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.

410 of 581 comments (clear)

  1. Order Stayed by Ken@WearableTech · · Score: 4, Informative

    I believe that the judge's order has been stayed and PS2's can be sold. More Bad News for Sony

    1. Re:Order Stayed by Neruocomp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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
  2. Greed at work? by sanityspeech · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Would it not have been easier for Sony to acquire the [Immersion Corp.] company before this mess happened?

    from the you'd-think-they'd-have-thought-that-through dept.

    You can say that again.

    1. Re:Greed at work? by hendridm · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Would it not have been easier for Sony to acquire the [Immersion Corp.] company before this mess happened?

      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...

    2. Re:Greed at work? by confidential · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Greed at work? by Quarters · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Immersion (IMMR) has 23.72 million shares outstanding with a current share price of $5.75. If Sony had wanted to acquire Immersion they would've had to offer at least Immersions current market cap of $136.39M (US). That's assuming they wanted to buy Immersion *now*. A year ago the price would've been closer to $230M, as the share price was up around $10 in Q1 of 2004.

      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.

    4. Re:Greed at work? by jaaron · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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?
    5. Re:Greed at work? by lightknight · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, the Dual-Shock playstation (have the original, the dual, and the PS2). But according to the article, the Dual-Shock was also found to be infringing, not just the PS2.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    6. Re:Greed at work? by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    7. Re:Greed at work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Please note the language in the patent:"This is a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/066,608 filed Apr. 24, 1998, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,088,017 which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08,565,102 filed Nov. 30, 1995, abandoned.

    8. Re:Greed at work? by EulerX07 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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?

    9. Re:Greed at work? by russotto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:Greed at work? by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      What does "chump change" mean?

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    11. Re:Greed at work? by damsa · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's called laches and it's an affirmative defense. http://www.lectlaw.com/def/l056.htm

    12. Re:Greed at work? by Thing+1 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      That's known as a submarine patent, and they were invalidated some time ago (a few years, I think): patents are now granted at the date of first filing, not the date of granting, so if a company uses a submarine technique over the course of 10 years, then they'll only have 7 years to fuck the rest of with.

      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.
    13. Re:Greed at work? by El+Camino+SS · · Score: 4, Interesting


      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.

    14. Re:Greed at work? by Quarters · · Score: 1

      An amount of money so small that you don't worry about it. Like "petty cash".

    15. Re:Greed at work? by mysticwhiskey · · Score: 1
      I for one, don't call bullocks on this one.

      Awww, it would have been fun to watch the lawyers being chased by bulls.

      --

      Stuck down a hole! In the middle of the night! With an owl!

    16. Re:Greed at work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      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.

    17. Re:Greed at work? by jimi+the+hippie · · Score: 1

      HAHAHAHAHAHA. Thanks for the great laugh. Had to read it twice to make sure I read it correctly.

    18. Re:Greed at work? by MadChicken · · Score: 1

      Hmm. Maybe the Aibo hack site one worked, seems to me the VCRs one failed, Bleem rings a bell, now this...

      Are Sony's lawyers really all that good? They seem to be on some kind of a losing streak.

      --
      SYS 64738 NO CARRIER
    19. Re:Greed at work? by Elranzer · · Score: 1

      Sony vs Betamax huh? Does that mean that Sony sued themselves? Cuz they owned Betamax, you know.

    20. Re:Greed at work? by slthytove · · Score: 1

      The case was Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios. As another poster pointed out, Sony owned the Betamax. They were sued by Universal. http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/betamax/

    21. Re:Greed at work? by beardz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.


      So, going on that logic, how come IBM haven't been able to litigate their way out of the SCO scam? (And yes, I'm fully aware that SCO v IBM isn't a patent case.) I daresay IBM's legal team is on a par, if not better than Sony's, and SCO's claims are far more insubstantial than Immersion's.

    22. Re:Greed at work? by justin12345 · · Score: 1

      The real question is: Why didn't Microsoft buy Immersion and then sue Sony? $230 is nothing to them, but the ability to severely hamper a competitor is priceless.

      Then again, MS has been relatively benign of late (except with regards to OS competition).

      --
      Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
    23. Re:Greed at work? by LarsG · · Score: 1

      Sony was also the one that sued in the "Sony vs. Betamax" case and tried to use IP to stop VCRs.

      Sony vs Universal et. al.? That was Hollywood trying to outlaw the 'Rec' button on video machines.

      --
      If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
    24. Re:Greed at work? by idlake · · Score: 4, Informative

      If it was a scam, wouldn't you think that a good set of lawyers would be able to litigate out that point?

      No, you wouldn't. The patent system has genuine holes in it that allow companies to abuse it, and there is not a damned thing even the smartest lawyer can do about it.

      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?

      Well, I think what one calls it should depend on the details of the patent. I don't know the details of this patent, but I do know that this company did not invent force feedback, not even in game controllers. So, the question is: can you make a good argument for why their patent should be valid? What is the actual novelty contained in their patent? Those are, in fact, I think the first questions we should ask when a patent gets litigated; it's an unfortunate error in our patent system that patents are automatically presumed valid and enforceable when granted.

    25. Re:Greed at work? by Silentnite · · Score: 1

      Isn't "Petty Cash" what prostitutes ask for??

    26. Re:Greed at work? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Yep. Sony Pictures vs. Sony Home Electronics or something. Their departments are so separate they sue each other.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    27. Re:Greed at work? by Zakabog · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't say I'm an expert on the subject, but don't you just need to have the majority of shares to own a corporation? So wouldn't Sony have to have 51% of Immersion (or at least the highest percentage of ownership.) So wouldn't that be half of $136.39M? Which is cheaper than what they're being forced to pay.

      Anyway, I'm probably wrong, and if I am please correct me, I never fully understood the whole stock market thing and buying out corporations and all that stuff.

    28. Re:Greed at work? by Andy_R · · Score: 3, Informative

      To buy 51% of a company, you need 51% of the shareholders to be willing to sell to you. The share price quoted on the stock exchange is actually the price of a very small percentage of a company's shares, those that people are currently trying to sell.

      The other people will only sell their shares when they are happy with the price offered, they are under no obligation to sell at the stock exchange price.

      As soon as it becomes clear that someone is trying to buy a large number of shares, supply and demand kicks in, and the price starts to rise, and everyone becomes a lot less keen to sell, since they now own an investment that is rapidly increasing in value, which makes it very, very expensive to purchase a company this way.

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    29. Re:Greed at work? by Lonath · · Score: 1

      which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08,565,102 filed Nov. 30, 1995, abandoned.

      Hmm...so the system needs to be reformed so that once a patent application is abandoned, the ideas in it are public domain. (Unless an independent person/group had started patenting similar things BEFORE the patent was ever released for public scrutiny.)

    30. Re:Greed at work? by sjf · · Score: 1

      The problem is that SEC rules forbid from offering a deal to 51% of the shareholders and not the remaining 49%. This is a basic protection to the smaller shareholder: without this protection, all the small shareholders become irrelevant and their shares intrinsically less valuable that those belonging to the large (likely institutional) shareholders.

    31. Re:Greed at work? by chrish · · Score: 1

      Isn't that what they teach you in MBA school? Grab your bonuses at any cost, then run to the next company before the consequences of your actions are felt?

      Or am I just being cynical again?

      --
      - chrish
    32. Re:Greed at work? by greed · · Score: 2, Funny

      Of course I'm at work, why else would I be reading slashdot?

    33. Re:Greed at work? by TommydCat · · Score: 1
      how come IBM haven't been able to litigate their way out of the SCO scam?

      Because IBM isn't out to win the suit so much as to completely obliterate SCO. Time is definitely on IBM's side, not SCO's as legal expenses scurry off into dark places and procreate.

      --
      This comment does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the author.
    34. Re:Greed at work? by innerweb · · Score: 1
      Not all scams are illegal.

      InnerWeb

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
  3. Well.... by methangel · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does this mean that vibrators are now infringing on their patent? They vibrate, and they are used in various games I play.

    Muaha.

    1. Re:Well.... by O-SUSHi · · Score: 5, Funny

      I can only assume because you're on /., that these 'games' you speak of are single player.

      --
      Remember children, all generalizations are wrong.
    2. Re:Well.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      If not, can I join in?

    3. Re:Well.... by djkoolaide · · Score: 1, Funny

      But that would mean that methangel is a girl.

      There are no girls on teh intarweb! :P

    4. Re:Well.... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sure. They let YOU in... then others are gonna want in... and so on. Look - not everyone likes the Massively Multiplayer genre despite what you might see on the 'net.

    5. Re:Well.... by C0rinthian · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes there are! And all their names end in ".jpg" or ".gif"

  4. Stop selling the PS1 and PS2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yeah I bet that was a Dualshock.

  5. #1 Reason to Settle by Phoenixhunter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not sure if this was because of too much confidence on Sony's end, but generally this would be the perfect example of a case worth settling out of court.

  6. Will it effect PS3? by chrispyman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Will it effect PS3? by DrSkwid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think removing a motor with a bit of lead attached will break any games

      I can't think of a title where the vibration is necessary for the gameplay.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    2. Re:Will it effect PS3? by skyman8081 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Metal Gear Solid, (The first one).

      Granted it isn't really neccesary, but it does help immerse you in the game.

      --
      Two Roommates and a Boyfriend, updates Monday, Wednesday, and Friday
    3. Re:Will it effect PS3? by ThousandStars · · Score: 1

      That depends on whether you're this guy, especially given one of the responses to his post.

    4. Re:Will it effect PS3? by DeadScreenSky · · Score: 1

      Vibration is just as necessary in certain games (Amplitude uses it to inform the player what the beat is) as visual indicators are. Sure you could get rid of it if you wanted to, but it is a vital part of gameplay for many genres (in particular racing and music games off the top of my head).

      --
      There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
    5. Re:Will it effect PS3? by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      REZ.

      Absolutely fuck-all use without vibration.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    6. Re:Will it effect PS3? by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 1

      As it's been about ten years since I played that game, could you remind me again what the vibration function was used for? I remember at some point putting the controller on the floor and it was 'magically moved' or something similar but beyond that pointless gimmick I can't remember.

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    7. Re:Will it effect PS3? by bani · · Score: 1

      i found the use of shock mode annoying in MGS and disabled it almost immediately.

      in fact i disable shock mode in all the games i play because it's more annoying than anything else.

    8. Re:Will it effect PS3? by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

      Lockpicking in various games, stuff like that, also fishing in fable (although not PS2...).

      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    9. Re:Will it effect PS3? by jimi+the+hippie · · Score: 1

      That "guy" is a she. Those are responses to HER post.

    10. Re:Will it effect PS3? by LordPhantom · · Score: 1

      The remake of Lesiure Suit Larry???? Just wouldn't be the same without the vibrating controllers!

    11. Re:Will it effect PS3? by jimi+the+hippie · · Score: 1

      /me Thinks more about your statement.

      THAT IS SICK. BAD MAN BAD MAN.

    12. Re:Will it effect PS3? by xSauronx · · Score: 1

      Personally i've found vibrating controllers to be annoying as hell. It's bad enough to have a brother or friend smacking your controller to distract me while I play, it's worse when the controller does it by itself. I've never once enjoyed it in a game.

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    13. Re:Will it effect PS3? by The+Barking+Dog · · Score: 1

      It was used for the sniping sequences to give you an idea of your heartbeat, and the shaking would subside when you took the diazapan. There was also something with the vibration when you faced the invisible boss in the library.

  7. Downright Stupid by RichiP · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Downright Stupid by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Also, patenet claims SHOULD also include proof that the design wasn't come upon independently and without using any of the claimers work.

      And how do you propose this proof should work? That boils down to a he said/she said situation unless there's some blatant copying going on.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    2. Re:Downright Stupid by Pendersempai · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Also, patenet claims SHOULD also include proof that the design wasn't come upon independently and without using any of the claimers work."

      You realize, don't you, that this would be nigh impossible to prove except in the most contrived of examples? You can't prove that someone else did not think of something. If you're in favor of just dismantling patent law altogether, since that's what your proposal would do, then just say so.

    3. Re:Downright Stupid by rebelcool · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A controller that vibrates isn't exactly a logical thing. Sure, many things that seem obvious NOW were at one time clever inspiration on the part of people, which then had to undertake considerable time and expense to bring to market.

      It's one thing to even think of something, and its a whole other to design and ramp up a feasible way of manufacturing and selling such an invention.

      The patent is completely valid and numerous manufacturers have licensed it for their use. Sony should've settled out of court.

      --

      -

    4. Re:Downright Stupid by mark-t · · Score: 3, Informative
      Independant invention won't protect something from a patent dispute. If person A patents a technology that person B independantly also invents, then B will have to arrange licensing with A before he can do anything with it.

      That's the way the patent system works. That's the way it was _designed_ to work.

    5. Re:Downright Stupid by Solr_Flare · · Score: 1

      Honestly, if the Sony dual shocks could ever be accused of ripping off a design, it would be Nintendo's controllers.

      The basic button layout has remained unchanged from the original playstation controller design. This layout is an exact copy of the SNES controller with different button shapes and two more buttons on top.

      This makes sense, of course, since the playstation started its life originally being intended to be a CD add on to Nintendo's snes in the first place.

      Likewise, Sony only added the rumble and analog sticks to its controller in response to Nintendo's single analog stick and rumble pack for the n64.

      Anyway, silly case, silly ruling but it isn't like copying designs is anything new in the gaming industry. Although this case could start a precident for a whole host of lawsuits.

      --
      You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
    6. Re:Downright Stupid by carl0ski · · Score: 1
      Honestly, if the Sony dual shocks could ever be accused of ripping off a design, it would be Nintendo's controllers. The basic button layout has remained unchanged from the original playstation controller design. This layout is an exact copy of the SNES controller with different button shapes and two more buttons on top. This makes sense, of course, since the playstation started its life originally being intended to be a CD add on to Nintendo's snes in the first place. Likewise, Sony only added the rumble and analog sticks to its controller in response to Nintendo's single analog stick and rumble pack for the n64. Anyway, silly case, silly ruling but it isn't like copying designs is anything new in the gaming industry. Although this case could start a precident for a whole host of lawsuits. [ Reply to This ]

      there is logic to all this insanity did you notice the rf (tv adaptor socket is also the same in Playstation and supernintendo and the Parallel port also?
      wanna know why?
      ever heard of the mega cd console? basically it was a 32 bit cd based addon to the Sega megadrive, to compete with Panasonic 3do and get a jump on Nintendo. Nintendo Contracted Sony to Build a similar machine for the super nintendo to compete in the market.
      When Panasonic and Sega s products failed Nintendo jumped ship and left Sony with a half finished product they invested time and money in.
      sony were given rights to certain things in the super nintendo as part of the deal
      Sony decided to invest more time and money investigation and bought several game companies to make a large as possible library of 3d games.

      and stiill today is punishing Nindendo for screwing them
    7. Re:Downright Stupid by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A controller that vibrates isn't exactly a logical thing.

      Sure it is.

      It's pretty much a degnerate case of a force feedback controller, which is something that has been in development for ages. It's an idea that's obvious to anyone even remotely clueful in this area.


      The patent is completely valid and numerous manufacturers have licensed it for their use.

      You know this how?
      Besides being an obvious idea, and therefore non-patentable there are tons of other reasons this patent could be ruled invaild.

      Here's a link showing prior art in 1985.

      Sony should be able to fill the courtroom with examples of force feedback/vibration prior to the filing date of this patent. It should be easy to show that vibrating controllers came about from a simple evolution of designs that were already out there, showing no real "invention" just the packing of pre-existing technology in an obvious package.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    8. Re:Downright Stupid by rebelcool · · Score: 1

      You're using a lot of logical leaps to get from "natural sensation of steering wheel vibrates when i hit a bump" to "electronic simulation in generic video game controller complete with design and implementation"

      Here's a clue on whats not obvious: something needing logical leaps.

      --

      -

    9. Re:Downright Stupid by TheDread · · Score: 1

      From reading the article in the posted link in the parent it is obvious that Immersion did own most of the so called prior art thus negating the argument. AFIK The suit against sony was based on newer patents of updated technologies developed by immersion and licensed by almost all of the other counsole and third party add-on manufactures.

      --
      "Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup."
    10. Re:Downright Stupid by theLOUDroom · · Score: 2, Informative

      From reading the article in the posted link in the parent it is obvious that Immersion did own most of the so called prior art thus negating the argument.

      It doesn't matter who owns the prior art.
      If it did, it would be trivial to have a neverending patent on a device, all you'd have to do is make a trivial change and re-patent it every ten years. You'd always own the prior art.

      The suit against sony was based on newer patents of updated technologies developed by immersion and licensed by almost all of the other counsole and third party add-on manufactures.

      A. If the "updating" is obvious, it's not patentable.
      B. Liscensing on its own doesn't really say much about the validity of a patent. See my previous post in the thread regarding this.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    11. Re:Downright Stupid by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Sony should be able to fill the courtroom with examples of force feedback/vibration prior to the filing date of this patent.

      They're a multi-billion dollar international company. I'm sure that they had a competent lawyer, who attempted to get the patent ruled invalid.

    12. Re:Downright Stupid by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 3, Informative

      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".

      That is the nonobviousness requirement, more or less. Basically, to be patentable, an invention must not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time it was made. Obviously, inventions that are obvious in hindsight might still be patentable.

      Oh, and the degree of labor is irrelevant; who actually cares if someone comes up with an invention after months or years of labor, or in a single flash of insight?

      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.

      This is completely wrong. It doesn't matter whether someone independently invents something; it can still infringe. Patents are broad that way. Plus, given that they're all disclosed in publicly viewable records, it's not the fault of the inventor if you didn't look through them to see what had been invented and patented already.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    13. Re:Downright Stupid by aussie_a · · Score: 2, Interesting

      B. Liscensing on its own doesn't really say much about the validity of a patent. See my previous post in the thread regarding this.

      No, but once you add in winning a lawsuit (which Immersion has done) it sure helps.

    14. Re:Downright Stupid by JeremyALogan · · Score: 1

      Well... what I'm left questioning isn't the validity of the patent but why they haven't enforced it until now. Dual Shock controllers are far from new. How long do you have to protect your patent before you're deemed as allowing free use?

    15. Re:Downright Stupid by rhuntley12 · · Score: 1

      I remember thinking how cool it would be back when I used to play on my Nintendo. Makes me wish I was old enough to think to patent that.

    16. Re:Downright Stupid by theLOUDroom · · Score: 3, Funny

      They're a multi-billion dollar international company. I'm sure that they had a competent lawyer, who attempted to get the patent ruled invalid.

      You would think so, but these are the same guys who came up with memory stick.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    17. Re:Downright Stupid by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Except that god-awful idea of labelling the buttons with symbols. For some reason my brain cannot grasp the concept of where the circle button, or the triangle button is supposed to be in physical space.

      Sure Nintendo has it's problems by using reverse alphabetical order, but once you figure that out, at least it's somewhat logical. For some reason it's easier for my brain to think of where A is, then where circle is.

      Don't even get me started on the buttons activated by pushing on the joysticks.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    18. Re:Downright Stupid by carl0ski · · Score: 1

      Except that god-awful idea of labelling the buttons with symbols. For some reason my brain cannot grasp the concept of where the circle button, or the triangle button is supposed to be in physical space. Sure Nintendo has it's problems by using reverse alphabetical order, but once you figure that out, at least it's somewhat logical. For some reason it's easier for my brain to think of where A is, then where circle is.
      let me guess with that logic you can't possibly use a qwerty keyboard. without looking at every letter. a qwerty keyboard has no logical sense and either does the complaint against the
      different coloured!!! symbols on each button for the Playstation only an idiot playing a video game would stop to look at each button of the control before pressing Accelerate or Brake. you just learn after a few minutes

    19. Re:Downright Stupid by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      It should be added that the system was designed to work this way deliberately because ignorance is very difficult to prove, but very easy to feign. Patents would be unenforceable if "I didn't bother to check the patent records, or even the relevant retail catalogs to see if there was a similar invention" was considered an acceptable excuse for infringement.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    20. Re:Downright Stupid by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Not true at all. The company doesn't own a patent on all vibrating human interface devices, just some clever little tactics to make things shake. If you ever used a first generation rumble controller, you would know what I'm talking about. This company has been working for along time on techniques to make controllers that don't just numb your hand. I used to despise any sort of 'force feedback' controllers, but now (in part thanks to this company) they're actually an enjoyable feature.

    21. Re:Downright Stupid by Tei · · Score: 1

      I am not a imaginative guy, but I invent solutions to problems everyday, and not patent all this ideas. Creating solutions to day problems its how most people work. Not everyone work on a gray office reimplementing stuff.

      --

      -Woof woof woof!

    22. Re:Downright Stupid by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      The problem with playstation, is that the tactile feel of all the buttons is the same. And circle cannot possibly map to a certain position in my brain.

      QWERTY doesn't make a lot of sense, neither does DVORAK for that matter. But people end up choosing one or the other, because that's all that's available. If they offered keyboards for people with absolutely no typing skills, and with no ambition to develop typing skills, I think alphabetical would be the best layout.

      The problem with playstation is that all buttons are exactly the same, so it's hard to learn what's circle and what's square, so you eventually just learn for one game, which accelerates, and which brakes. Then when you move on to game B, you have to learn everything over again, because nothing makes any sense.

      Nintendo color coded, green for go, red for stop, which is used in most racing games. Not only that, they gave a different feel to each button, so that you automatically know which button you are pressing. They've also made the main button huge. They finally admitted that in 95% of games you press 1 button 75% of the time, so why not make it huge. All the buttons are well placed, and easily accessible from that button. After pressing, your thumb can easily go back to the "Home button", much like placing your fingers back on the home row when typing.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    23. Re:Downright Stupid by mink · · Score: 1

      Nintendo seems to have come up with it well before Immersion patented the process.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  8. Stand by... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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. :)

    1. Re:Stand by... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that 'insight'

      You're welcome. The best part is you got it for free. :P

    2. Re:Stand by... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Is Nintendo somehow exempt?

      They pay the license fees unlike Sony,

    3. Re:Stand by... by SetupWeasel · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, Nintendo has patents for vibration that predate the Immersion patent. Looking at the design of the rumble pack for the N64 and the GC controller it seems that the vibration is implemented differently.

      The last paragraph of this article deals with the Nintendo question.

    4. Re:Stand by... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Nintendo's Gamecube controllers sell with vibration by default. Is Nintendo somehow exempt?"

      If this is the same patent I'm thinking of, then the reason why the N64 didn't get into trouble over this is because the Rumble Pak was a seperate unit from the controller. (It has been stated before that this is exactly why the DC didn't have built in force feedback either.)

      I don't really know if this story is true, so take with a grain of salt. Heck, correct me if I'm wrong. The sad thing is that if the story is true, then Sony's known about this problem since long before the PS2 launch.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    5. Re:Stand by... by mink · · Score: 1

      I believe Nintendo patented a method both for the pluggable Rumble Pack as well as controller with the rumble built in. The reason Immersions scam cant touch em is they got a patent in first and Immersions method is different.

      I may be wron as to who files first for patents, but I do know Nintendo was granted first.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  9. What is the patent? by JonLatane · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What exactly is the patent? Is it on something like "input devices using vibration technology to provide tactile feedback in applications" or something like that? And if that's the case, wouldn't Nintendo's Rumble Pak easily be prior art? I can't help but notice they haven't sued Nintendo yet (at least to my knowledge).

    1. Re:What is the patent? by justforaday · · Score: 1

      I haven't followed this case, so I may be totally wrong on all accounts here. But I seem to recall reading that the Rumble Pak didn't infringe because it was an add-on to the controller. For the GC controllers, though, Nintendo licensed the technology.

      --
      I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
    2. Re:What is the patent? by Pepsi__Blue · · Score: 2, Informative

      I may be worng, but I believe the patent had to do with computer control of motors as haptic technology. In the rumble pack the motors are on or off, whereas in the Playstation and X-box the motors can be controlled providing various sensations.

    3. Re:What is the patent? by Veldcath · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, wouldn't many of the original gun games (I seem to recall a certain game in the student union back in the late 80s or early 90s that had an UZI that you pointed at the screen to aim and when you pulled the trigger it shook. Or more recent gun-games where the gun is connected by a cord and the gun still shook?

      The problem is about HOW the controller shakes. Open up an XBox controller or the like and you'll find a small electric motor with an off-center hunk of metal on the shaft. There's a pair, one with a smaller and one larger hunk, and they each shake independantly or together to provide small, medium and large shaking.

      The patents have to do with shaking by offset hunks of metal on rotating shafts. If the rumble-packs that Nintendo had don't fit that description, then they don't violate these patents. Plain and simple.

      --


      ... "I read part of it all the way through." -- Movie Mogul Sam Goldwyn (and some slashdot readers)
  10. Re:Millions by TheKidWho · · Score: 3, Insightful

    back when they first invented it, it was most likely something amazing and kick ass.

  11. 90 million dollars? by mp3phish · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Small potatoes.

    Why is slashdot posting a lawsuit of this magnitude but failing to post anything about the world famous (and more relevant) Lexar Lawsuit worth over $460 million and will cause a massive disruption in the supply/demand equations currently applied to the significantly growing flash USB key and card memory market?

    --
    Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
    1. Re:90 million dollars? by RGTAsheron · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why don't you submit it?

    2. Re:90 million dollars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      He probably did and it was rejected.

    3. Re:90 million dollars? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      because this is a trade secret case between two comanies and will not have any effect on other manufactueres, now quit bitching about not getting your story green-lighted.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    4. Re:90 million dollars? by SoLO · · Score: 1

      Because Lexar is not Sony.

    5. Re:90 million dollars? by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 4, Funny

      What about the even bigger news that 'Lexar Lawsuit' has been named as the villain in the upcoming Superman movie?

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    6. Re:90 million dollars? by agentkhaki · · Score: 1

      Thank you for making my evening...

      --
      Ack!
    7. Re:90 million dollars? by UlfGabe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.
    8. Re:90 million dollars? by gnuman99 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I'm in engineering, EVERY ENGINEER on the planet should understand how to make something vibrate.

      You mean they patented an unbalanced, rotating mass and they got millions for it?

    9. Re:90 million dollars? by MrScience · · Score: 1

      Or what about the Mother of the Matrix, who will be recovering damages from both the Matrix series and the Terminator series? It's got copyright infringement, racketeering, FBI investigations that discovered "more than 30 minutes had been edited from the original film to avoid copyright penalties," and more.

      We're talking gross receipts of over 2.5billion dollars.

      --

      You quitting proves that the karma kap worked. The most annoying of the whores shut up. --CmdrTaco

  12. Re:SCO by t_allardyce · · Score: 2, Funny

    Shhhhhhhhhh!

    jeez why don't you just hold a sign up for them?

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  13. Re:Patents gone wild! by TheKidWho · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's a legitimate patent I would say. Just because your so damned used to vibrating controllers doesn't negate the fact that immersion had the patent before Sony introduced their dual shock controllers.

  14. Cool! Mod parent up! by Sebby · · Score: 1
    Maybe I can sell my 'orginal' PS2 on eBay and make a killing!!

    Oh, wait; then I'd be infriging by selling an infriging product, right?

    --

    AC comments get piped to /dev/null
    1. Re:Cool! Mod parent up! by lightknight · · Score: 1

      If it is a Dual-Shock system, then yes. Patent infringement covers those who sell the products (think: a company creating a product overseas to get around a patent, then importing them).

      Course, the main difference I've noticed between the original PS and the Dual-Shock system (controllers aside) is the media cables (the original PS has the RCA connections, whereas the Dual-Shock has a kinda proprietary media output).

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    2. Re:Cool! Mod parent up! by alc6379 · · Score: 1
      Maybe I can sell my 'orginal' PS2 on eBay and make a killing!!

      Good idea, but you wouldn't get anything for that "orginal" PS2. At least, not as much as I got for my "MY MOM FREAKED AT THIS ORGINAL PS2 NOT XBOX GAMCUBE L@@@K". If you can scoop up somee of those, then you've got yourself a money-making plan.

      --
      I don't moderate anymore. Karma penalty for 90% fair mods? Can I mod that unfair?
  15. Legitimate? Maybe... by Bones3D_mac · · Score: 1, Redundant

    From what I'm reading, this patent claim may well be legitimate. Apparently several companies already recognize Immersion's patent on the technology as being valid and have licensed it from them.

    Is Sony notorious for infringing upon patents?

    --


    8==8 Bones 8==8
    1. Re:Legitimate? Maybe... by theLOUDroom · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Apparently several companies already recognize Immersion's patent on the technology as being valid and have licensed it from them.

      This means basically nothing.

      • Step one: Get a silly patent.
      • Step two: Liscense it for virtually nothing to a few big companies.
      • Step three: Claim that the other companies having liscensed you patent is proof of its validity and demand an arbitrarily large chunk of money from all the other companies that didn't liscense your patent. Make sure this amount is completely unreasonable ($50,000,000 for something that took you one day to think of and $10,000 to patent).


      Is Sony notorious for infringing upon patents?

      Sony's notorious for being retarded, but I expect they'll ultimately win this case. They should be able to show tons of prior art in this case. See my previous post.
      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
  16. [Slashdotters] gone wild! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    " If this doesn't prove the US Patent system needs some overhauling, then I don't know what does. Hopefully this will get the big corporations involved in changing patent law, but for the better?"

    No it just proves that:

    1-Slashdotters don't read the patent.

    2-Slashdotters favour a knee-jerk response.

    3-Slashdotters don't care about one and two...so there, NYAH!

    1. Re:[Slashdotters] gone wild! by EzInKy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No it just proves that:

      1-Slashdotters don't read the patent.


      Current research indicates that reading patents is potentially 3x more dangerous than not reading them.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    2. Re:[Slashdotters] gone wild! by lightknight · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Only if the patent applies. This is akin to reading the patent, figuring that you can get away without a license, then acting all surprised when you get caught. Getting the license in the first place is the cheapest option (not researching or researching and blowing it off).

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    3. Re:[Slashdotters] gone wild! by ikkonoishi · · Score: 2, Funny

      Open letter to all Slashdotters.

      Keep your shirts on please.

      Sincerly,
      The Management.

    4. Re:[Slashdotters] gone wild! by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      Current research also indicates that something not actually referring to real research done is 'funny', not 'insightful'.

    5. Re:[Slashdotters] gone wild! by bman08 · · Score: 3, Funny

      the image of thousands of pasty man-boobs flopping around in the pale flicker of computer monitors has scarred me for life. thanks.

    6. Re:[Slashdotters] gone wild! by bgalehouse · · Score: 3, Informative
      I read the patent. One of them at least: 6,424,333. Stupidly obvious. Suppose I took a random person with a slight amount of mechanical engineering experience, and asked him or her to design a vibrating controller. What sort of dope wouldn't think of a spinning eccentric mass. Especially in 2001 when the same design has be used in vibrators at least since, oh, what, 1950 or something? But I suppose that if you cannot patent the idea of a vibrating controller, then patenting the one particularly obvious implimention is second best.

      The patent office does need overhauled, because the examiners are either idiots or they assume that everybody else is. This patent is a perfect example of the fact.

    7. Re:[Slashdotters] gone wild! by spuzzzzzzz · · Score: 1

      My monitor runs at a flicker-free 90Hz, thank you very much.

      --

      Don't you hate meta-sigs?
    8. Re:[Slashdotters] gone wild! by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      "2-Slashdotters favour a knee-jerk response."

      Question: why is it called a "knee-jerk" response when there's no knee involved? As far as I can see, it's just typing 4 letters and a hyphen too many.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    9. Re:[Slashdotters] gone wild! by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      Other current research indicates Slashdot moderators wouldn't know 'funny' if it bit them somewhere hard enough to cause mild discomfort without causing profound puncture wounds. Right, now off to blow some mod points...

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    10. Re:[Slashdotters] gone wild! by back_pages · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Stupidly obvious.

      According to the dictionary, but are you familiar with the term "obvious" as defined by 35 U.S.C. 103 and therefore how the term is used in relation to patentability? It is a completely different concept.

      What sort of dope wouldn't think of a spinning eccentric mass.

      A spinning mass to induce vibration may be an obvious detail of implementation, however the idea of a vibrating controller is not. For evidence of that, arcade games, home console games, handheld computer games, and PC computer games have somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 years of experience without any sort of "force feedback" or vibrating controller.

      The patent office does need overhauled, because the examiners are either idiots or they assume that everybody else is.

      What would make someone an idiot? Shooting off at the mouth about a topic you don't understand? I'm sincerely interested in your response.

      Both of those patents have more than a page of cited references. You could order the prosecution history to see what rejections the examiner made and how the applicant's attorneys responded to those rejections - including allegations of obviousness based upon the cited references. (Oh yes, obviousness based upon cited references is a requirement of 35 U.S.C. 103, but not a requirement of the dictionary definition of the same term.)

      I can definitely respect your opinion of the mechanical details of the invention because I could reasonably presume that you're a ME. Your knowledge of the equally complicated field of IP law appears to be none.

    11. Re:[Slashdotters] gone wild! by __aailob1448 · · Score: 1

      Actually, some people vote funny stuff as insightful or interesting so that the poster can gain karma. Funny mods do not give the poster any karma.

      I hope that was the case here.

    12. Re:[Slashdotters] gone wild! by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Precisely his point.

    13. Re:[Slashdotters] gone wild! by bgalehouse · · Score: 1
      35 U.S.C. 103 (a): "A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains."

      If I had hired a random controller engineer in 2000(or rather a random engineer of any sort) and asked him to design a vibrating controler, I'd fire him for stupidity if he didn't think up the possibility of an eccentric mass. Especially if he had seen or heard of, well, a vibrator. Not exacty hard to investigate prior art, and one that has been advertised since 1910. Or wait! maybe it isn't obvious in a legal sense to examine other vibrating devices when desiging a vibrating controler! Such clever people those IP lawyers.

      The closest thing to a non-obvious aspect is the idea of creating a vibrating controller. Given that idea as a design goal, I stand by my claim that the implimentation is stupidly obvious. So just what is the patent on again? The idea of a vibrating controller? or a particular implimentation? This contrast is why I think the patent office needs to be overhauled.

    14. Re:[Slashdotters] gone wild! by bgalehouse · · Score: 1
      I already responded once, but realized that my core point could perhaps be made even more clear.

      It isn't possible to patent the idea of a vibrating controller. This is explicitly forbidden, and IMNSHO, for good reason.

      However, given this idea, the ME problem is sufficiently simple and well understood that it is possible to enumerate the most reasonable solutions. Given an afternoon or two, I could probably write descriptions at the level of this patent which covers pretty much all reasonable implimentation strategies. Mass moving linearly, driven by x, y or z. Mass moving in a pattern not linear or circular, mass moving, mass moving. If I hired an actual ME for a brainstorming session, we could probably do even better. A spinning eccentric mass would be first on the list, but apparently somebody beat me to it.

      Where I to do so and acquire patents, companies might still be able to build vibrating controllers. However, without liscensing my patents, they would need to use more esoteric methods of vibration creation. Such methods are esoteric because they are more expensive and/or less inheriently reliable.

      If I did a sufficently good job, I would have effectively subverted the restriction that ideas are not patentable. The current patent system does not effectively impliment this restriction. Perhaps patent officers thoughtfully and intelligently impliment certain standards. But these standards in aggregate allow the patenting of ideas. It just takes a bit more time and money.

      Apparently, you can attach an idea too general to be patented to an implimentation too obvious to be patented, and get a patent. I find this absurd, and believe it demonstrates a certain lack of thought on the part of the patent office. Come to think of it, maybe I need to go patent some ideas...

    15. Re:[Slashdotters] gone wild! by back_pages · · Score: 1
      I appreciate your attempt to clarify. I'm happy to try to share what I know about the patent system with those sincere enough to try to approach the topic maturely. Already you're far ahead of the pack at Slashdot. ;)

      It isn't possible to patent the idea of a vibrating controller. This is explicitly forbidden, and IMNSHO, for good reason.

      Hm, care to elaborate? Is there a particular statute or case law you're referring to? If so, I think you're mistaken. If you are the first person to come up with the idea of a cotton gin (vibrating controller) and file a patent that's broad enough to cover "cotton gin" ("vibrating controller"), then you get the patent for it. I'm aware of no statute that forbids such a patent, and indeed this is precisely what the system was designed to protect.

      What you are not entitled to are every improvement upon that cotton gin (vibrating controller). In your disclosure, which covers how to make and use a cotton gin (vibrating controller), you can toss in some other embodiments (It might be pink, it might be made of plastic, it might have flashing LED lights) but you do not have patent protection for the non-obvious improvements that were not disclosed by your patent (a fundamentally better vibrating mechanisim, those little fans that cool your sweaty hands while you play, or a vibrating controller with a more "pleasing" form factor.)

      Such methods are esoteric because they are more expensive and/or less inheriently reliable.

      Not necessarily - they would simply need to argue and prove that their method is a non-obvious improvement or otherwise not disclosed by your patent. I'm not an ME, but it could be as simple as a different design for the weight that allows greater control over the vibration output. Perhaps a motor with two driveshafts and two weights could produce irregular vibration patterns. Heck just about anything so long as it is not something disclosed by your patent.

      Apparently, you can attach an idea too general to be patented to an implimentation too obvious to be patented, and get a patent. I find this absurd, and believe it demonstrates a certain lack of thought on the part of the patent office.

      Uh, really? The Patent Office is not part of the legislative branch of government; the Patent Office does not create the laws that define what can and cannot be patented. The Patent Office doesn't even get to decide HOW patents should be examined - the Patent Office is subjected to the rulings of the judicial branch of govnernment whenever these infringement suits are produced by judges or when a patent application reaches the board of appeals, federal circuit, or Supreme Court. In the meantime, the Patent Office just follows the laws and previous court rulings to try to be consistent and legal.

      Additionally, I still don't think you fully appreciate that "obvious" as regards to patents has almost nothing to do with "obvious" in the dictionary. I've provided the following links as a highly condensed taste of the beginning of what "obvious" means regarding patents. This is like learning Computability Theory (my expertise) in 10 minutes.

      MPEP 2141 See especially "Basic considerations which apply to obviousness rejections". I stress basic.

      MPEP 2143 Also read through 2143.03

      My thoughts on this Immersion v. Sony thing? Woah. I can't believe Sony was found infringing. I have no idea what went on during the prosecution of Immersion's patents - attorney arguments could have gutted or amplified the weight of the patent claims, but you and I have no idea until we read the prosecution history. The USPTO can only afford to do a $1000 prior art search, and both of these patents have roughly 50 references cited. The examiner doesn't appear to be asleep at the wheel, but we really have no idea what rejections were made during pros

    16. Re:[Slashdotters] gone wild! by bgalehouse · · Score: 1
      Regarding maturity, I've been in a rather fiesty mood recently, but I do try not to be too trollish. You don't seem like a bad fellow. Such a pitty you don't see things my way. On a related note, if you cannot make a joke without a smiley, you need to work on your writing skills.

      With the apparent partial exception in biotechnology, patents at least notionally must be on implementations of devices, not on general ideas.

      The cotton gin was a clever (for it's time) implimentation of a device with an obvious product requirements sheet. Even if you say to yourself "I need a way to clean cotton mechanically", the cotton gin is not a particularly obvious design. I mean, it might be the first one that you think up, but it will likely take more than 10 minutes. Especially if you only have past attempts at cotton cleaners to work from.

      On the other hand, if you say "I need a way to make a controller vibrate", or even "I way to make a joystick provide feedback" then the 2 bit spinning eccentric mass is likely to come to mind in such a timeframe. Especially if you count other small vibrating things as prior art. And yes, the patent does seem to include the case of multiple spinning eccentric masses, and this is aproximatly the second thing on the list I'd make of cheap ways to vibrate a controller.

      In the case of the cotton gin, the non-obviousness is in the implementation - not the thumbnail sketch of the product specification. We require patents to be on implimentations, and the very best reason I see for this is to avoid the patenting of product specifications. My guess is that Sony used the aformentined vibration "technology" because when starting with the specification, the design was so obvious that they couldn't imagine the design would be patented.

      Attempting to remove thought from the definition of "obvious" is, I think, doomed to failure. But that clearly hasn't kept somebody from trying.

      On a related note, none of the few patents that I've looked at have had non-patent references. This speaks of a myopia on the part of the patent office. Budgetary considerations may be a reason for this, but that is no justification when they are removing our rights to design and build things. I remember a comment made, I believe, by a USPTO head in a Slashdot interview. Something along the lines of "The patent office doesn't have much prior art on file for software patents, but this is self correct as more are filed." That is Hubris, not hubris, and these are our rights to invent being eroded.

    17. Re:[Slashdotters] gone wild! by back_pages · · Score: 1
      Regarding maturity, I've been in a rather fiesty mood recently, but I do try not to be too trollish. You don't seem like a bad fellow. Such a pitty you don't see things my way. On a related note, if you cannot make a joke without a smiley, you need to work on your writing skills.

      Is that an invitation to adopt your style of creatively spelling "implementation" at whim? I noticed you got it right at least once, bravo!

      With the apparent partial exception in biotechnology, patents at least notionally must be on implementations of devices, not on general ideas.

      I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. What I believe you are referring to as "the idea of a vibrating controller" is known as "constructive reduction to practice" and is preferably achieved by a patent application disclosure which complies with the written description and enablement requirement of 35 USC 112. It is and has always been possible to come up with the idea for "a vibrating controller", so long as the patent application includes disclosure of an embodiment of such a device that can be made and used by a person of ordinary skill in the art. When it comes to claiming the invention, there are exactly 0 statutes that preclude the inventor from claiming to have invented "a user-input device that vibrates". The ONLY thing that would prevent such a patent claim would be the prior art. I reiterate that you do not understand the meaning of "obvious" as defined by 35 USC 103 and the surrounding case law. It has nothing to do with "how hard it was" to think something up.

      I agree with you that the means by which the controller is made to vibrate is very obvious, but I don't trust that you understand why. "Making something vibrate with a rotating mass" is a documented technique that is known to MEs. That, and only that, is why it is obvious.

      I've never seen a vibrating desk lamp, I presume that there is no prior art for a vibrating desk lamp, and if I were to create a vibrating desk lamp, I would use a spinning mass to make it vibrate. The entire idea of vibrating desk lamps is up for grabs in terms of patent protection. Think up a good reason why you would want one, describe a way to make and use it, and the patent is yours.

      On a related note, none of the few patents that I've looked at have had non-patent references.

      I encourage you to look at these two patents:
      6,424,333
      6,275,213
      You may recognize these patents as "The patents owned by Immersion that Sony allegedly infringed, prompting this entire discussion on Slashdot". Careful inspection of these patents reveals something on the order of 100 non-patent literature citations.

      This speaks of a myopia on the part of the patent office.

      It would speak to a myopia on the part of the patent office if it were remotely true rather than a laughably unsubstantiated allegation put forth by someone who admits to having glanced at only a few patents. Indeed, it announces with the authority of Moses delivering the Commandments to the tribe of Israel the breadth of your knowledge and experience with the patent system, to say nothing of your efforts to "not be trollish".

      I hope that clears some things up for you regarding both the patent office as well as the caliber of your clever wit.

    18. Re:[Slashdotters] gone wild! by bgalehouse · · Score: 1
      I said that I was feeling fiesty, and I didn't say that I was trying to be entirely non-trollish. Sorry about that. I can only apologize and assure you that it is not my usual style. At least, I hope not. And I do appreciate your attempts to educate us wild slashdotters.

      I've been a bit sloppy, perhaps even more than a bit, and I stand corrected regarding references and spelling. I believe that the argument deserves better, and I'm not sure I've had the time to do it justice.

      I am willing to believe that justification for a vibrating desklamp is all that is required to patent it. I don't believe that this point of law is a useful characteristic, and in fact consider it to be something worth trying to fix.

      Why do we require an implementation in the patent? For what reason?

      My impression has always been that that the requirement is there to encourage innovation by focusing on implementations. You cannot patent the one line product specification summary "a machine to clean cotton". This allows competition to design products with similar specifications while at the same time discouraging the copying of novel implementations. This pits inventors against each other in that they need to devise novel solutions to the same technical problem. A focus on the implementation rather that the specification ensures this competition.

      The desirability of the above may be the core of our disagreement, and we may have to agree to disagree. I'm perfectly willing to do this, but then I'm starting to feel less fiesty. This is probably for the best.

      Just for completeness, the only other possible justification for this limitation that I can think of, is that it is to limit the patenting of concepts to things which are implementable with today's technology. But if this were the case, why would choosing a different implementation avoid violation of the patent? If a specification sheet is patentable so long as it has an implementation attached, then any vibrating controller violates the non-obvious part of the patent.

    19. Re:[Slashdotters] gone wild! by back_pages · · Score: 1
      My impression has always been that that the requirement is there to encourage innovation by focusing on implementations. You cannot patent the one line product specification summary "a machine to clean cotton". This allows competition to design products with similar specifications while at the same time discouraging the copying of novel implementations. This pits inventors against each other in that they need to devise novel solutions to the same technical problem. A focus on the implementation rather that the specification ensures this competition.

      I'm not sure that I clearly see the boundaries of what you're describing. I can say that the Constitution grants the inventor the broadest patent protection he can possibly achieve, however he must have invented something in "the sciences and useful arts". 35 USC 101 defines that term as a machine, a method, a composition of matter, a product of manufacture, or an improvement of those five. This is why an implementation is required to achieve patent protection.

      However, if nobody had EVER thought of "a machine to clean cotton", and you made one, the Constitution says you are indeed entitled to the patent claim "a machine to clean cotton". This does NOT mean you have patent protection on ALL cotton cleaning machines, however. In an infringement suit, your competitor would be burdened with proving that his "cotton cleaning machine" is patentably distinct from your disclosed embodiments. If your machine, in all its disclosed varations, picks through the cotton with a comb-like device, while your competitor's uses a centrifuge, they clean cotton by fundamentally different processes. They would be seen as patentably distinct inventions, and it would be VERY unlikely that the competitor is found infringing your patents. It DOES mean, however, that HIS patent claims would have to read something like, "A machine for cleaning cotton wherein the cotton is cleaned by a centrifuge" to clearly define that his machine has a distinct and separate patent protection from yours.

      It basically comes down to the alleged infringer saying, "Hey, the patent holder never thought of this, I came up with doing it this way, and the difference is a non-obvious improvement (something other than changing the color or using cheaper parts)."

      Just for completeness, the only other possible justification for this limitation that I can think of, is that it is to limit the patenting of concepts to things which are implementable with today's technology. But if this were the case, why would choosing a different implementation avoid violation of the patent? If a specification sheet is patentable so long as it has an implementation attached, then any vibrating controller violates the non-obvious part of the patent.

      There are sections of the MPEP and case law loosely related to the ability to patent only the implementations which "are known with today's technology", etc., but they generally don't carry much weight. The reason is that a new and improved ball bearing could be added to almost any invention that uses a ball bearing and improve it. However, using a never-before-known ball bearing to improve something that uses a ball bearing is really obvious. References abound for using better ball bearings where better ball bearings are available. Where these laws and rulings DO hold weight is where someone tries to literally claim every conceivable implementation of something. In legal language, this only occurs if you claimed "means for cleaning cotton", but not "a machine for cleaning cotton". When you claim "a machine", it means you only get patent protection for what you disclosed and the obvious improvements thereof. When you claim "means for", you are indeed trying to claim the abstract notion of "something" that cleans cotton. (This is an entirely separate kettle of fish from what we've been talking about thus far. There are about 29 different reasons why the claim "means for cleaning cotton" isn't patentable, none of which reall

  17. Rumble Pak by LookWhatIFound · · Score: 1

    What about the N64 Rumble Pak, yo?!

    1. Re:Rumble Pak by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      the rumble pack was an addon device and was not covered by the patent.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    2. Re:Rumble Pak by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 1

      You forgot the 'yo'...

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    3. Re:Rumble Pak by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "What about the N64 Rumble Pak, yo?!"

      I vaguely remember that Nintendo was sued over the Rumble Pak. (Note: I'm not sure if they were sued by this company or if it was something completely different, so please bear with me.)

      Nintendo fought it. As mentioned by another poster, they were exempt from having to pay the fee because the Rumble Pak wasn't built into the controller. Guess this is one of those cases where patents worked the way they're supposed to. They're supposed to be for very specific claims, not overly broad ideas.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    4. Re:Rumble Pak by SetupWeasel · · Score: 1

      wrong, yo. The rumble pack predates the Immersion patent.

    5. Re:Rumble Pak by rokzy · · Score: 1

      >Guess this is one of those cases where patents worked the way they're supposed to. They're supposed to be for very specific claims, not overly broad ideas.

      NO IT'S NOT!!!

      for fuck's sake, once someone comes up with the idea of making the controller shake using an add-on pack, and people see it was good, it's obvious to any retard that that function should be built into the controller for convenience.

    6. Re:Rumble Pak by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "for fuck's sake, once someone comes up with the idea of making the controller shake using an add-on pack, and people see it was good, it's obvious to any retard that that function should be built into the controller for convenience."

      That's probably why MS and Sony built them in without paying the license. They didn't know. (Although, it's been stated earlier in this discussion that MS has worked with Immersion to make DirectX compatible with their force-feedback technology.)

      Where you're wrong is that Immersion's technology pre-dates Nintendo's. We're talking 93 here, not post-N64.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    7. Re:Rumble Pak by mink · · Score: 1

      From wjay I just looked up, Nintendo specifically patented the method they use and it pre-dates the specific Immersion patent in question.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    8. Re:Rumble Pak by mink · · Score: 1

      wjay=what (dont ask).

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  18. Re:uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    What was it about the Dualshock that caused the violation?

    It was an American company claiming patent infringement before an American judge against a Japanese company. I'd say S.O.P.

  19. Re:Patents gone wild! by Neruocomp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
  20. The genre by MOGua · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...and it's probably a RPG.

  21. It was originally for 82M.. by delire · · Score: 1

    I wonder where the extra 8.7M fits it?

    http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1771212788933190/#com ments

    1. Re:It was originally for 82M.. by sebi · · Score: 2, Informative
      I wonder where the extra 8.7M fits it?

      Interest.

      [...]In accordance with the portion of the Court's January 10, 2005 order awarding Immersion pre-judgment interest at the prime rate, Immersion shall recover of Defendants pre-judgment interest in the amount of $8,703,608.00.1 Immersion shall recover its costs from Sony.

      (found that here.)

    2. Re:It was originally for 82M.. by delire · · Score: 1

      hehe 'Interest'. Always loved used that word where massive amounts of money are being swindled. Of course, they're very 'interested' ;)

    3. Re:It was originally for 82M.. by mattgorle · · Score: 1

      8.7M interest? Ouch! :-(

      --
      Slackware user since 1997.
  22. Re:uh by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

    Agreed.

    I don't care for the old croissant controller, but I definitely favor the "s" controller over the PS2's or Cube's controllers.

    --
    "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
  23. Empty article by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Informative
    That was brief.

    Here's what gamespot has to say on this.
    On Monday, a California judge ordered Sony to pay Immersion a licensing fee of 1.37 percent per quarter based on the sales of PlayStation units, Dual Shock controllers, and a selection of PlayStation 2 games that use Immersion's technology.
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  24. I'm in shock! by majorbabu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  25. Prior Art: My car by AngstAndGuitar · · Score: 4, Funny

    My car vibrates depending on road conditions and engine RPM,
    Would this not be "vibration for tactile feadback"? it's 15years old, so I bet it's prior art....

    --
    Less look fast, more go fast.
    1. Re:Prior Art: My car by Keeper · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Patents cover the invention, not the effect of the invention.

    2. Re:Prior Art: My car by APL+bigot · · Score: 1

      My car vibrates depending on road conditions and engine RPM, Would this not be "vibration for tactile feadback"? it's 15years old, so I bet it's prior art....

      Nope, that would be Boeing with their "stick shaker" feedback to indicate that the aircraft is loosing lift and is about to stall. Was (I think) first implemented on the B-52.

      --
      Heisenberg may have been here.
  26. Immersion's patents by kristan · · Score: 5, Informative

    Before everyone goes mental saying "what is there to patent on a vibrating controller" you should have a better understand of what Immersion's patents (and thus suit) covers. Immersion's patents relate to giving developers very fine-grained control over the motors driving the "vibration units" in things such as pagers, mobile phones, and yes game controllers. In particular they allow you to do more than just have "off/on" control. Play a game like Gran Turismo and you'll see what I mean - you really can feel the terrain (and your car's grip or lack of) through the Dual Shock controllers - they aren't simply in an on-off mode.

    That is what the patents cover, and you'll notice that Microsoft have already settled with Immersion over a similar suit.

    --
    --- There's no place like 127.0.0.1
    1. Re:Immersion's patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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!

    2. Re:Immersion's patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Didn't MS produce a vibrating joystick, with different levels of control back in 1998 or so?

    3. Re:Immersion's patents by VEGETA_GT · · Score: 1

      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

    4. Re:Immersion's patents by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      I was stupidly thinking

      At least you tried. Most peolpe are stupid non-thinkers.

    5. Re:Immersion's patents by mshurpik · · Score: 1

      Thank you. It seems that Slashdot is now (always was?) in DIY mode, where stories are just abstracts and readers have to find the story themselves.

      Now the next question is, if Immersion's patents are related to using software to drive motors, isn't this just a software patent? Did Immersion actually invent or assemble something, or did they just make a lookup table of different situations and their corresponding vibrations?

    6. Re:Immersion's patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I ahve a logeth force feedback stearing weel and there force feedback stearing weel.

      ...and let me guess, you're playing while posting on /. with your keyboard resting on the steering wheel, right? ;)

    7. Re:Immersion's patents by kd5ujz · · Score: 2, Informative

      I belive it was the forces feedback sidewinder joysticks/ game pads.

      --
      -William
      God is everything science has yet to explain.
    8. Re:Immersion's patents by Novous · · Score: 1

      >Immersion's patents relate to giving developers very fine-grained control over the motors driving the "vibration units" in things such as pagers, mobile phones, and yes game controllers.

      Could you please provide a source for this? I'd really like to know the details, as all you've essentially described, is Pulse Width Modulation. Hardly lawsuit worthy, and being used right now to control the speed of your CPU fan.

    9. Re:Immersion's patents by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      Have you considered retaking elementary school?

      Your spelling's fucked. Seek help.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    10. Re:Immersion's patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I doubt that any 70's era cnc machine had :"... to produce a variable tactile sensation in relation to said variable state signal as a result of varying the frequency and amplitude of said vibration." In fact why would there be any tactile feedback to a cnc machine? The claims of the patent define what it covers not the abstract. Many people on /. have never learned this simple fact and go by an abstract or even worse a newspaper article about the patent. READ THE WHOLE PATENT ESPECIALLY THE CLAIMS BEFORE YOU SPOUT OFF ABOUT THERE BEING PRIOR ART! I would think with the amount of money at stake Sony hired a platoon of lawyers to fight this patent and tried very hard to find prior art that would invalidate it- they failed! Also if you look at the issued patents the number of references considered by the Patent Office was quite high.

    11. Re:Immersion's patents by tota · · Score: 1
      1) The fact that Microsoft paid for something does not mean it is worth paying for / should be patentable.


      2) More than just "on/off", Gee, who would have thought about that.

      --
      TODO: 753) write sig.
    12. Re:Immersion's patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      There were computer controlled robotic manipulators in the 70-80's that allowed for force feedback to a human operator... They were used for handling toxic and nuclear materials in a clean room environment. I know, I seen one, and talked to the operator. Heavy objects "weighed" more to the operator. This was done in part to allow the operator to know the strain of the robot, so he wouldn't damage it, and in part to give him greater accuracy and repeatability.

      In the movie "Dave" (1993), there is a short scene in which the lookalike president is controlling TWO such machines (they may or may not have had force feedback, it's impossible to say)

      Infact, come to think of it, there's one that looked EXACTLY like the one I saw in the 1971 movie Andromeda Strain. Looks alot like the manipulator on the Space Shuttle.

    13. Re:Immersion's patents by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "And here I was stupidly thinking that variable speed motors had existed before this patent was filed!"

      Were they hooked up to software to give the impression of 'feeling' what was being simulated on the screen?

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    14. Re:Immersion's patents by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "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."
    15. Re:Immersion's patents by bani · · Score: 1

      they were.

      i remember force feedback video game controllers using variable speed motors going back to the early 80's. in arcade games too.

    16. Re:Immersion's patents by ThosLives · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I don't think this is a "prior art" issue. I think this is an "obvious to those skilled in the art" issue.

      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)
    17. Re:Immersion's patents by dnoyeb · · Score: 1

      Yes, its called ".1" as in the 5.1 Dolby Digital Low Frequency Effect channel aka LFE.

    18. Re:Immersion's patents by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Yes, its called ".1" as in the 5.1 Dolby Digital Low Frequency Effect channel aka LFE."

      Ah, so how do the motors work with Dolby?

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    19. Re:Immersion's patents by dnoyeb · · Score: 1

      They move based on the signal sent to them in order to create vibration to give the feeling of immersion. That is why its called 5.1 and not 6. The .1 is not an audio channel, its a vibration channel (LFE) and it is not really supposed to be a speaker, but a mechanism to create vibration. But most of us use speakers because they are readily available and highly accurate.

    20. Re:Immersion's patents by hab136 · · Score: 1
      not really supposed to be a speaker, but a mechanism to create vibration

      That would be a speaker. All a speaker does is vibrate, which vibrates the air, which through the magic of sound waves vibrates your eardrum. WTF else would you use besides a speaker?

    21. Re:Immersion's patents by JVert · · Score: 1

      Logitech did work with immersion in making the force feedback mouse. A failed little device that I probably would have liked if I could use it as a left hander.

    22. Re:Immersion's patents by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      Nice swastika action.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    23. Re:Immersion's patents by dustmite · · Score: 1

      I've used a 15+ year old Airbus commercial flight simulator that had precisely this kind of force feedback on the joysticks - simulated and controlled to feel very close to the real thing. Not to mention the entire motion platform itself, which also allows you to "feel the terrain" - literally.

  27. non-issue I think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nintendo paid to have the 'rumble' technology developed by this company. While Microsoft avoided lawsuit by "licensing" it from them the only way MS knows how. Buy into them. Sony has just kept thumbing their nose, and its gonna hurt them to the tune of $90 million. Assuming Sony doesn't win some "its not the samething" patent appeal. I expect this to be in our court system well into the next decade. I mean come on! It is cheaper for Sony to spend $90 million on lawyers to keep this in the courts over the next 5 years than it is to pay the $90 million now.

    1. Re:non-issue I think by gnuman99 · · Score: 1

      Sony has their own lawyers. $90 million at even $100 per hour, buys you 900,000 man-hours. So if you have a team of 10 people working on the case, then can work full time on it for 90,000 hours, or about 50 years.

  28. Will Sony Listen? by Hachey · · Score: 1

    Does Sony have any good reason NOT to continue selling the dual shock controllers and ignore the District Court in Oakland, California? I mean fiscally, wouldn't it be smarter to tell them to bugger off and sell em anyhow?


    -----
    Check out the Uncyclopedia.org :
    The only wiki source for politically incorrect non-information about things like Kitten Huffing and Pong! the Movie !

    --
    Please allow me to hate the creator of the 120-character limit: *HATES*. Thank you.
    1. Re:Will Sony Listen? by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      Um no, that would be supremely stupid. Sony could probably have all of it's products banned from import into the US for doing something as dumb as ignoring a court order. Not to mention the potentially massive fines on top of the original reward which they'd probably have to pay regardless off the final outcome in court and to get their products back into the US.

    2. Re:Will Sony Listen? by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Permanent Injunction. Puts the full force of the law behind the patent holder. Think: PS2s and PSs show up on a boat, police storming the boats and impounding them. Not a line most companies want to cross.

      The only course of action has left is to either seek a license or to appeal. They lose the appeal, they had to license the technology or stop selling.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    3. Re:Will Sony Listen? by tepples · · Score: 1

      The only course of action has left is to either seek a license or to appeal.

      Or a leveraged hostile takeover.

  29. Microsoft already settled with Immersion Corp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Immersion holds patents for force feedback technology which cover certain aspects of the rumble effect used in game joypads, and also named Microsoft as a defendant in its original lawsuit in 2002 - but the Xbox manufacturer settled out of court in July 2003 by signing a licensing agreement with the firm.

  30. Re:Best comment from article by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    Comment taken/stolen directly from the link. Second commend down at that! Did you think no one would actually RTFA?

    If you read his RTF-his title, he says exactly as much. Might be karma whoring, but I wouldn't call it outright stealing.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  31. are you a lawyer on the case? by rebelcool · · Score: 3, Insightful

    do you have access to information that we dont? Please share. In almost every one of these kinds of cases the company that holds the patent does in fact go to the company and attempts to get them to license it. In almost every one of these kinds of cases, the company does in fact license the patent unless for some reason their lawyers think they can get out of it.

    Apparently sony thought they could, immersion sued, and the judge ruled that immersion was right.

    --

    -

    1. Re:are you a lawyer on the case? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      The main point at issue here on Slashdot is not whether the ruling was correct according to the law, but whether the law is good.

    2. Re:are you a lawyer on the case? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      You're getting close. But let's replace "copyright" with "Intellectual Property", so it at least pertains to this case.

      Actually, we don't even need to limit it to IP. Let's instead refer to "Anything".

      In any discussion venue, (meaning, "Not just Slashdot"), Anything is Good when it protects someone the members of the venue like, and Bad when it's used to attack someone the members of the venue like.

      That's the hypocrisy of human nature. But no catagory of hippocrits ever seems to tire of criticizing another catagory of being hippocritical.

  32. Do patents make sense? by Ulrich+Hobelmann · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.)

    1. Re:Do patents make sense? by TheBurrito · · Score: 1

      Innovating pays if companies clone your product. Not if they simply steal it and give you the finger.

    2. Re:Do patents make sense? by Chordonblue · · Score: 1

      First of all, look at it this way, Wouldn't you say that controllers have come a long way since the Atari 2600's? Do you remember the old digital vs. analog controller debates? Ok, maybe you don't, but I do because I'm that old! :)

      What's innovative about controllers is that over time they have evolved - a LOT. The 'rumble' feature - as used by Sony - was in fact originally developed by Immersion for Nintendo. Had Sony developed it, whould you have minded if THEY sued the pants off of everyone?

      And no offense, but I wouldn't go so far as to claim that liberalism is all about the freedom to express and implement ideas. Take a look at how the Left *freaks out* about Fox News and/or talk radio as an counter-example. It seems new ideas are fine as long as they aren't from Conservatives...

      --
      "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
    3. Re:Do patents make sense? by gnuman99 · · Score: 1
      I'd say I'm conservative as regards free-market economy, but *very* liberal [in] regards [to] religion, family, sex, the environment etc.

      Or do you mean conservative? Environmentalists want to conserve the environemnt. They are less conservative in what it means to society's activities in the environment. Regardless, the attitude towards the environment is that we should do everything to conserve the status-quo (or how it was 100+ years ago, since today a lot of it now is dead).

      But I guess the words got all messed up similar to hackers being crackers/vandals/virus writes.

    4. Re:Do patents make sense? by Elranzer · · Score: 1

      It seems new ideas are fine as long as they aren't from Conservatives...

      Haha. Did you just say "new ideas" and "from Conservatives" in the same sentence?

    5. Re:Do patents make sense? by wkitchen · · Score: 1
      And no offense, but I wouldn't go so far as to claim that liberalism is all about the freedom to express and implement ideas. Take a look at how the Left *freaks out* about Fox News and/or talk radio as an counter-example.
      Fox News and right-wing talk radio does indeed get a lot of flack from the left. IMO, that is entirely earned. But that assessment is immaterial to the point, whether you agree with it or not. The important question is: Who on the left has tried to infringe Fox News' or any right wing talk radio show's right to free speech? That is, after all, what you're implying. Because without that implication, your counterexample is not a counterexample at all. Has anyone other than perhaps a few atypical idiots on the fringe (The right has some of those as well, no?) tried to take them off the air?

      Using your own free speech to express opposition is not at all the same as suppressing someone elses free speech. That's what's so great about this "free speech" concept. Though it allows miscreants like the KKK to promote their hatred, it also allows the rest of us to speak out against such ideas and to promote better ones. And I rather like it that way. Much better to express than to oppress.

      On the matter of implementation though, you're probably right. The Left will definitely try to prevent implementation of right-wing ideals. The Right does the converse. Unless you can get everyone to agree about everything, that simply cannot be any other way.
    6. Re:Do patents make sense? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      I don't know who modded you Insightful, but whoever did was an ignoramus. Inventing something and developing it to the point where you can profit from it costs money. Often it costs lots and lots of money. It can take years of sales to break even, let alone profit. If anybody can come out with a duplicate of what you've poured your savings into as soon as it comes out, they'll profit because they don't have developement costs to recover and you'll go broke. The result is that few things get invented. Patents are intended to give you a limited monopoly on your creation, to allow you to recoup your investment and make a profit. Eventually, the patent expires and everybody else can profit from your idea as well. The result of a healthy patent system is large numbers of inventions and rapid progress. Without patents and the possibility of profit, there would have been no Industrial Revolution. Before you suggest again that we do away with patents, I'd suggest you study basic economics and learn something about what you're talking about.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    7. Re:Do patents make sense? by Ulrich+Hobelmann · · Score: 1

      Hm, what takes money: the idea or the creation of a product? Your competition has to deal with the same costs.

      Besides, lots of people gladly innovate to distinguish themselves from the competition, or because they like it. PCs are cloned, medicines are cloned, still there are huge profits.

      And when do patents expire? How long do you have to wait until you may freely use that idea again, that you had one month after someone unfortunately carried it to the patent office to get his monopoly?

      If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete stand-still today.
      Bill Gates (1991)

    8. Re:Do patents make sense? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      Hm, what takes money: the idea or the creation of a product? Your competition has to deal with the same costs.

      Developing the product to the point where you can take it to market. Once you've done that, competition can ride on your coattails, copying your final product without wasting time on various blind alleys as you did. That's what patents protect: your investment. If you think we'd be where we are today if we had to depend on people innovating for the love of it without any chance for profit, you're not living in the same world the rest of us are.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    9. Re:Do patents make sense? by Ulrich+Hobelmann · · Score: 1

      From the newest JoelOnSoftware:
      "If one of our competitors think this is cool, they can copy us, but it'll take them a while, especially if they read my site and bought my line about only shipping every 18 months."

      Isn't that the spirit? At least *they* don't need patents to do what they do.

      (The article)

    10. Re:Do patents make sense? by mink · · Score: 1

      Can you cite some proof that Nintendo had Immersion develop the rumble technology they use?
      All the patents I can find specifically are assigned to Nintendo, Corp. JP

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  33. Re:uh by karniv0re · · Score: 1

    Are you kidding? Man, I really miss the Super Nintendo controllers. Actually, I just miss Super Nintendo (and regular Nintendo for that matter). You hear that Nintendo? Resume production immediately!

  34. Total BS.. by iamsure · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is nothing out of touch about the ninth circuit court.. you need to stop drinking the koolaid:

    The court is considered by some to have an overly liberal bias, but arguably a majority of its judges are conservatives. While 17 judges have been appointed by Democratic presidents, 5 of those are solid conservatives. Thus only 12 of the Democrat-appointed judges are liberals or moderates, potentially leaving the remaining 15 as conservatives.

    It is often called "the most overturned appeals court in the United States", but this is mostly a product of its high caseload. On a percentage basis, the circuit is not overturned much more than any other. (Indeed, in 2003 it had the least reversal rate of any appeals court with more than five cases reviewed.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court _o f_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit

  35. The orders and patents... by jaaron · · Score: 4, Informative
    Here's actual text of the orders (picked up from engadget.com):

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

    IMMERSION CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA, INC., SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
    Defendants.

    No. C 02-0710 CW

    JUDGMENT

    This action came on for trial before the Court, the Honorable Claudia Wilken, United States District Judge, presiding, and the issues having been duly tried and the Jury having duly rendered its verdict as to the claims presented to it, and the Court having entered its findings as to the defense of inequitable conduct,

    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

    That judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Immersion Corp. (Immersion) against Defendants Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc., (SCEA) and Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc., (SCEI) (collectively Sony) on Immersion's claims of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,424,333 and 6,275,213. Judgment is also entered in Immersion's favor on Sony's counter-claims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement. Immersion shall recover of Defendants SCEA and SCEI jointly and severally the amount of $82,000,000.00. This sum shall be paid directly to Immersion forthwith; no escrow account is required. In accordance with the portion of the Court's January 10, 2005 order awarding Immersion pre-judgment interest at the prime rate, Immersion shall recover of Defendants pre-judgment
    interest in the amount of $8,703,608.00.1 Immersion shall recover its costs from Sony.

    In a separate order, the Court also issues a permanent injunction against Sony, stayed pending appeal to the Federal Circuit, and a compulsory license fee for the duration of the
    stay.

    IT IS SO ORDERED.

    Dated: 3/24/05

    CLAUDIA WILKEN
    United States District Judge

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

    IMMERSION CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA, INC., SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
    Defendants.

    No. C 02-0710 CW

    ORDER ENTERING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL

    For the reasons set forth in its January 10, 2005 Order, and having entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff Immersion Corp. (Immersion), the Court hereby PERMANENTLY ENJOINS Defendants Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc., (SCEA) and Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc., (SCEI) (collectively Sony) from manufacturing, using, and/or selling in, or importing into, the United States the infringing Sony Playstation system, including its Playstation consoles, Dualshock controllers, and those games found by the jury to infringe. [FN1: The jury found that the following games, in conjunction with the Playstation consoles and Dualshock controllers, infringed either the '213 patent, the '333 patent or both patents: A Bug's Life; Amplitude; Ape Escape; Atlantis: The Lost Empire; Bloody Roar 2; Cool Boarders 3; Cool Boarders 4; Cool Boarders 2001; Crash Bash; Crash Team Racing; Drakan: The Ancients' Gate; Emperor's New Groove; Extermination; FantaVision; Final Fantasy X; Formula One 2001; The Getaway; Gran Turismo; Gran Turismo 2; Gran Turismo 3; Grand Theft Auto: Vice City; Grand Theft Auto 3; Grind Session; ICO; Jak & Daxter; Kinetica; Kingdom Hearts; Legend of the Dragoon; The Mark of Kri; Medal of Honor Frontline; Medievil 2; Metal Gear Solid 2; Monster's, Inc.; Sly Cooper and the Thievius Racoonus; SOCOM Navy Seals; Speed Punks; Spyro: Ripto's Rage; Spyro: Year of the Dragon; Stuart Little 2; Syphon Filter 2; Syphon Filter 3; Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3; Twisted Metal: Black; Twisted Metal 4; Twisted Metal: Small Brawl; Treasure Planet; and War of the Monsters.] As described in the January 10 Order, no recall is required of products already sold, but Sony will pay a license fee on all products already placed in the stream of

    --
    Who said Freedom was Fair?
    1. Re:The orders and PATENTS... by beavioso · · Score: 1

      The patents were filed in 2000, but they have priority claims of continuations upon continuations. This means that the abandoned (it's not a patent) application has everything that's claimed in the new patents '333 and '213. So prior art needs to be found before Nov. 30, 1995, preferably 1 year prior to that to have anything over these. Also the '333 patent, specifically talks about a graphical/force feedback relationship. Links to patents: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,424,333.WKU.&OS=PN/6,424,333&RS =PN/6,424,333 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,275,213.WKU.&OS=PN/6,275,213&RS =PN/6,275,213 There probably is something out there, I don't remember arcade timelines.

    2. Re:The orders and PATENTS... by bigwillystylie · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:The orders and patents... by PMJ2kx · · Score: 1

      I skimmed the court order and TFA, but I don't see why Microsoft is listed as a defendant...

    4. Re:The orders and patents... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "I skimmed the court order and TFA, but I don't see why Microsoft is listed as a defendant..."/I.

      XBOX has a vibrating controller. It has been said elsehwere, though, that MS settled.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    5. Re:The orders and PATENTS... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Continuation allows you to append an older patent and have everything be covered from the date the first version of the patent was filed. That's what allowed Nintendo to patent XBox Live by appending it to their 64DD patent.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  36. Re:Best comment from article by Kredal · · Score: 1

    he gave credit in the subject of the post... Did you think no would would actually RTF post? (:

    --
    Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
  37. Early Vibration Tech by DanMc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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/

    1. Re:Early Vibration Tech by FuturePastNow · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sony sells Dual Shock controllers in different colors as PS2 accessories. You can see the motors and the weights in the translucent models, no need to disassemble.

      --
      Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
    2. Re:Early Vibration Tech by larytet · · Score: 1
      plenty of instruments going at least 20 years back contain such feedback, including high precision manipulators. i remember at least 15 years ago i read about Russian device for operating in aggressive chemical environment. I guess Russian guys then did not pay tens of thousands of dollars to patent this in the US.

      and what about mechanical toys like guns vibrating when you fire ? did Taiwan companies patent it too ?

      Sony can and should use prior art

    3. Re:Early Vibration Tech by VoidWraith · · Score: 1

      They can't. Patent Here. As you can see, Operation isn't prior art because it is not a human interface device. The other mentioned devices do not fit because they do not vibrate the entire unit.

    4. Re:Early Vibration Tech by kfg · · Score: 1

      Well yeah, but that doesn't exactly tickle, let alone remove, your funny bone.

      No, I'm not even going to talk about what makes my nose light up.

      KFG

    5. Re:Early Vibration Tech by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      "...no need to disassemble."

      Where's the fun in that?

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    6. Re:Early Vibration Tech by FuturePastNow · · Score: 1

      There's no fun. But I don't own a PS2, and I didn't want to take apart my friends' controllers.

      If you bought it, you do whatever you want;)

      --
      Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
  38. Re:Millions by softspokenrevolution · · Score: 1

    Well, given the number of units that have moved for both the PS1 and the PS2, I would say that it's probably a reasonable figure.

  39. YES! The story/source is true. Microsoft aswell! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Yes, unfortunately the source is correct.

    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.cfm ?CompanyID=IMMR&CIK=1058811&FID=950134-05-4791&SID =05-00

    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,

  40. Patent by Agret · · Score: 1

    a US District Court has ordered Sony to pay Immersion Corp. $90.7 million for infringing several patents related to computer-controlled vibrating motors (which Sony uses in their Dual Shock PlayStation and PlayStation 2 controllers).
    From engadget

    --
    Have you metaroderated recently?
    1. Re:Patent by jonwil · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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)?

    2. Re:Patent by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nope, they're very specific implementations. IIRC the dual shock violated their patent for two rumble motors in a gamepad with two analog sticks. They also have patents for motors in certain kinds of joysticks, etc. The reason they can't have the broad rumble patent is because Nintendo has the paten on a single rumble motor in a gamepad, both the modular and fixed version.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  41. Re:SCO and Godwin's law by AwenAnam · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think it's time to invent Godwin's law part II, "any conversation held long enought in Slashdot will inevitably end with someone comparing the whole matter to SCO or Microsoft, and it will mark the end of the conversation for reasonable people"

  42. The patents by jaaron · · Score: 5, Informative

    Links to the patents: 6,424,333, 6,275,213.

    --
    Who said Freedom was Fair?
    1. Re:The patents by beavioso · · Score: 1

      The patents have parent claims back to November 1995. When did the Rumble Pack come out?

    2. Re:The patents by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Filed: May 1, 2000

      Er, I had a dualshock controller long before that.

      So, patents are retroactive now?

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    3. Re:The patents by VoidWraith · · Score: 1

      The links worked fine for me. The earliest claims go back to 1995, so yes, the patents predate DualShock and Rumble Packs.

    4. Re:The patents by mink · · Score: 1
      The release of the Rumble Pack was in July 1997 along with Star Fox 64.

      However the patent in Japan that seems to cover this device was granted in Oct 1995, I am having trouble getting the filing date, as the USPTO has only partial information.

      Read this link for the US version of the 1995 patent. There is one other patent that is a continuation of this one.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  43. Microsoft has patented the double-click by bayerwerke · · Score: 1

    Actually, Microsoft has been granted patents with vague enough descriptions to be able to cover a double-click with the mouse and using the tab key to navigate to elements of a user interface.

    1. Re:Microsoft has patented the double-click by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I don't know if they patented the double click (or something very similar) but I think they did patent the right click menu.
      Well, Apple's safe but what about others? :)

      And that TAB thing was about web browsers. So you can navigate through a page using TAB ("tabbed browsing"). I guess this seems like an invention you *could* patent, but it's not like they sued anyone over it. All web browsers I know of use it and I haven't heard of Microsoft doing something about it.

      In fact, Microsoft has a lot of patents (4000 only last year I believe) but I haven't heard if they'd sue anyone over them. Like the right click patent. Nearly every operating system has this.

    2. Re:Microsoft has patented the double-click by bayerwerke · · Score: 1

      The post was not really anti-microsoft but examples of ridiculous patents applied for and granted.

      I consider a browser to be an application with a user interface. Oh, and Apples do support a right-click. You just have to be someone with the skill level to understand the use of a right-click, the buy a two button mouse.

  44. Why just Sony? What about the other two? by jerkychew · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Why just Sony? What about the other two? by fozzmeister · · Score: 1

      I know microsoft are paying license fees for it.

      If it were any other company i'd be preaching how wrong patents are, but as its sony. hahahahahaha

    2. Re:Why just Sony? What about the other two? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      because the patent refers to a specific implementation of the vibration technology. Microsoft licensed it. Nintendo's rumble pack is a completely different hardware technology that was developed independantly (and a year earlier) from Immersion's "haptic" force-feedback solution. You can get controllers that use Immersion's solution for GC from Logitech.

    3. Re:Why just Sony? What about the other two? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Xbox and GC both have force feedback in their controllers (not counting the wavebird). Why aren't they in trouble as well?"

      Nintendo was sued over the Rumble Pak back when the N64 was first introduced. Nintendo won because it was an add-on, as opposed to being built into the controller. I imagine when they made the GC, they licensed the technology. Microsoft, from what I read in other posts, was sued and settled by licensing the technology.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    4. Re:Why just Sony? What about the other two? by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      I wasn't expecting to get modded up. Why would I even care?

  45. Re:Location, location, location. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    as a patent case which circuit is irrelevant ALL appeals from patent cases go to the Federal Circuit- based in D.C.

  46. Patent vs. copyright by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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.

    You're confusing copyright and patent (don't feel bad, everyone else on this site does too). Patents are mutually exclusive and broad. They could have copyrighted their design, and sony still copyrighted theirs.

    However, this might show how low the threshold for patents is these days.

    1. Re:Patent vs. copyright by nagora · · Score: 1
      You're confusing copyright and patent (don't feel bad, everyone else on this site does too)

      I think he was just saying that Patents should be changed. Which might be a fair enough balance if the PO is going to insist on giving them out free with bubblegum. Either tighten up the system or reduce the level of control a patent gives over the market.

      Or instigate random executions of Patent Office staff until they wise the fuck up.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    2. Re:Patent vs. copyright by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1
      I think he was just saying that Patents should be changed. Which might be a fair enough balance if the PO is going to insist on giving them out free with bubblegum. Either tighten up the system or reduce the level of control a patent gives over the market.

      I can't argue with the last half of that. What part of "nonobvious"...

      Or instigate random executions of Patent Office staff until they wise the fuck up.

      As satisfying as that might be - and it would be quite satisfying - they're understaffed and have a mandate from on high that equates patents granted with technological progress. Can't fault that logic, right? The problem is a lot worse than it seems. And it seems pretty damned bad.

  47. Re:uh by Myen · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    The PS controllers are easier to use on a computer?

    Google's first result on xbox usb controller. Note lack of programming chips, or even any chips at all.

    Wasn't the XBOX controller interface basically USB with different pin positions or something?

  48. Maybe Sony should boycott the US ? by Bluesuperman · · Score: 1

    Hello, I wonder what Sony's sales for be for the US ? Maybe Sony should start boycotting the US until the patent system gets corrected ? Michael.

    --
    Linux: For those able to think out side of a window
    1. Re:Maybe Sony should boycott the US ? by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      1) Patent law actually works here. Other companies have recognised this as valid and have paid the licensing fees. Sony fucked up.

      2) Sony's more than a game company, you know. Their 'sales' are much larger than just playstations. Ninty million, for one is chump change.

    2. Re:Maybe Sony should boycott the US ? by Bluesuperman · · Score: 1

      Hello, I am not saying that Sony is correct in this case, but from what I have read this patent should never of been granted in the first place. So why not boycott the US completely. Until the patent system is fixed. Michael

      --
      Linux: For those able to think out side of a window
    3. Re:Maybe Sony should boycott the US ? by Bluesuperman · · Score: 1

      It agree ... it would only take a few large companies to really hurt the US and force them into making changes that affect are for a positive manner. Michael.

      --
      Linux: For those able to think out side of a window
    4. Re:Maybe Sony should boycott the US ? by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      Read the rest of this thread. The orignal patent was granted in 1990ish for the force feedback technology. They originally made it for medical usage.

      Also, the company most likely holds the exact same patents in Japan. Our patent databases are usually identical. They'd have to boycott them too, wouldn't they?

    5. Re:Maybe Sony should boycott the US ? by Bluesuperman · · Score: 1

      Well that would depend on if the rulling was held up in Japan wouldn't it ? Plus I am not aguring that Sony should not be held liable. I am saying that currently the US patent system has MAJOR issues. Such as allowing people to patent basic ideas or thoughts with out any prototypes or designs. I am suggesting that companies like Sony should start boycotting the US until the patent system is fixed. Michael.

      --
      Linux: For those able to think out side of a window
    6. Re:Maybe Sony should boycott the US ? by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      I understand that, yes, the US patent system has some major flaws. It's simply not in Sony's best interest to boycott the US.

    7. Re:Maybe Sony should boycott the US ? by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about boycotting the EU?

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    8. Re:Maybe Sony should boycott the US ? by Bluesuperman · · Score: 1

      Good point ... Michael.

      --
      Linux: For those able to think out side of a window
    9. Re:Maybe Sony should boycott the US ? by 01000011011101000111 · · Score: 1

      What would be slightly more interesting would be if China closed it's trade with the US overnight. Probable outcome would be world-wide economic collapse (US economy nosedives, dragging the rest of us with it) - after all, just think how much cheap junk is stamped with "Made in China" - can you see McDonalds with no happy meal toys? RPW's (Random Plastic Widgets) not being available to build into computers, cars, e.t.c? There's only one other group that could cause so much hassle by just stopping trade, and thats OPEC.

      --
      Programming is an Art. I am an Artist. Does that mean I get to wear a daft hat?
    10. Re:Maybe Sony should boycott the US ? by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      But does Sony also benefit from US patent law?

    11. Re:Maybe Sony should boycott the US ? by gnuman99 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      LOL. You only need foreign countries to exchange their US$ for Euro and the US economy collapses.

      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.

    12. Re:Maybe Sony should boycott the US ? by demana · · Score: 1

      And of course Sony certainly couldn't possibly benefit from any patents in the US, right? Oh, wait a minute. Sony has >13,000 US patents. Yeah, clearly Sony wants to trash the US patent system.

    13. Re:Maybe Sony should boycott the US ? by joper90 · · Score: 1

      what? china...?

  49. Re:uh by RichardX · · Score: 2, Informative

    y'know you can get adapters to hook the old SNES pads up to USB on your PC? In fact, you can get something like that for just about every old console out there.

    Here y'go.. a quick google turned up a SNES one here at Lik Sang

    --
    Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
  50. Time limit? by negative3 · · Score: 1

    I don't know much (actually, next to nothing) about this case, but shouldn't there be some sort of time limit on lawsuits such as this? Sony has been making the controllers for years and this is just happening now? If this is a valid claim it should have been resolved when the first controllers came out...which was 7 years ago .

    Of course, this could have been going on since 1998 without me knowing. But waiting for so long to bring a patent infringement lawsuit (especially after years of huge profits) should count against the patent holder. That's the way trademarks work, right?

    --
    "Physics is to math what sex is to masturbation." - Richard Feynman
    1. Re:Time limit? by kellererik · · Score: 1

      You are missing a point here, companies patent something, wait until someone makes a real product, a.k.a. uses real brains and qualified engineers to create something, and then sue.
      Net result, a bunch of persons comes up with "something" and waits until people with the skills and knowledge actually create said something, profit.
      If nobody bothers to "infringe" (seen from the perspective of a lawyer/extortionist) nobody cares, getting broad-worded patents that say nothing in the first place, is just to easy AND to profitable.
      my 2 cents

  51. X-box controllers hit also. by Pepsi__Blue · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yeah, but remeber, Microsoft got hit also( From Immersion's web site) so its not just the dualshock controllers. As this article mentions, Microsft ended up licensing the technology (and became a shareholder, although this isn't mentioned).

  52. Re:Patents gone wild! by incom · · Score: 1

    Does this mean I'll be able to buy a PS2 for cheap here in Canada soon?

    --
    True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
  53. Your attitude is absurd. by Cadallin · · Score: 2, Interesting
    You might as well be moaning that "jews control the banks, and blacks are coming to take my shit"

    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.

    1. Re:Your attitude is absurd. by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2, Informative

      8-10 years?

      A JD is typically acquired in 3 years. I got mine in 2 1/2 by going to summer school. Some people take night classes and get their degrees in 4 years.

      I'd probably be a bit afraid of someone who worked 8-10 years on their JD. (Frankly, that's a long time for a JD, LLM, and SJD together!)

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  54. Arcade driving games by AC-x · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Arcade driving games by bani · · Score: 1

      i remember feedback devices (including video game controllers) existing as far back as 1982 or so.

      immersion's patent was filed in 1990.

  55. Re:The lazy are powerfull by WaterBreath · · Score: 1

    That is, the lazy can just not do a damn thing and camp on an idea. Let someone else to the hard work, then fire a lawsuit for patent infringment once your idea become profitable.

    Do some research. Other companies, such as Logitech, one of the biggest manufacturers of force-feedback devices, already license from Immersion and have for years.

    Also, if "someone else" is willing to work hard enough to develop something, but not to find out if it's already patented, then they're as guilty of laziness as anyone else.

  56. Re:Location, location, location. by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    That's "Ninth Circus Court of Appeals" Get it right folks. Please!

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  57. games needing vibration by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    Metal Gear Solid, (The first one).
    Granted it isn't really neccesary, but it does help immerse you in the game.


    First time I played it I did so with the old, non-shaky controller.

    First thing I did when I got a dualshock was to replay it. That was SO worth it :D

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:games needing vibration by skyman8081 · · Score: 1

      You like Castlevania, don't you?

      --
      Two Roommates and a Boyfriend, updates Monday, Wednesday, and Friday
  58. Nintendo by mcc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Nintendo by Elranzer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True. It's probably a version of the Rumble Pak they used in the N64 starting with Star Fox 64. If anyone remembers correctly, the N64 Rumble Pak was video gaming's first force feedback device.

    2. Re:Nintendo by flithm · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? No it wasn't! Arcade games had force feedback long before N64.

    3. Re:Nintendo by Moofie · · Score: 1

      What does a remote controlled vibrator have to do with force feedback?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    4. Re:Nintendo by payndz · · Score: 4, Informative
      It's probably a version of the Rumble Pak they used in the N64 starting with Star Fox 64. If anyone remembers correctly, the N64 Rumble Pak was video gaming's first force feedback device.

      I used to be a game journalist, and when the Rumble Pak first came out, a lot of gamers wondered why Nintendo didn't make a controller with vibration functions built in - especially after the PS1 DualShock appeared. The word from Nintendo back then was that someone had a patent on FF in a controller - but an extra device that plugged into a controller wasn't covered by the patent.

      What that means for Nintendo now with the GC controller and this case, I don't know.

      --
      You must think in Russian.
    5. Re:Nintendo by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Informative

      Someone else mentioned that Nintendo uses a different approach to rumble (the unbalanced weight is inside the motor, not attached to it).

      Additionally, Nintendo patented the GC controller as a continuation of the RumblePak patent.

      This application is a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/250,160, filed Feb. 16, 1999, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,200,253 which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/727,239, filed Oct. 8, 1996, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,897,437. The contents of the prior applications are incorporated by reference herein.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    6. Re:Nintendo by PhotoBoy · · Score: 2, Informative

      So Nintendo has a patent for an external rumble device, and the GC controller is an extension of this patent?

      Presumably this means the GC controller is a rumble pack with a joypad built-in rather than a joypad with rumble built-in... ;)

    7. Re:Nintendo by apt142 · · Score: 1

      I think there was a device that came out before that. There was some sort of vest that worked with Sega Genesis games that vibrated in response to the game. I think it worked based on sound effects.

      I remember this because I thought at the time: "This will never catch on."

      Never knew my foot tasted so good.

    8. Re:Nintendo by runderwo · · Score: 1

      The phrase "independently developed" is irrelevant. Patent infringement has nothing to do with whether or not the knowledge in the patent was used to develop the infringing product.

    9. Re:Nintendo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      In truth, Immersion's patent references Nintendo's. The two are compatible and can be enforced independently, because the technology is different.

      But yeah, Nintendo's rumble technology pre-dates Immersion's. Immersion can't touch Nintendo, and in fact is capable of maintaining a good working relationship with them. Just do a search for Immersion's press release for Logitech Speed Force Pro steering wheel for the GameCube. Immersion speaks respectfully of both Nintendo and Logitech, who used Immersion's force feedback technology for that product.

      Also, to put to rest other speculation that I've seen on the issue, there is no reason to believe that Immersion is a shadow company owned by Nintendo, Nintendo is not a secret licensee, Nintendo never pre-emptively settled with Immersion, and Nintendo did not have to work around any sort of prior art from Immersion. Nintendo came first, did their thing the right way, and is basically immune from anything Immersion can do.

      Ars Technica's statement that Nintendo licensed Immersion's technology was irresponsible and inaccurate. It simply propagates a common lie, the type of which you normally only see on braindead fanboy web forums.

    10. Re:Nintendo by Threni · · Score: 1

      I'm sure Pole Position or something of that era had it.

  59. Re:uh by mp3phish · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
  60. Re:The lazy are powerfull by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    Perhaps. But I believe that either you "Use it or lose it" when it comes to a patent. I'll even be fair about it. You get to patent something but have just a few years to a product developed to prove your using the patent. This extra time also will alow for private investment needed to be raised for such a prototype to be developed.

    The idea that you can monkey-type ideas on paper (which takes ZERO effort) and then sue 10 years later is BULLSHIT!.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  61. Immersion's sneaky PR campaign (suspected but not by fruitbane · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

  62. Re:Immersion's sneaky PR campaign (suspected but n by fruitbane · · Score: 1

    I should also note that said posts tend to refer to all the markets Immersion serves with their technologies, etc... blah blah blah

    Sure, some people like Immersion and are standing up for them. Some people are taking Immersion's side and making sense. But there's still always that ONE post that sounds more like an advertisement.

  63. Re:April the First is Friday by the_greywolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    the difference here, though, is that Budweiser *SHOULD* be ordered to stop selling colored water.

    --
    grey wolf
    LET FORTRAN DIE!
  64. Explanation by MBraynard · · Score: 5, Informative
    Really makes /. look bad for someone to get modded up for saying "Gee, this really demonstratess the problems with the patent system in the US."

    Here are a few Bullet Points:

    • Immersion doesn't just do vibrating controllers. They also create technologies for industry, medicine, research, the automotive field, and mobile communication.
    • They've been around since 1993 though the oldest patent was from 1990 for tactile sensory. The Force Feedback patent was from 1993. It's not simply virbration but a calculation using both the action on a device from the human and the intended force of the divice on the human. Read it here:

      A man-machine interface is disclosed which provides force and texture information to sensing body parts. The interface is comprised of a force actuating device that produces a force which is transmitted to a force applying device. The force applying device applies the generated force to a pressure sensing body part. A force sensor on the force applying device measures the actual force applied to the pressure sensing body part, while angle sensors measure the angles of relevant joint body parts. A computing device uses the joint body part position information to determine a desired force value to be applied to the pressure sensing body part. The computing device combines the joint body part position information with the force sensor information to calculate the force command which is sent to the force actuating device. In this manner, the computing device may control the actual force applied to a pressure sensing body part to a desired force which depends upon the positions of related joint body parts. In addition, the interface is comprised of a displacement actuating device which produces a displacement which is transmitted to a displacement applying device (e.g., a texture simulator). The displacement applying device applies the generated displacement to a pressure sensing body part. The force applying device and displacement applying device may be combined to simultaneously provide force and displacement information to a pressure sensing body part.

    • Who has liscenced technologies from Immersion? BMW - for their I-drive. Logitech for all of their FF devices. Nintendo for their Game Cube controller. MS for their controller-S. And Boeing. And Seimens.
    • MS worked with Immersion to develop FF into the Direct X API in 1997.
    • Apple similarly worked with Immersion to develop a FF API for OS X.

    I recall being a kid back in 1993 and going to a shopping mall and visiting EB games. They had this demonstration joystick that you could set to have different sensations and they were very real. Everything from flying to firing a machine gun. That was the technology that they made possible. Sony will have to learn to play ball if they use patented techology. It may be in a US court, but Immersion also has a patent for the same technology in Japan and IIRC, the US has harmonized it's patent system internationally.

    1. Re:Explanation by rebelcool · · Score: 2, Insightful

      remember, a 2 paragraph article makes everyone on slashdot both intimately familiar with the specifics on a case, but also a patent lawyer.

      ah to be 13 (or mentally 13) again...

      --

      -

    2. Re:Explanation by idlake · · Score: 1

      Everything from flying to firing a machine gun. That was the technology that they made possible.

      Quite wrong. They didn't make the technology possible--that was done in decades of research on control systems, robotics, and human perception, done by hundreds of researchers, often funded at taxpayer expense.

      What that patent appears to attempt is to lock up an entire range of applications based on that research, without actually disclosing anything that is actually technically useful.

      # MS worked with Immersion to develop FF into the Direct X API in 1997. # Apple similarly worked with Immersion to develop a FF API for OS X.

      And what does that prove? Immersion seems to have had credibility in that they understood this technology and marketed it, but that's not the same as creating it.

      Besides, both Microsoft and Apple have strong motivations to prop up patents, even questionable patents, that keep competitors from entering their markets. Both companies are likely to license patents, rather than litigate, if they are cheap enough to them.

  65. N64 Rumble Pack by LostCauz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Didn't the Rumble Pack come out in 1996? I guess that might not violate these patents (I never owned one, anyone who does...does it have more than one speed?) but does the big N have a patent on that? If they do, can't they modify their patent to get rid of this Immersion BS for the good of everyone? I thought you could do that with patents..."update" them...

    1. Re:N64 Rumble Pack by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Didn't the Rumble Pack come out in 1996? I guess that might not violate these patents (I never owned one, anyone who does...does it have more than one speed?)"

      The Rumble Pak was a seperate unit that had to be plugged into the controller. Nintendo won that battle because of that key difference.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    2. Re:N64 Rumble Pack by beavioso · · Score: 1

      The patents named actually have priority claims back to November of 1995, so the Rumble Pack came out after (assuming 1996, as you say).

      6,424,333 & 6,275,213

      They both have claims to the abandoned (not patented) application from November 1995. The parent information is found by scrolling past the references cited and other references and right before the claims.

    3. Re:N64 Rumble Pack by Toxygen · · Score: 1

      The rumble pack did have different intensities when it activated, I remember from the old Starfox game that it would go from a low rumble to a heavy shake and then down again depending on the events in the game. The rumble pack would actually offer harder shakes (in my opinion) than the Sony controllers, the only downside was that when it was in full-on rattle mode, it could be quite noisy.

    4. Re:N64 Rumble Pack by mink · · Score: 1

      If you read Nintendos patents they go back to 1995 as well.
      Specifically the Japanese patent for the rumble pack.

      Seems like it is a close call but Nintendo either beat Immersion to the punch or implemented a significantly unique design that Immersion cant touch them.

      Since they actually submitted technical diagrams and designs I suspect Nintendo would win in court.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  66. Re:Let me be the first to say... by s4m7 · · Score: 2
    Maybe this is the American court systems payback for the E.U. trying to sue the crap out of Microsoft.

    Yeah, I can really see how the American court system granting judgement to an American company against a Japanese one really sticks it to the E.U.

    ...uhh.. what?
    --
    This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
  67. Re:uh by dindi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    i personally CARE for the dualshock, i even play some titles on xbox with my playstation controller ..

    while the xbox has a good idea of having a long travel analog button at the pointing fingers, it makes the hube mistake of wasting 2 fingers just hanging below ....

    sony has all buttons on the controller 8bit sensitive (256 levels of sensitivity) while as far as i know the S-type does not ...

    also having the 2 joys in an asimmetryc manner is a baad-baad idea, however you can get used to it ...

    the dual shock is also half the weight (i go to the gym, so don't start with i'm not strong enough to hold that S-brick stuff)

    i think something like the dual controller, with S-style pull triggers. +6 other buttons for the 2x3 fingers would give a big kick to fighting games ... hey if i could have a few buttons for the legs (2 pedals + some other stuff)

    or do i wish i was an octopus ?

    well a bit off topic ....
    i am upset, i have my duals, and probaly here in costa rica i will be able to buy them for some time .. but to be safe i might just buy an extra one :)

    and again, why to patent a HID (human interface device) ... these should be "open source" things that should be used and improved by anyone .....
    shame on that law system again

  68. Re:uh by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Flamebait?

    Is the truth now regarded as flamebait?

    X-Box controllers are designed for Halo. One game. That's all. Pretty fucking useless for anything else, and not even as good as a mouse / KB for Halo!

    --
    That was classic intercourse!
  69. Re:Patents gone wild! by canajin56 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
  70. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Winkhorst · · Score: 1

    So is Turkey, mostly, and they're going to join. And other Mediterranean states in Africa and, yes, Western Asia have been told they can join if they meet the qualifications. They may have to change it to the Euro-Mediterranean Union (or EMU?), but what the heck. Poland is in NATO and they're not exactly on the North Atlantic. Beware of confusing terminology with knowledge.

    --
    "Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
  71. Re:uh by labratuk · · Score: 1

    You don't even need that. It's a 5 minute soldering job hooking it up to the parallel port. More information available in your kernel documentation: /usr/src/linux/Documentation/input/joystick-parpor t.txt

    --
    Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
  72. Could sony hold prior art? by pomac · · Score: 3, Informative

    Dualshock was available for PS1 aswell. I remember playing Ape Escape with it. Now ape escape was released on 05/31/1999 according to gamespot. And the pattents i have seen mentioned was filed:
    Filed: April 18, 2001
    Filed: May 1, 2000

    They however seem to be holding earlier patents aswell but they aren't mentioned in the suit and are thus void(?).

  73. Actually by Altima(BoB) · · Score: 4, Informative

    You guys are a bit too late...

    These guys thought of it first... (Note, saucy picture, oohh!)

    --
    Yup...
    1. Re:Actually by Curious+Yellow+82 · · Score: 1
      --
      Curious Yellow - getting all Grammar Nazi on the asses of punk bitches since he learnt to spell.
    2. Re:Actually by bigtangringo · · Score: 1

      I was just going to post this.. damn you.

      --
      Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
  74. Re:uh by ScottyUK · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The buttons on the Xbox controller ARE also pressure sensitive to varying degrees. (As for the range of this sensitivity, I am unsure...and the black/white buttons do not appear to have it). The rear triggers on the Xbox controller are also fully analog axes, not the button arrangement you have on the Playstation controllers. I personally care for the Xbox S controller. I use the standard S and the Joytech Neo-S...both sturdier and more comfortable than any of the PS1/PS2 controllers I have. Why mention that you go to the gym with regards to the weight of the Xbox controller? It may be your personal preference to like the reduced weight, but suggesting the Xbox controllers require a good workout to pick up is slightly daft ;)

    --
    Nice weather for penguins...
  75. Re:my 2 cents. by WhiteBandit · · Score: 2, Funny

    sounds like its gonna cost sony about as much as I throw out the car window as i pass by hookers

    $90.7 million dollars???

    Pardon me, but do you mind if I pretend to be a hooker while you drive by?

  76. /.ed? by chiapetofborg · · Score: 1

    I think, due to the ./ effect, they've tried to make some of their php pages static but, they missed. Take a look at Their products page In any case, its a CVS thing. Note the index.php then the ----- later ;)

  77. Submarine patents predate prior art by Robin+Lionheart · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes, Dual Shock controllers came out with the first Gran Turismo, released on December 23, 1997.

    Even though the infringed patents #6275213 and #6424333 were issued on August 14, 2001 and July 23, 2002 respectively, they're "submarine patents" originally filed on November 30, 1995.

    Until 2003, US patent filers could request repeated continuations to intentionally delay issue of a patent for years, until a practical implementation of a technology appeared. Then they they let their submarine patent surface and collect royalties for 17 years from the issue date. (In 2003, the rules changed so that patents now last 20 years from the filing date.)

    1. Re:Submarine patents predate prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Parent is wrong in almost every respect. The moderators need to be shot.

      In 1994 the rules changed so that patents received one of two possible terms of protection: 17 years from date of issue, or 20 years from the application filing date, whichever was greater. See 35 U.S.C. 154(a)(2) and http://www.lectlaw.com/files/inp03.htm

      These patents do not qualify as "submarine patents" because the patents were filed well after June 7, 1995. At that point, all original patent applications were only eligible for a term extending 20 years from the application filing date. Thus, Immersion Corp was only burning their own term to collect royalties by filing continuations and amending the claims.

      The classic "submarine patent", on the other hand, was filed in the early stages of development in a field and then delayed until well beyond the ~17 term that a prompt prosecution action in the USPTO would have obtained, so that the royalties would be collected from a well developed commercial base instead of from a newly developing market. Jerome Lemmelson (and his estate) became a billionaire by exploting this aspect of the U.S. patent system.

  78. I got a patent. by Kaenneth · · Score: 2, Funny

    I actually have a patent on a modification to 3D-glasses...

    But I never approached any company with it; it's possible side effect of causing seizures in small children doesn't seem particularly profitable.

  79. /. icons by Ogive17 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Did /. get proper permission to use the dual-shock controller icon on the front page?

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  80. Bullshit by iamnotaclown · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sorry, I call bullshit. The patents in question were filed in 2000 and 2001, not in 1993 as you indicate in your post.

    The patents are 6,275,213 (filed May 1, 2000) and 6,424,333 (filed April 18, 2001). Look them up on uspto.gov.

    The Playstation 2 was first demoed in August 1999, launched March 4, 2000 and came with the DualShock II controller.

    Now tell me exactly how Sony can be infringing on a patent that didn't exist at the time the claimed infriging device was launched?

    Furthermore, Immersion's patents are so broad they encompass anything that a) produces vibration via a mass on a spinning axis that is b) controlled by a processing device of any kind.

    A vibrating pager is the most obvious example of prior art I can think of, and Motorola's been making them a lot longer than Immersion's even existed.

    Or, as others have pointed out, a vibrator is also controlled by a processing device, albeit an organic one.

    Here's hoping this lawsuit will result in a challenge to frivolous patent claims.

    cheers

    1. Re:Bullshit by Zangief · · Score: 1

      Patents can be filled way after you actually invented the device. And are awarded a while later too.

      I don't know if this is the case, though. So it may be valid even though the patent is posterior to the Dual Shock.

    2. Re:Bullshit by Feynman · · Score: 1
      Now tell me exactly how Sony can be infringing on a patent that didn't exist at the time the claimed infriging device was launched?

      Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the U.S. patent system is based on "first to invent," not "first to file." In that case, neither the issue date of the patent nor the launch date of the PS2 are relevant. Instead, if Immersion could demonstrate in court that they invented the contested technology before Sony did, the applicable claims would be upheld.

  81. I'm good by Lullabye_Muse · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Luckily I bought my ps2 and katamari damacy 3 weeks ago.

  82. Re:Patents gone wild! by JustinCredible · · Score: 1

    The kneejerk reaction to patents being the work of the devil is not really necessary. Sure, some software patents and whatnot tend to be looney, but patents are overall important. It helps encourage the development of new ideas and protects those that come up with them.

  83. Not only that... by Cryptnotic · · Score: 4, Informative

    The later models of Playstation 1 came with a Dual Shock controller. You could also buy a dual shock separately. That was before the Playstation 2 came out, and absolutely before these guys filed their patent.

    --
    My other first post is car post.
    1. Re:Not only that... by tgd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You had a playstation 1 in 1993?

    2. Re:Not only that... by 9mind · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It was not before they filed their patent. While in the "Patent Pending stage" Sony started using the Immersion technology. So Sony IS in violation of Immersion's patent. Many other companies have been licensing the technology for years. Why should Sony be allowed to skip free?

    3. Re:Not only that... by Ahnteis · · Score: 1

      You don't know because you haven't bothered reading the rest of the thread here.

    4. Re:Not only that... by mink · · Score: 1

      According to TFT, the patent covering 2 motors built into the controller, was filed around 1996 and kept having continuences placed on it so the final aplication was in 200 or 2001. Some call this a submarine patent since it is launched "under water" and has features added to it as time goes by, usually they seem to match common or useful advances made by others in the field.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  84. Re:April the First is Friday by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

    My kidneys already patented the EXACT recipe that Budweiser uses!

    --
    That was classic intercourse!
  85. Re:uh by plague3106 · · Score: 1, Informative

    Against an american company..

    See this snippit from http://www.sony.com/:

    © 2005 Sony Corporation of America

    Notice the 'of America' part at the end.

  86. NOT investment advice by RM6f9 · · Score: 1

    ...But I'm purchasing a few APR 40 put options on SNE at the open...

    --
    Take the 90-Day Challenge! http://rwmurker.bodybyvi.com/
  87. As you would expect... by mad_cow · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sony filed an appeal and apparently got a stay on the injunction that would have forced them to stop selling their consoles and infringing software. You can read about it here.

  88. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Vengie · · Score: 1

    NATO was supposed to be the response to the Warsaw pact -- Poland joining NATO had a particularly delicious irony, but also raised the question, "What the hell is NATO's real purpose post USSR? Oh, right, it is a UN that the US has more say in...."

    --
    When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
  89. Re:Patents gone wild! by kai.chan · · Score: 1

    I don't think corporations (specifically Microsoft) will support the changing of the patent laws anytime soon. Especially when open-source is such a big threat, Microsoft needs as many patents as possible to keep its grip on the market.

  90. Issued vs. Pending vs. Filed [Was:Bullshit] by Levendis47 · · Score: 5, Informative

    For the record,

    I have a Logitech "3D Mouse" I bought in 1995 to play Descent and experiment with a cheap (~$50) Six-Degrees-of-Freedom input device for a VR-related project I was working on in college.

    It also had a crude feedback mechanism that was licensed from Immersion that was just like the dualshock's offset-balast on a DC-motor with a simple motor speed control. Great device despite it having a slow RS232 interface. Anyway... Immersion was in devices being used for gaming atleast as early as 1995, perhaps even as early as 1994. The patent reference for the "interactive feedback device" is "Patent Pending"...

    So, your claim of frivolous patent claim sniping is a bit off-base. The 2000/2001 dates you reference could be the dates of official patent number filing/issuance. Also it is not uncommon for a patent developer to re-file addenda or refinements to patents they have already put in for review if the addenda do not change the nature of the patented item from its original filing.

    Immersion had a booth at the Spring 1995 VR Expo mini-con that was held in NYC. I was there. Besides context-variable vibration feedback they also had sample devices using directional linear-bumping feedback using small, variable current solenoids. They're legit...

    What's worse in this typical knee-jerk Slashdot goon response that I'm seeing all over this topic is that a JUDGE in a COURT held a protracted HEARING with a lot of EVIDENCE and FACTS in the case and came to an >>INFORMED decision. But one look at the news in the U.S. and one can see that the idea of and respect for the judiciary process is completely lost on most people (including many folks in the legislative domain).

    youareaclown,
    peace,
    and carrots,
    Levendis47

    --
    --==[ AOL YIM ICQ : Levendis47 : levendis47@yahoo.com ]==--
  91. Different Uses? by MaverickUW · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Different Uses? by Andrevan · · Score: 1

      What about the built-in rumble in the GameCube controller?

      --
      "All it takes to fly is to hurl yourself at the ground... and miss." - Douglas Adams
    2. Re:Different Uses? by Pranadevil2k · · Score: 1

      Look at it like this: In 10 years they won't be selling the offending products anymore. If they can hold up the court decision long enough, Immersion stands to get jack for royalties and may even pull out of the case due to court costs. And in the more likely event that Sony eventually loses their appeal, they'll still have stopped selling PS2 units. And if they don't want to license the technology from Immersion, they ARE Sony. They can probably invent some other way to make things do stuff =P

  92. Re:uh by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is the truth now regarded as flamebait?

    Yes, 99 percent of the time you could substitute -1 Flamebait with +1 Truth. However, he might have avoided that moderation if he put his point across a little more eloquently.

    As for the idea that Xbox controllers are designed exclusively for Halo, that's as much as a gross exaggeration as 'Halo is the only good game for the Xbox'. Yes, playing Halo with the Xbox feels bloody comfortable and natural, but I don't know how this equates to it being unusable for every other game, however. Come on, the differences between the three console controllers aren't that radical; look at which fingers are assigned to which buttons/pads/sticks and it's mostly spatial alignment and positioning that varies.

    Funnily enough, I quite like the original Xbox controller and it's only second to the DC one.

    --
    Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
  93. Patent System Corrupt... by CherniyVolk · · Score: 2, Interesting


    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.

    1. Re:Patent System Corrupt... by haroldK · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And yet power steering wasn't obvious enough for them to have put it in the first cars ever built. If it's that simple, give me a list of the things that obviously should be around but aren't.

      Now give me the obvious implementation of all these things. Also, just as an excersize, I've like you to provide me with your design for a power steering system.

      Your logic is a bit faulty. You're saying since we can see how we like having something once we lose it that anybody could have invented it. That's simply not true. The challenge is being the person to come up with something *before* it's widespread.

    2. Re:Patent System Corrupt... by senatorpjt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think the difference that he is referring to is that patents are being granted on the idea with no implementation. It would be like if someone patented the idea of having power-assisted steering, which is obvious. The implementation of the drive system is not, and that should be patentable. Not simply the concept.

    3. Re:Patent System Corrupt... by atezun · · Score: 1

      You could therefore say that the telephone was an obvious extension of the telegraph or the cellphone was the natural extension of the LAN line phone yet these technologies were given patents and I don't remeber any uproar about them being given patents.

    4. Re:Patent System Corrupt... by runderwo · · Score: 1

      Power assisted steering is an obvious idea. The hard part is engineering something that actually implements that idea. Patenting the idea not only stifles engineering innovation to actually solve the problem, but also rules out competing implementations that solve the same problem.

    5. Re:Patent System Corrupt... by multi+io · · Score: 1
      If it's that simple, give me a list of the things that obviously should be around but aren't.

      Frictionless gearings.

      Combustion engines without exhaust heat.

      Lighter airplanes.

      Faster cars.

      Anti-cancer vaccines.

      Warp drives.

  94. What's a keyboard, anyway? by Dink+Paisy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is totally offtopic, but that post reminds me of a conversation I had with a professor a while ago. We were commenting about how little the frosh understood computers, and he made the comment that many of them saw a keyboard as a device to display characters on a monitor. This perception (which I agree is common) makes it difficult to teach the students UNIX or programming, because the students don't see the keyboard as something that can give commands to the computer. You would be further ahead thinking of a keyboard as an input device that is typically used to enter text. Without limiting other uses that I'm not mentioning, that text can be displayed on a monitor, interpreted as instructions for the computer, or it can be the source code of a computer program.

    --

    Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
    whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.
    --Proverbs 9:7
  95. N licensed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    If you read Immersion's site, it says they licensed the technology for their Gamecube wheel controller. Not for their normal Gamecube controller.

    Look, Q*Bert had a vibrator/shaker in it long before Immersion was around. Airplanes sent vibration through rudder pedals to indicate stalls before that. Let Immersion have their patents on fancy force feedback, they didn't invent vibration as a method of communicating information to a person.

  96. Nope by scheme · · Score: 4, Informative
    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?

    No, majority shareholders can't do things like that since minority shareholders also have protected rights as well. Sony would need to buy out the company or it would face shareholder lawsuits and possible SEC sanctions if it tried to buy 51% of the company and drop the lawsuit.

    --
    "When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
    1. Re:Nope by EulerX07 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info.

    2. Re:Nope by superskippy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Also, most places have a rule where once you've bought 20% (or some similar figure) of the company, you have to attempt a full takeover bid. Ending up with 51% of a company in shares is a hard thing to do.

  97. Re:Patents gone wild! by Corngood · · Score: 2, Funny

    Holy crap, if only the Sony lawyers had known that, you should really let them know.

  98. Re:Immersion sucks... Sony rules! by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Well, actually, if Immersion is some mom-and-pop that's just trying to make a living and Sony really is infringing on some patent that isn't some B.S. patent, but rather something that really is a non-obvious original invention, then that really sucks, and Sony should pay licensing fees."

    I don't follow why you think one set of laws should apply, or another, depending on the ownership structure of the company with the patent.

    I share your contempt for patent protection applied to trivial inventions, but even then, I don't see how it takes away anyone's right to due process, or why it does not apply to everyone equally.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  99. I've seen this kind of technology in 1996 by camelcai · · Score: 1

    It was called Phantom (tm) used in scientific apps:
    http://www.sensable.com/products/phantom_gh ost/pre mium6DOF.asp

    For example you can put on a finger thimble and feel a virtual 3D surface.

    I even wrote an SGI program to use it as a flight cnotrol device.

    --
    jpenguin AT the google email service
  100. Retort by cgenman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To sum up your quote, they didn't patent force feedback, they've patented having a sensor to make sure that your force feedback doesn't push too hard. And this is not a logical extension of force feedback because...? Just because it uses intentionally complicated language doesn't mean that the concept isn't simple.

    That's probably not what they're fighting over, though. It's probably one of the volumes of other patents that Immersion has recieved. Let's look at a random one, shall we? 6,563,487 describes using force feedback on the D-pad of a controller. It doesn't describe how this is any different than using force feedback on a button, but there it is. There is also force feedback for a knob (6,636,197) and the terrible idea of the vibrating touchpad (6,429,846). I guess that compliments their vibrating Laptop (6,822,635).

    Hey, here is one... (6,693,622) a patent for a vibrating mass inside of a controller, granted on February 17, 2004. 2004? Was the patent examiner in a cave? Every console shipped with vibrating controllers years before this, in exactly the manner they describe.

    There is mounds of prior art for a lot of this. The kickback in the guns in POW. Battletech centers. The wheel feedbacks in arcade and home games such as Hard Drivin', etc, etc.

    The patent system is broken. This is not just /. rhetoric. Some of the things they've patented are obvious extensions of the existing idea, and some have just mountains of prior art. Most are of the "with X" kind of patent, where they patent pretty much daily activities "with force feedback."

    We need to stop allowing patents of ideas, not implementations. A battery would be the perfect example of a classic patent, as one would have listed out the copper and various other ingredients that went into it, the chemical reactions that take place, and so on. These days, it would just be listed as "a device that stores electrical charge," and left at that to sue everyone who makes batteries, capacitors, carpets, combs, and anything else that happens to eventually fall under that umbrella.

    Heck, they patented force feedback over a computer network (6,859,819), last month, 2005. Isn't this what cybersex was supposed to be all about? Wasn't there already teledildontics at that point?

    Though maybe I'm just bitter because I work at a company which made on one of the games on the list. But these patents ring bogus to me, and I applaud Sony's efforts to fight on everybody's behalf.

    I'd also like to point out that just because someone has bought a license from SCO doesn't mean SCO has the right to sell a license. Just because Nintendo didn't fight against this doesn't mean that it is valid. And quite frankly, even if it is valid and holds up in court, it's still downright questionable. I'm guessing Immersion just set the cost of licensing the patents at a number smaller than the cost of fighting the patents in court.

    1. Re:Retort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Did you bother to read these patents? No. Do you know what you're talking about? No. Should anyone rely upon the lay opinion of a game designer when it comes to the workings of a patent system? Read on...

      Heck, they patented force feedback over a computer network (6,859,819), last month, 2005. Isn't this what cybersex was supposed to be all about? Wasn't there already teledildontics at that point?

      Wasn't there already teledildontics AT WHAT POINT?

      If you were a patent attorney and you'd actually bothered to read the patent, then you would have noticed the following:

      This is a Continuation application of prior U.S. application Ser. No. 09/153,784, filed on Sept. 16, 1998, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,101,530, which is a Continuation application of prior application Ser. No. 08/691,852 filed on Aug. 1, 1996 now U.S. Pat. No. 5,956,484, which is a continuation-in-part of prior application Ser. No. 08/571,606, filed on Dec. 13, 1995, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,219,032, which is a Continuation-in-Part of prior application Ser. No. 08/566,282, filed Dec. 1, 1995, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,734,373, the disclosures of which are incorporated herein by reference.

      I.E. the patented claims have a priority date of, at the latest, 1996 and at the earliest, late 1995. If you'd read the patents, then you'd also have noticed that the specification (everything except the claims and the "header" to the patent) is identical to the one filed August 1, 1996. They may not even have relied on that additional material, so that the support for their patent claims is found in the original patent application filed December 1, 1995.

      It's not so easy to claim that the 2005 patent was rediculous almost 10 years ago, is it? Never mind that we haven't even read and discussed the patent claims. Instead, we're making snap judgments based on the title of a patent, because that IS a simple concept.

    2. Re:Retort by Dogun · · Score: 1

      > Wasn't there already teledildontics at that point?

      Yes. It is called the "Fufme"

      Google, you'll find it. Site seems to be down but there are some mirrors.

    3. Re:Retort by mink · · Score: 1

      Nintendo does not need to fight it because they have their own patent filed before Immersions patent in question. Aparently they implemented a different design and have their own patent for it.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  101. Re:uh by Slayk · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yep.

    You can hack a male USB connector onto the cord of an Xbox controller, and it will work just fine with any USB input. Getting the proper wires soldered together can be a little difficult if the cable end has some funky wire colors, but it's pretty easy to do otherwise.

  102. Immersion by springbox · · Score: 1

    I really liked immersion's idea of trying to get more games and applications to support force feedback. I have an iFeel mouse, and I really love what some games can do with it. Although last time I checked, it seemed like Immersion was having trouble getting developers to add vibration support to PC games. I noticed that they had some cheesy software on their web site that enabled devices to rumble based on the sound that the user hears.. sigh.

  103. Stay by dmarx · · Score: 1

    This is bad news for gamers.
    Is there any hope for a stay, and that Sony will prevail on appeal?

    --
    "Do I dare disturb the universe?"
  104. Re:The lazy are powerfull by lightknight · · Score: 1

    What if your product takes longer than that to fully develop?

    Depending whose filing, the time to market may be months to years. A big company (like MS) can pop something out in 3 months. A lone inventor can take a lot longer (years, even with funding). What if the inventor is a college professor, who likes their current job as a researcher, not a developer (of a product)?

    What if the inventor approaches a company, and the company would rather wait for the patent to expire? It's not unheard of.

    Personally (and I'll be flamed for this), I favor the 20 year limit. It's such a large block of time for a company, that they'd rather license or buy a patent than wait. If you shorten the patent length, yeah, you'll cut a lot of companies. But overall, you're royally screwing the small inventor. A company can wait 5 years for a patent to expire; most can't wait 20 years. A lone inventor is really put under pressure with smaller terms; with larger ones, the power lies with them.

    "The idea that you can monkey-type ideas on paper (which takes ZERO effort) and then sue 10 years later is BULLSHIT!."

    Have you ever written a patent application? Just getting the format right takes a week or two. Getting the appropriate sections, filled with the right data, in the right order, within the stringent requirements is a challenge. It takes a lot more than two brain cells rubbing together, and you need to be completely sober.

    Try it sometime. Come up with an original idea (harder than it sounds), and write one for kicks. It's an exercise in humility.

    --
    I am John Hurt.
  105. You're on the money by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

    Apparently, Immersion has been licensing this technology to other companies for years. They have a very close relationship with logitech. This isn't a case of a patent holding company submarining Sony.

    --
    It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  106. This haptic technology was there in 1996! by camelcai · · Score: 4, Informative

    The patent was file in 2000.

    But in 1996 I played with exactly the same kind of haptic technology (or called force feedback) before. It was called Phantom (tm) used in scientific apps:
    http://www.sensable.com/products/phantom_ghost/pre mium6DOF.asp

    For example you can put on a finger thimble and feel a virtual 3D surface.

    I even wrote an SGI program to use it as a flight cnotrol device.

    --
    jpenguin AT the google email service
  107. Re:Patents gone wild! by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

    Pfff... you don't sue someone till they have become richer and more profitable. That way your gain is even greater once you win.

  108. Re:Patents gone wild! by nc_yori · · Score: 1

    That principle hasn't seemed to have stopped people like Microsoft, who patent things like "Indicator that other party is typing a message on IM". US Patent law isn't the most watertight legislation ever produced. Just ask Tesla what he thinks of Marconi ;).

  109. Re:uh by screwedcork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The original xbox controllers DO suck; they're too big and they feel cheap. But the controller S feels a lot more natural and a lot better made.

    Microsoft does seem to be pretty cheap when it comes to making hardware in general though.

  110. Re:The lazy are powerfull by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

    I think this needs a little bit of tweaking to work properly. Basically it should work like this. You have 3 months after some products starts breaking your patent to file a claim against the maker of the product. You shouldn't be able to wait for 10 years, until they've made $2 billion off the product, and then sue them. You should have to let them know that they are breaking your patent as soon as you know they are breaking it. With a product as popular as PS2, it's hard to imagine that immersion didn't know their patents were being broken. They just waited so they could get more money. With the number of patents floating around, you can't expect a company to read every one of them to check if a patent applies to their product. How are they really supposed to know that none apply.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  111. Re:Let me be the first to say... by bigman2003 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  112. Re:The lazy are powerfull by sangreal66 · · Score: 1

    Patents are simply meant to be an economic incentive to share your inventions. Whether any products are produced inventor is pretty irrelevant to achieving that goal.

  113. This is not a software patent by voss · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Patenting forcefeedback tech is not the same thing as patenting the expression of an idea, there is actual physical hardware involved. Its not "obvious" , there may be prior art but if they invented the technology...more power to them. Just because we dont like the patent doesnt mean its not valid.

    Sony is not a helpless babe here, they just have to settle their claim...and pay up some license fees.

  114. Re:uh by clarkcox3 · · Score: 1

    I remember my older brother throwing those old NES controllers (and the Atari Joysticks before that) so hard that they would leave dents and holes in out plaster walls--never did a single one break.

    --
    There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.
  115. Re:uh by Zangief · · Score: 2, Insightful

    also having the 2 joys in an asimmetryc manner is a baad-baad idea, however you can get used to it ..

    Wrong. T used parts of the control should be in the most accesible positions.

    Most games today use analog control mainly. So the left analog stick should be in the main position.

    The second stick is used less (except in FPS), so it should be in the secondary position.

    PERIOD.

  116. Re:The lazy are powerfull by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    But they don't. They STIFLE inovation now-days. I wouldn't want to make a product or develop software for sale out of fear of having my ass sued off. So...I don't do it.

    The idea of patents was a good idea for some truely original ideas. But now, everything has been done in that patents are nothing more then additions to existing ideas in place...whome the parent of the original be in whole or in part can sue.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  117. Re:Immersion's sneaky PR campaign (suspected but n by fruitbane · · Score: 1

    Yeah, just like that. That's exactly my point.

  118. Re:Can Nintendo try this too? by Ayaress · · Score: 1

    I think they'd have a better case against Microsoft on that one. I like my Xbox and all, but the first thing I noticed was the ABXY buttons in the same configuration as the SNES ABXY buttons. Maybe I just think too much about this, but when the SNES came out with those, I wondered, "Why not ABCD?" The X and Y just seemed arbitrary, which also makes it less than coincidence in my eyes that another console maker would also do that.

  119. Re:How many companies need to be a**raped ? by MasterB(G)ates · · Score: 1

    isn't this a hardware patent?

    --
    In the Slashdot moderating system, humourless based offenses are considered especially heinous.
  120. Re:Patents gone wild! by Rii · · Score: 1

    Faker. You forgot to say ",eh."

  121. Re:uh by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

    yeah right.

    How about their intellimice or sidewinder pros? Those were amazing pieces of hardware.

  122. PlayStation Won't be Pulled Anytime Soon by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

    The probability that Sony will appeal this decision is virtually one hundred percent. In the meantime they will simply file for a temporary injunction against the ruling being applied on account that it would cause irreparable harm to their business operations while their appeal is ongoing. In the event that the dispute is not settled out of court before the appeals are exhausted the plaintiffs could address the issue of retroactive damages after the original matter has been settled. Finally, before any lawyers out there accuse me of practicing law without a license let me state that I am NOT a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night...just kidding.

  123. Re:Sex Novelty Industry Invention by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

    "USB devices have been on the market for just as long. Do they want to withdraw these devices?"

    Pun intended?

    --
    Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  124. Prior Art? Come on... "Nintendo Rumble Pack..." by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 2, Insightful
    My gosh. The patent office is full of ABSOLUTE IDIOTS!!! Lets see, the "Rumble Pack" came out with Star Fox on the Nintendo64 system. This puts "tactile feedback" in existance since 1997, 3 FULL YEARS before the May, 2000 filing of patent 6,275,213, and over 4 years before patent 6,424,333.

    The "Rumble Pack" itself is, and completely satisfied the requirements for the first patent pretty much to the letter. And as such prior art in actual consumer existance (not even simply on paper or in the process of having its patents pending), it should completely nullify said patent under any kind of scrutiny. I think at most, the only difference may be the fact that the rumble pack was either on or off (I don't know for a fact if there were variable signals sent to the pack, or if it was just rapidly sending the start/stop signals to mimic multiple intensity of the rumble feedback). Even if that is the only difference, you must be able to argue that this is clearly NOT "new", "inovative", or "non-intuitive" extension of the "Rumble Pack" technology. Heck, they WERE doing something which created the EXACT same effect, but instead of using a multi-state signal, they used rapid switching of on-off to create the same output, in effect pattenting something that is already being done, just not explained the same way. Like I said, I do not know for certain there were not multiple settings for the "Rumble Pack", a Nintendo engineer would need to speak out about that, all I remember was that there was a different output from when I was in a big explosion compaired to when I was simply hit with a laser...

    The second patent 6,275,213 should not EVEN APPLY!!! It is a patent on a human computer INPUT device interface, in other words, it takes tactile feedback from the human, NOT the computer!!!. The dual shock controlers take input from the computer, NOT the human!!!

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
  125. SCO Did the Same Thing by Nazmun · · Score: 1

    And they have much more then just several companies licensing their code for use with linux.

    --
    Hmmm... Pie...
  126. Priority date by tepples · · Score: 1

    Hey, here is one... (6,693,622) a patent for a vibrating mass inside of a controller, granted on February 17, 2004. 2004? Was the patent examiner in a cave? Every console shipped with vibrating controllers years before this, in exactly the manner they describe.

    Is the patent a "continuation" of a previous patent application? If so, it may have the priority date of the previous application. Specifically, the patent claims priority to a provisional application filed on July 1, 1999. All three current consoles came out after this date. Before then, the only console whose controller had built-in vibration was later models of the PlayStation dating from 1997 that came with a Dual Shock, and one of the other patents you dismissed may have a claim that covers the original Dual Shock controller.

    There is mounds of prior art for a lot of this. [Rattle off list of arcade games]

    In which case, the inventive step is "using a standard television set" or "using a handheld controller".

    1. Re:Priority date by cgenman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  127. Re:This haptic technology was there in 1996! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    No.

    This particular patent APPLICATION was filed in 2000.

    The original patent disclosure, which this particular patent quotes verbatim, and which sets the priority date for patentability, was filed in... let's read from the patent:

    This is a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/066,608 filed Apr. 24, 1998, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,088,017 which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08,565,102 filed Nov. 30, 1995, abandoned.

    November 30, 1995. So, even if the patent claimed every aspect of force feedback that any human being will ever contemplate for all time, what you were playing with and writing in 1996 means bupkiss.

    By the way, did you read the patent claims? Did the Phantom(tm) do exactly what was claimed? I sincerely doubt it, since Sony hired a team of lawyers that, as part of their defense of the case, combed through everything that they and the Sony engineers in force feedback development could think of to discover material that could be used to invalidate the patent.

  128. Re:my 2 cents. by man_ls · · Score: 2, Funny

    For $90.7m, I'd do more than just pretend.

  129. troll... by Cryptnotic · · Score: 1

    In order for a patent to be considered pending, it needs to be filed. Intent to file doesn't count. Their patent was filed in 2000 according to the link.

    Since when is a motor with an offset weight on the end of it a "technology" anyway? This is just an example of the American courts using patent law to levy a tax on Japanese imports to subsidize failing, irrelevant American companies. It should be illegal.

    --
    My other first post is car post.
    1. Re:troll... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      There's a little more at issue here than just the motor.

      Devices that have wheels can be patented, even though wheels can not.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  130. 90 million dollars?-Firestone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "You mean they patented an unbalanced, rotating mass and they got millions for it?"

    Just ask Ford.

  131. Re:uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Every button except for the dpad, start & select button has 256 levels of sentitivity including the black and white buttons. I have just cut up my pad and am using it as a usb joypad on my pc. For more info on it google for XBCD.

  132. [typical anti-Slashdotter] gone wild! by cbreaker · · Score: 1

    Your post proves that:

    1- Anti-slashdotters like to make blanket statements about "all slashdotters"

    2- Anti-slashdotters will flood every single comments section with their overused comments

    3- Anti-slashdotters will always be modded up because no slashdotters actually think the anti-slashdotter is referring to them, so there, NYAH!

    --
    - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
  133. Re:uh by Pxtl · · Score: 1

    While from an ergonomic perspective I realise that you're correct, I've always found that my hands just naturally love the symmetry of the PS2 gamepad. I think part of the fact is that most of the PS2 games I play rely very heavily on the triggers (or shoulder buttons if you like) and not much on the buttons at all, so I find I'm mostly paying attention to the sticks and triggers.

    The big feature I love on the PS2 is the second row of triggers - however, the analog throttle triggers are nice on other consoles. Too bad the GameCube elected to put only 1 Z trigger on - currently, its got the nicest shoulder-analog-triggers.

  134. Stupid patents by Rolfje · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Once, patents were meant to protect the originators of an idea. Nowadays, it seems that it's more used as a "fishing rod" by filing some vague and/or stupid patent, and then wait for some company to "infringe" it.

    I mean, come on. Is there really a patent which describes an excentric weight on an axle of a motor? It almost sounds as stupid as the amazon's shopping cart licence thing: http://www.zdnet.co.uk/print/?TYPE=story&AT=391474 08-39020372t-10000024c

    Isn't it time that the patent rules are updated so that patents only can contain "sensible" and "specific" text, including maybe the marketing intent of the device/product/idea? With millions and millions of patents, it's hard to do business without infringing any one of them.

    Besides, why is Immersion comming with this just as they "happen" to need money? The first foce feedback controller by Sony was sold before 2000, why didn't Immersion do it then? I'd say they're too late.

    If you can't do business properly, don't sue others for the fact that they can.

  135. Re:Can Nintendo try this too? by Babbster · · Score: 1
    The first controller I used that had more than three buttons (three buttons on the original Genesis controller - A-B-C) was the Genesis six-button controller (expanded from three mainly for fighting games). Making the additional three buttons X-Y-Z made a lot of sense since it gave a clear delineation between the three primary buttons and the three "optional" buttons. So, at least from that point of view, I've come to think of the A-B/X-Y split as "natural," breaking the buttons into two clear sets.

    I certainly consider it more intuitive than triangle, circle, square and X (though I've adapted to those, too). :)

  136. Shenanigans. by Marc2k · · Score: 1

    Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold on.

    Just because there is legal precedent for something in the United States does not mean you can't call bullocks on it. That's what makes this country great, aren't you a patriot? Legally, yes, this is relatively open and shut as far as patent law goes.

    But that doesn't make this necessarily an ethically great decision. As someone mentioned earlier, Nintendo holds the patent for one "rumble" motor in both modular and fixed joysticks for video game systems. The patent being infringed upon specifically calls for two rumble motors in a controller with two analog joysticks. Mind you, that yes, that does seem like exactly what Sony was manufacturing without licensing the technology, I'm not claiming that Sony didn't infringe on anything.

    My point though is that there is absolutely no "innovation" going on here. All that Immersion Corp. basically did was take an existing, patented technology, and increase the amount of doodads beyond what was previously patented. They didn't invent video games, nor joysticks, nor rumblin' game pads; they just moved in when they saw that someone hadn't made a broad, sweeping patent (like say, on rumblin' game pads in general), and that there would might be a profit to be had licensing this to big companies.

    Now I'm no corporate crusader, and I'm no class warrior, but resorting to some of the most despicable practices amongst the biggest of the giants pretty much puts you on the same plane as them in my book. I'm not apologizing for Sony's negligence in licensing or working around existing patents, but neither will I sit on Immersion's side, just because they're the smaller company.

    --
    --- What
  137. Re:How many companies need to be a**raped ? by Datrio · · Score: 1

    Logitech payed for the patent, for instance. True, many small companies didn't pay, but Immersion doesn't even care about them - they can only get big money out of the big players, like Sony and Microsoft.

  138. Eccentric wheel by NigelJohnstone · · Score: 1

    "offset-balast on a DC-motor with a simple motor speed control"

    You mean an eccentric wheel! Why don't you use the proper word for this!

    "eccentric, noun, A disk or wheel having its axis of revolution displaced from its center so that it is capable of imparting reciprocating motion."

    1. Re:Eccentric wheel by Levendis47 · · Score: 1

      It's not just an eccentric wheel because there's a speed control that allows you to vary the eccentric wheel's rotational frequency thereby changing the intensity of vibration.

      It was a truly improved means of making a simple haptic feedback device. They also coupled later technology with an in-device accelerometer circuit which would provide closed-loop micro-adjustments to the motor speed to limit/fine-tune the oscillation.

      eccentric def.: One that deviates markedly from an established norm, especially a person of odd or unconventional behavior.

      Ironic, isn't it?

      itsraininginvirginia,
      got ark?,
      Levendis47

      --
      --==[ AOL YIM ICQ : Levendis47 : levendis47@yahoo.com ]==--
  139. Re:uh by tsioc · · Score: 1

    it seems that the things you love about the DS are the things I hate with a passion. I love where the sticks are on the controller-s, it just feels so much more natural. and the shoulder buttons, that's my main gripe. I LOVE the triggers on the controller-s, they feel like more like real triggers. I'm not a sony hater, I used to admire the dualshock, but once I started using the controller-s, I never went back. also, the dualshock just feels so, I dont know, it feels too small. but again, my main gripe is the shoulder buttons. it's incredibly uncomfortable to use all 4.

  140. Re:Let me be the first to say... by PowerPunk · · Score: 1

    Turkey is not yet in the EU and it is quite likely that it never will be. No African state will ever be in the EU, because they have a completly diffrent culture. The EU is not just a trading union like the NAFTA, it is a union of culture and trade. Guess what, there even exists a European parlament in Strassburg, which work out laws for the whole EU. "Western Asia have been told they can join" Who has told this? ROFL. China in the EU or what do you mean by Western Asia? Could you give any reference. "Poland is in NATO and they're not exactly on the North Atlantic" And so ain't Italy, Greece, Hungary,...

  141. Re:uh by northcat · · Score: 1

    The American wing (or branch or whatever) of a Japanese company. Microsoft's branch here says "Microsoft India", but it's still an American company. Now what kind of idiot modded parent as Informative?

  142. Do you read the threads before you post? by porkchop_d_clown · · Score: 2, Informative

    People have already raised this argument and, guess what?

    1) The patent was filed in 1995. Patent protection begins with filing, not granting.
    2) Nintendo licensed the technology from the patent holder.

    1. Re:Do you read the threads before you post? by mink · · Score: 1

      Nintendo did not license anyones technology for the Rumble pack. They have a petent of their own, I posted a link to in in another response.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  143. If Sony loses... by NanotechLobster · · Score: 1

    It would be ironic if they get reamed in the ass for intellectual property, since they are part of the RIAA.

  144. One Point by solomonrex · · Score: 1

    I'm certain SONY has virtually unlimited legal resources- but not Sony in Oakland. These things take time to develop- it may still be a crock.

  145. Can't buy something that is not for sale... by rwrife · · Score: 1

    Can't buy something that is not for sale.

  146. Feel the terrain? by solomonrex · · Score: 1

    Why won't anyone else point out that the vibration becomes annoying after the first hour of the game? Like, you just CAN'T feel the terrain. It's really just a controller vibrating incessantly. This is the first thing I turn off. It's got to be the most useless 'feature' in modern videogames.

  147. Re:This haptic technology was there in 1996! by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    immersion had patents pending on this type of thing well before 1995. there was even some products on market that had licensed it from them(while patent pending, so they weren't really hiding the fact that they had patents coming to them on it)...

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  148. What they should do... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Put a motor, with a small propeller on a long shaft that crosses the controller. Run motor. The lose shaft will cavitate.

    When someone tries to sue, show them prior art. It's called "propeller cavitation" and has been a known occurrance since the invention of propeller driven ships and airplanes. ;)

  149. Re:uh by JediSB · · Score: 1
    while the xbox has a good idea of having a long travel analog button at the pointing fingers, it makes the hube mistake of wasting 2 fingers just hanging below ....

    Then maybe you should try the Pelican Eclipse controller for the Xbox. It puts and extra set of B&W buttons up on the shoulder. Incidentally, this is along the lines of what MS is planning for the Xbox 2 controller.

    Eclipse pic

  150. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Winkhorst · · Score: 1

    Thank you great oracle. Perhaps you also have information on who will win the lottery next Tuesday?

    You are sitting in front of a computer with internet access and you want ME to give YOU references?

    Just for your edification: The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (qv.) consists of those countries on the Mediterranean that are not in the EU. These include countries in North Africa and far western Asia (Syria, Israel, and the Palestine Organization). Yes, Syria is in Asia, as is Israel, as is, mostly, Turkey, which WILL join the EU within 10 years, the pope not withstanding. ALL of these EMP countries have been told they can join the EU if they meet the qualifications. Whether they will is up to them, not you. Keep in mind, they all have large populations who speak either English or French, since they were once colonies of one or the other, and they thus have cultural connections with Europe, though they are not majority Christian. Most of them do have Christians and Jews among their populations, whatever that proves.

    I will not even attempt to untangle your misconceptions about NATO. Go surf. Just for HA-HAs, what national educational system are you a product of?

    --
    "Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
  151. Different ways to feel vibrations with your body by coachvince · · Score: 1

    I think that there is a certain portion of the population that's familiar with using a different device to make parts of your body feel vibrations.
    Of course, the point here was that a speaker putting out bass makes more than just your eardrum feel the vibration; as used in BassShakers http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&DID=7 &Partnumber=299-028 The idea of using something other than a speaker to make your body feel variable levels of vibration has been around for a while, and in some cases went along with other forms of entertainment.

    --
  152. Time by Luthair · · Score: 1

    They can probably just drag this out until PS3 comes out and make it pointless.

  153. Re:uh by robertjw · · Score: 1

    Totally OT, but when I was a kid I had a friend that thought he was some kind of martial artist (he wasn't).

    We used to call him Ninja Guy Dan.

  154. Serves them right by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Sony has helped in creating this litigious society.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  155. Re:The lazy are powerfull by Martix · · Score: 1

    Big question is why did Immersion take so long to SUE SONY...... why not the minute it was being infringed on.....Lazy way of making big bucks.

    1 Patent a device.

    2 watch people infringe.

    3 wait a few years.

    4 SUE.!!!!

    5 Profit.

  156. Re:Total BS..Not! Overturned 90% of the time by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    There is nothing out of touch about the ninth circuit court.

    I would have to say that any court that is overturned on average 90% of the time on the cases accepted by the Supreme Court is severely out-of-touch. You need to check your figures over the last 10 years, and not cherry pick a single short period of time to try and make your case.

    YMMV, although I can't imagine what a court would have to do to be considered out-of-touch by your standards.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  157. Re:uh by Zangief · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but the Z button is fataly ill-placed in the gamecube controller. it should be UNDER the triggers, so your index can rest on it, and the middle finger can press it.

  158. Re:uh by mp3phish · · Score: 1

    They don't even make the xbox. it is contracted out to a factory in china owned by some taiwan motherboard manufacturer. even the plastic case

    --
    Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
  159. Re:SCO by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
    "A legitimate patent case involves the patented item's distributors. Not its users."
    Anyone can distribute/use/sell Linux, so the comparison isn't exactly a good one.
    --
    Clever signature text goes here.
  160. Re:Let me be the first to say... by s4m7 · · Score: 1
    But I was thinking of this as a WORLD-WIDE phenomenon.

    as a "world wide phenomenon", this judgement really harms U.S. citizens (with the exception of the patent holder of course.) Observe:

    • U.S. kids will not be able to buy the toys they want
    • The tax revenue from the sales of these toys will not be going to state governments.
    • SCEA (sony computer entertainment america) may have to cut jobs because of lost revenue. you can bet they aren't going to be cutting cheaper japanese jobs.

    Any questions?

    --
    This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.