Slashdot Mirror
PS2 Controller Suit Goes Badly For Sony
Immersion Corp, which owns the patent on 'rumble' technology, has won another round in its suit against Sony. Sony's 'dualshock' controller has used rumble technology for years, and in 2005 a judge awarded $82 Million to the patent-holder in payment. From the article: "Sony's defence was the alleged nondisclosure of some of the inventions of key employee Craig Thorner. who has been a consultant both for Immersion and subsequently for Sony. But, according to the report, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken was unhappy with Thorner's testimony supporting Sony, given that he had also been paid by Sony, and so dismissed this line of defence."
This doesn't by any means overshadow the other hardware-related, possible causes for the delays, but might this be a contributing factor no one has mentioned previously?
-NIs
We're talking about 1.37% of revenue:
FTA
In the last ruling against Sony, made in early 2005, Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court levied an $82 million award to Immersion Corp., or 1.37% of Sony's sales of PlayStations and PlayStation-related paraphernalia. The $82 million is less than the $299 million originally sought by Immersion Corp., but the court ruled that Sony's infringement of the vibration patents was not willful and therefore not deserving of the full penalties.
Rooting for companies with bad patents because they're going after someone you don't like is wrong. It's a direct endorsement of the current, broken patent system. (Vibration has been used for feedback for ages, though not in game controllers...)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That's why when you write a patent, you try to make its claims as broad as possible (e.g., "...for configurations of 3 or more razor blades," or in the context of this article, "...for configurations of 2 or more unbalanced weights driven by electric motors."), and when you're trying to work around someone else's patent, you find all the loopholes and exploit them (e.g., "Oh, look, they didn't cover the case for a single unbalanced weight!").
I used to work for a material scientist who was adept at both activities. He was very good at finding corner cases where other people's patents didn't apply, and then he'd file a patent on the corner case as an improvement to the original patent he was working around. Current patent law allows you to patent improvements to someone else's patented invention or process. (Traditionally, "process" means manufacturing process, although business process patents now seem to be allowed.)
My boss was also good at making his own patents nice and broad to insure that his competitors would violate his IP. He had this fabulous patent on a method for growing a crystalline probe that would be formed on the end of a fiber optic cable. The probe had a face that was at a specific angle with respect to the long axis of the crystal, which he calculated to be the optimal angle for this face, but his patent was written to allow for a range of angles. Sure enough, some company that was using this technology to probe oil wells violated my boss' patent, and of course he went after them to defend his IP. The competitor's product, IIRC, didn't use the optimal angle for the crystal face, but it didn't matter, as they still were within the claims of the patent.
Of course, there are some modifications which are materially insignificant -- like how many legs your apparatus has to stand off the ground -- but most patent authors these days like to leave nothing to chance.