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."

Comments

Prior Art

[mrchaotica]

You know somebody was going to have to post it...

Re:Prior Art

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"I feel like we may have just discovered a new corollary to Godwin's law."

Hehehe. Nah. I've worked on patent applications before and it has given me a different perspective on cases of prior art than most Slashdotters have. Patent applications are meant for something specific, not broad. You couldn't patent using a database for everything in the world, but you can at least attempt to patent using a database in an MP3 player because it's specific enough to say "MP3 player". RCA had a patent on drawing alpha numeric characters on a screen, but they couldn't sue Casio for having a digital display on a wristwatch. (erm.. take that example with a grain of salt and a dash of imagination, I don't think digital watches existed back then... sorry, I'm too tired to think of a more real world example.)

I don't think it's terribly likely that this company recieved a patent on "a trigger button". It's more likely that the mechanism for making the trigger clickable was unique to them. That's all I meant by the orphan meat comment. We can't start generating a list of prior art until we know the nature of the complaint. If it's about driving a mouse cursor, for example, then the Zapper can immediately be tossed aside. Oops. Waste of an insightful mod.

Re:Um, prior art?

[blincoln]

It looks like any number of Star Trek hand phasers to me. There were plenty of those designs from the 60s onward, with this one looking (IMO) most like the ones in III.

I also think it fails the non-obvious test pretty dramatically. Handheld clicky remotes are at least as old as slide projectors. The only difference is that this one has a button on the bottom as well. How is that not obvious? Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if some of those old slide projector controllers had buttons on the bottom too.

Re:Wiimote PC driver

[thebdj]

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.

The lost profit easily comes from the loss of royalty fees. Also, note that there has been software written for Mac that allows control using the Wii remote. So they could actually attempt to use this against Nintendo, even if it wasn't the intended purpose of the device.

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.

Unfortunately, patent law doesn't care. The claims for their invention seem to cover just about any electronic system and could be construed to cover this other market. Their similar patent issued in the late 1990s has already been licensed to other companies, including TV makers, so this idea that the two markets do not cross is not really applicable in the patent world. They managed to get a patent whose claims seem to cover this, and in the end, that is all that really matters. Doesn't mean I like this patent. The 10yrs to issue makes me wonder how much prior art is really close to invalidating this patent.

My write-up of this

[Throtex]

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:

http://jointstrikeweasel.blogspot.com/2006/12/how- to-quick-and-dirty-patent-analysis.html

I hope this helps. Analyzing patents is much more fun when you understand how to do it. ;)

Okay...

[thebdj]

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.

Re:Okay...

[yagisencho]

In that case... Zaxxon (SEGA, 1982) Pointing device (4-point flight stick) with trigger-shaped button on underside of the device.

Re:Okay...

[Manchot]

It doesn't need prior art. The patent clearly states that "there is an infra-red output signal transmitted to a receiver for operating the computer." The Wiimote doesn't send its data via IR: it sends it via radio.

Re:Um, prior art?

[Ironsides]

Don't forget the N64 controller. I've also come across a mouse that has a trigger underneath. The mouse is gyroscopic and that was the left click button.

Re:My write-up of this - I think I understand

[borkus]

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.

Best image is here

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/news/12/ 08/90interlink_screen005.jpg

I have to admit that I can't think of a another remote control looking device with a trigger on the bottom.

Prior Art: Zenith Flash-Matic, 1955

[E-Sabbath]

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?

Re:Um, prior art?

[Mattintosh]

The Super Scope was released with Super Scope 6 in February 1992. (The hardware page doesn't list a release date, but it was only available with the game.) It's wireless, has buttons on both top and bottom, and is used in much the same way as the Wiimote. In fact, it even has a "sensor bar" of sorts (more of a sensor box) that both provides a positioning beacon (which is why you have to calibrate the 'Scope's targetting all the time) as well as a data transfer point.

The button on the bottom of the device is hard to see in the pic on the Wikipedia page, but it's on the back of the hand grip. There are multiple buttons on the top of the device.

Re:Um, prior art?

[shaitand]

This patent is basically for a trigger on a game controller. The first I am aware of was the light gun for the original NES. I believe that would be prior art and Nintendo's own creation to boot.

Re:Um, prior art?

[Asm-Coder]

Because a lot of things in America really do suck. Not everything, and America is probably still the best place to live, but it gets worse everyday. These posts are rants against the members of the American public that are too ingnorant to see that they are destroying thier and others' freedoms.

I probably ought to post AC, but I want others to know what I think.

A Quick Analysis & Rebuttal to Interlink's Pat

[mprasad]

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 Is Safe (quick patent's analysis)

[Anonymous Coward]

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

It's obvious why they are sueing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Their RF product that most directly "competes" with the Wii Remote is this http://www.interlinkelectronics.com/index.php?id=M zk0 $200 remote.

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=PT 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

Re:Um, prior art?

[wiredlogic]

There were aftermarket trigger grip controllers for both the Atari 2600 and ColecoVision. Probably for other early home consoles too. Nothing new here.