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."
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.
Nope. The patent specifically applies to home consoles, not to anything else.
Even as a Nintendo fanboy, I'd call this questionable given Xbox Live, and whatever it is Sony have, but you can't pull them up on trying to patent telephones.
fortune -o
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
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.)