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.
Datel 360 controller w/ pic
~Mekkah
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".
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.
Designed, sure. Invented? That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
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();
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 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?