Slashdot Mirror
Patent Suit Against Nintendo, Microsoft Dismissed
Saul J writes with an update to the patent lawsuit that was filed by Fenner Investments back in 2007 against Nintendo and Microsoft. The suit alleged that the two companies had infringed upon a patent for a joystick port interface. The trial was set to begin today, but now Judge Leonard Davis of the US District Court in Tyler, Texas has ruled that there is no need for a jury trial. One of Nintendo's lawyers said, "Nintendo has a long history of developing innovative products while respecting the intellectual property rights of others. We also vigorously defend patent lawsuits when we firmly believe that we have not infringed another party's patent, despite the risks that this policy entails."
Wouldn't Ralph Baer (or Magnavox) have a patent on this? Given that all of that work was done in the 70s, I can't imagine nobody registered for a patent like this until 98.
I have only scanned the patent, however.... I see Nintendos+Microsofts point, can you seriously patent a simple circuit whos main component is a DQ flip-flop in 2001. The other major component seems to be an RC network. The whole device would seem to be an encoder circuit. (possibly patentable in 1960) I don't know about law (especially US law), however as I understand it this would only be eligible for copyright protection under EU law.
Disclaimer: I know nothing about the law and the above is only my personal opinion.
Not just the PC; I recall the Apple II used an analog joystick as well, and the Atari 400/800 used the same method described in the abstract for their paddle controllers. Those were in the market nearly 20 years before the patent was even filed!
It's really nice to see someone actually fight a stupid lawsuit rather than roll over and settle. Maybe we should let Nintendo run the insurance industry. Mario and Donkey Kong could do better than some of the current crop.
My guess is that Fenner Investments isn't even looking to win the suit. They probably just want Nintendo and MS to pony up some settlement money.
That is why they are called "Patent Trolls". If more companies stood up to them these Trolls would just fade away, however most companies don't have the money to get patents invalidated so they pay up what is to all intensive purposes extortion money which unfortunately strengthens the patent in the eyes of the law (called precedent).
Patent Trolls usually start off attacking a company that is small and since the company can't afford any long drawn out litigation it pays what to them is affordable amount of money to make the Troll go away. This is great from the Troll's perspective so they go after more higher profile companies with a now much stronger patent always being careful not to attack those who can fight until they have strengthened their patent before the law.
Nasty but that's how the law can be made to work for the Troll. Fortunately this case was given the boot but I would not be surprised if the Troll bounced back with a slightly stronger patent and the fun continues again. In the long term it is the consumer who pays for this ridicules pantomime.
There is genuine patent litigation, however it only takes a few Troll's to bring the whole patent system into disrepute. Of course it does not help when you have countries that recognise software patents which IMHO are really patenting mathematical constructs and some simple electronic circuits that any second year University student would find obvious but that is an argument for another day.
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.