifically mentions the use of a HDD. Maybe that is why Xbox2 isn't going to have an HDD. The filing of the patent gave an example setup with the N64DD with a few add on peripherals but made sure to mention that they didn't have to be add ons. They could be housed in a single machine. The patent also mentions that entire games could be downloaded over the internet. It seems that The Phantom may be in a world of hurt over this. And from what I can tell there is no prior art for this. The patent was filed in '98, way before Xbox Live or PS2 online games, and even before Dreamcast I think.
I think that MS and Sony are going to try to show that their machines are home media entertainment systems, not just video game console machines, to try and wiggle around this.
I don't know how Nintendo is going to use this patent. Theoretically it could give them a huge leg up in the next gen console wars. While online gaming is a a draw for MS and Sony, I don't think it is the deciding factor for buying any console, price is a much bigger consideration I think. Imagine Nintendo being able to affect the price of MS and Sony with the strict licensing agreements they are notorious for. My guess would be that if they try that and are successful (cause ya know MS and Sony are going to dispute it), that MS and Sony will eat the cost themselves, rather than let Nintendo affect their retail price. They already lose money on the console hardware anyway.
I'll bet that Nintendo just sits on it though, my guess is if they try and enforce this patent against MS and Sony, MS and Sony will do likewise to them, and I'm sure they have a few that might be able to stick.
This patent tells me that Nintendo has always had online gaming as a priority even if their public statements say otherwise. Now, that the patent has been approved I hope they make some moves to add online gaming to the GC, or at least make it a big part of the next gen console.
I swear PowerPoint is going to be the downfall of higher education in western society.
Can't I just say to Hell with it, strike out and make some obviously "Lame" patents and get filthy rich. Sell my Patent Portfolio, get even more filthy rich. I do not care if they are later overturned. I want to get rich now. I mean we can all cry about how Lame and pathetic it all is but in actuality, they are getting rich, and 90% of the folks here want to get rich just as well. If ya don't then I call you a liar Sir/ Madam. Everyone wants a piece of the Pie, to invent the Next Big Thing or somehow make thier stamp on Society, the World, the Universe. Funny how in all those MBA, Law and other classes, the Ethics they teach are disposable. Is that taught the class after Ethics 101. Machiavellian Ethics 201.When it comes down to it, I wish I could line my own pockets as well... To deny that or imply anything else would cast me a liar. I used to be a moral and just man, but I cannot eat Morality nor cloth my family with "justice." When you are young, you are bullet proof and an idealist, when you are middle aged you are circumspect and cautious, when you are old, you are a fool. All Facets, Functions and Offices of every Governmental Beurocracy, is a little fiefdom and noone, is elected to those offices, and if you think they will ever change you Sir are truly King of all Fools. That little Man/woman in the Patent, IRS, FBI,or other Three lettered Office was there, when a Democrat/Republican was in office and will be there when another Candidate is in Office and will be there when Many have come and left the office; until that small, unelected beurocrat has retired. They are truly the seat of Power and no real changes, outcries or other sentiments will effect them.
My cat's picked up a Hammer. HEY! Put down that Hammer. Put Down that Hamm...THUNK!
I couldn't believe it when I heard on the radio "This product is so effective it was awarded a U.S. Patent". Do people really fall for that?!
Why this keeps getting modded up?
"...then maybe they should MAKE SOME."
They're pouring tons of $$$ into R&D so that when they do that, you aren't paying a monthly fee. Believe me, they are making some.
"Derp de derp."
That may have been their intent when they filed for the patents, but at this point, they would be lucky to be able to use them as a last gasp attempt at staying in buisness.
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
A specific case of X should never be patentable, since its a subset of whats already done
Because patents give you a monopoly on X, part of the innovation patents are supposed to foster is creating X+Y. It makes people think of new ways to apply existing technology or to design around existing patents. A patent can be obtained for useful, new and non-obvious combinations of technologies. And just because you have a patent a) doesn't mean you'll enforce it maliciously and b) that you yourself don't have to pay someone else. If I get a patent on the wheel, you have every right to patent a wheel with spokes. You can't make a wheel with spokes without paying me of course (I have the patent on the wheel), but your improvement is yours and I can't go making spoked wheels without paying you for your improvement. What we'd likely do is cross-license each other and put everyone else out of business.
Now say someone doesn't way to pay for your spoked wheel and instead creates a new wheel. New variations is the whole point of the patent system. Now they only have to pay the license for the wheel and we've got three new products instead of one.
And yes, taking voice chat from a computer and doing on a console is a new variation. How obvious that variation is is what people here decry.
psxndc
I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...
Nintendo's just trying to get patents on these things so Microsoft or Sony won't patent them and sue Nintendo for infringment.They're guarding their backs.(Mod me up all you want.)
Please cite the patent statute that mandates a working prototype. Here's a hint: there isn't one. All it has to exist in is the person's head.
-truth
I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...
This is completely backwards. The people have empowered the USPTO to reward inventors by handing out government-backed monopolies; all the people ask in return is that the PTO check first to ensure that the inventions are actually for real. But they are demonstrably not doing their job.
what?! a first post with everything that the article didn't mentioned, and only +1 Insightful???
Patenting ancient ideas but with the twist that youve done them with modern technology.
I wonder if anyone tried to patent the writing of score-boards with white-board marker pens instead of chalk yet?
The input processor of the PS2 is the CPU of the PS1. This is how Sony made the PS2 (like this claim states) backward compatible with the PS1.
For one thing, what you quote is not a claim; it's a component of the preferred embodiment. For another, even if Sony does have a patent with some claim covering this use of the PS1's CPU, wouldn't it be legally obvious given the Atari Jaguar console (which used a separate MC68000 CPU for input) and the Sega Genesis console (which used a separate Zilog Z80 CPU for sound and for Sega Master System compatibility)?
Back in 1993 or 1994 I was working for a company that was the first company to put computers with CD roms in libraries to replace card catalogs. In 93 or 94 Compton's was granted a patent for using a computer to retrieve information off of a CD rom and they tried to get everyone that used CD roms to pay them 1% of their gross profits on each CD product as a "licensing fee". This patent was over turned and Compton's should have been fined by the government. Nintendo's patents are basically the same thing as this. They're trying to patent using a disk drive, modem and look up tables. This should be thrown out and Nintendo should be heavily fined for this. The whole patent process needs to be completely overhauled. It should be impossible to own a patent for reading information off a hard drive and transmitting it over a modem. Those are basic functions of the devices. This is no different than if I try to patent writing letters and numbers on paper using a writing utensil such as a pen or pencil.
Damn, this place is getting even more cynical.
There are NO laws passed that large international corporations DON'T want.
I call bullshit. Workman's comp, minimum wage, environmental protection, corporate taxes, to name a few.
I think that many people in the government are there for the right reasons, and are trying to do the right thing. They might not be very good at it. They might not agree with you how to go about it. They will make mistakes. They might get disillusioned with the whole beurocracy and stop trying. They're human, just like you. How often do you risk your job to do what is best for your company?
Historically, governments have a tendancy to either grow to oppression or shrink to ineffectiveness (and then get removed). We try to avoid the former through turnover, our leaders can't guarantee that they'll be in office in a few years, so they have to think about what happens if they aren't. I think we should get rid of a lot of the special treatment given to officials to make them think about it more, though.
Now, patent applications make money for the gov't. Patent enforcement loses money (courts). I don't think any government agency should be self-supporting, the free market idea doesn't work if it's not free. If the PTO didn't care about the revenue stream, maybe they'd be a little more critical.
(BTW, if you want to rant, fine. If you want to try to improve things, you should be a little more balanced, and try to offer suggestions for how to make it better.)
Nintendo I just lost all respect for you. Enough said.
See, the question here is on the term "console"...and this is what will kill Nintendo.
I am sure Microsoft has dozens of similar patents in the PC world. Nintendo is just trying to say they have ownership in the console world.
However, all Microsoft's lawyers need to do is shatter the distinction of console/computer. Show that throughout history computers have been both generalized (PC) and specialized. And that a game console is nothing but a specialized computer.
Then simply prove it by walking in with a Nintendo Gamecube. Open the box....point to it's main processor. "PowerPC"
Then look back to the judge and simply ask "and how is this NOT a computer, a PC even? look right there in the box....on the core chip it says so. "PowerPC"
Nintendo not only loses all the strength of it's patents. They now become susceptible to Microsoft's own patents in these areas. Next day headlines read - "Nintendo's case against Microsoft dropped! Microsoft now suing Nintendo for multiple patent infringement!"
Two years later the case is settled out of court. Microsoft now owns a 24% share of Nintendo. And is the largest single stockholder.
Yup.....
God help the company that tries to win a legal war with Microsoft. Even if you win you are sure to lose....
This is to inform you, gentle moderator, that the parent post is from a person who has trolled Slashdot in the past under the names bonch and Overly Critical Guy. Please, do all of us a favor and don't be taken in by this person's moronic brayings.
Thank you.
This has been a public service announcement.
I have question for anyone a bit more knowledgable on the whole patent-granting process: if you sucesfully apply for a patent does that mean you have the right to let anyone do whatever the hell they want with your patented material? So, theoretically could one apply for a patent just for the sake of ensuring that it remains "open source"? I guess one could always have a change of heart down the line and say "Hey, I think I changed my mind. You bitches better start paying up..." I'm just curious because I envision the scenarios in which someone with more of a open source philosophy invents something innovative and does not patent it, but then someone who emulates the invention goes and patents it themselves. Some may argue that "prior art" attempts to prevent this, but decisions based on prior art can totally be exploited, as the whole concept seems incredibly subjective.
--
Is it me, or did it just get fatter in here?
grandparent post: It's fun to get your panties in a knot about every patent filed by every company, but they are just trying to cover their bases. ...
parent post: Forgot a third choice: Public Domain.
So, in other words you're saying that all the company's bases should be belong to us? For great justice? Main screen turn on! I want to play with public domain videogame technologies!
pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory7
The technique is the same: file an open patent when a technology first appears (even if you didn't originate it) and keep amending it as the technology matures. Then, when enough major players are using/building on the technology, complete the petent application and start sending out 'cease and desist' letters to folks who have been using the technology longer than the new patent holders were aware of it.
The problem is, of course, the totally CORRUPT US Trade and Patent office, who will grant a patent to any corporation for any thing, as long as they willing to pay the $$$.
>>>it makes you wonder if this is the first step for Nintendo to become a major player in the online gaming market
No, it makes me wonder just how in the hell they were granted patents on such obvious aspects of online gaming (already in use for some years now BTW) in the first place!
-Nano.
No shortage of prior art on any of it. At a guess, though, SAIL labs circa 1970s for the voice support and late-1960s MIT for the rest thanks to spacewars. That for the most part predates Nintendo so overturning these shouldn't be a problem.
The only problem with the DUI laws is that they aren't tough enough. I can't count the number of times I've read in the paper about somebody being killed by some jerk who has already been arrested 5-10 times for DUI.
And how on earth did the parent post get modded "insightful"????
It seems to me that since a guy like this has multiple accounts, that he must also get mod points quite frequently and as such moderate up his own accounts with those other accounts.
It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that rd_syringe (or bonch, or Overly Critical Guy or whatever he calls himself this month) has cultivated multiple accounts for just this purpose--to mod up his own posts as "Insightful" or "Interesting" when they're nothing but the same old recycled garbage.
Well, time has proven over and over that you can only fool people for so long before they catch on to you. And you've been found out yet again. Why don't you just give it up?
Wake the fuck up!
... or do you mean the actual laws that reflect an actual crime aren't tough enough, or the sentences aren't tough enough? If it's the latter, I agree with you. There isn't a vehicular law out there that can't already address *any* of the crimes associated with DUI, except for the added-on specific DUI laws. Vehicular manslaughter, driving to endanger, speeding, etc, were all in existence previously, and if they had been vigorously enforced, no DUI "laws" would be necessary. Try to think of any potentialy harmful situation that can't be covered without resorting to DUI itself when it's comes to driving. Impaired driving in any form is just that, adding on "DUI" is just a revenue enhancement for the state. I can't think of any, there appears to be enough laws to cover all the various harmful-like driving situations. Those cases you mention, I would bet there were other actual laws involved besides DUI, take away the DUI, there'd still be enough to charge people for specific driving crimes.
Someone is weaving, swerving around, sliding stop signs, speeding up outrageously then slowing up to absurd slow, etc, all that, more than adequately covered under "driving to endanger". Crashing into something or someone, that's coered under various laws already. Dui= enhanced command and control and revenue for the state, plus get everyone used to "random checkpoints".
I refuse to be conditioned into it, I can see a police state tactic when I see one. I can remember when we didn't have those sorts of things, because they were considered abhorrent to a free people, and they seemed to still have adequate traffic laws. Now if they need to toughen those previous laws, swell, I have no problem with that.
That's the difference.
... dozens and hundreds of posts I have.
"(BTW, if you want to rant, fine. If you want to try to improve things, you should be a little more balanced, and try to offer suggestions for how to make it better.)"
You claim we can change the politicians every few years. Well, I say we can't, those politicians are just puppets and TV script readerts now, because it doesn't matter if we can't change the two cooperating criminal cartels who have hijacked government generations ago and run it as a perpetual jobs market to the almost total exclusion of anyone else. We don't have a government "of the people" we have a corporation that is run by the republican and democratic for-maximum- profit parties. You get an illusion of choice and an illusion of representative government, it doesn't exist in fact. They pass "laws" that say it is OK for them to be...bribed off. All they have to do is call it something other than bribery. They stick their own partisan political appointees into the supposedly non partisan "supreme court". Tell me, when's the last time a truly independent person with no major party affiliation or without personal and extensive international corporate holdings was appointed and confirmed to "judge our laws" that the R's and D's pass? Oh, it never happens, they are always D or R party functionaries?
Sorry, the system is rigged and it's just a large example of corporate monopoly, and I consider it to be an ongoing criminal eneterpise now. And I'm sorry about any still honest people inside government, but it ain't my call, it's the sum total of all their personal efforts that allows this criminal eneterprise to function day after day after year after generation. You either are part of that system,and personally profit from it, or you are a victime of it,and them's the two choices our society has now.
I'm not cynical about it, I am realistic about it. I can look, see, say what I see, and what I see is what I have described, and I have offered alternatives before here, everything from ending the support to the two criminal gangs that conspire to rule over us, to all the way to a new monetary system that isn't counterfeit perpetual slavery debt notes, and all the aspects in between. I'm not going to rehash a lot of that in a single post, it's almost impossible.
As to patents specifically, here ya go --> NO PATENTS FOR INTANGIBLES. That'll fix that pronto. That should be clear enough and simple enough as an alternative. Copyright for an intangible "product", swell, no probs, a PATENT???? No freekin way! You want a "patent" for an original work that consists of symbols electronically recorded on paper somehow, typed up crap! Hey, why don't we patent NOVELS then, it's the same deal? If all it takes is a rearrangment of typed up stuff to call something so new and improved that's it's patentable, then new music, visual art and written art should be patentable as well, as long as it isn't a copy of someone else.
Oh, that would be lame, someone could patent the "murder mystery" or the "three chord rock song", right?
Ya, it WOULD be stupid, and that's exactly why SOFTWARE patents consisting of typed up stuff are stupid. Variations on an intangible theme are NOT innovative enough to be considered for "patenting", IMO. Copyright-OK, go for it if that's what you want.
Just like lawers, politicians have to justify their job as well. Hence, the legal bloat. It will only get worse too.
Life is not for the lazy.
Then : you made a better product or priced others out of the market.
Now : you get a patent which basically outlaws any products that might compete.
The patent is for the entire product, not just for a graphics processor or an input processor. If you actually took the time to read the patent and knew the specs of the Playstation 2, you would know that this is a patent for the architecture of the Playstation 2. The claim doesn't itself patent the creation/use of the graphics processor, the creation/use of the specialized CPU, or even the use of a different CPU for I/O and backwards compatibility. It's the use of all of these different things together.
I'm not trying to validate Sony's patent; in fact, I really don't care if it's valid or not. I'm just trying to set the facts straight so we can all have the correct story.
Once again, that certainly doesn't precede April 1999 (Dreamcast was released in September of 1999).
I do find it kind of silly that people can patent ideas without even a prototype.
Hell, if that kind of bullshit is allowable, I'll patent cold fusion and flying cars right now.
since they have been so free with their admited disdain for all things "online".
A U.S. patent has two complementary reasons for existing: to teach an invention to the public, and to give the inventor a temporary monopoly on that invention in return for teaching it. An invention must be novel and non-obvious to qualify for the monopoly; otherwise, it doesn't teach the public anything that one skilled in the art didn't already know.
Well, the obvious step is for Microsoft to acquire Nintendo next - no problem patent-wise. And Homer might have a thing or two to say about that, methinks
I just played a marathon session of halo... sorry.
-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ *** http://www.mountainfort.com *** +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-
This is to inform you, gentle moderator, that the parent post is from a person who has trolled Slashdot in the past under the names bonch and Overly Critical Guy. Please, do all of us a favor and don't be taken in by this person's moronic brayings.
Thank you.
This has been a public service announcement.
I thought patents were given to things that were not already being done and not obvious.
player league tables
Used by all leagues in existance online especially big ones such as CPL and CAL. Not to mention used by Microsoft on XBox LIVE!
voice communications
XBox communicator and Roger Wilco as well as built in services in many popular games
online gaming host services XBox LIVE!, GameSpy Arcade, etc.
WTF is the patent office thinking these days?
-illumina+us "I put on my robe and wizard hat..."
-truth
I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...
I can tell you that they are LOSING the kid's game market, largely due to the fact they LAG behind in online gaming!
To quote Alanis, isn't it ironic? Nintendo patents a boatload of things they're not even using this generation? And they happen to be things its two competitors are using? Lets see... Mass storage device: Xbox: Check PS2: Optional, but available, check. Voice communications: Xbox: Check, for every online game PS2: Check, for certain online games League Tables: Xbox: Check, with certain games PS2: Certain games, maybe? I think this is why patents are so dangerous. Companies use them to reserve ideas they don't even implement. It's one thing to protect something innovative you came up with, but to try to reserve something obvious, that you're not even going to use in the near future, just to keep it away from everyone else?
Of course explaining it ruins it...
You see, the post I was replying to interpreted The N64 had an add-on device called the 64DD. as a mathematical proof and said it was only true if we limit 'had' to a definition where actual consumers cannot purchase the device. My point '{Japanese Consumers} ==> {Consumers} must be false' simply means that the only way his proof can be correct is if the set of 'consumers' he refers to is not THE set {Consumers} but some subset of it that does not include Japanese consumers.
Which, as someone else pointed out, is silly to exclude the Japanese market from anything console related.
Now excuse me while I shoot myself in the face for being such a fscking geek.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them