Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nintendo Sued over Wiimote Trigger

Posted by Zonk on from the wiimote-to-the-head-ed-grubberman dept.

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."

8 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. Um, prior art? by Southpaw018 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Um, prior art? by Headcase88 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, it would be a good rule. IRRC patents were originally designed to encourage innovation. If an idea is already thought of in fiction and the original creators didn't patent it, well, the invention has been made and the inventors passed on their chance to profit.

      So obviously not realistic, but when you get down to it and consider the purpose of patents, it would be a good rule IMO.

      --
      "When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
    2. Re:Um, prior art? by jevvim · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Hello, what about the original NES gun?

      The NES gun was wired and had only one button. The patent actually covers a wireless device where there are two buttons: one on the underside, a "trigger", and a second on the top surface, near a natural position of the thumb while the hand is in position for the index finger to use the trigger. Each claim of the patent includes a button or trackpad-like surface on the top side, opposite of the trigger.

  2. Not Infringing? by Starji · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

  3. Re:Um, prior art? from the 80s by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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! --
  4. The patent says it's for a computer not a console by Xest · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

  5. Doggy doorbell patent knocked out by UK comic! by pbhj · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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).

    See http://www.innovation.rca.ac.uk/PD/sw/IP/st_rights 6_patent.html for tentative corroboration.

  6. Re:Okay... by LordKronos · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Dang it...I hate coming up with info late into a thread. I hope somebody ends up seeing this.

    If you want prior art, please pre-date 1995.

    OK, here you go. Patent 5724106 (issued to Gateway 2000). This may not be as early of an example as the all the other things people post, but so far I have to believe it is the most relevant, because

    1) It has a patent with an original filing date that predates the one in question (continuation of a patent filed Jul. 17, 1995)

    2) It is literally a remote control with a trigger

    http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5724106.html

    Also, check out the images on the
    USPTO website (or get them off that site...you can log in with bug-me-not or create a free account)