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."
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,
That seems rather interesting, given Nintendo's current online policy.
Is this why Microsoft wants to buy Nintendo, I wonder?
Sony submit "Game system with graphics processor". Wow.
What they've been awarded is an addition to a patent they filed for back in 1999, long before Xbox Live existed.
The thing is that a lot of this technology already existed prior to the patent application in PC online gaming. Nintendo has just patented the same thing on a different technology.
In C++, friends can touch each others private parts.
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
It was filed in 1998 for the 64DD. If they had filed for it in 2004 then I would agree with you.
"voice communications"
I'm sure i remember shouting at my opponents while playing games before.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Nintendo were always a mean, litigious, predatory outfit, some of whose business practices would make Microsoft blush. They had a near-monopoly in the NES days and they used every trick in the book to maintain it as long as they possibly could.
They focused on world domination, and screwed over everyone and everything in their path. The only reason they're not still what they were is that they screwed over Sony on the SNES CD project and Sony screwed them right back.
Do not expect Nintendo to play nice with a patent like this one. They'll sue everything in sight to ensure online dominance for their next console.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
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!
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.
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
I'm at work right now, and my internet access is logged, so I can't provide any links.
The Famicom had a modem that could check stocks, and download some games I believe... it was only released in Japan though I think, and I my memory of it is sort of hazy. It did have some connectivity stuff though, take my word for that.
The American SNES had full online play via a modem, where you could compete with other people. The Japanese Super Famicom had a system where you could download games from a central server.
The N64 had an add-on device called the 64DD. It is for this that the patent in question is being disputed here. It had a modem built into it that could be used for online stuff. I believe that only one 64DD game actually used it though.
GameCube has an expansion slot that can be fitted with either a broadband adaptor or 56k modem.
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.)