Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nintendo Suffers $21M Patent Infringement Award

Posted by timothy on from the patent-rolling-your-eyes-derisively dept.

CowTipperGore writes "The AP reports (via Yahoo!) that Nintendo of America Inc. has been ordered to pay a small East Texas gaming company $21 million for infringing on a patent while designing controllers for its popular Wii and GameCube systems. No stranger to lawsuits over controller designs, a Nintendo spokesman said the company will seek an appeal. The suit was originally filed in 2006 and included Microsoft. Microsoft's aggressive legal push back apparently helped as they reached a (confidential) settlement agreement before the case went to trial."

70 comments

  1. Suffering Succotash by nuzak · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'd like to "suffer" a $21 award.

    --
    Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    1. Re:Suffering Succotash by nuzak · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually a $21M award would be better. What a difference a letter makes.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    2. Re:Suffering Succotash by LordSkippy · · Score: 5, Informative

      The title is badly worded. The $21M award went to Anascape Ltd., the people suing Nintendo. So, Nintendo does suffer the award to another company. The wording of the title does make it sound like Nintendo is both the receiver and sufferer of the award.

      --
      My karma is in a nose dive
    3. Re:Suffering Succotash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially when you use base 23

    4. Re:Suffering Succotash by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Meh, it's good enough to point out that this was the value awarded, not the value sued for. It comes out to less than a dollar per Wiimote...

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    5. Re:Suffering Succotash by Rayor · · Score: 1

      Who uses base 23?

      --
      "Using linux is like a game, if you're able to make it run better than Windows, you're winning" - Unknown slashdotter.
  2. Well... by Kingrames · · Score: 2, Funny

    At least they wiil appeal the ruling.

    --
    If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    1. Re:Well... by oahazmatt · · Score: 5, Funny

      At least they wiil appeal the ruling. Why bother? It'd be easier to auction off a few Wiis under assumed eBay accounts to make-up the difference.
      --
      Those who believe the Internet is private,
      find their privates are on the Internet.
    2. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I caught it, even if nobody else did...

    3. Re:Well... by powerlord · · Score: 2, Funny

      At least they wiil appeal the ruling.

      Why bother? It'd be easier to auction off a few Wiis under assumed eBay accounts to make-up the difference.


      I can see it now:

      When contacted for comment, Nintendo of America issued this press release:

      "Wii would like to Pay"

      and suggested interested parties should check new eBay auctions.
      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
  3. Patentability by Azaril · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I know its been said many times before, but how are any of these patentable? A 3d controller with vibration - how can a patent office and a judge believe that qualifies as non-obvious and novel? Not only that, but on all of these controllers surely all of the playstation controllers, the n64 controller, dreamcast constitute prior art?

    1. Re:Patentability by hansamurai · · Score: 3, Informative
      Actually it doesn't seem to have anything to do with motion control.

      The jury found that Nintendo infringed on Anascape's patent while designing its Wii Classic, WaveBird and Gamecube controllers.

      Scibettra said Nintendo was pleased no infringement was found with the motion-sensing technology used in its wandlike Wii and Nuncheck controllers, which mimic movements by users in games such as tennis and boxing. None of those controllers have motion sensing in them.
      --
      Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
    2. Re:Patentability by hansamurai · · Score: 1

      Oh sorry, I thought you said motion not vibration.

      --
      Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
    3. Re:Patentability by falcon5768 · · Score: 1, Troll
      The real question here is, how stupid is this Judge. Its not hard to look at the "evidence" and realize this company is a front for a patent troll, yet here we go again a judge with no technical background is smoke-screened by a company who makes no product and who's sole income has been through settling and lawsuits.

      It doesnt take much to figure out whats going on here, yet apparently it was too much for this dolt.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    4. Re:Patentability by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It does not matter if the judge knows that company is a patent troll, there are no laws that say patent trolls cannot sue for infringement and the judge's job is to apply existing law, not create new laws on a whim.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    5. Re:Patentability by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      It hasn't stopped judges in the past. All Nintendo had to do was frame the lawsuit as an infringement on their right to privacy. Then the Judge will have no choice but to not only drop the case, but immediately create a new class of laws.

      Judges don't have the power to legislate, and there is no right to privacy outlined in the constitution. Neither of these facts seem to matter though.

      --
      Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
    6. Re:Patentability by Uncle+Focker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      and there is no right to privacy outlined in the constitution. Looks like another person who has failed to read the 9th Amendment.

      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Monster. Fucking. Fail.
    7. Re:Patentability by Khyber · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you bothered to RTFA, you'd find out it wasn't the judge but a federal jury that found in favor of Anascape.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    8. Re:Patentability by cjb658 · · Score: 1

      I know its been said many times before, but how are any of these patentable? A 3d controller with vibration - how can a patent office and a judge believe that qualifies as non-obvious and novel? Not only that, but on all of these controllers surely all of the playstation controllers, the n64 controller, dreamcast constitute prior art?

      1. Create vaguely worded patent, using complex technical terms to describe very simple ideas.
      2. Find patent office worker who has never used a computer before, or knows very little about it.
      3. ???
      4. Profit!

    9. Re:Patentability by OMNIpotusCOM · · Score: 3, Funny

      Under this new logic, there's seemingly ENDLESS things you can use the Constitution to prove. I heard the founding fathers didn't want us to smoke... I think that's in the 9th Amendment too. Amazazing!

    10. Re:Patentability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Judge will ... immediately create a new class of laws ... Judges don't have the power to legislate.

      Except when they're conservative judges, right? Then why are Republicans actively training judges in how to legislate conservative and business agenda from the bench? And why is the Bush admin busy stuffing the benches full of conservative judges?

      Like you said, they can't legislate, so it must be they're qualified is all. That's the ticket.

    11. Re:Patentability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reply as something other than AC and I might feel justified in responding to your tripe. As it is, please fuck off and die.

  4. It's the analog shoulder buttons by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    A 3d controller with vibration - how can a patent office and a judge believe that qualifies as non-obvious and novel? Only the claims of a patent, not its title, have legal force. But I did read the list of patent titles from "suit was originally filed". Taking into account the aspects infringing products (Xbox controller, GameCube controller, and Wii Classic Controller) and the titles of the patents, I guess that the patents cover some aspect of the analog L and R shoulder buttons on those controllers. The claims of U.S. Patent 6,344,791 appear to cover specifically the tactile detent that the player feels when pressing the GCN controller's L and R buttons all the way.
    1. Re:It's the analog shoulder buttons by Khyber · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You get the exact same feedback from the Super Nintendo controller's shoulder buttons. This company is indeed a patent troll and neds t be labeled as a vexatious litigant.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    2. Re:It's the analog shoulder buttons by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      You get the exact same feedback from the Super Nintendo controller's shoulder buttons. The SNES's shoulder buttons were not analog.
      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    3. Re:It's the analog shoulder buttons by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "The claims of U.S. Patent 6,344,791 appear to cover specifically the tactile detent that the player feels when pressing the GCN controller's L and R buttons all the way."

      My post still stands. It's the tactile feedback you get after pressing the button in all the way, AKA a 'click.'

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    4. Re:It's the analog shoulder buttons by grumbel · · Score: 1

      The SNES shoulder buttons don't click, the GCN shoulder buttons do.

    5. Re:It's the analog shoulder buttons by Khyber · · Score: 1

      The SNES buttons do indeed click. I'm holding my controller right now and pressing the buttons. They have a tactile "click" you can feel. Take it apart and you'll find the membrane switch making that soft tactile 'click'

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    6. Re:It's the analog shoulder buttons by Khyber · · Score: 1

      To add to that, the Sega Genesis controller buttons click as well when you press them, so do the a and b buttons on an old NES controller.

      This sort of tactile feedback is NOT new, and hasn't been since ARCADE GAMES or even PINBALL.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    7. Re:It's the analog shoulder buttons by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      The SNES buttons do indeed click. I'm holding my controller right now and pressing the buttons. They have a tactile "click" you can feel. Take it apart and you'll find the membrane switch making that soft tactile 'click' The SNES/Genesis/Pinball buttons do are not analog sensors that click at their extents. The patent is not as broad as you are describing it and does not include the controllers you're talking about. One of the other posters posted a link to the patent. You and the dudes wasting their mod-points on your posts need to go read it. Heck, just read the frickin abstract.

      Good grief people are quick to spout nonsense around here.
      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    8. Re:It's the analog shoulder buttons by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Pinball buttons do are not analog sensors that click at their extents"

      Do you even know what a solenoid is? It's an analog sensor that clicks at it's extent. My Zizzle pinball table is a perfect example of this.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    9. Re:It's the analog shoulder buttons by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      That's nice. Anyway, read the f'n patent. It specifically mentions the SNES controllers and how it's built. It also mentions why pinball machines aren't prior art for this thing, etc. Imagine how much more you'd know right now if you spent 5 minutes clicking a link instead of arguing with me and continuing to be wrong.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    10. Re:It's the analog shoulder buttons by xenocide2 · · Score: 1

      I believe the novelty is that the button is designed to have a range of inputs, yet still have a "click" on the high end.

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

    11. Re:It's the analog shoulder buttons by blincoln · · Score: 1

      I believe the novelty is that the button is designed to have a range of inputs, yet still have a "click" on the high end.

      Sounds like a $21 million idea if I've ever heard one!

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    12. Re:It's the analog shoulder buttons by Khyber · · Score: 1

      I've read the link, the fucking patent, and the whole damned article, and as I look around everywhere I see prior art. Hey, the exact same thing is used in musical keyboards, WITH A CLICK AT THE END. Oh, hey, The original Playstation controller did the exact same thing, STILL DOES. Why isn't this patent troll suing Sony?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    13. Re:It's the analog shoulder buttons by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "Oh, hey, The original Playstation controller did the exact same thing, STILL DOES. Why isn't this patent troll suing Sony?"

      Because the patent troll knows something you don't about the difference between the GC and the PS1 controller. Odd that somebody like you that has read the patent so very thoroughly doesn't quite get the difference.

      Oh well. Anyway, the PS1 controller doesn't contain the mechanism discussed in the patent. The PS2 doesn't. The Dreamcast doesn't. The 3DO doesn't. The Saturn doesn't. The '3d controller' for the Saturn doesn't. The Nintendo 64 doesn't. The Wii doesn't. The XBOX doesn't, but I'm not sure about the 360. The Atari 2600 doesn't. Etc. If that doesn't make it any clearer to you, then I prescribe Googlin for your ignorance. Maybe look up the first reviews of the GameCube after it was publically playable in 2001.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    14. Re:It's the analog shoulder buttons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Anascape sued MS but they settled outside of court.

    15. Re:It's the analog shoulder buttons by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      I was referring to the original XBOX, not the 360. But I could be mistaken about its shoulder button layout, I've never actually had one.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    16. Re:It's the analog shoulder buttons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And making them analog is worthy of a patent? No. Making them analog is obvious.

    17. Re:It's the analog shoulder buttons by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      And making them analog is worthy of a patent? No. Making them analog is obvious. Uh.. yeah.. that's why the PS2, Dreamcast, and Sega Saturn '3d controller' systems came along without putting the button at the end of the analog lever. It was sooOOoOooo obvious. It's a pity they didn't have your hindsight.
      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  5. Dumb patents abound by CogDissident · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, you do know Nintendo owns the patents on both: Water reflections in a video game The concept of "high score" Of course, they're not dumb enough to use them, but as part of their star fox 64 patent, they included those as sub-technologies that were patented, and it was approved.

    1. Re:Dumb patents abound by morari · · Score: 1

      I also heard that Nintendo owns the patent to the "Sanity System" from Eternal Darkness. That one's a doozy, especially if you want to make a Call of Cthulhu game. :P

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
  6. how? by Dart524 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    iv'e never seen a controller by these people how can they have a patent for something that no one has seen or heard about thats like me thinking about making a special kind of rocketship getting a patent then scrap the idea and sue anyone who tries to make the idea

    1. Re:how? by Valcrus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thats the problem with the current patent system. You could potentially do just that. Its not fool proof but that is pretty much what these companies are doing. They will buy or create a patent and then sit around until some company makes something close to the patent then sue them and try to get a settlement out of them.

    2. Re:how? by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      That's the way the patent system works. You patent your design, not a physical product (though the concept of "design" has gotten pretty loose these days).

      The original intent was to reward little guys who came up with ideas that they wouldn't otherwise be able to finance production of. Instead of keeping their idea secret while they tried to find the money to make their new gadget, they could license or sell the patent to a big company and let THEM make it. Sounds like a good idea in concept (or at least it did back when they implemented it), but these days it's just gotten ridiculous. Rather than requiring a very specific implementation, you can now patent the vaguest of idea.

      If we are to keep the patent system at all we really need to get back to patenting specifics, and not vague ideas.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    3. Re:how? by baxissimo · · Score: 1

      When NVIDIA sues ATI over patent infringement, ATI just turns around and says "oh yeh, well you're violating all these patents of ours". But the beauty of being a patent troll is that you can't be in violation of the defendant's technology patents if you don't make anything.

      This really ought to be made illegal. If you cannot show that you are at least actively pursuing creation of a product based on your patent after X number of years, then your claims to the patent should be considered abandoned, or at least claims for damages should be nullified. It may be difficult to define what "active pursuit" of a product would be, but let the jury decide. It's also difficult to define when "risque" becomes "obscene", or when "borrowing ideas" becomes "copyright infringement", but we let judges and juries decide these things too.

  7. Who are these people? by archammer2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    After doing a 30-second search for "Anascape", the only thing I could find on them are the law suits. Though, to be fair, most every gaming news site is covering this one. Still, who are these people? Have they done anything besides file the patents and then smack down anyone that uses "their technology"? Side note: Something the summary doesn't mention. Anascape originally sued Sony over the Playstation controllers. Then, they went after Microsoft and Nintendo at the same time. They don't seem to have any problems with the wiimote yet. Just the classic controller and the Gamecube controller.

    1. Re:Who are these people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The clue is the phrase "East Texas". There are A LOT of patent trolls located in East Texas. Apparently, the legal district there gives them more leeway than anywhere else. Kinda' like the liberal banking laws in South Dakota and Delaware.

    2. Re:Who are these people? by mog007 · · Score: 1

      No, afraid not. Immersion is the company which sued Sony. They also didn't sue Microsoft, because Microsoft paid them a license for their patent. Nintendo wasn't involved, because Nintendo's vibration technology doesn't infringe upon Immersion's patent.

      --
      Learn something new.
    3. Re:Who are these people? by mog007 · · Score: 1

      Bah, I should have previewed that, they did *sue* Microsoft, but they never got to court, because Microsoft settled out of court for a license.

      --
      Learn something new.
    4. Re:Who are these people? by kesuki · · Score: 1

      Anascape has only one employee, Brad Alan Armstrong.

      He's been acquiring patents on video game controllers since 1999, he has moved a lot

      "Subject: ARMSTRONG, BRAD ALAN, Age: 54

              * 1 address in CHICO, CA
              * 1 address in PARADISE, CA
              * 6 addresses in CARSON CITY, NV
              * 1 address in TYLER, TX
      "

      all his information is available from Intelius, but since you have to pay for the report, i didn't bother http://www.intelius.com/

      a one man patent troll, sigh, Microsoft settled out of court so the man is rich now, and will only get richer from Nintendo loosing the lawsuit.

      --
      https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
    5. Re:Who are these people? by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      At least Immersion was a real company. They had a website and showed which technologies they developed and the companies they worked with. There seems to be nothing behind "Anascape"

  8. It's a biological fact by grayshirtninja · · Score: 1

    If you release some new piece of technology and it's successful, hell, if it just gets good press coverage, then you will be sued by another company that built the same thing you did... but five years ago. On a related note, I have $5 that says someone sues over the LHC before the year ends.

    1. Re:It's a biological fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why America's legal system is FUBAR. Because people who did crap 5-10 years ago can come back and sue for a patent on something they didn't even complete.

    2. Re:It's a biological fact by grayshirtninja · · Score: 1

      IF they even did anything to begin with.

  9. The words aren't there, but I'm sure it meant this by OMNIpotusCOM · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Because, as we all know, the ninth amendment was basically saying that the government cannot stop a person's pursuit of life, liberty, happiness, Macs, DRM-free music and privacy on your Wii. That's pretty obvious. I mean, it's right there people, freedom. That means freedom from DRM music. There's no need to invoke the Fair Use doctrine - it doesn't really apply to stealing music anyway - just saying that the ninth amendment says that everyone is entitled to their privacy is enough. What is more private that stealing music, having a Mac, or being wrong on an internet forum?

  10. Define "all the way" on a 2-state switch by tepples · · Score: 1
    I described the patented response as happening "when pressing the [...] controller's L and R buttons all the way". You seem to think my description applies as well to a 2-state switch like the one in the Super NES shoulder buttons. In that case, I'd like to know what you think I meant by "all the way". Read the patent's claims to see what I meant: the patent applies to the combination of a "variable sensor" and this "click" at the end of the range. For your convenience, I will quote two of the claims here:

    1. A variable sensor, said variable sensor comprising a rigid support board, said board at least in part supporting a sheet, said sheet positioned between said board and a depressible resilient dome cap, said dome cap structured to provide, upon depression of said dome cap, a snap-through threshold tactile feedback to a human user.

    2. A variable sensor according to claim 1 wherein said board is a circuit board supporting electrical circuit traces, and said variable sensor is combined with means for variably controlling imagery according to variable depressive force applied by the human user.

    What kind of "variable depressive force" can you read out of a Super NES shoulder button's binary switch?
    1. Re:Define "all the way" on a 2-state switch by triffid_98 · · Score: 1
      You can't of course, but analog shoulder buttons have been around for rather a long time now. Off the top of my head, the earliest one I can remember is the NeGcon back around 1994. It didn't click, but maybe Namco can use their NeGcon patents and sue these trolls for their Wii moolah?

      What kind of "variable depressive force" can you read out of a Super NES shoulder button's binary switch?
    2. Re:Define "all the way" on a 2-state switch by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      Yours is the post I've been looking for. Thank you for pointing out the pertinent information, instead of just telling people to go read it themselves.

      I believe the GP thinks that the issue is adding analog input to buttons that already click. In such a case, we're patenting "when it clicks" (i.e. click at the end, or the beginning). This makes sense, because the DualShock doesn't click you press the analog buttons, and Sony wasn't sued. I think there are other more important flaws with the claims you cite.

      Consider for example other sources of variable sensors that have a click at one end to signify some sort of snap - your typical volume knob, letting you know you turned the volume to off. This sort of potentiometer with a click has existed for decades. You're telling me it's clever, unique, or non-obvious to make a button that clicks at one end, instead of a rotary pot?

      From there, it's non-obvious to make it click at the other end? Perhaps you could say "but this is all the way on", however a volume knob is called an attenuator by people who build things like this for a living (otherwise known as "someone skilled in the art"). You get maximum attenuation when you hear the click.

      We've also been using analog inputs to video games for similarly obscene amounts of time. The first joysticks were pure switches, but it wasn't soon after that analog sticks took their place. Analog inputs to video games were common long before this patent.

      How, then, is claim 2 not obviated by the way existing hardware interprets analog values of variable force on the analog sticks to variably control imagery?

      The rest of the claims that I read appear to describe very obvious ways to build what is the general state of video game controllers at the time. I doubt most of the claims could stand up under even the most basic scrutiny.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
  11. Jury, perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But this Jury was from just more than an hour outside of the famous town of Marshall, TX. I can't say that I trust ANY IP or patent suits brought anywhere near Marshall... I'm just soured on the entire judicial system in this area.

  12. Original Intent by xenocide2 · · Score: 1

    No, the original intent of patents was to fill the Royal coffers by selling limited monopolies to merchants after the Magna Carta required democratic consent to levy taxes. The system was adopted in the US as a way to encourage people to bring ideas to an underdeveloped US with plenty of resources but not many highly educated inventors to employ those resources. When the founders wrote the constitution there were no "big companies". Eben Moglen had a pretty good talk on the origins of patents and the implications on software patents, but I've lost the links.

    I'd really like to see a constitutional challenge against patents issued today based on the fact that they allow many patents that do not "advance the Science and useful Arts". The maximal utility of a patent from the filer's perspective is to disclose as little useful information as possible while broadly claiming as much as possible under the purview of their granted limited monopoly.

    --
    I Browse at +4 Flamebait

    Open Source Sysadmin

  13. Spring loading by tepples · · Score: 1

    You're telling me it's clever, unique, or non-obvious to make a button that clicks at one end, instead of a rotary pot? Compared to a rotary pot, the non-obvious part is spring-loading this sensor away from the side that has tactile snapping.

    From there, it's non-obvious to make it click at the other end? Perhaps you could say "but this is all the way on", however a volume knob is called an attenuator by people who build things like this for a living (otherwise known as "someone skilled in the art"). You get maximum attenuation when you hear the click. Unlike a button, a knob is not spring-loaded and therefore doesn't measure "depressive force", let alone "variable depressive force". You'd have to have a volume control button that snaps to maximum attenuation (that is, mute) when the button is pressed all the way and then returns to zero attenuation when the button is released.

    Analog inputs to video games were common long before this patent. The analog joysticks and gas pedals of the prior art hit a wall at their maximum, without any sort of tactile snapping.
    1. Re:Spring loading by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      Compared to a rotary pot, the non-obvious part is spring-loading this sensor away from the side that has tactile snapping.

      And this differs from spring-loaded digital buttons in what way? It's now novel and non-obvious to add an analog sensor to spring-loaded buttons?

      Unlike a button, a knob is not spring-loaded and therefore doesn't measure "depressive force", let alone "variable depressive force".

      My point was meant to compare the variable pressure sensor with a click-through mechanism to other types of conventional analog input mechanisms, which also similarly have click-through mechanisms at their extremes.

      The analog joysticks and gas pedals of the prior art hit a wall at their maximum, without any sort of tactile snapping.

      And here is where my point comes full circle. They took the idea of a volume knob, a fairly conventional analog input with a click-through at maximum attenuation, and applied it the conventional button. This is a synthesis of common techniques that every electrical engineer would be aware of.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    2. Re:Spring loading by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I was re-reading this, and I'd like to make four points.

      First, there is nothing in the claims about any springs.

      Second, according to the body, the "spring" is actually the plastic part of the membrane switch pushing back up. So I question whether that is really "spring loaded".

      Third, the idea of spring-loading an analog sensor would be similar to normal analog sticks which return to center when released.

      Fourth, I thought the patent in question was this one, awarded in November 2000, not the one awarded in June 2000 that you cited.

      I also have a question for you. Do you really consider that putting together two currently existing but separate technologies is worthy of a patent?

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    3. Re:Spring loading by tepples · · Score: 1

      And this differs from spring-loaded digital buttons in what way? It's now novel and non-obvious to add an analog sensor to spring-loaded buttons? The three features are more than 2 states (A), a momentary sensor (B), and snap-back tactile feedback (C). B + C = PC mouse button. A + C = attenuator knob. A + B = analog thumbstick. As far as I can tell, the USPTO thought A + B + C was novel and non-obvious.

      And here is where my point comes full circle. They took the idea of a volume knob, a fairly conventional analog input with a click-through at maximum attenuation, and applied it the conventional button. This is a synthesis of common techniques that every electrical engineer would be aware of. My understanding of patent law in Slashdot's jurisdiction is that both the problem and its solution must be obvious to anyone skilled in the art in order for an invention to be excluded from patentability on grounds of obviousness.
    4. Re:Spring loading by tepples · · Score: 1

      Fourth, I thought the patent in question was this one The article lists about a dozen patents. I picked an arbitrary one from the list to dissect.

      Do you really consider that putting together two currently existing but separate technologies is worthy of a patent? "Is"? Yes. "Should be"? I'm not so sure.
    5. Re:Spring loading by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      The three features are more than 2 states (A), a momentary sensor (B), and snap-back tactile feedback (C). B + C = PC mouse button. A + C = attenuator knob. A + B = analog thumbstick. As far as I can tell, the USPTO thought A + B + C was novel and non-obvious.

      It appears that we agree this is merely the result of synthesizing together features from any of multiple types of disparate but common input devices. We either add A to BC, or B to AC, or C to AB.

      Given common examples of AB, AC, and BC, I don't think it's appropriate to allow a patent on ABC. Patents in this case would not be about creating an incentive to create ABC, but rather about trying to pre-empt someone else who is probably going to create ABC on their own. If someone manages to forecast the inevitable direction of an industry and gets a patent regarding a critical "invention" that would be necessary for that industry in the future, they potentially have a monopoly over everyone in said industry.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
  14. Re:The words aren't there, but I'm sure it meant t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mmmm... +2 flamebait