Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Sues UK's Datel Over Controllers
nathanielinbrazil writes "Microsoft has sued a British manufacturer over the infringement of four of its patents for Xbox game controllers. The suit was filed in Seattle, Washington, and Datel has yet to respond. Datel is a United Kingdom company with a US unit and has produced two specific controllers — the TurboFire and WildFire — that Microsoft wants stopped." The infringing patents are over "portions of a gaming controller" and "portion of a gaming input device having an illuminated region."
As long as they limit their suits to infringements on hardware patents, I'm okay with that.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
Specifically, four of the patents - 521,015, D522,011, D547,763 and D581,422 - relate to "portions of a gaming controller", another two, D563,480 and D565,668 cover a "portion of a gaming input device having an illuminated region"
the infringement of four of its patents for Xbox game controllers.
M$ isn't a patent troll in this case. They invented the damned controller for XBox, which Datel copied patented portions of!
Datel 360 controller w/ pic
~Mekkah
He wants to get his Math back. Did you not read it earlier on /.. This is one of his tricks to get that back.
Having looked a little deeper, the patent claim is all about those items in regards to the Xbox, which they hold patents for. Not just a controller with lights. But one for their system. This is basically, "If you want to build stuff for the system we patented, you need to license that from us".
It's not that vague, it refers more to the lighting up of four lights around a center button. MS has licensed this design to other companies, such as Joytec, who are making 3rd party XBox 360 controllers, but the issue is that Datel is copying the design of the controller without licensing the look, and on top of that selling i as both a PS3 and XBox 360 controller. Microsoft is perfectly within it's right to patent the look of a controller and specifically the four lights around the XBox Button
Certainly doesn't fall into the category or where the invention not obvious. Can't see that patent holding up in court. Must be terrifying for a small business to be sued by a giant. Hope Datel keep there nerve.
Datel has been sued 3 times in less than a year...by Sony over their battery tool, Microsoft over the controller and a pending suit by Nintendo over the action replay (which uses stolen code from Nintendo). Even the open source community should find it hard to support Datel after proving they have no problem stealing from them as well (with the pandora battery they weren't even smart enough about it to remove comments). Consumers get screwed as well when they find cheap products they purchased no longer work once the holes are plugged and devices are rendered useless (PSP and DS action replays to be specfic). This is an attempt to stop 3rd parties, all 3 have licensing available for that, its about stopping a rather unscrupulous company that will stop at nothing to rip off manufacturers and consumers alike.
Exactly what did they invent? Game controllers have existed for decades, and remote controls have had feedback LEDs in them for even longer.
the action replay (which uses stolen code from Nintendo)
Accolade used "stolen" code from Sega to get the console to recognize video game cartridges. Sega sued and lost. Post-DMCA, Static Control Components used "stolen" code from Lexmark to get the printer to recognize toner cartridges. Lexmark sued and lost.
Consumers get screwed as well when they find cheap products they purchased no longer work once the holes are plugged and devices are rendered useless
I find it a strange argument that Datel is bad because when the companies figure out how to stop allowing their device to interface with the Datel ones the consumer's product is devalued. Seems that one should be upset with the device companies removing functionality from their (purchased) devices all for a money grab.
No wonder Datel hasn't responsed yet. "Response" isn't a verb!
Agreed. However, I don't know anyone who would want to be a Patent Examiner. Can you imagine having to understand *everything* new coming out?
Sure there are specialization areas, but how many people do you think it would take to adequately cover everything anyone invents?
linky
Now ask yourself is this enough people?
At end of FY 2009
Employees - 9,716
Patent examiners - 6,242
Trademark examining attorneys - 388
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Exactly what did they invent?
The XBOX 360 controller.
Designed, sure. Invented? That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
Can't believe all the "Troll" ratings on comments from people who can't find any use with these patents. WTF is going on?
The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Wait a minute... looks are patentable now? Where's the novelty in this? Is lighting up at some place (even under certain conditions) that novel? This just stinks and that patent deserves to be laughed out of court.
Looks should not be patentable. That's something which belongs in trademark law (it looks such a way it can be assumed to originate from you).
Instead, Microsoft patented it (in other words: it does something novel). This is just plain weird and perhaps Microsoft is abusing this to extort other companies to only support Microsoft products.
Actually, if the patent is about the way one segment lights up to show which controller it is (and which bit of a splitscreen setup you are), thats something that is really useful and I have not seen in a controller before the 360 one. I wouldn't mind if they had a patent on that (though the Wii does something similar with the 4 blue leds at the bottom of each remote, so maybe not)
Come as you are, do what you must, be who you will.
Umm, no they're not. Only the dash (huge green X) is lit up, or rather flashes on certain occasions.
I suspect that the creative ingenuity and engineering effort involved in solving this problem is *not* sufficient to warrant a monopoly on putting little lights on a game controller. Being the first person to do something useful shouldn't give you a right to prevent other people copying it.
Now, if there was some major hurdle to adding lights to a game controller I hadn't realised, and Microsoft have somehow solved it: patent away!
You are probably right that this isn't a patent troll case. An interesting thing not mentioned in the article is that it seems that Datel sued Microsoft first. I guess this is Microsoft's way of saying "don't sue us; we're bigger than you; due process will not apply here".
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Actually, as others have pointed out these are design patents only...
They are design patents, which are somewhere in between patents and trademarks
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
I think the real issue is that they don't want rapid fire buttons to give unfair advantages in online play, so they want to stop them using whatever means necessary without opening them to liability (As banning controllers with a certain vendor id would do). And also to avoid putting in place a stop-gap that the vendor could circumvent (Fake Vendor ID). I also think the USB license agreement might forbid both methods, blocking and faking IDs.
I hate grammar Nazi's.
I don't see a source on Nintendo suing Datel.
I see that Datel's stolen code from the ROM header from a commercial cart to make the AR boot, but I see no lawsuit.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
I don't think that's right - the patents are design patents, not utility patents. So they cover "controllers that look like this" (followed by a drawing of the controllers). So the "device having an illuminated region" patent covers the four colored lights around the central circle thing on the controller; it does look like the Datel controller copies that specific ornamentation.
Exactly; design patents are like blow-jobs, somewhere between a conversation and sex. But not necessarily exactly in the middle.
I love all the insightful comments people are making on this article. It's nice to know folks are making sure their positions are valid, not just deciding that Microsoft is always wrong, and that this is no exception. Anyway, the patents are all valid and Datel is clearly at fault, unless prior art exists that proves the patents are invalid in the first place, which is unlikely. MS is not claiming to have invented controllers or lights on controllers, that's stupid and you're stupid for thinking it. All six patents mentioned in the article are design patents. They have nothing to do with the actual functionality of the controller. Rather, they've patented the 'ornamental design for an object having practical utility', like the shape of a Coca-Cola bottle, or a new font. If I create a font and obtain a design patent, I'm not claiming to have invented text, only to have made a cosmetic change that does not have any impact on the functionality of the original invention. Even that PS3 controller that some other poster linked above infringes, because the design is what's in question, NOT the functionality.
you are always free to skip the device and buy something else. If your looking for totally open solutions there are things like Pandora, Gamepark, etc.
Why don't I ever see major-label titles for any totally open platform other than the PC? Must I carry two devices, one exclusively for major-label games and one exclusively for indie games? And why don't I ever see any totally open platform other than the PC for sale in Best Buy?
Yeah! Screw big business! Let's get rid of patents so that when the little guy has an idea, there's nothing stopping those big businesses from copying and profiting off it! Nitwit.
After some Googling, it seems that the data acquisition Datel was acquired by C&D Technologies in 2004, which in turn was acquired by muRata in 2007.
The DAQ Datel was not some obscure company. They had the datel.com domain, which currently forwards to murata-ps.com.
Good thing it's a design patent, and that Datel's controller is pretty much copied exactly from M$'s.
Just look at it.
Just look at the Datel controller and tell me they didn't violate a patent of M$'s.
The PS3 and Wii do the same thing. Four lights which indicate what player you are.
The controller just looks like a controller.
If you zoom the 6 small shots you'll see it's different (and I would not pay 1 cent for the Datel one)
It has bumps and flats where the MS one is all splines.
It looks very cheap. Looking at it I get a "Chinese crap" feedback.
Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
Ok, I've looked at it. Looks like a controller to me. Pretty similar to every video game controller made since everybody got away from the rectangular box used by the SNES. Which was the only console system I've ever used, just to give you some perspective on where I'm coming from.
As a vastly disinterested observer, I can tell you the view from 10,000 feet doesn't look patentable, in any way, shape, or form. It's a thing you can hold in your hands that has buttons. Some of the buttons are intended to have directional functions. The rest aren't.
Personally, of all the various goofball concepts lawyers have come up with, I think design patents was one of the feebler ideas. I know what they were after. They were trying help companies make money based specifically on the look of a product. Ok fine. Couldn't the design be copyrighted? Or even better, why not trademark? Seems to me the shape of a controller is something Microsoft is trying to protect as their mark. It's a direct dual of a trademark. Trademarks exist to help companies identify themselves to customers, because everybody acknowledges the value in establishing some mechanism to help people assess corporate reputations. Microsoft believes the shape of their controller is so distinctive that people associate it with the company itself. (I'm inclined to dispute that, since in a cold test I would have a hard time correctly identifying the brand of any of those controllers, be it Sega, Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft. But they think otherwise, so whatever.) Under the circumstances, that looks very much like a "physical trademark" to me. The shape and colors and graphic devices of the controller are much like the shapes and colors and patterns of a trademark. They're just chunky and have a back and a front and sides, instead of being flat. So trademark it.
When we finally abolish the patent system, we can convert the design patents to trademarks. I could live with that.
The lawyers should be happy too. "But your honor, my client's prophylactic device only resembles my esteemed colleague's client's video game controller in profile..."
Exactly - I think the patent is specifically the shape and configuration of the indicator lights to represent multiple things (4 quadrants that can display controller number, flash and spin, and has a button in the middle)
They invented the design, which is why they got a design patent.
Free Martian Whores!
I suspect that the creative ingenuity and engineering effort involved in solving this problem is *not* sufficient to warrant a monopoly on putting little lights on a game controller. Being the first person to do something useful shouldn't give you a right to prevent other people copying it.
Now, if there was some major hurdle to adding lights to a game controller I hadn't realised, and Microsoft have somehow solved it: patent away!
Especially considering that keyboards and other input devices have had backlighting for ages. To single out a particular type of input device for such a patent sounds absurd and a patently obvious "innovation" - at least in my mind.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
The only trouble is, patents cost so much that if the average guy making the median income comes up with a patentable idea, he doesn't have the means to obtain the patent.
The answer isn't, however, to get rid of patents but to make patents as cheap and easy to obtain as copyright; thirty bucks and a form. WITHOUT copyright's insane and creativity-killing lengths, of course. If patents lasted as long as copyrights, innovation would come to a crawl, much as artistic creativity has.
Free Martian Whores!
There's no such thing as a patentable idea. Stop propagating this bullshit.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
No they aren't: it's not THEIR device any more. If they relock it, then that is computer trespass and illegal.
Umm, no they're not. Only the dash (huge green X) is lit up, or rather flashes on certain occasions.
So, if I set up my Alienware laptop to flash its bits and pieces on certain occasions (which it can apparently do through its lighting driver in Windows), will Microsoft feel compelled to sue Dell since the whole laptop cold be seen as a game controller of sorts ?
Or do I have to wait for a Linux driver to come out so they can sue the Linux foundation (or Linus, or SCO, or whoever) ?
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
True, the comment I made was badly worded; you can't patent an idea. But all inventions start with an idea. You have to develop the idea into an invention, but it still stands that the patent is out of reach for all but a few.
Free Martian Whores!
SNES was curved and had L/R buttons. NES was a rectangular box.
How old are you, son? Not old enough to have owned an SNES, I see.
So old I didn't know what I had. It was an NES. Square boxy controller, big fat cartridges. The only console game I ever beat was Mike Tyson's Punchout on that NES.