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.
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,
All the patents go to the guys with the weakest online system.
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.
Maybe 100 years ago. This is truly getting ridiculous.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
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
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?
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?
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."
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
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.
...then maybe they should MAKE SOME.
Nothing against Nintendo but I think these kinds of patents are rediculous. Should I be allowed to patent connecting a coffee machine to the internet so you can say good morning to your parents through it? It's just an adaption of pre-existing technology, hardly novel.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
Go ahead and get those silly patents. Then try to use them, and the courts will toss them out.
It really isn't the USPTOs job to weed through prior art and do all that investigative legwork. That would be nearly impossible, they'd need to employ top experts in every scientific and industrial discipline.
No, it's up to your peers to challenge your patents by showing prior art or obviousness to a judge. The problem as I see it, are the financial barriers that keep the small guy out of court, not the USPTO or the notion of patents themselves.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
It really isn't the USPTOs job to weed through prior art and do all that investigative legwork.
No. It is their job, and they're not doing it. The USPTO should be applying at least a tiny level of common sense to these patent applications. Their mandate is to "promote the progress of science", and there's no way a kitchen-sink patent like this could possibly fit that goal. Even IF there were valid "inventions" in there, they'd be separate ideas- not one monstrous conglomeration of "stuff we can converge".
Patents should be about HOW, not WHAT. Arthur C Clarke didn't deserve a patent on the TV relay satellite, because although he was the first to think of it, he couldn't plan it in specific technical detail. Nintendo has done no better. And need I point out that Nintendo filed their patent 5 years ago, but STILL haven't built a machine embodying it (or specific blueprints for that machine).
I understand that patent examiners follow restrictive rules, so that individually they can argue "Not my job". But those rules are made by the USPTO, which is truely shirking it's public responsibility by being too lazy/corporate-friendly.
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.
Quite possibly true with Microsoft, but I would disagree with that statement as applied to IBM (or for that matter any major IT service-oriented company).
The logic being: most IT service/solution oriented companies make their money from support contracts. IBM, Sun, Novell - they all do it. A proper support contract with something like "4 hour response/8 hour fix, 24x365" does Not Come Cheap.
For them, software development is a cost centre rather than a profit centre. If that software development can be partly "outsourced" by open sourcing it and keeping a smaller team of programmers onboard, wonderful! Costs significantly reduced, the main source of income (support contracts) remains more-or-less intact.
True, someone else can offer support for it. But that's already been going on for years - why should it have any significant impact now?
... 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.
Nope. The patent specifically applies to home consoles, not to anything else.
Now, that is going to have interesting consequences. As the latest economy laptops now support advanced texture mapping, they could make an good alternative to buying a console system + wide-screen TV.
It's also hard to believe that Nintendo would attempt to extract royalties from this patent, so it must be an attempt to build up a defensive patent portfolio.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
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 we get a "Bizzarro" category for some of these patent stories? Only in such an alternate world would a patent on these things be granted. I believe voice comm was standard in Half-Life multiplayer in 1998, but please feel free to correct me on that one. Everything else is a logical extension of networked gaming since Quake came with TCP/IP support. I don't care if the patent specifies home gaming consoles. What's the difference? Both PCs and console are computers used to play games.
There needs to be a way to challenge junk patents. The problem is that a single company can't do it alone. I think it's time to look at some type clause whereby a class of potentially effected people can challenge a patent on the grounds that the idea is obvious. We're all going to end up paying when the cost of software developers defending against this nonsense gets worked into the prices of their products. Might as well nip it in the bud.
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
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.)
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....
They're not patenting what they did with the NES, so what they did with the NES has no bearing on their patent's legitimacy.
Not even in the same league. Game consoles run apps that utilize 100% of their power for a fully interactive experience.
Game consoles have operating systems, as do computers. When I run a game on my computer or my game console they both utilize the majority of the processing power of the hardware. Last time I checked a Windows/Linux/Mac OS based computer was also a "fully interactive experience".
Computers run apps of varying capability.
As do game consoles. Have you seen some of the new stuff Sony is doing with that eyeToy? Completely unrelated to gaming, strangely enough. They're launching a video chat service. Oh, wait, but I thought these console things were just for gaming?
So? Nobody has them. Your interface for something like this is a controller. That's what you got. That means when you create an online service, you have to deal with issues like 'how does one find another person's IP address?' Putting a keyboard into the mix is one way of doing it. But if you take the time to actually deal with it sans kb, you've done something innovative.
I use a mouse to find my online servers, can I patent that? And I never see the IP for a lot of games I play online. Hell, I think I've played games online that have allowed me to use my Gravis Gamepad to select servers. Again, how is this anything special? It's not even innovative. It's just a standard input device (gamepad, mouse, keyboard, etc) that allows you to input (hence the name input device). And it doesn't matter if a lot of people don't have keyboards for their consoles. I'm sure there aren't a lot, but I'm sure there are at least several thousand people who do.
Sharing similar internals does not make them the same any more than saying a woman and a man are the same just because they share most of the same organs.
Men and women are actually extremely similar. They're also both humans, just like consoles and personal computers are both computers.
You don't surf the web with consoles, and you don't play Super Mario Sunshine on your PC.
I play games on my computer and I use software that connects over the internet on my console. Just because a certain game or application isn't available on one or the other means nothing.
Honestly, trying to argue with you that game consoles are comptuers is getting a little tiring, because they are computers. It's a specialized computer. There are many different types of specialized computers. Everything from cash registers, to embedded systems that run weather stations, to super computers, to rendering clusters, etc. etc. etc. All of them are computers.
I've just signed legislation that'll outlaw Russia forever. We'll begin bombing in five minutes.