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."
You can pick up some prior art and your local adult boutique.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
A PS2 Controller Suit - neato!
Am I the only one who read this and instantly imagined this jump-suit that you'd wear that could maybe read your arm and leg positions to put you directly control your PS2?
Instead we get details of some bogus lawsuit about bogus stuff that we really don't care about.
Whatever happened to cool stuff?
www.sjbaker.org
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
Who to side for?? Help me!! :-(
You shouldn't think for yourself. From now on, either repost what I post, or just look for my posts and reply with "MOD PARENT UP!".
Seriously though, this company isn't *totally* unknown. They designed the crap that goes in Logitech's force feedback stuff. I have a mouse with their stuff in it, and it actually seems fairly clever. It's like you can "feel" the stuff on your screen. It's a little noisy though.
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.
Prior art. After all, women have used vibrations to heighten a sensation since at least the early 1900's
If you die horribly on television, you will not have died in vain. You will have entertained us.
--Kurt Vonnegut
I dont think Newton had a video game system or a force-feedback controller. The scope of a patent is determined by its claims, not based on what a slashdot summary says. The claims of this patent are limited to a force-feedback controller
Sony could have licensed this patent for a few dollars several years ago (like everyone else did), but instead they relied on a frivolous legal theory (inequitable conduct) to invalidate the patent. Despite attempts by numerous big companies to invalidate this patent based on prior art, no one has ever located any meaningful prior art. The only issue in Sony's case was inequitable conduct (lying to the patent office), and the only evidence Sony presented was testimony from an "expert" they paid.
Because unlike the majority thought on slashdot that goes 'All patents are extremely broad and prior art can be found in anything that remotely looks like it might use a part of the patented thing' - which is wrong - patents can include already known technology but applied in new ways, for example this would have been something like 'A electric motor induced vibration system that responds to a gaming environment manipulated by user inputs on consumer entertainment console systems and their controllers'. The prior art of, or usage in items such as pagers or cell phones would not have a standing here because it doesnt pertain to the precise grounds covered by the patent.
NB I dont know exactly waht the patent says, the above is simply an example as to how a patent can be applied to a new usage from old techniques.
The rumble pak and Gamecube controller use one unbalanced weight in the center whereas the Dual Shocks and Xbox controllers use two different unbalanced weights, one on each side of the controller. The patent is for the two weight configuration so Nintendo gets away scott free.
Seriously though, this company isn't *totally* unknown. They designed the crap that goes in Logitech's force feedback stuff. I have a mouse with their stuff in it, and it actually seems fairly clever. It's like you can "feel" the stuff on your screen. It's a little noisy though.
This is a real bad time for Sony.
Format Wars
Xbox 360 popularity
Rootkitting CD's
PS3 delays
Ipod (yes this is bad for Sony)
Lawsuits from vendors
All this bad publicity surely can't be doing the company any good. At this point in time, the CEO would be sacked at most companies i am aware of, but it's not happening here. you have to wonder if the morale within the company is any good also. I hope their lawyers get paid well.
I guess you could call that a double blow.
Or maybe even a dual shock! LOL!! :)
THE HONOUR OF THE KNIGHTS - CC Licensed Sci-Fi Novel
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.'"
I had a vibraiting game controller in the late eighties. It was called a pager.
See, I'd give my secret code to some fly hunny; then it'd rumble right before I was about to score!
They even called me a player.
I think the language is similar enough to claim prior art. :)
(FYI for anyone else thinking about picking up this game: Make sure to use a shield in the final encounter or you might play out your days with a permanent chance-on-pee to self inflict fire damage.)
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.