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.
I believe that the judge's order has been stayed and PS2's can be sold. More Bad News for Sony
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.
Does this mean that vibrators are now infringing on their patent? They vibrate, and they are used in various games I play.
Muaha.
Yeah I bet that was a Dualshock.
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.
Seeing as how the PlayStation 3 will most likely be backwards compatible with the earlier two and that it should be fairly late in the development stage, couldn't this have a fairly wide reaching effect on the PS3?
Forgive my saying so, but that's the wackiest thing I've ever heard. I like the idea of patenting inventions alright (I myself have some designs I would like to patent), but I would dearly like to see patents for things that would make one go "Wow! I would never have thought to do it that way" or "Damn! She must've spent months coming up with that design".
There's nothing about the PS/PS2's controller design that would make me think "Patent!"
Also, patenet claims SHOULD also include proof that the design wasn't come upon independently and without using any of the claimers work. Patents are supposed to protect against unfair use of one's hard work and effort. If it's their own, it doesn't matter which came first.
Idiots.
Just wait for the flood of stories that the video game industry is doomed if Sony can't sell their consoles. I wonder how many game companies will cite this court action for why they can't make money in their stock filings and/or can't treat their slaves... uh, workers... better.
:)
On the flipside, if this allows Nintendo to get their foothold onto the market at Sony's expense, I wouldn't mind.
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).
back when they first invented it, it was most likely something amazing and kick ass.
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.
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.
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.
" 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!
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
Here's what gamespot has to say on this.
You can't take the sky from me...
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
-
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.)
There is nothing out of touch about the ninth circuit court.. you need to stop drinking the koolaid:
t _o f_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit
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_Cour
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
Who said Freedom was Fair?
Interest.
(found that here.)
Hank! White!
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/
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"
Links to the patents: 6,424,333, 6,275,213.
Who said Freedom was Fair?
When was this patent granted and would all those "force feedback" effects in various arcade cabinets (e.g. Outrun I know had it) count as prior art or a violation (depending on when the patent was granted)?
Xbox and GC both have force feedback in their controllers (not counting the wavebird). Why aren't they in trouble as well? The article was extremely light on details, does anybody have more info?
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.
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.
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).
It's business that controls everything, big business. It's ignorant suits with an MBA, not people that have worked 8-10 years on a law degree, that you should be afraid of.
But the suits have been VERY effective at convincing dipshits like you that lawyers and doctors, and other highly educated people are to blame.
When was this patent taken out?
I remember a lot of old arcade driving games that had force-feedback on steering wheels, if the patent was taken out after they came out then that'd be pretty good prior art I'd think.
Also of course for a long time on aeroplanes the control stick used to have a shaker to warn pilots of a stall, I guess that'd probably count as prior art too.
Nintendo is not a licensee of Immersion, and as far as I can gather they are not going to be because their rumble controllers do not work the same way as Microsoft's and Sony's. Nintendo is using independently developed technology that does not seem to be covered by Immersion's patents and in fact as far as I can tell predates it.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I have to agree with you on that one. XboX controllers pretty much suck the big one. Every time I pick it up I feel like I'm holding a fisher price remote control for a 5 dollar toy.
I typically don't play XboX but when I do I try to use the Logitech controllers for it.
Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
Wow, I suspect Immersion is doing some anonymous "advertising," because on every major site that discusses this verdict there's always a post from a user who's only ever made one post that's very well-worded and praises Immersion from on high about their sensitive vibration technology.
Immersion technology may well be a darned cool thing, but this kind of pandering is absolutely sickening. Its just like the whole Microsoft "grass roots" campain from a few years ago, where all the letters sent were penned, essentially, by Microsoft.
*sigh* If Immersion's so darned paranoid about the hostile feelings this case is sowing against them why don't they do a little PROPER PR instead of having lackies post in forums like these. Shouldn't those posts they've seeded contain official disclaimers or something?
the difference here, though, is that Budweiser *SHOULD* be ordered to stop selling colored water.
grey wolf
LET FORTRAN DIE!
Here are a few Bullet Points:
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.
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.
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...
This means basically nothing.
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.
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.
This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
i personally CARE for the dualshock, i even play some titles on xbox with my playstation controller ..
....
...
...
... hey if i could have a few buttons for the legs (2 pedals + some other stuff)
.... .. but to be safe i might just buy an extra one :)
... these should be "open source" things that should be used and improved by anyone .....
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
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
and again, why to patent a HID (human interface device)
shame on that law system again
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
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(?).
You guys are a bit too late...
These guys thought of it first... (Note, saucy picture, oohh!)
Yup...
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...
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?
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.)
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.
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."
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
Luckily I bought my ps2 and katamari damacy 3 weeks ago.
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.
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.
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 ]==--
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.
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?
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.
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
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
Holy crap, if only the Sony lawyers had known that, you should really let them know.
"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.
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.
/. 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."
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
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.
The ______ Agenda
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.
The patent was file in 2000.
e mium6DOF.asp
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/pr
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
For $90.7m, I'd do more than just pretend.
Ok, this is a part of patent law that wasn't covered in technology law in college.
So the patent holder can file a "continuation," which has an effective date of the original filing? If something fell within the scope of the original filing, why would someone need to continue it? If some thing didn't fall within the scope of the original filing, why would you allow a "continuation" with the original date?
The original patent, or one of them, 5,734,373, appears to cover putting a microprocessor into a joystick to offload the feedback processing requirement, and that the feedback must be along one of the axis of control of said joystick. It also mentions direction parameters as one of the terms of the claims seciton. As the dual-shock provides no direct feedback, I fail to see how this would apply.
But details of this aside, what must be present to qualify as a "continuation" of a previous patent? What must be present for, say, a directional resistance-based force feedback joystick in 1995 to suddenly become a vibration-based joystickless feedback mechanism in 2004?
P.S. There is no part of this that doesn't sound like the patent system needs reform badly.
The ______ Agenda
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.
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.
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.
Clear, Dark Skies