Interactive Exercise Company Sues Nintendo For Patent Infringement

isometric writes with this excerpt from Gamasutra: "IA Labs is accusing Nintendo of infringing on two separate IA Labs patents through technology used in the Nintendo Wii, Wii Fit, Wii Fit Plus, the Wii Balance Board, Wii Remote, Wii Wheel, Wii MotionPlus, Wii Nunchuck and Wii Zapper. ... The patents in question are 'Computer interactive isometric exercise system and method for operatively interconnecting the exercise system to a computer system for use as a peripheral' and 'Force measurement system for an isometric exercise device.' The claim said that IA Labs had been in contact with Nintendo during 2007-2008, discussing possible overlaps of IA Labs and Nintendo patents. Emails between IA Labs and Nintendo showed that IA Labs wanted to license its technology to Nintendo. IA Labs was also in talks with Nintendo about a product called Sqweeze, a controller for Wii and PC that's meant to increase physical activity when gaming."

Comments

LIke the old addage (or new?) says,

[Aldenissin]

Those who can, do. Those whose products and marketing suck, sue!

those who do not know history (of computers)

[ChipMonk]

The Amiga's "Guru Meditation Error" is derived from a balance board connected as a peripheral. IA did not have an original idea here. I strongly doubt it was original with Amiga, either.

But the Wii isn't isometric

[jfengel]

The remarkable, novel thing about the Wii was using accelerometers in its controller. That means you're not just applying force; you're doing so with a range of motion. That's aerobic exercise, using your own weight as the resistance.

Isometrics are another good form of exercise, and they can be done with much simpler tools, since all you need to measure is force. But that isn't what the Wii is doing.

Re:But the Wii isn't isometric

[KarmaMB84]

They're describing a single device in the patent. Pretty much all the claims require that whatever device they claim infringes infringe Claim 1 or 9 which requires that the device itself be an isometric exercise system including a frame to support the user and a sensor affixed to an elongated rod. Claim 1 uses the language "elongated rod" and Claim 9 also repeats this requirement. They patented a very specific invention (the one in their figures).

At least as far as the first patent, I don't think they can get away with suing over 2 separate non-infringing inventions because they can be combined to serve a similar purpose for specific pieces of software.

The second patent's early claims sound like electronic scales until the more specific claims. If I'm not mistaken, Nintendo was initially going to work with bathroom scale makers on the technology in the balance board so that's probably where they got their ideas from. Chances are these guys are going to have to prove electronic scales aren't prior art or that Nintendo is infringing based on the more specific claims (they're pretty specific about such things as use of metals, resins etc). I suspect they won't get it to fly on just the initial claims due to prior art then get shot down as soon as the claims involving materials pops up and Nintendo is using a different material in their invention. In fact, after looking over all the claims of the second patent... did they really just patent their own implementation of a damn scale?

Re:Prior Art?

[Mikkeles]

Controlling any device with a computer based in data from sensors is not inovative and should not be patentable regardless of how many adjectives are added.

Who do I cheer for /.?

[OrwellianLurker]

Do we hate Nintendo?