Slashdot Mirror
Nintendo Sued over Wiimote Trigger
kaizokunami writes "A company named Interlink Electronics, Inc., creator of interface devices has filed a suit in US District court against Nintendo of America, claiming the Nintendo the trigger on the bottom of the Wii controller infringes on their patent. The article includes images submitted with the patent application." From the article: "The complaint alleges that the trigger on the bottom of the Wii controller infringes on Interlink Patent No. 6,850,221 (Trigger Operated Electronic Device), which the company secured on February 1, 2005. Nintendo president Satoru Iwata first presented the Wii controller to the public not too long after that date, during the 2005 Tokyo Game Show."
I have a remote for a LCD projector that's a good 3 years old that looks almost exactly the same. I'd imagine there are plenty more examples out there. My guess is Interlink is simply banking on the damage they can do before their patent is invalidated.
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
You know somebody was going to have to post it...
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
It's a trigger on the bottom of a controller.
If that's not obvious, what is?
I don't care how you use it, where you put it, whatever. Once a button, always a button.
No Comment.
I'm thinking finding prior art on a trigger shouldn't be too hard.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
The only real difference is the shape of the controller, I get the feeling this is going to be thrown off the deep end
One's a controller for a game system, the other is a mouse for power point presentations. Since they're not really related at all does it still infringed?
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
it's obviously bogus so really the question is will nintendo settle or take the chance of losing the case in a trial? i'm going with settle. it's what i would do and write it off as a cost of doing business.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
FTFA:
Do I think that Nintendo riped these people off? No
Do I think that they are patent Trolls? Probably.
Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
This is why I hope the Sumpreme OCurt rules against such obvious patents.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
"The complaint seeks a jury trial and damages to determine the amount of "loss of reasonable royalties, reduced sales and/or lost profits as a result of the infringing activities."
Hmm. "reduced sales and/or lost profit", eh? Their patented device is for use with a PC during slideshow presentations. I don't see how the hell a videogame console controller would ever have any impact on that at all. Well, unless Nintendo licenses out *shudder* Powerpoint to run on the Wii.
Then again, with the Wiimote PC drivers coming out, maybe they're worried people will start using wiimotes instead of their gear. It's cheaper (I've seen a $40 vs $60 comparison), and likely available in far more stores. Only thing to work out now is the IR interface - well, that and hookup up an IR array around your projector screen.
Sorry folks, I don't think your precious IR mouse product is about to be supplanted by the wiimote any time soon. These are 2 different products used for entirely different purposes, in 2 entirely different markets. A homebrew hack that doesn't quite cover the required functionality isn't a threat to your business.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
My N64 controller has a trigger. You patent is worthless.
Shiny. Let's be bad guys.
...if I forget any. Note that I am only going to stick to the big-named systems:
/sarcasm
(Nearly) every flightstick ever made
NES Zapper
N64
Dreamcast
Xbox
Xbox 360
Wii
Any particular reason why the Wii is the only one getting a suit against it? Oh, because they filed a patent in 2005...maybe Nintendo should file a COUNTER-suit against THEM!!!
Living With a Nerd
The Nintendo 64 controller.
While the patent photos are similar to the Wii remote, Nintendo invented the trigger button on the N64 controller. Surely that can be construed as prior art, since they're both video game controllers.
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
How can one possibly be sure that you're not violating anybody's copyright when creating something so complicated as a console system? With thousands of different copyrights protecting hundreds of different idea's, how do you as a company protect yourself from litigation? Assuming Nintendo did not willfully violate the copyright, is there anything they could have done to prevent this, apart from going throught thousands of patents trying to see if what they're doing falls under any one of them?
I think there should be a law where you as a patent holder must warn the company that violated your copyright, at which point that company (Nintendo in this case) can either:
1. Change the design of the device and pay you royalties on the ammount of devices produced with the old design
OR
2. Continue to design the controllers in the same way, but agree on royalties, avoiding any legal costs in the first place.
The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I did a write-up for the Kotaku crowd, but I figure this might help some Slashdotters understand how to read the patent and better determine what's going on here:
- to-quick-and-dirty-patent-analysis.html
;)
http://jointstrikeweasel.blogspot.com/2006/12/how
I hope this helps. Analyzing patents is much more fun when you understand how to do it.
Arriving two weeks after the Nintendo 64 was Sega's 'marukon', a round controller with two under-the-unit spring-tension triggers. The same basic design you can now find on most modern game controllers.
There's so much prior art for this patent that they may as well throw in the towel now.
That company's lawyers sure were trigger happy.
:-p
*cough*
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I don't really have a desire to read through the entire patent to see if this is the case, and IANAL, so I don't know this for sure, but I'm not certain that Nintendo is actually infringing on that patent. According to the Abstract, the patent specifies that the device transmits data via infrared to a receiver mounted somewhere. The Wiimote doesn't do that. It communicates button presses to the Wii through Bluetooth, and uses the sensor bar to transmit IR data to the Wiimote so it can determine it's own position in space.
Maybe someone with a little better understanding of patent law, and/or has time to read the patent can enlighten me?
I am tired of posting replies, so I will simply make one big huge post so hopefully everyone will read it.
1. N64 is not prior art. Nor is anything else not seen until after Sep. 5, 1995. This patent was filed in 1997 as a continuation of another application filed on the date I provided. If you want prior art, please pre-date 1995. (Note: N64 was first shown in Nov. 1995.)
2. The use of this device as a "mouse" is irrelevant. The patent claims are broad enough they can be construed to cover a gaming console. I have to given them some credit for that claim wording, it made me shake my head.
3. No matter how many people "came up" with the idea, it does not matter. The patent definition of obviousness is not the human definition. It might seem obvious to place a button in such a location, but did anyone file a patent or design such an item before them? If not, then was it really that obvious for someone to do it?
4. They really are not trolls. They have been making these products and making amicable licensing agreements with other companies. I still think this patent might be bogus, but I would not know without doing a full patent search.
So to recap, prior art must be before 1995, read the claims and ignore most everything else, and they are not really trolls, but this patent is probably pretty weak, especially if you consider it took almost 10 yrs to issue and there are a good number of reference arts provided.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
I am going to patent the function of how humans breathe.
I will become filthy fucking rich.
I remember using military weapons technology between 1982 and 1989 that had similar triggers.
Sounds like someone trying to make a fast buck.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Yeah, it's not like they had something like that on the N64 controller...
mats
One man's ceiling is another man's floor.
No wait, hear me out, I'm not just being pedantic - didn't Sony recently lose a court case to have the PS3 classed as a computer? Surely if the courts draw a distinction between consoles and computers then they would also do so in the case of the patent such that the patent describes a device designed for a computer and not one designed for a console?
Of course IANAL but would this kind of argument stick in court?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbow#Technology
The Statue of Liberty is America's lawn jockey.
It's not just the location of the bottom trigger but the location of the top buttons AND their functionality (one is a "thumb pad" type device, the other is a regular old button). Lastly, the Wii-mote is shaped more like a remote control than a gun or a two-handed controller. So, Interlink's remote seems more unique and it bears a striking resemblance to the Wii-mote.
/ 08/90interlink_screen005.jpg
Best image is here
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/news/12
I have to admit that I can't think of a another remote control looking device with a trigger on the bottom.
The classic piece of prior art as taught to UK examiners (it might be UKPO folk-lore!) is that a doggy doorbell, IIRC, was deemed to lack Novelty due to a citation of the Beano (a long running UK comic featuring Dennis-the-Menace and his dog Gnasher as the figurehead characters).
s 6_patent.html for tentative corroboration.
See http://www.innovation.rca.ac.uk/PD/sw/IP/st_right
Once upon a time, patents were awarded for breakthrough inventions. You know, the stuff that really changed the way the game was played. The original patent system was designed for a small number of those, maybe a couple a year. On that scale, prior art and researching claims by comparing them other other patents works, and at that small number you can expect experts in a field to know the few relevant patents that exist.
But that's been perverted long since, and today you can get a patent for things as ground moving, earth shaking and future creating as the placement of a button on an input device. I'll let the other posters discuss obviousness, I'll just stand here in the corner and shake my head that such trivial nonsense is supported by an artificial exclusive monopoly system. It certainly took years of research to come up with this revolutionary idea, and thousands upon thousands of tries to get the details right, so a patent is surely adequate.
My suggestion for patent system reform: If it obviously took longer to write the patent application than to invent the thing in question, reject and have the applicant pay a fine for the wasted time of the patent office.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Sure, it may be prior art, but it also reminds me of that damn laughing Duck Hunt dog, and Nintendo still needs to be punished for him.
http://www.vintagecomputing.com/index.php/archives /188
No, it's not wireless, which may be the plaintiff's whole spin, but still...
And in case your wondering, I actually owned one of these and it was as hideous as it looks.
It's half of an SNES controler for fucks sake. Shoulder button = trigger, d-pad = thumb pad, button = select. Should "holding a SNES controller with only the left hand and slaping old age IR tech on it" be a valid patent as well? What it looks like doesn't matter at all, that's waht design patents are for.
http://www.vintagetvsets.com/flash.htm
This is the Zenith Flash-Matic, from 1955. It's a very early remote control... and the first appearance of the mute button. It was designed to 'shoot out' the sound from commercials.
http://www.deadmedia.org/notes/49/497.html
Think this qualifies?
Die die die. Idiots.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
From the article: "loss of reasonable royalties, reduced sales and/or lost profits as a result of the infringing activities."
Why wouldn't Interlink say something sooner to Nintendo. It's not like the Wii controller was kept a secret until release. If Interlink really feels that they are suffering from reduced sales or loss of profits due to Nintendo selling an infringing controller, why wouldn't they mention it when the controller style was first announced and seek license revenue then rather than wait until the product was released?
Time to start suing everyone!
Their patent drawing is nigh-identical to the remote for my Proxima projector...circa 1998.
Summary execution for the officers of Interlink. Jesus Herbert Walker Christ we need a way to quickly dismiss frivolous shit like this.
- For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism.
The pictures in their patent looks remarkably like the remote used for InFocus projectors. Oh wait, IT IS the InFocus remote! Image linked from Superwarehouse.com and not InFocus.com because InFocus apparently no longer offers it.
Unfortunately, this is a US patent, and that was, I think, a UK court (or possibly EU court). The logic (whatever it might be) does not transfer.
just some guy
Let's see here...
John Moses Browning called, he wants the design to his 1911 year pistol trigger back...
-or-
Jean Luc Picard called; he wants to know why they're copying his phaser.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
I've got one of these, had it for 3 years, and hey, it has a "left click" button on the underside for controling presentations. Patents are so fun.
I have seen some Panasonic projectors that come with a remote control that has a bottom button, and it is used as mouse click. The date is like 1996 or 1997. Infrared wireless. The use is simple: in powerpoint the click of the mouse presents next slide, so the button does that, with your index finger in the remote.
Ivan
Nintendo produced the NES Satellite adapter, which used IR communication to make existing NES controllers wireless. Other companies produced wireless controllers for NES and Super NES as well. How is the specific combination of wireless communication in a game console controller with the shape of the Nintendo 64 controller non-obvious?
Including Nintendo 64? Sure, the console wasn't released until 1996, but when did Nintendo file patent applications covering the controller design? If Nintendo's patent applications taught the key claims of this patent, then this patent can be shot down.
Unless these damages are estopped by laches.
The N64's controller as a product was not seen in the United States until a year later, but when did the USPTO first see patent applications related to the N64's controller?
Given the wired-to-wireless adapter that is the NES Satellite (1989), as well as several other pre-1995 wireless controllers for NES and Super NES, is wireless non-obvious?
If Nintendo can prove that the delay was intentional, then that's laches, and Nintendo might get a judge to estop the damage award.
NINTENDO, HERE'S SOME IDEAS:
I'm not a patent attorney, but I do have some experience with patents. A notable, and key element of the patent is that "a LED device for emitting an infra-red output signal for transmission to the receiver for operating the computer", However, as I understand it, the Wiimote communicates via bluetooth and uses the IR purely for reference, but NOT for communication with the Wii.
Further the patent seems to imply that the pointing controls and mouse movement are controlled by buttons, not actual physical movement, and that the trigger mechanism is purely used for selecting or clicking. This is another key difference. The only true similarity seems to be the physical trigger button, which is also present on many other devices, such as the Xbox and Playstation controllers, and various other gaming peripherals (Remember the Super Scope?).
Since the patent was issued to a device containing a trigger element, and its not a patent ON ALL trigger elements. Lastly, this is a utility patent under class 345/158 (Including orientation sensor e.g., infrared, ultrasonic, remotely controlled) & 345/157 (Cursor mark position control device).
"A utility patent applies to the way something is made, how a device operates, or a process for accomplishing some utilitarian purpose."An strong argument can be made that the patent and mechanisms describe NO REASONABLE PROCESS OR OPERATION for accomplishing the functions defined in its patent class. It does NOT provide a means to control a cursor mark position. And Nintendo's Wiimote does in a wholly different manner, using gyros and other methods.
These may be key differences that could be used to circumvent (and possibly invalidate) the patent. There's no reason to settle or pay up to something that has no real claim. Especially when the patent in question was never intended to operate in the manner that the Wiimote does.
So yeah, That's my 15 minute analysis. Feel free to counter/deconstruct.
Nintendo should be fine defending against Interlink considering their respective patents!! Do not fear, this is merely a frivilous lawsuit.
Interlinks patent (#6,850,221) IS PATENTALY DISTINCT FROM Nintendo's patent (#6,352,476). Forget who invented firts! They are not the same invention.
Don't you see?! (Compair their respective claims.)
~~Mindless
AFAIK it was about whether it should be taxed as a "games machine" or "computer". Computers have a lower import duty, hence they tried to get the console classified as one.
A very important consideration is that the patent's independent claims all discuss "a housing for location at least partly between a first finger and a thumb of a user's hand...a contoured step having a first face for generally providing a rest location for the first finger of the user's hand...". US Patent 6,850,221
http://www.vidgame.net/COLECO/COLVIS.html - Third Controller from the top. Yes, I actually bought an Adam. Paid all of $50 US for it.
I had a set of these, they were packaged with a baseball game. Not just one but four triggers, one under each finger. Sure it's a lot bigger but it still puts trigger controls under the main control stick. And it beats the patent by at least 10 years.
They actually weren't bad. They had an arcade style stick on top that worked well. The numeric keypad was mostly worthless from a gaming perspective. The triggers worked fairly well as long as you were trying to pull them one at a time. Trying to pull more than one at once was awkward with trying to hold the controller and work the joystick.
Their RF product that most directly "competes" with the Wii Remote is this http://www.interlinkelectronics.com/index.php?id=M zk0 $200 remote.
T O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-b ool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=Nintendo&FIELD1=ASNM&c o1=AND&TERM2=control&FIELD2=TI&d=PTXT
This device must be a cash cow for them, I can see why they would want to protect it from competition with a time-limited, state-granted monopoly (if the Wii Remote even does compete -- and not that there's anything wrong with time-limited, state-granted monopolies when they incite progress in science and the useful arts).
Maybe Nintendo can return the favor with something from their massive portfolio, e.g. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
I don't want to infringe on anyone's right to sue when justly wronged, but come on people. Patent law requires that which you are patenting to not be immediately obvious. Using a trigger to operate any device is pretty obvious. Let's see here - the Chinese used triggers in guns some 2000 years ago?
It's times like these, that the suer, who's only hope is that nintendo settles to avoid having to pay it's lawyers, should get nailed - their patent striped, all other patents they own put under thorough review, and their assets seized to pay the litigation costs of the court system.
You can get 15 minutes of fame, but you can go down in history for infamy.
Colt? Smith & Wesson?
I'm amazed that any trigger on game controller could possibly be considered non-obvious at this point. This is just another example of our outdated patent system... Has this company done anything with their government-sponsored patent-monopoly to create a market out of it?