Slashdot Mirror
Joystick Port Patented, Now the Lawsuit
Panaqqa writes "It appears that Fenner Investments, a Texas based patent troll, is at it again. This time, they are suing Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo for infringing a patent they hold on joystick ports. Perhaps they felt they needed a "Plan B" now that their lawsuit against Juniper Networks, Nokia, Cisco, Alcatel and Ericsson is not going so well."
It's probably the best bet for patent reform to be taken seriously.
someone sue the lawyers bringing up these lawsuits...since they are driving us nuts, and crippling businesses. If there ever was a need for "looser pays" it's because of crap like this.
Wikipedia page on Patent Trolls, with a list that doesn't appear to include the trolls in question guys:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll
people wonder why does Microsoft patent things... Here ladies and Gentllemen, you have the answer. If you have deep pockets, you better defend yourself.
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
Haven't poor Microsoft and Sony been vicimized enough?
How's a poor ruthless-megacorporation supposed to make a buck these days?
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
The patent was applied for in 1998, I believe the first atari consoles had joysticks in the late 70s, and I'm sure there are earlier examples. The only thing that the patent application seems to have going for it is the specific use of CMOS fabrication for the circuit. This seems to me like making a keyboard out of metal/wood/some other material not usually used, then trying to patent it. Am I missing something, or will this lawsuit go just as well as their previous one?
Good times, good times....
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
I can't work out what the patent is actually for. Even the abstract is a little vague apart from telling me it's some sort of analogue joystick interface.
They're using an integrated circuit to read the voltage differentials, instead of the more common 'clock + voltage comparator'. So yes, I would say this falls under prior art, being that their chip does pretty much what the gameport logic has done since its introduction. And if it doesn't fail on prior art, it fails on the 'obvious' clause.
Indeed!
prior art-ish Applie IIe circuit
0 6.html
http://web.pdx.edu/~heiss/technotes/aiie/tn.aiie.
Whoopie.
Because Fenner's patent used a tristate buffer instead of an open collector NPN transitor they own this kind of joystick?
geesh.
-- 3 events that reshaped the world in the 20th century: WW1, WW2, and WWW
I guess they can ding the Xbox, PS2, Gamecube and maybe Wii. But don't newer consoles use USB ports? The 360 doesn't even have joystick ports, it has (properly licensed and legally clear) USB ports instead.
Comment of the year
I don't know the exact circuit details but Commodore Amiga joysticks worked in a similar way, i.e. by timing the decay of a capacitor rather then using an a/d converter.
No sig today...
Is it just me or does this speak so clearly to the culture we have developed in the US?
How does this relate to the culture of the US? Sure, there are some companies that are trying to make money as patent trolls, just as there are always people trying to get a quick buck. But the vast majority of Americans are never a party to a patent lawsuit.
The idea that you can only get ahead by suing the pants off of some corporation.
There are a lot of companies out there that innovate and compete in order to get ahead. Just because there are a few examples of cases like the above does not mean that it's the standard operating procedure for a business.
In typical slashdot style, somebody has taken a situation, and extrapolated it out to now cover the entire population of the United States. The above case sure does seem frivalous, and it in no way represents the culture in the US.
-dave
/., where "Apple and Google provide Iran with nukes" will be refuted with "But Microsoft is a convicted monopolist"
As near as I can tell from the text of the patent, this patent troll has patented the use of an Analog to Digital Convertor for converting the analog output of a joystick into a digital signal. I'm not 100% certain but it sounds like either an integrator type circuit or a PWM type circuit. The intriguing bit is the mentioned use of a VLSI (Very Large Scale Integration) chip as a part of the design. This could mean utilizing any of the large fabric chips from the likes of Altera, TI, or Lord knows how many others are in the market nowadays. Heck, this could be interpreted to include the PIC chips in common use nowadays.
I'd have to look in my old college electronics book (Electronic Communications - vol 5 by Schrader) to see, but I think these types of ADC circuits were discussed even back then (circa 1985). If not, I know the Peavey DECA series of digital power amplifiers (circa 1988) utilized an integrator type ADC for doing converting the analog audio signal to a series of digital pulses (PWM) used for driving the MOSFET finals.
Ron Gage - Westland, MI
The fact that these non-novel, obvious patents with prior art are being issued decades after first use.
I understand that business need to protect themselves, and I'm a lot more forgiving of hardware patents (because that make sense) but reading the patent all I see that MIGHT be new is the power saving circuitry rather than a novel joystick connection.
They do need more examiners and the second patent applied for each year should cost twice as much as the first to file. (This would curb blanketing the system hoping that one of them sticks).
This is my theory and it's mine.
From the patent:
Filing date: Jul 10, 1998
Does more really need to be said?
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
Their patent applies to analog joysticks. It's a method of sending the information of a joystick's position as a digital pulse, therefore requiring less wiring for multiple analog sticks and buttons. The controller could send the information about the various states of the buttons and joysticks encoded as a digital stream.
Unfortunately for them, they applied for the patent in '98, long after the N64 was released. I don't know for sure, but since the N64 controller only has (IIRC) 3 wires in the cable, they must be using something like what this patent describes.
It's interesting that they applied for the patent two months after the release of the dual-shock controller for the PS1. IMO, someone saw the dual shock and patented the idea on how it would work.
What, me worry?
These people give Texans a bad name. Is there any way I can mail these creeps a bushel of rotten tomatoes? I probably live too far away to throw them myself.
Since 'Mutually Assured Destruction' doesn't work when defending against a patent troll (they don't produce anything that can infringe your patents), maybe it would be a start to limit the maximum amount of awarded damages to $5M (for example.) If a patent of a legitimate inventor is ever infringed by some big business, the settlement is more than enough for them to retire and continue inventing if they so choose. Wouldn't it however remove the incentive for trolls, spending easily as much as $5M in the hopes of getting awarded $200M?
Then as an encore someone might be able to convince USPTO there isn't such a thing as software patents. Good reading materials: An industry at risk, So Small a Town, So Many Patent Suits
Indeed!
Is it just me or does this speak so clearly to the culture we have developed in the US?
Not really. Parasites exist in most systems and represent a legitimate (though culturally reprehensible) strategy in game theory, economics, etc. "Patent trolls" exemplify parasitic behavior by trying to obtain resources (cash, reputation) without being responsible for original productive work. They live off of others efforts through a less-than-equitable exchange.
Think about how long criminal organizations have coerced others through various rackets - Mafia "insurance" rackets (e.g. pay me for fire insurance so Tony here won't burn your business down tonight). To many, this behavior is wrong (it certainly introduces greater inefficiencies), but at a minimal level, it provides the benefit of killing off the weak. Economies really want to see the weak removed as it punishes bad strategy and allows those who made better decisions to attain their reward. Parasitism is also a moderate risk strategy for those that speculate on the patent troll organizations as their capital invested to pay the legal bills is very much at total risk.
It just sounds like this corporation exists only to gather every patent it can get it's hands on
The real disappointment is that the U.S. legal system does not provide an opportunity for greater risk than the invested capital paid into these speculative patent troll firms. For example, if this firm loses in the joystick litigation and goes bankrupt, all those who invested in it only lose their capital they intentionally placed at risk. If you put in $100K for your shares, you're out $100K. A "loser pays" judicial system would help reduce repeat behavior as a troll firm once successful would likely rather liquidate and take the gains after one win, rather than expose it all to a second, so this type of reform would not really address the core problem.
I'd advocate a personal liability provision similar to the attestation liability that public corporation executives now have due to Sarbanes Oxley (e.g. they are personally at risk to significant criminal penalties for the integrity of their company's financial statements). If you really believe in your claims and seek to litigate on the patent issue, you'll be required to place a $500K bond with the court which will be forfeit if your case is determined to be frivolous. Combine this exposure with dramatically increased sanctions against attorneys for polluting the system with this junk (e.g. one year suspension of their license for the first offense) and you'll reduce this parasitism to a more normal frequency.
You would think it was possible to put our nations academic institutions into the patent review loop.
Company applies for patent, patent judge receives comments from university departments focused on that type of technology, judge reviews comments to verify if this is a revolutionary new idea worth granting a patent to or not.
I also liked the suggestion that the cost of patenting scale up the more patents one files within a given timeframe. This should keep a company from essentially conducting a "denial of patent review" attack by filing so many similar patents that the academics will simply give up participating in the system.
I would also like to see some sort of financial pentalty applied to corporations who attempt to patent existing work. In this case, if the court finds the patent should never have been granted, I would accompany the dismissal of their lawsuit with a hefty fine. Force companies to conduct solid research instead of just filing some paperwork and seeing what they can slip through the system.
Heck, for that matter, the XBox (Classic) uses a USB interface for it's controllers, too. There's just an additional 3.3volt line for other purposes like light pens, etc.
Bill
It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
I agree that the current system needs a complete overhaul, but there is a very good mechanism in the current system for eliminating the need of defensive patents. You don't have to patent before they do, you don't have to abolish patents, you just have to publish the idea. If you make a discovery that you are not going enforce patents on, but want to protect yourself from someone else patening it, you just have to publish it, and it can't be patented. Defensive patents only work against other large companies that actually produce a product. If they threaten your product with a patent violation, you threaten thier's. With a patent troll that doesn't make anything, you don't have the leverage. Publishing puts the idea in the public domain, is much cheaper, and is much easier to defend in court. You aren't comparing the specific details of your patent with the details of thiers, you are comparing the specifics of their patent with the general idea that you published.
I don't know man... the local technical college was advertising some interesting courses on the radio this morning. "Owning ideas you'll never implement", "Children say the darndest things (that you can sue their parents for)", and my personal favorite, "Injuring yourself with every-day home objects for fun and profit".
I went to a real university and have a graduate degree, and I still have to work like, at least 40 hours per week! American Dream my ass!
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
I believe that my usb port works as a joystiq port on my computer. So I believe that usb is the next to go.
The U.S. Patent Office has such a procedure -- its called "reexamination." "Inter parties" reexamination allows two parties (the patentee and an accused infringer) to "reexamine" a patent before the USPTO in view of new prior art. If the USPTO agrees with the accused infringer, it can invalidate the patent. Lawsuits regarding patents in reexamination are commonly stayed (i.e. put on hold) until the reexamination terminates.
Reexams often result in dubious patents being invalidated. The reason you do not read about them more often on /. is that the purported prior art is often grossly exaggerated by the accused infringer (as in the RIM/NTP patent case), so there may not actually be sufficient grounds to invalidate the patent.
Not really. Parasites exist in most systems and represent a legitimate (though culturally reprehensible) strategy in game theory, economics, etc.
That's true, but I think the parent was referring to the lawsuit lottery mentality whereby people dream of ways to snare wealthy corporations by suing them in unanticipated ways and thus get rich. In the US, no jury's findings are binding on another's, so if the first jury says, "placing a warning this way would have sufficed", and the corporation switches to that way, the next jury is free to rape it again for insufficient warning. Plus, juries are likely to rule out of sympathy ("Well, the doctor didn't really do anything wrong, but gee, it would really suck to be the patient now, and gosh, those insurance companies sure have unlimited money, so what the hell...") or desire for fame ("Hey, we can't get on Oprah unless we rule against the big evil corporation, and gosh, isn't that plaintiff's attorney so sweet the way he smiles...").
Does it happen in other countries? Sure, but not nearly as often. For example, Japan has a similarly developed economy but only a fraction of the lawyers per capita and "investment" in the legal system.
To many, this behavior is wrong (it certainly introduces greater inefficiencies), but at a minimal level, it provides the benefit of killing off the weak.
Well, it provides the "benefit" of killing off those who are weak *along a certain dimension*, but being weak along that dimension rarely means you're a drain on the economy somehow. Sure, Mr. Viklstein can't defend his bank against arsonists, but that doesn't mean he's a drain on the economy.
That said, I agree there should be a sort of "loser pays" system for frivolous suits like you've suggested.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
The real disappointment is that the U.S. legal system does not provide an opportunity for greater risk than the invested capital paid into these speculative patent troll firms. For example, if this firm loses in the joystick litigation and goes bankrupt, all those who invested in it only lose their capital they intentionally placed at risk. If you put in $100K for your shares, you're out $100K. A "loser pays" judicial system would help reduce repeat behavior as a troll firm once successful would likely rather liquidate and take the gains after one win, rather than expose it all to a second, so this type of reform would not really address the core problem.
I don't like loser pays for one reason, the underdog never has an advantage. If you are an inventor with a patent that a large multi-national corporation steals, what is your recourse in loser pays? Not only do you have to fight an uphill battle because the large company has more money, more lawyers and more time than you, but if you lose (and not necessarily because you are wrong, but because the system isn't 100% perfect), the downside is huge. You now have to pay for the huge, expensive legal team.
Now to be fair, I don't have a better idea, but I just think that as an overall strategy, loser-pays will be abused just like the current system is.
Also, I don't believe loser-pays will prevent patent-trolls. Once incorporated, the people behind the troll company are reasonabliy well protected. They win one lawsuit, pay out to the investors, and start up with round two. As the company has virtually no assets, there is nothing that can be taken to pay out should they lose. Now you could change the rules regarding corporations, but that would have widespread effects far beyond the issue of patents.
If you really believe in your claims and seek to litigate on the patent issue, you'll be required to place a $500K bond with the court which will be forfeit if your case is determined to be frivolous.
Again, this is an idea that hurts the small inventor. If I have a patent that somebody infringes, not only do I have to fund the suit, but I now have to come up with another $500k bond? Sure, I could try to find some investors, but in a David vs. Goliath fight with a large corporation, good luck. Especially if it were a loser-pays system.
Something needs to be done. Better checking of patents. Quicker expiration of patents. Maybe required use of patents or they expire much more quickly. But I think the ideas behind loser-pays or bonding hurts the small guy and does nothing to the well organized patent troll.
-dave
/., where "Apple and Google provide Iran with nukes" will be refuted with "But Microsoft is a convicted monopolist"
You've got to be kidding, this is regarded as classic American culture these days by people in the UK.
And obviously if you Brits have that opinion of us, it must be true.
people can sue McDonalds for not warning people that their coffee will be hot
Have you actually read about the facts in the case? It's not quite as frivalous as it might seem.
It's sickening to always hear of the idiocy and apparent corruption in the legal and political systems over there.
And it's what you hear about because it's sensationalist. Obviously you aren't going to hear about the thousands of small companies that are started and grow to become successful. Nobody wants to read about that, especially when it's thousands of miles away.
I'm hoping the pet one was an urban myth, but somehow.. I don't think so.
I think this statement says it perfectly. You have no clue what the reality is, but you are willing to assume that these stories are true.
Believe me, there are plenty of stories of idiocy and corruption about the UK and other countries that I hear about, yet I am able to realize that, one, these are generally not the norm of that society, and two, that what eventually makes it's way over the pond is generally the entertaining stuff.
-dave
/., where "Apple and Google provide Iran with nukes" will be refuted with "But Microsoft is a convicted monopolist"
This exact circuit was used in the Apple II in 1977. Copied by IBM in the IBM PC in 1981. May have been used prior to this. This circuit is so common they had to know that this was used many years ago. If I were a defendant in this case I would counter sue claiming they knowingly patented something that was in common use without disclosing the prior art just so they could intimidate companies. This a fraud on the patent office!
Y'know, a lot of the posts in this comment section seem to be of the type "well, there's this prior art out there so there's no way a patent should have issued!"
That being said, ultimately, it is the responsibility of the patent examiner to determine whether or not the claims of the patent are indeed patentable (useful, novel, nonobvious, etc.). However, don't blame the patent examiner. These poor souls are overworked and underpaid, and the backlog for many applications awaiting examination nowadays are in the 3-5 years range. For example, if you look at the public PAIR information for this particular patent here, you'll see that this particular application (App. No. 09/113,503) was initially assigned to group art unit 2635. In general, art unit 2600 is really swamped.
So, what can you do? Rather than bitchin' and moanin' that the patent system of the U.S. is "broken," become a patent examiner! Take a look at a partial list of employment opportunities here and apply! If you want a faster link, here's the actual Patent Examiner Employment Application.
So, do your civic and scientific duty today and join the ranks of the PTO!
Back in the 1970s - 1980s, 8-bit computers used to measure the resistance of a joystick potentiometer using this setup:
One end of the joystick pot (VR1) is connected to the main logic supply voltage (1). The slider (3) is connected to a capacitor (C1). The other terminal of the capacitor is earthed. The junction (3) of the variable resistance and capacitor is connected via a safety resistance (R1) to a logic input (4) on IC1. An open-collector logic output is also connected to this input. To take a reading the O/C output is driven low to discharge C1, then allowed to float. At some later moment in time, the capacitor will have charged to the point where the voltage at (4) exceeds its input threshhold and the input will read as a "1". By measuring the time which elapses between the forcible discharging of C1 and the triggering of the input, we can determine the unknown resistance between (1) and (3), and thus the position of the joystick.
Even the IBM PC used this technique when a joystick port was added! Right up to the days when USB became standard for PC joysticks, every PC had a 15-pin DIN connector (colour: mustard) with four such inputs plus some switch inputs. The Atari 9-pin DIN joystick port (which would eventually go on to become a de facto standard) featured two resistance inputs which were normally used by the paddle controllers, but (because, if fitted with a simple pull-up resistance and the O/C output is left open, they are switch inputs) became the extra mouse buttons on the Amiga. All this was done long enough ago that, had any patent ever covered it (which is frankly pretty unlikely; the idea of determining an unknown resistance by using it in an oscillator and measuring the period of said oscillator should be obvious to anyone who knows how to wire a 13 amp plug, let alone an "expert" in the field), it would certainly have expired by now.
The circuit goes something like this; Note also that this method was not universal. The BBC computer used a 12-bit A-D converter (mapped to the upper 12 bits of a two-byte word), with the tracks of the pots between a reference supply and ground; the Dragon 32 used a 6-bit ADC formed from a DAC (also used, via an analogue DUX, for cassette and audio output!) and comparator.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
We need a 'use it or lose it' mentality to patents. If you patent a new type of mouse and it's 7 years later and somebody else is selling these mice and you haven't done shit with yours... then too bad so sad. This will eliminate these patent trolls.
nothing
Nitnendo has patents on all there ports and connecters so how would this tandup against that ?
This is good stuff.. Patent trolls don't have the kind of money needed to buy congressmen. And, the deep pocketed companies they are after surely do. So, hopefully this continues, and those big companies get the congressmen they control to reform the patent system.
They should sue the US Airforce for using joysticks in fighter planes. Maybe some pilot will get angry and press the launch button to solve the whole problem once and for all...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Please file a patent lawsuit against IBM so we don't have to deal with your trolling anymore.
Best Regards,
The World
but I haven't heard any explanation of how they might be implemented. Say you want to see a common sense reform like, "You can't patent a business process" or "You can't patent something you've never created". How would that reform happen? Do we just hope the SCOTUS intervenes, making a ruling during a case which has ramifications for other cases? Would the Congress need to pass a bill laying out such a reform? Is there anything we can do as citizens to push things in the right direction?
The only thing I can think of is to patent a method of "Reducing and preventing severe head pain, through the application of a system which regulates the velocity of any high density object as it approaches the cranial system. The forumla for the appropriate approach is F=MA, where F is less than painful"; and then suing the patent trolls for infringement. Of course, I wouldn't settle out of court; I'd demand an immediate cease-and-desist.
Not smashing yourself over the head with blunt objects? Hey... that's *my* idea!
====
The Professional Inventors Alliance USA was created more than a decade ago to protect American invention and encourage innovation. American inventors saw a need to track congressional legislation and federal policy that impacts independent inventors, small and medium-sized businesses and colleges and universities. The Alliance is the premiere organization in the nation, providing independent inventors a united voice in order to improve public policy.
The Alliance provides legislative counsel, congressional updates and strategy development to its members through a number of vehicles. Additionally, through its speaker's bureau, Alliance members have an opportunity to provide expert opinion to many of the nation's top-tier business, technology and mainstream media organizations. Over the years its members have testified before Congress, offered counsel to key Senate and House committee members, and successfully pushed legislation to protect America's independent inventors.
Since its inception, the Alliance has grown into one of the most vocal advocates for America's patent system.
Examples of areas of our expertise include David Vs. Goliath patent litigation, patent reform, and we have a unique view of the companies comprising the "Coalition for Patent Piracy".
Ronald J. Riley,
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
Almost everyone would exercise a lot more caution handling a pot of water at a full rolling boil on their laps than a cup of coffee. However, McDonalds was selling something that looked just like the latter, but was actually almost as dangerous as the former. Moreover, they had received multiple reports of injuries due to this, and did nothing.
From my inspection of the patent, it appears that their "invention" is supposed to allow a joystick which operates with a 5 V supply to interface to a circuit which does not operate on a 5 V supply.
This isn't just obvious, it's necessary! Anyone even half-assed skilled in the art would know that you need to do something to connect a 5 V TTL output to a 3.3 V LVTTL input.
Okay, so maybe their something is novel or nonobvious. In fact, it's neither; they're using a tri-state buffer's threshold voltage as a comparator.
Basically, digital logic circuits can have any manner of analog voltages applied to them. Circuit designers specify these voltages as Vil (voltage input low threshold) and Vih (voltage input high threshold). Any input voltage below Vil will generate an digital output voltage below Vol (voltage output low), which is usually interpreted as logic 0. Any input voltage above Vih will, correspondingly, generate a voltage above Voh, which is usually interpreted as logic 1.
They specify that their buffer has hysteresis, so that way it won't suffer from the metastability that usually occurs when you feed a digital circuit an input voltage between Vil and Vih.
Keep in mind that these components are all COTS (common-off-the-shelf) parts.
They just drain a capacitor, which causes the input of the buffer to go below Vil, so the buffer outputs a logic 0, which raises a PCin bit (whose voltage level is not the 5V joystick level), let the capacitor charge through the potentiometer whose resistance is proportional to the current joystick position (which cap is being charged by a 5V supply), and when the charging capacitor exceeds Vih of the input buffer, the buffer outputs a logic 1, causing the PCin bit to go low again.
There's some miscellaneous stuff about resetting, the order in which to apply signals to make the process work, etc. But, basically, the whole patent is bollocks.
I also like how they have a small piece in their patent filing about how those skilled in the art will see obvious ways to modify their patent's invention, and that these modifications are still "in the spirit" of what the patent covers and are thus covered by the patent.
:(){
The claims are all describing the old "dumb" analog PC joystick. The claims specifically describes the joystick as being dependent on a processor on the other side of the interface to perform the procedure of measuring the position of the joystick. Ignoring the scads of prior art for this type of joystick, all modern consoles with analog sticks and all USB joysticks have some form of integrated processor that performs the procedure described in the claims before anything goes out over the interface. Even if the patent were valid there can be no valid claim of infringement for any modern hardware.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
This patent is a monopoly on something obvious. No, it's not quite a "patent on the joystick port" if you read it (but don't read it, if you read it they could get triple damages!) (amigas and other platforms had analogue and digital joysticks in the 1980s of course, so it would be instantly invalidated if that was all it was).
However, it is still neither non-obvious nor particularly inventive, to the people whose opinion should count (of course, the people whose opinions count in the USA are MBAs, PHBs, Lawyers and just about anyone other than engineers!).
Asking USPTO folk to judge patent novelty is a bit like those stereotypical primitives on a tropical island who are wowed by the god-like power of motor boats and airplanes. People judging the validity of patents are, almost necessarily, unqualified: the people who would be qualified either detest patents (most engineers, not just in software, btw) or can earn far more actually working as engineers or both. So you end up with, well, weenies, in charge of handing out 20 year monopolies.
Thanks for providing the link to the talkback. I didn't even know that part existed. After reading the entry I saw that the only problem with my entry was that it should have linked to the Slashdot article that included the phrase "patent troll" in the submission. I've resubmitted with that change and expect it to stay up. Quite a learning experience but it was about time I started learning about Wikipedia since so many people are starting to use it. Like many new technologies, I have to learn it, but I don't have to like it. :P
> she still held the coffee between her knees while trying to take off the lid
The fact that neither the cup or the lid was designed for the temperature that McD's was serving the coffee at had something to do with it. Stella Liebeck wasn't exactly the first person to suffer serious burns either. And incidentally, she only sued for the medical expenses -- the jury awarded the large punitive damages (that were later reduced in a secret settlement) because of some pretty outrageous conduct by McDonalds, including but not limited to going to the press and smearing Liebeck publicly as a gold-digger. Personally, I don't think they paid enough.
I remember getting McDonalds coffee in those days -- the lid would just come right off because the heat from the coffee deformed it. Nasty coffee, but bitter cold winters, and they were along the way to the bus stop.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
but not in a good sense.
An explanation for those who don't want to read the patent:
An anlog joystick is pretty much a variable resistor. In order to convert this into a digital domain, the resistance must be measured. We know that the resistor itself can be used to change the discharge time of a capacitor -- this is common. Meauring the discharge time means determining the time the capacitor goes from one voltage to a lower voltage. Which, by its very nature is a "pulse".
And this patent seems to cover all such interfaces in the "joystick" domain.
Now, I can come up with alternate methods for reading the resistance. First one (off the top of my head), is to use a series of resistors controlled by a latched value to produce a reference voltage which is then sent through the joystick resistance. The final output is run through a gate which triggers at a reference voltage. Via search, we can determine the target joystick resistance. (I would probably use a binary search). But this is not any where NEAR as simple or obvious as the R-C approach.
Now, the R-C approach has been used for other variable resistors (prior to 1998) -- the "joystick" application is the only new thing. I used it myself in the 80's. Just never for a joystick (not being into gaming). Its main benefits are that it needs only a single input pin and the circuit is simple. But, given those constraints it is obvious.
Oh well -- go patent trolls. Sure glad I am not in the US.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Bingo! This patent troll is going to loose. The Atari 2600, 7800, Commodore 64, and the Nintendo Entertainment System and many had Joystick ports. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Entertainmen t_System was out years before that patent was filed. So sense prior "art" exists, then they do not have a leg to stand on!
Personally I think that if a patent is found (In court) that it is not valid, it should be taken from the patent whores and givin to the Public Domain.
I wonder if it is possible to file for a patent, and donate it to the public domain directly. Then "Patent Heros" could file for simple, and basic patents, and then just give them to the public, where they belong!
Few things to point out here. 1) I don't know who filed the infringement on this patent. 2) I am one of the inventors of this patent (DLPotts from Royersford, PA). I have no idea how they expect this to fly in court. Why? The idea of the patent directly ties to JOYSTICK PORTS on PC's, and NOTHING else. The Joystick port on the PC is a 5volt open collector port that uses sampled time to determine if the potentiometer has moved or not. Eventually the semiconductors involved dropped to 3.3 volt and thus the Joystick port would not function any more. The Patent reflects how the port had to be modified to accept a current joystick (ones designed to run on 5 volt) and still be accurate. The idea behind the design was not to stop people from inventing a low voltage joystick such as Nintendo, Sony and MS have done, but a way to use the (then current) joysticks in future systems. Since none of the game consoles involved actually use "PC JOYSTICK" ports (they have created their own ports), and they are not interfacing to the analog PC joysticks of the time; there is no way that this would ever stand up in court. I would also like to give a shout out to Jalil Fadavi of this patent too; he lost his battle to cancer a few months back.. He was a great man.
...insert Rod A into Slot B? Weren't there electrical outlets before joystick ports? We could go back to creation and argue the original patent for inserting Rod A into Slot B could be awarded to God.