Slashdot Mirror
Nintendo Faces Patent Suit Over the Wii
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.'"
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
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.
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
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.
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...
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)
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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"
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.
Whoops, guess they should have defended their patent a little sooner, eh? It HAS been 4 years now.
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
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
...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.
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)
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?
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)
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.
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)
If you had invented the Wii remote, you would have invented the Wii remote.
Interesting read.
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?
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
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.
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!)
You must be female then. Now zip your pants back up and get back on topic.
Cool post bro, highfive \o
Corruption at every level, nearly as bad as Mexico.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
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