Nintendo Faces Patent Suit Over the Wii

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nintendo Faces Patent Suit Over the Wii

Posted by Soulskill on Thursday September 8, 2011 @12:26AM from the to-the-rocket-docket dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A company named Thinkoptics has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Nintendo over the motion controller used with the Wii. Apparently they make a similar product named the Wavit Remote, and they've been granted patents describing its operation. 'And they've chosen the setting most likely to yield a win: the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Texas. Now, that's not to say that Wavit-maker Thinkoptics will get a win, but this particular court circuit tends to favor the patent holder over all else. The patent in question, U.S. Patent Number 7,796,116, is titled "Electronic equipment for handheld vision based absolute pointing system." Thinkoptics' primary argument in the case is that Nintendo had previous knowledge that the Wii would infringe based on the Trademark Office's rejection of certain claims in Nintendo-filed patents.'"

91 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

PRIOR ART! by ledow · 2011-09-08 00:29 · Score: 0

Congratulations.
They invented the cordless mouse.
Apparently. Can't see this one standing up against Nintendo's lawyers.
1. Re:PRIOR ART! by somersault · 2011-09-08 00:32 · Score: 1
  
  No, they invented a device that's very much like the Wii-mote, a year and a half before the Wii came out. Try clicking on the link to the patent in TFS for a nice picture.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
2. Re:PRIOR ART! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-08 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  As I recall, the Power Glove was capable of using a system similar to the wii-mote, placing IR points at three corners of the TV screen, then working out what you were pointing at from that.
  My guess is that this company heard something about a sensor Nintendo was putting together, extrapolated the (technically obvious) pointer-based control method, and then threw together a patent application as fast as they could to get something into the pipeline before Nintendo started making public announcements.
  I base that on nothing more than conjecture and my natural cynicism, though...
3. Re:PRIOR ART! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-08 00:46 · Score: 0
  
  Didn't Nintendo buy Gyration (a maker of cordless presentation mice) a few years back specifically for their patents?
4. Re:PRIOR ART! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-08 00:49 · Score: 0
  
  Note the markers on two sides of the screen. The Wii does not use this implementation, therefor, it does not infringe. Patents are about specific implementations, not general ideas
5. Re:PRIOR ART! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-08 00:58 · Score: 0
  
  Well, Wii also uses markers.
  That horizontal bar that sits on top of the telly is filled with IR diodes - the markers.
6. Re:PRIOR ART! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-08 01:42 · Score: 0
  
  As I recall, the Power Glove was capable of using a system similar to the wii-mote, placing IR points at three corners of the TV screen
  Nope. The Power Glove used sonar. The glove itself has two speakers in that black brick on top of the hand (I remember hearing it click if I put my ear next to it), and the three boxes around the TV are microphones. Then it triangulates.
7. Re:PRIOR ART! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-08 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't say "filled"... It only has 4. Two on the right and two on the left.
  Also, only a method can be patented, not an idea. Both of these devices show the same idea--find the position of a handheld device in relation to a screen via IR "markers". That idea cannot be patented, and in fact is the basis for a great many things (even moreso if you remove the "IR" from the description).
  The Wii's method of evaluating its relative position to the TV is by finding those two clusters of IR dots and finding its "horizon". Note that you can't position the sensor bar vertically on the sides of the TV and you have to explicitly tell the Wii whether the sensor bar is above or below the TV. It only works as a "horizon" and a baseline (above or below).
  The patent shows a different method, where there are IR emitter "markers" on the top and side of the screen, and the device must evaluate an X offset and Y offset. Likely, the central processor wouldn't have to know where the markers were, only that they are visible to the handheld device. From there, it's much easier to calibrate motion. This system is probably far superior to the Wii sensor bar. It's also likely that Nintendo did their patent homework and made the sensor bar the way they did because of this patent, at least in part.
  I'm not a lawyer, and, no, I don't anal.
8. Re:PRIOR ART! by LordLimecat · 2011-09-08 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  Whoops, guess they should have defended their patent a little sooner, eh? It HAS been 4 years now.
9. Re:PRIOR ART! by somersault · 2011-09-08 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  The patent was filed before anyone knew about the Wii's motion controls, but it was only granted a year ago. They probably tried to get Nintendo to license their patent before going this route.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
10. Re:PRIOR ART! by Dishevel · 2011-09-08 03:03 · Score: 0
  
  While not a patent expert I have looked at the patent and on its face it does not seem to be thrown together.
  It is very detailed and not vague and broad.
  I would rather see companies innovate than sue. Though from my cursory glance at this particular patent I would at least listen to their arguments in full before deciding.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
11. Re:PRIOR ART! by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2011-09-08 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  I would rather see companies innovate than sue.
  Just once I'd like to see a company sue before a product really takes off.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
12. Re:PRIOR ART! by Tharsman · 2011-09-08 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  So you want companies to google up the full definition of their patents on a daily basis and sue into homelessness every startup that appears to violate instead? Sounds like a plan the largest patent trolls may be interested to hear more about! Did you patent that idea?
13. Re:PRIOR ART! by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2011-09-08 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  So you want companies to google up the full definition of their patents on a daily basis and sue into homelessness every startup that appears to violate instead?
  Heh. So you think it took 5 years of wild success for them to notice the Wii controller's functionality might need to be investigated?
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
14. Re:PRIOR ART! by Tharsman · 2011-09-08 06:18 · Score: 2
  
  As far as this particular case goes, the patent was applied for in 2005 but was not granted until about a year ago. Until the patent is granted, you cant take any legal action against anyone.
  It is very likely as soon as they got the patent they approached Nintendo for negotiations, after all Nintendo already patents the gyroscopic features from another company so they are not opposed to pay for patent licensing when the law says so. Its likely negotiations during the year fell through due to agreements in fees and they decided now to approach the court.
  I hate patents, big time. But got to say, as far as patent lawsuits go, this one seems as legit as they can ever be. I'm sure the guys were biting their fingernails in anger during that time, worrying about Nintendo accumulating enough wealth to make it impossible to challenge them in court without huge risks of loosing and wasting millions. After all, he who has the deepest pockets tends to win patent lawsuits.
15. Re:PRIOR ART! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-08 06:25 · Score: 0
  
  The patent was filed roughly a month after Nintendo filed theirs in Japan. ie - they probably stole the patent from Japan, and filed first in the U.S.
16. Re:PRIOR ART! by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2011-09-08 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  I hear ya. I wasn't really thinking about the case at hand when I wrote that, it was more of a knee-jerk reaction caused by hearing a bunch of stories about these patent suits coming out of the woodwork well after success was attained.
  I get your point.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
17. Re:PRIOR ART! by iamhassi · 2011-09-08 19:26 · Score: 1
  
  No, they invented a device that's very much like the Wii-mote, a year and a half before the Wii came out. Try clicking on the link to the patent in TFS for a nice picture.
  They filed July 2005. Wii came out November 2006. Yes, almost a year and a half, but many people knew the next console would use IR to determine screen position. Also light guns have been using IR to determine screen position for many years.
  
  Also the summary is horribly vague:
  "SUMMARY
  An item of electronic equipment is described that includes a machine and executable program code. The executable program code is stored on a non volatile memory. The executable program code is to be executed by the machine. The executable program code is to perform a method. The method is in relation to a location on a display, or proximate to the display, that is pointed to by a handheld device. The method includes executing at least one of the following methods:
  (i) displaying a cursor on said display at said location, said location on said display;
  (ii) highlighting a menu option on said display at said location, said location on said display;
  (iii) triggering action taken by said electronic equipment in response to said handheld device's sending of a signal to indicate said action is desired."
  
  --
  my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Let the games begin! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-08 00:29 · Score: 0

From XXX: `These guys attack those guys ... the whole world explodes!'
Filed in July 2005 by somersault · 2011-09-08 00:30 · Score: 2

The Wii came out in November 2006, their patent was filed in July 2005. The design of their system isn't as elegant as the Wii's (then again, it's probably more accurate), but at least they're not trolling..

--
which is totally what she said
1. Re:Filed in July 2005 by pecosdave · 2011-09-08 00:34 · Score: 2
  
  Why did they wait so long instead of filing the day the Wii was introduced? Now it's within a year or so of being superseded by the Wii U. Seems to me if they really wanted to protect their patent they would have done it the day the thing was released, by waiting until near the end of this particular product cycle they're vampiring off of success.
  Still trolling.
  
  --
  The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
2. Re:Filed in July 2005 by aliquis · 2011-09-08 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  Why did they wait so long instead of filing the day the Wii was introduced?
  Maybe they were busy playing Zelda?
3. Re:Filed in July 2005 by Aladrin · 2011-09-08 00:49 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  They filed in July 2005. It was apparently granted in Sep, 2010. So they only waited a year, not 5 years. And they may have waited the year because they were getting their ducks in a row, negotiating with Nintendo, or other reasons.
  I'm not saying they aren't trolling... I'm saying they may have their reasons. We don't know.
  
  --
  "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
4. Re:Filed in July 2005 by erroneus · 2011-09-08 00:50 · Score: 1
  
  They may have been in negotiations with Nintendo on the issue for all this time... possibly even given promises that never came to be.... or maybe they simply didn't notice for some reason and assumed the Wiimote was using different technology until someone called it to their attention?
  But the fact that the USPTO did their job by rejecting Nintendo's patent application citing this previous invention is indication that someone is/was doing their job. What's wrong, however, is that Nintendo was aware of the rejection and the cause and they went forward with the Wii without seeking a license agreement prior. I could be wrong, but this is what I would call wilful infringement and could result in treble damages... (triple damages? tribble damages? I dunno which)
5. Re:Filed in July 2005 by UnknowingFool · 2011-09-08 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  Filed != granted. The patent was granted only in Sept 14, 2010. Now they did wait almost a year before filing a lawsuit which is not immediate but not long enough for Nintendo to claim laches.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
6. Re:Filed in July 2005 by Shados · 2011-09-08 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  July 2005? Wasn't E3 2005, when Nintendo announced the Wii, around May? Did they show the controller at E3?
7. Re:Filed in July 2005 by ray-auch · 2011-09-08 01:02 · Score: 1
  
  How can you (or why would you) license a patent that isn't granted yet (and might never be granted) ?
8. Re:Filed in July 2005 by SlippyToad · 2011-09-08 01:16 · Score: 0
  
  They had all that time to bring the issue up with Nintendo.
  They're trolls. And useless.
  
  --
  One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
9. Re:Filed in July 2005 by Denogh · 2011-09-08 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  July 2005? Wasn't E3 2005, when Nintendo announced the Wii, around May? Did they show the controller at E3?
  No. The Wii-Remote was first shown the Tokyo Game Show in September 2005. It was apparently too buggy to display at E3.
  
  I do recall reading some speculation about Nintendo's new controller as far back as early 2004, but I don't think it had taken this shape in the media's mind yet. I think this is a case of convergent evolution with one party trying to cash in on the similarities.
10. Re:Filed in July 2005 by msauve · 2011-09-08 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  How: Provisionally. e.g. "We'll agree to pay you $x for licensing, if and when you actually get a patent." or "We'll pay you $y for licensing, whether or not the patent is ever issued." Where: x is less than what would be paid after the patent was issued, and y is less than x.
  
  Why: Nintendo obviously though the concept was new and patentable - that's why their application conflicted.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
11. Re:Filed in July 2005 by somersault · 2011-09-08 01:21 · Score: 1
  
  I know, but if they filed the design a couple of years after the Wii came out for example, I'd say they were just trolling. Filing an actual design 1.5 years before the Wii came out gives them some credibility in my book.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
12. Re:Filed in July 2005 by somersault · 2011-09-08 01:26 · Score: 2
  
  According to Wikipedia, they kept the motion controllers a secret until the later 2005 Tokyo Game Show though.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
13. Re:Filed in July 2005 by kj_kabaje · 2011-09-08 01:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  How do you know they did not try to address this with Nintendo? Regardless of how you feel about patents, do you think Nintendo has a reason to be nice to someone who quite possibly patented something but is not an MNC? There's a pretty large difference in power/capital of the companies involved I'd wager.
14. Re:Filed in July 2005 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-08 01:32 · Score: 0
  
  The didn't, although they did say that it was going to be a unique new type of controller and they'd show it at a later date. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuSy4dUTQao
  So they obviously had already designed it, but didn't have it working well enough yet to demo.
  It was revealed at the Tokyo Game Show on September 14, 2005.
15. Re:Filed in July 2005 by kelemvor4 · 2011-09-08 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  That's the trouble with tribbles, they're terrible.
16. Re:Filed in July 2005 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-08 01:37 · Score: 0
  
  http://ipspotlight.com/2007/09/19/why-license-a-pending-patent-application/
17. Re:Filed in July 2005 by reg106 · 2011-09-08 01:43 · Score: 2
  
  The patent application didn't publish until Jul 13, 2006, four months before the release of the Wii to the public on Nov. 19, 2006. Nintendo would not have known about the patent application until after the publish date. (The original filing date is for the provisional patent, which is secret). The design of the Wii controller would have been locked down long before that, because developers need to have games ready at launch. According to Wikipedia, Nintendo settled on the controller design in 2005, though the design was not announced to the public. This timeline makes it seem possible that ThinkOptic submitted their provisional patent application when they heard rumors that Nintendo would use similar technology. (There was certainly a lot of speculation in 2005 about the novel controller that Nintendo was going to release.)
  Note that this is a United States patent case. Under US patent law (unlike international patent law), patent rights are assigned by first to invent, not first to file. This means the case depends on how long Nintendo and ThinkOptic were working on the devices before filing. This makes for really messy patent fights. I'm really surprised that Nintendo wouldn't have previous patents related to this technology. Then again, they probably do, but those patents aren't mentioned in the article, which is written from the ThinkOptic perspective without a response from Nintendo.
18. Re:Filed in July 2005 by jader3rd · 2011-09-08 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  Even if the Wii came out in 2006 it was under development for way longer than just 15 months. There had to have been some working prototypes in Nintendo by July 2005.
19. Re:Filed in July 2005 by somersault · 2011-09-08 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  I wasn't trying to say that there won't be prior art or anything - just that they don't seem to have filed this patent with the intention of trolling Nintendo.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
20. Re:Filed in July 2005 by Sylak · 2011-09-08 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  As other posts have pointed out, the Wiimote uses a different method with the same technology (Horizontal clusters placed at top or bottom of the screen, as opposed to a top and side cluster), and the patent covers the method not the technology (which i believe predates both)
21. Re:Filed in July 2005 by KDR_11k · 2011-09-08 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  The Wii was first revealed at the E3 2005 so they may have had the research done at that point already.
  
  --
  Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
22. Re:Filed in July 2005 by tepples · 2011-09-08 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  Filing an actual design 1.5 years before the Wii came out gives them some credibility in my book.
  Do you know what else happened 1.5 years before the Wii came out? E3 2005, when Nintendo demonstrated to the video game industry what would later come to be called the Wii Remote.
23. Re:Filed in July 2005 by Belial6 · 2011-09-08 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  There is no way that they didn't notice the Wiimote. That's a little like saying you've never heard of McDonald's. Just 'assuming that the Wiimote was using different technology' seems pretty unlikely as well, since Thinkoptics obviously has some idea about how that type of device would be made, and thus have a pretty good clue that the device works similarly. The way the Wiimote works has also been pretty heavily analyzed and reported on.
24. Re:Filed in July 2005 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-08 03:14 · Score: 0
  
  Not sure why you can't read "granted in September 2010." Also, you seem to think a suit is a matter of getting angried up and storming into someone's office and yelling "YOU GOT SERVED!" while slapping a summons down. Stop watching movies and learn a little something about real legal processes.
25. Re:Filed in July 2005 by somersault · 2011-09-08 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  Earlier post :p
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
26. Re:Filed in July 2005 by boarder · 2011-09-08 04:01 · Score: 2
  
  This just in: some companies have large capital reserves and would rather duel lawyer v lawyer in court than cede negotiations to a much smaller company.
  You have no idea what went on during those 5 years. Maybe they had been doing everything they possibly could to get Nintendo to license the patents. Maybe they were trying to get Nintendo to contract them to develop new hardware and technologies for the next gen system in exchange for free licensing of the patents.
  You have absolutely zero knowledge, yet you completely dismiss and insult them based on your prejudices. Congrats on being what's wrong with the world today.
  
  --
  IANAL, but I play one on /.
27. Re:Filed in July 2005 by thetoadwarrior · 2011-09-08 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  The Wii was released on November 19th and it was revealed on May 15th 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4557443.stm so Nintendo had this in the pipeline for awhile and this is partially what's wrong with patents. They both hard the same idea roughly at the same time and neither one should have to pay the other just because they got to a patent office first.
28. Re:Filed in July 2005 by orgelspieler · 2011-09-08 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  Because their patent hadn't been granted yet. You can't sue when you file a patent, only once it's been issued. You're the one who is trolling.
29. Re:Filed in July 2005 by orgelspieler · 2011-09-08 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  Right. And these guys were also inventing their device before their file date. Remember, the US has a "first to invent" system, not a "first to file" system. This makes priority a difficult thing to determine, but both parties undoubtedly have notebooks dating back to well before July 2005. I haven't seen the file wrapper, but there may have even been interference proceedings associated with this patent.
30. Re:Filed in July 2005 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-08 06:07 · Score: 0
  
  The Wii was released in 2006, the patent was filed in 2005. Do you think Nintendo conceived, developed, tested and released the Wii in under 16 months?
  I'd be willing to bet they had alpha grade equipment long before the July 2005 filing date.
31. Re:Filed in July 2005 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-08 06:58 · Score: 0
  
  They didn't invent the Wii the day it came out. The Wii was in development long before the patent was filed.
32. Re:Filed in July 2005 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-08 07:14 · Score: 0
  
  (then again, it's probably more accurate)
  Maybe more accurate than the original wiimote, but now they sell wii remote plus, with the wii motion plus peripheral built in. It gives you the accuracy you need for a good Zelda sword-slashing experience.
As someone who lives in more or less Eastern Texas by pecosdave · 2011-09-08 00:31 · Score: 1

I think THIS court as well as quite a few others within a couple of hundred mile radius need investigation for corruption, both of the most obvious kind and corruption of bias.
The fact this particular court is so tempting for so many big cases of this sort pretty much proves there's a problem. Nobody who can chose their own court files in the most neutral fair court they can find.

--
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Why? by Bonewalker · 2011-09-08 00:43 · Score: 1

Why did it take over five years for the patent office to issue the patent? What was Nintendo supposed to do? Wait on their groundbreaking product for an extra four years after completion? Either way, the process is ridiculous and serves no one but the lawyers, and clogs up our legal system.
1. Re:Why? by UnknowingFool · 2011-09-08 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  Well Thinktopic's argument was Nintendo should have known when their own application was rejected by the PTO. Normally the PTO will reject a patent application because there are pending or current other applications. Of course this is what Thinktopic claims. I don't have any details further than that.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
2. Re:Why? by Dachannien · 2011-09-08 01:12 · Score: 2
  
  You can find out for yourself by viewing the file wrapper at the USPTO's website, but to summarize:
  It took just over 3 years before the first office action in the case was sent to the applicant. Unfortunately, this delay is currently pretty close to average for applications in this technology area. After that, the applicant had to amend the claims four times to get the application into condition for allowance, which resulted in the additional two years of delay.
  Note, however, that the application was published as normal at 18 months after the effective filing date (or 6 months after the actual filing date in this case, because they claimed benefit to a provisional application that they filed).
3. Re:Why? by SlippyToad · 2011-09-08 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  I'm still trying to suss this logic:
  
  You, Nintendo were rejected a patent. We, Thinkoptic, got a very similar patent. Because we somehow bribed or bullied our way into success, we're the rightful owners of this intellectual property.
  It's total bullshit. I think it's funny that someone is trying to control an international corporation from the fetid bowels of a corrupt Texas courtroom. Good luck with that, guys.
  
  --
  One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
4. Re:Why? by UnknowingFool · 2011-09-08 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know what were in the details of the rejection from the USPTO but if they listed Thinktopic's patent in their rejection, that would at least strengthen Thinktopic's case that Nintendo knew they could be infringing. It also matters when Nintendo filed and were rejected. If they were rejected years ago that is different than if they were rejected shortly before the USPTO granted it to Thinktopic.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Change the way you file patent lawsuits by jonwil · 2011-09-08 00:54 · Score: 1

Basically patent holders should be required to sue either in a location in which the infringer has business or in a location in which the patent holder has business.
Then when lots of patent holders (especially trolls) set up offices in east texas, the Texas State government can increase corporate taxes (which would be popular with the locals if it hits the big boys and not the little guys)
1. Re:Change the way you file patent lawsuits by SleazyRidr · 2011-09-08 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  Clearly you don't know Texans.
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
2. Re:Change the way you file patent lawsuits by TheSpoom · 2011-09-08 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  They already have shell offices in East Texas for this reason (since otherwise they wouldn't be able to claim jurisdiction in East Texas).
  
  --
  It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
  - E. Debs
Namco by zandeez · 2011-09-08 00:54 · Score: 1

Does this mean they're going to be taking on Namco too? The Guncon3 controllers also use a similar system to the Wii. Now the other thing to consider here it that even though the Wii came out in 2006, it's quite likely that had a working prototype years before that.
The patent in question... by Thantik · 2011-09-08 01:05 · Score: 1

If anyone bothered to read the patent, you'd notice one major difference: the patent is for an 'Absolute' pointing system, as in the cursor would be directly where the remote points (like a lightgun).
The Wii uses a relative system, relative to the lights on the sensor bar. You often find the cursor is nowhere near where the remote points, specially near the edges of the screen. The only way to get the system to work as an 'Absolute pointing device' would be to have the exact size of display that the Wii is tuned for, and that is far from the only size of TV the Wii works on.
1. Re:The patent in question... by Shrike82 · 2011-09-08 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  Congratulations, you read the title of the patent and jumped on the word "absolute". Patents are actually about the Claims, and if you'd like to skip down to there you'll see that the WiiMote does appear to infringe on Claim 1, at least.
  
  --
  You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
2. Re:The patent in question... by grumbel · 2011-09-08 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  The Wiimote is an absolute pointing system, not a relative one. It is just a very bad absolute pointing system as it only has two dots for reference, not the three or four that it would need, and thus gets mis-calibrated the moment you move its position. Of course it also doesn't even allow real calibration to begin with, aside from the "Sensorbar above/below TV" setting (some games go a little further).
  Interestingly however the Wiimote actually can actually detect four dots, it's just that the sensorbar only provides two, so homebrew software and another sensorbar should give you proper aiming.
3. Re:The patent in question... by Yamioni · 2011-09-09 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  That doesn't mean shit. You have to infringe on all of them. Look at number three:
  
  triggering action taken by said electronic equipment in response to said handheld device's sending of a signal to indicate said action is desired
  Sounds a hell of a lot like something a TV remote has been doing for decades. If you only had to infringe on one claim to be infringing on the entire patent then Thinktopic would have never been granted their patent in the first place.
  
  --
  Cool post bro, highfive \o
4. Re:The patent in question... by Shrike82 · 2011-09-12 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  The claim you quote is also sounding distinctly like the WiiMote. I assume they're fairly sure the WiiMote does infring upon all claims or they'll be wasting their time and money here eh?
  
  --
  You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
Power Glove? by MAD+R · 2011-09-08 01:08 · Score: 1

Didn't the power glove have the same basic concept as the Wiimote? It had 3 sensors you put around your TV. I'm guessing all they're going to have to do is show a short demonstration of Super Glove Ball to win, unless Nintendo messed up the patent process somewhere
1. Re:Power Glove? by grumbel · 2011-09-08 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  The power glove used ultrasonic transmitter, triangulation and the time it took the sound to reach the mic, the Wiimote works with LED lights and a camera. So it's not really the same. A much closer match are however lightguns, they have been around for ages and the later models, that worked with LCD TVs also used LED markers.
Overlapping development by rfolkker · 2011-09-08 01:16 · Score: 5, Informative

This case would be a sad state of patent law if this company does win.
While Nintendo may have been made aware of the patent when they applied for the trademark, they had already completed their development of the device before this had happened. This is not a unique situation, just rare. It would appear that the company that wrote the patent did it at the same time (or VERY close) to the announcement of the WiiMote. Which was announced 2 months after the patent was filed At the Tokyo Game Show(See: http://tgs.cesa.or.jp/2005/english/). So, considering the fact that the controller was announced, it would be a fair assumption that they did not start development on the controller within the 60 day window between a filing of a US patent, and announcing their product. Obviously Nintendo will have to prove that was infact the case, but having worked on a patent suit in the past, that part is the easy thing to prove. This whole Trademark red-herring will probably be more of an annoyance then anything.
Also keep in mind, while the patent was filed in 2005, it wasn't published until 2006. There is no way that Nintendo could have known about this product via it's patent until they had completed their development, and started contracts for mass production for their November 2006 release. Considering the 3-5 year R&D cycle on these systems, the timeline with the patent don't line up for an infringement. However, it should give Nintendo an exception to the patent, while still allowing the company to hold it's patent (which may actually be the point of the suit, to prevent Nintendo from being identified as prior art).
On a side note, Nintendo filed their patent in Japan one month before this other company did in the US.
see: http://www19.ipdl.inpit.go.jp/PA1/cgi-bin/PA1DETAIL
Publication name: 2006-331109
Filing date: 26.05.2005
Application Number: 2005-154233
1. Re:Overlapping development by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-08 01:37 · Score: 0
  
  Nintendo didn't do any R&D at all. They had some other company take pre-existing technology and toss it into the Wiimote form factor.
2. Re:Overlapping development by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-08 01:53 · Score: 0
  
  so what you're saying at the end TROLL
3. Re:Overlapping development by boarder · 2011-09-08 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  No, you fucking moron, he's not saying TROLL at the end. He's giving people like you an insight into how business is done in the real world. Just like companies MUST defend trademarks, even when the infringement is completely innocent, baseless and irrelevant because of how trademark laws work; maybe this company HAD to sue Nintendo in order to prevent other companies from willfully infringing on the patent. They can prove there is no prior art while Nintendo gets an exception to the patent. It's a win-win for the two companies involved.
  I'm not saying that is what is actually happening. I'm just saying that baseless accusations like yours are ignorant and counterproductive.
  
  --
  IANAL, but I play one on /.
4. Re:Overlapping development by sjames · 2011-09-08 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  I doubt it's that rare. There's a lot of ideas out there just waiting for one or two prerequisites to materialize so that they can be reduced to practice. It's hardly surprising that once the final prerequisite does hit the market that several people will immediately see the use and go on to invent the same thing in parallel having no knowledge of the others' work.
  The shame of the patent system is that at the same time it allows one person to see the sweat of his brow turn into a living, it steals the sweat from several other brows and turns it into bitter tears as the patent lottery winner approaches them with his hand out.
Prior art. by Wattos · 2011-09-08 01:20 · Score: 1

How is this going to hold up? Nintendo apparently revealed the Wiimote on 16th Sept. 2005 (http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/01/the-manly-art-of-posing-with-video-game-systems/). So Nintendo must have had a working prototype way before the patent was applied for.
1. Re:Prior art. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-08 01:38 · Score: 0
  
  Is it 'invented first' or 'filed first' that determines who gets the patent in the USA?
2. Re:Prior art. by Iceykitsune · 2011-09-08 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  first to invent
  
  --
  GENERATION 24: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
Hey wait a minute! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-08 01:28 · Score: 0

There's no horse in this barn!
1. Re:Hey wait a minute! by Yamioni · 2011-09-09 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  You must be female then. Now zip your pants back up and get back on topic.
  
  --
  Cool post bro, highfive \o
Re: Power Glove.... by Fallen+Kell · 2011-09-08 01:46 · Score: 1

Actually, look at that patent and the drawing. Remind anyone of the Power Glove? Sensor on the top of the TV, and one on the side of the TV.... Detects as the device moves up/down/left/right.... Sure the Power Glove wasn't completely wireless, but the concept on how it's movements were tracked certainly were.

--
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Re:As someone who lives in more or less Eastern Te by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-08 01:58 · Score: 0

I read somewhere that a big part of the reason so many patent claims are filed in East Texas is not because it is overly friendly to patent holders (although that might be true) but because there is so little going on in the East Texas district relative to say San Francisco that the cases actually get heard.
Re:As someone who lives in more or less Eastern Te by MagikSlinger · 2011-09-08 03:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

This American Life & Planet Money had a good show about this. It is because the East Texas court has a relatively free docket; the other courts are clogged with War on Drugs cases. There are also a lot of home offices for patent troll companies near that court. TAL tried to visit these offices and discovered almost all of them are empty and never used.

--
The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
Nintendo has nothing to worry about... by Agram · 2011-09-08 04:34 · Score: 1

...because (according to what I was told when I contacted Nintendo HQ regarding a research project that greatly benefited from using Wiimotes) they were not the ones who invented Wiimotes but rather licensed them from another manufacturer (as was the case with apparently a number of other controllers). I expect them to simply forward this inquiry to the company they licensed Wiimotes from and by doing so wash their hands clean in no time.
Re: Power Glove.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-08 07:06 · Score: 0

Wasn't this how the MENACER (old lightgun for the Sega Megadrive) worked?
To paraphrase Zuckerberg by Torodung · 2011-09-08 07:30 · Score: 1

If you had invented the Wii remote, you would have invented the Wii remote.
Interesting read.
Re:As someone who lives in more or less Eastern Te by RespekMyAthorati · 2011-09-08 16:44 · Score: 1

Can anybody explain how this is works in the U.S.?
How is it that the plaintiffs have complete power to determine where the trial takes place, given that the patent infringement has nothing to do with Eastern Texas?
I haven't heard of this kind of thing anywhere else in the world. What is wrong with the U.S. system that allows such abuse?
One question. by DaVince21 · 2011-09-08 23:16 · Score: 1

Why now of all times, when Nintendo has already made most of the profit from the controllers and they're not sold as much anymore?

--
I am not devoid of humor.
Nintendo had it first - in 1984 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 02:52 · Score: 0

Anyone remember the game that was bundled with Super Mario Bros. and the original NES?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_Hunt
I would consider the "gun" controller a "handheld vision based absolute pointing system".
(I haven't been modded up in years and I finally think I have a neat point - please mod up!)
Nintendo had it first - 1n 1984 by dacaldar · 2011-09-09 02:55 · Score: 1

(Sorry, didn't realize I wasn't logged in the first time.)
Anyone remember the game that was bundled with Super Mario Bros. and the original NES?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_Hunt
I would consider the "gun" controller a "handheld vision based absolute pointing system".
(I haven't been modded up in years and I finally think I have a neat point - please mod up!)
Re:As someone who lives in more or less Eastern Te by pecosdave · 2011-09-09 06:58 · Score: 1

Corruption at every level, nearly as bad as Mexico.

--
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
They just want money by blackjack5380 · 2011-09-10 11:12 · Score: 1

Nintendo has too much money to lose this in court, they will probably just give half a million and be on their way, that's all they really want anyway