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."

12 of 109 comments (clear)

  1. Hey, at least it's actually hardware by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Hey, at least it's actually hardware by rtfa-troll · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Something like RSA is certainly more important, more worthy, and in many ways better than an Xbox games controller but that doesn't mean it's more patentable.

      There are a number of fundamental things wrong with "software" patents. Firstly, software is fundamentally just ideas that you can do in your head. Anything a computer can do is something you can do but just much quicker. A patent on that is directly a patent on an idea; is a fundamental breach of freedom of thought and through that on freedom of speech. Pure software patents should be eliminated, possibly criminalised.

      A second, more practical difference is that software is intangable. Software ls much more malleable and copyable. Many different ideas come up, are used and abandoned. The original and non-obvious tests just leave far too many things that are patentable. Because there's no obvious "thing" which actually achieves a particular physical transformation, software patents end up either far too broad, covering many different variants each of which would have a separate hardware patent, or too narrow, covering a thing which can only be valuable if you force others to use it by incorporating it into some communications standard. There's can be no happy obvious way to define the limits of a software patent.

      RSA, is a particular example where a patent is really bad because it is fundamentally a patent on basic mathematics. Mathematics has never been patentable, never should have been patentable and has been proven to advance fine without any need for a patent system. Mathematics is also, in some sense "discovered" rather than invented. There just isn't the right trade off to justify such patents and no real philosophical way to justify ownership of such ideas.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    2. Re:Hey, at least it's actually hardware by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 3, Funny
      What you can patent via design patent, though, is having a light in a particular spot. And handgrips in a particular shape. Analog sticks in a particular spot.

      You sure as hell cant patent any such thing in the UK. However, it is possible your "design patent" is our "registered design" in which case, to infringe, the lights would have to be the same shape, colour and position, and a bunch of other sameness. So this could lead to a culture clash. I suggest fill the controllers with tea and throw them into Boston Harbour.

      "No controllers without desperation" shall be your battle cry!

      Or perhaps you should be throwing congress-critters in the harbour?

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  2. 4 + 2 = 4? by Thanshin · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:4 + 2 = 4? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      Interrogator: I'll ask you one more time. How many patents do you see? Make it easy on yourself.

      Patent Lawyer: THERE. ARE. FOUR. PATENTS!

  3. Well it is the same thing.. by Mekkah · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    ~Mekkah
  4. Who would seriously defend Datel? by grapeape · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Who would seriously defend Datel? by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft didn't lock down their devices, Datel wouldn't have to sell lock picks to restore control of these devices to their owners. Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft are the bad guys here.

      Obviously Datel should credit the authors of the Pandora battery software. But otherwise, their products serve a need (which has been ignored or refused by the manufacturers). When the manufacturers disable these device, blame them, not Datel.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  5. Justified "stealing" for interoperability by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  6. Re:Yay! by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Designed, sure. Invented? That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

  7. Re:Yay! by rtfa-troll · · Score: 3, Informative

    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();
  8. Content of the patents in question: by Dread+Pirate+Skippy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.