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
s/player/litigator/g
Trolling is a art,
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?
The difference here is that SCO did not invent Linux. Every single one of Nintendo's consoles (even the Famicom) has been online in some form or another.
Is Nintendo really threatened on the market? I thought they still had most of the kid gaming market
due to their popular franchises around the Mario character, and so far, i didn't see any development by Sony or Microsoft to really threaten this dominance.
Anyway, i can understand why they file such patents. If they don't, they get exposed to another company filing them later. Though they suck, the IP laws exist, and a business has no other choice than to play according to those rules...
This post is awesome.
Maybe these are just the product of one IP lawyer to many. Perhaps they have a staff of 30 IP lawyers and they really only need 26. 4 guys are sitting around going "We're going to be fired, we have to invent some work" but maybe they're lazy. Wallah- patent some prior art and look like the almost hero. If they pull it off they may be up for a promotion, or a free gameboy...
I boycott signatures
I understand how the law works here, I'm just really at a loss for WHY?
Shouldn't there be or isn't there something that prevents companies from keeping hold on these patents after other companies have already used the ideas heavily without any litigation? Much like trademarks?
you know, I was going to use some mod points on this discussion, but I had to take notice to your comment.
All the patents go to the guys with the weakest online system.
The Cube has the fewest number of online titles, to be sure. But the system itself? It is at least orders of magnitude better than the XBox, which requires going through XBox Live! to play online (legally speaking of course). The Cube online system is actually the most open system available, the lack of publisher support for it may make it appear that the system itself is weak -- support from publishers in the form of compelling titles is what is really lacking.
For example: if a large number of XBox developers wanted to provide their own gaming network... guess what -- they can't. XBox Live! only.
There's actually nothing stopping you or me from developing our own Cube online gaming network and working with publishers to use this network.
MORTAR COMBAT!
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.
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.)