Slashdot Mirror
PlayStation Sales Halted?
Narf Narf writes "According to Japan Today, the U.S. District Court in Oakland, California, has ordered Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. and its U.S. unit to pay $90.7 million in damages to Immersion Corp. for patent infringement over controllers used with PlayStation game consoles. In the ruling handed down Thursday, the federal court also ordered Sony Computer Entertainment and Sony Entertainment America Inc. to stop selling the PlayStation and PlayStation 2 game consoles using Dualshock controllers as well as more than 40 game software products." Update: 03/28 04:51 GMT by Z : ...which was followed immediately by an injunction, to allow Sony time for an appeal, and a compulsory licensing agreement.
Seeing as how the PlayStation 3 will most likely be backwards compatible with the earlier two and that it should be fairly late in the development stage, couldn't this have a fairly wide reaching effect on the PS3?
Forgive my saying so, but that's the wackiest thing I've ever heard. I like the idea of patenting inventions alright (I myself have some designs I would like to patent), but I would dearly like to see patents for things that would make one go "Wow! I would never have thought to do it that way" or "Damn! She must've spent months coming up with that design".
There's nothing about the PS/PS2's controller design that would make me think "Patent!"
Also, patenet claims SHOULD also include proof that the design wasn't come upon independently and without using any of the claimers work. Patents are supposed to protect against unfair use of one's hard work and effort. If it's their own, it doesn't matter which came first.
Idiots.
Just wait for the flood of stories that the video game industry is doomed if Sony can't sell their consoles. I wonder how many game companies will cite this court action for why they can't make money in their stock filings and/or can't treat their slaves... uh, workers... better.
:)
On the flipside, if this allows Nintendo to get their foothold onto the market at Sony's expense, I wouldn't mind.
Perhaps that's exactly what SCO was thinking. IBM and Sony know better - succumb to blackmail once and you're an instant target for others...
That seemed to actually be the goal of Immersion, according to a family member who worked there until recently. They do make some cool stuff such as some really nice force feedback instruments for medical applications, but it seemed like they were horribly mismanaged and simply looking to last long enough to get their money out of SCE and MS and then run.
Well hopefully it will be thrown out as well. If I remember correctly, Sony doesn't have to pay a dime as long as there is an appeal pending.
Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it
Yes well that might be true, but then why didn't they tell Sony about this at the beginning, I'm sure they would have made more money by getting Sony to license the technology from them instead of through a lawsuit.
Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it
Whoa! How come this wasn't on the news. You guys think this source is legit? This is quite a huge news story, but I just havn't come across it anywhere else. This looks like a job for http://www.picsorstfu.com/ Hehe, just kidding around, but I would feel more comforted if the post was from a well-known news source.
While $90.7M (US) isn't chump change it less than buying Immersion out.
That doesn't even take into account the mood of the Immersion investors. With licensing deals (either patent or SDK) in place with Microsoft, Nintendo, Logitech, and any other FF peripheral maker out there the investors might be more interested in a long term investment, not a quick buck. Sony's going to have to license Immersion's stuff, as they won't hamstring themselves in the marketplace without a FF controller, so there's more money for the IMMR investors after the $90.7M Sony judgement. I would be surprise if Sony didn't do due diligence and investigate buying IMMR. It just doesn't seem as if it would've worked for them, though.
Wow. I've always been against software patents, in much the same way I am against music, art, literature, and poem patents. (If you are paranoid people might steal your precious IP: there's always copyright for that.)
But now we begin to see examples of braindead hardware patents, as well. People: it's a GAME CONTROLLER! *Nothing* in it is rocket science.
Some things about humans:
* they are creative
* that means they might invent something
* more than one person might come up with the same idea, independently
* usually that's fun, so people will invent, even without incentives (like patents)
* there is nothing that justifies that just because I come up with an idea first, everyone else should be forbidden to use that some idea without paying me royalties
So why do we have patents at all? Innovating is fun; innovating pays, even if other companies clone your product. Quit the patent nonsense; abolish the very concept!
(Besides it goes against the very principles of liberalism, the core of most Western societies! Me gaining a monopoly on an idea infringes on another human's freedom to express and implement his/her own ideas.)
That may very well be true, but I recall that this technology was around LONG BEFORE the [PS2] console arrived.
Perhaps, but the earlier of these two patents was filed May 1, 2000. That was the same year the PS2 came out (March for Japan, October for US) and the PS1 had a Dual Shock controller long before that. I am surprised these patents can even apply.
Who said Freedom was Fair?
I eventually take apart every toy I get. I've taken apart dozzens of game controllers, and the first time I opened up a vibrating controller, I saw something I'd seen before. A cheap little DC motor with an unbalanced weight on the rotor. The first time I'd seen this was in the Milton Bradley board game, Operation. The little motor did a pretty good job of making an "electric shock" noise, and the vibration discouraged you from bracing the palm of your hand or other hand on the board while plucking the little bones out. http://www.hasbro.com/operation/
Yes, unfortunately the source is correct.
m ?CompanyID=IMMR&CIK=1058811&FID=950134-05-4791&SID =05-00
Take a look at this SEC filling (found it doing a quick google search for "History of Immersion Corp")
http://immr.client.shareholder.com/EdgarDetail.cf
Heres the most relevent section I could find (IANAL)
OUR CURRENT LITIGATION AGAINST SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AND OTHERS IS EXPENSIVE, DISRUPTIVE, AND TIME CONSUMING, AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE, UNTIL RESOLVED, AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER WE ARE ULTIMATELY SUCCESSFUL, COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT OUR BUSINESS.
On February 11, 2002, we filed a complaint against Microsoft Corporation, Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc., and Sony Computer Entertainment of America, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District Court of California alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,889,672 and 6,275,213. The case was assigned to United States District Judge Claudia Wilken. On April 4, 2002, Sony Computer Entertainment and Microsoft answered the complaint by denying the material allegations and alleging counterclaims seeking a judicial declaration that the asserted patents were invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed. Under the counterclaims, the defendants are also seeking damages for attorneys' fees. On October 8, 2002, we filed an amended complaint, withdrawing the claim under the U.S. Patent No. 5,899,672 and adding claims under a new patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,424,333.
On July 28, 2003, we announced that we had settled our legal differences with Microsoft, and we and Microsoft agreed to dismiss all claims and counterclaims relating to this matter as well as assume financial responsibility for our respective legal costs with respect to the lawsuit between Immersion and Microsoft.
On August 16, 2004, the trial against Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. and Sony Computer Entertainment of America, Inc. ("Sony Computer Entertainment") commenced. On September 21, 2004, the jury returned its verdict in favor of Immersion. The jury found all the asserted claims of the patents valid and infringed. The jury awarded Immersion damages in the amount of $82.0 million. On December 10, 2004, the Court held a hearing on post-trial motions relating to the jury's decision, and Immersion's request for a permanent injunction and other relief that may be appropriate. On January 5 and 6, 2005, the Court also held a bench trial on Defendants' remaining allegations that the '333 patent was not enforceable due to alleged inequitable conduct. The Court has taken the matter under submission. On January 10, 2005, the Court issued a written order ruling on the motions heard December 10, 2004. The Court denied the parties' requests for judgment as a matter of law on various issues. The Court awarded Immersion prejudgment interest on the damages the jury awarded at the applicable prime rate. The Court further ordered Sony Computer Entertainment to pay Immersion a compulsory license fee at the rate of 1.37%, the ratio of the verdict amount to the amount of sales of infringing products, effective as of July 1,
When was this patent granted and would all those "force feedback" effects in various arcade cabinets (e.g. Outrun I know had it) count as prior art or a violation (depending on when the patent was granted)?
Xbox and GC both have force feedback in their controllers (not counting the wavebird). Why aren't they in trouble as well? The article was extremely light on details, does anybody have more info?
That variable speed motors existed is irrelevant, where they used in controllers under software control prior to 1994 would be the question. Silicon was known before the transistor as well, but I think all but a few would say that the transistor did not deserve a patent!
Didn't MS produce a vibrating joystick, with different levels of control back in 1998 or so?
It's business that controls everything, big business. It's ignorant suits with an MBA, not people that have worked 8-10 years on a law degree, that you should be afraid of.
But the suits have been VERY effective at convincing dipshits like you that lawyers and doctors, and other highly educated people are to blame.
When was this patent taken out?
I remember a lot of old arcade driving games that had force-feedback on steering wheels, if the patent was taken out after they came out then that'd be pretty good prior art I'd think.
Also of course for a long time on aeroplanes the control stick used to have a shaker to warn pilots of a stall, I guess that'd probably count as prior art too.
It seems like Immersion definitely thought this out though. Ohhh... let's wait until they sell millions of these things before we sue them. Then we'll make millions on something we knew about long ago. Maybe there should be some kind of law against that.
Nintendo is not a licensee of Immersion, and as far as I can gather they are not going to be because their rumble controllers do not work the same way as Microsoft's and Sony's. Nintendo is using independently developed technology that does not seem to be covered by Immersion's patents and in fact as far as I can tell predates it.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I have to agree with you on that one. XboX controllers pretty much suck the big one. Every time I pick it up I feel like I'm holding a fisher price remote control for a 5 dollar toy.
I typically don't play XboX but when I do I try to use the Logitech controllers for it.
Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
Wow, I suspect Immersion is doing some anonymous "advertising," because on every major site that discusses this verdict there's always a post from a user who's only ever made one post that's very well-worded and praises Immersion from on high about their sensitive vibration technology.
Immersion technology may well be a darned cool thing, but this kind of pandering is absolutely sickening. Its just like the whole Microsoft "grass roots" campain from a few years ago, where all the letters sent were penned, essentially, by Microsoft.
*sigh* If Immersion's so darned paranoid about the hostile feelings this case is sowing against them why don't they do a little PROPER PR instead of having lackies post in forums like these. Shouldn't those posts they've seeded contain official disclaimers or something?
the difference here, though, is that Budweiser *SHOULD* be ordered to stop selling colored water.
grey wolf
LET FORTRAN DIE!
I'm not a big wallstreet kinda guy, so go easy on me. I have a question:
Couldn't they have only bought 51% of the voting shares, and then drop the lawsuit?
Lets see now. The patents were filed for, not awarded, but filed, in April 2001, and May 2000.
Sony started selling their dualshock analong controllers in April of 1998. Legitimate or not, Sony was selling these "infringing" devices 2 years before the other company even applied for a patent on them.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Luckily I bought my ps2 and katamari damacy 3 weeks ago.
"Yes but take a look at all the other toys out there such as joy sticks that have this fine control. I ahve a logeth force feedback stearing weel and there force feedback stearing weel. The idea of controling the vibration to a fine degree is nothing new at all"
Seeing as how the patent goes back to 93, are you sure you can continue saying "nothing new"? Do you know for sure that Logitech didn't license the technology?
"Derp de derp."
Doesn't Patent Law deal specifically with different uses for technology? The fact that someone created a rumble device in this manner, it doesn't matter if the same thing has powered vibrators since the 1950's. The idea is that the patent is for this technology for use inside a video game console controller. I.E. N64 Rumble Pack was outside of the controller, so doesn't count... cell phones and pagers don't count (Though if N-Gage vibrates to games, then it might).
Feasably, somebody could patent a home video game console with a built in LCD screen and it wouldn't infringe on any past patents for Gameboy/PSP like technology.
Besides, Immersion tried to get Sony to license it, Sony refused, Sony got bitten.
Notice, they can still sell the console, but they do have to start saving up a royalty for every console sold from now on. Sure, they can delay this 10 years, but if they lose, they'd prolly have to pay interest from the start of the case, the original judgement, and licensing fees for the next 10 years on every PS2 sold.
Some have expressed, stretchingly, that the issue is more than simply a vibrating console controller. I disagree; it IS simply a vibrating console controller. God forbid someone decide to put a variable capacitator on the electronic motor.
No matter how far you dig, there is nothing patentable about a PlayStation 2 controller. At least, how I envision patents. I feel that no idea that is inevitable should be granted a patent.
For instance. A steering wheel for a car. A fitting analogy to some claims that the Immersion issue is more than a simply "on/off" vibration feedback, one might say that Power Steering would then warrunt a patent. I say no. Anyone who has every driven a car without power steering, or had their power steering faulter, could see how apparent such an idea would be had the "technology" not been developed. I'm as certain as the sun will rise tomorrow, that the first person to drive a Model-T off the line was wondering if there was a way to make the steering easier. So, I feel that power steering is an obvious invention, and as such, the vibrating game console controller to further immerse the player into the game.
But even a day is too long, so it hasn't been completely stamped out yet. (And won't be, at least until we're all off the planet and the control freaks can inherit the Earth from the meek.)
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Granted, prior art is a lot easier to prove, but more patents fail the "obviousness" test than the prior art test. The problem with the patent system is that they seem to have forgotten that patentability is not merely "is there prior art?" but "is it useful, novel, and unobvious to those skilled in the art?" Yes, two of those three are subjective, but those are the more imporant of the two in my opinion.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Well, that pretty much confirms it's a scam. The game is to file a vague patent application, continue it by incorporating actual technologies brought into use between the two applications, and use the old application to establish priority.
If it was a scam, wouldn't you think that a good set of lawyers would be able to litigate out that point? Wouldn't you say that Sony might have some of the best damn lawyers in the whole world on the payroll?
Face it, if it was a scam, then Sony would have been able to prove it with their unlimited funding for their all-powerful lawyers. They couldn't. So therefore, it wasn't a scam.
All we ever see is giant corporations abusing patents against other corporations. When a smaller business gets infringed by a global, unlimited funds company that is trying to stay ahead of innovation and still make a quarterly report that has enourmous expectations, then you call foul?
Not the best call there my friend.
I for one, don't call bullocks on this one.
i do not know all of the details but a quick read says that "secrets were stolen when person x sat on the board of company y, then moved to company z and used those secrets to create a new product."
different here.
this was a submarine patent.
PURE BS
I'm in engineering, EVERY ENGINEER on the planet should understand how to make something vibrate.
I'll even go ask my 65 year old prof! i'll bet hes never used a ps2, but im damned sure he could say how to do it.
Check journal for info on Anti-TextBook, an idea by me.
A continuation application as opposed to a continuation in part application can not change what is disclosed. It normally (especially after the law changed in 1995) works not to the benefit of the patent holder, in that the term stays the same (20 years from the earliest date cited). It normally is used because the patent office has nnot fully understood what is being claimed or that the claims must either be narrowed or clarified to convince the patent examiner.
http://www.klov.com/game_detail.php?letter=H&game_ id=8072
This good enough for you? The force feedback was primitive but you could feel changes in resistance when turning corners, steering would get soggier when leaving the track. I remember wasting loads of time on this when I was a kid. The date says 1989 but I am sure they were around earlier than that in the UK.
Yeah...I know that Japan isn't in the E.U. That is why I mentioned dollars, euros and yen.
But I was thinking of this as a WORLD-WIDE phenomenon.
The point I was trying to make, was that courts around the world might start to find companies of other nationalities guilty of 'something.' And then slap them with a major fine- hurting the foreign company, and helping their own economy.
No reason to lie.
Japan holds over $800 billion of US dollars in reserves. China has about $200 billion. That's 10% of the US GDP. They switch and the US might just see some significant inflation and problems in the bond market.
Ok, this is a part of patent law that wasn't covered in technology law in college.
So the patent holder can file a "continuation," which has an effective date of the original filing? If something fell within the scope of the original filing, why would someone need to continue it? If some thing didn't fall within the scope of the original filing, why would you allow a "continuation" with the original date?
The original patent, or one of them, 5,734,373, appears to cover putting a microprocessor into a joystick to offload the feedback processing requirement, and that the feedback must be along one of the axis of control of said joystick. It also mentions direction parameters as one of the terms of the claims seciton. As the dual-shock provides no direct feedback, I fail to see how this would apply.
But details of this aside, what must be present to qualify as a "continuation" of a previous patent? What must be present for, say, a directional resistance-based force feedback joystick in 1995 to suddenly become a vibration-based joystickless feedback mechanism in 2004?
P.S. There is no part of this that doesn't sound like the patent system needs reform badly.
The ______ Agenda