Latest lawsuit against Nintendo can prevent Nintendo from selling within the US

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for ASK_Story
ASK_Story

11455

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 ASK_Story
Member since 2006 • 11455 Posts

This seems like a more serious patent lawsuit:

http://kotaku.com/5051553/us-international-trade-commission-investigating-wii-patent-infringement-case

Following a complaint filed in August, the U.S. International Trade Commission have agreed to investigate claims made by Hillcrest Laboratories that the Nintendo Wii infringes on four patents they hold for motion-controlled devices. If you're interested, you can check out Hillcrest's tech here. While the ITC clearly state that this does not signal any decision on the merits of the case, it does mean their judges will be taking a good, long look at it, and if they think Hillcrest have a case to make, will kick things up a notch. For the record, goods that violate Section 337 of the Tariff Act (which is what Nintendo are being accused of by Hillcrest) can, if found guilty, be withdrawn from sale in the US, since the law was established to prevent foreign imports from infringing upon American patents.

Avatar image for eregol
eregol

416

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 eregol
Member since 2006 • 416 Posts

I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo had never even heard of Hillcrest.

To be brutally honest in this day in age if a game company innovates for a change they get an army of people trying to sue them for copyright infringement because, some way or another their product is similar (not the same, but similar).

It's amazing we get any new technology at all these days.

Eventually someone is going to turn round and say that games in general violate their patent because they first made a mdeia that you could play.

You gotta love it.

Avatar image for Pedro
Pedro

73978

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 72

User Lists: 0

#5 Pedro
Member since 2002 • 73978 Posts
God forbid that their might be any merits to Hillcrest Laboratories claims.:|
Avatar image for teuf_
Teuf_

30805

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 Teuf_
Member since 2004 • 30805 Posts

God forbid that their might be any merits to Hillcrest Laboratories claims.:|Pedro

Forgive me if I'm skeptical like the others, but more often than not these sorts of patent suits are a waste of everyone's time.

Their claim seems to be based on their motion-controlled pointer device, which uses MEMS sensor to detect movement of the controller. Except Nintendo's pointer isn't motion controlled: it uses a an IR cam to know where it's pointing relative to the sensor bar. To me the similarities sound superficial at best...but I'm no patent attourney so I can't really judge whether their claim has merit.

Avatar image for DJ-Lafleur
DJ-Lafleur

35604

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#7 DJ-Lafleur
Member since 2007 • 35604 Posts

Nintendo better not be guilty for this! :(

I think everything will be fine though.

Avatar image for MarcusAntonius
MarcusAntonius

15667

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 MarcusAntonius
Member since 2004 • 15667 Posts

[QUOTE="Pedro"]God forbid that their might be any merits to Hillcrest Laboratories claims.:|Teufelhuhn

Forgive me if I'm skeptical like the others, but more often than not these sorts of patent suits are a waste of everyone's time.

Their claim seems to be based on their motion-controlled pointer device, which uses MEMS sensor to detect movement of the controller. Except Nintendo's pointer isn't motion controlled: it uses a an IR cam to know where it's pointing relative to the sensor bar. To me the similarities sound superficial at best...but I'm no patent attourney so I can't really judge whether their claim has merit.

It's crap like this that is the reason why patent busting has become the latest passion of civil liberties activists. Patents were not meant to be a futureproofing blackmail scheme where a "lab" waits until a product makes millions and then shows up to serve a big corporation with legal papers to cash in on someone else's achievements.

This could very well be another example of a meritless patent.

Avatar image for SSlater413
SSlater413

514

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#9 SSlater413
Member since 2008 • 514 Posts
I hope that nothing happens out of this.
Avatar image for macrules_640
macrules_640

90033

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 35

User Lists: 0

#10 macrules_640
Member since 2004 • 90033 Posts
This isn't good I hope this doesn't get to out of hand or else Nintendo is not going to be selling anything here in America any more.
Avatar image for thriteenthmonke
thriteenthmonke

49823

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 thriteenthmonke
Member since 2005 • 49823 Posts
This isn't good I hope this doesn't get to out of hand or else Nintendo is not going to be selling anything here in America any more.macrules_640
That won't happen, if Nintendo loses, they'll just license the technology.
Avatar image for HardQuor
HardQuor

1282

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#12 HardQuor
Member since 2007 • 1282 Posts
how quick we are to neglect the fact that it's Nintendo's responsibility to research these patents before they release any product. If they get slammed it's their own damn fault. Not only is it their responsibility, it's also smart. This wouldn't have been an issue, had they done their homework.
Avatar image for Skylock00
Skylock00

20069

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#13 Skylock00
Member since 2002 • 20069 Posts

how quick we are to neglect the fact that it's Nintendo's responsibility to research these patents before they release any product. If they get slammed it's their own damn fault. Not only is it their responsibility, it's also smart. This wouldn't have been an issue, had they done their homework.HardQuor
I'm fairly certain that most companies in fact research to make sure they don't have patent infringements under most circumstances.

When these sorts of lawsuits come about, I'm actually more leery against the patent holder than the companies, simply because the people behind the patents intentionally wait until well AFTER the tech that has been infringed has made money for a company before issuing the lawsuit, as opposed to, say, investigating matters as soon as they felt there was an infringement.

Instead of using their patents for their own tech, this ends up coming off more like they patent techs in a way that they can wait until someone else makes money on the idea, then use lawsuits to get their money instead.

That's how it comes off to me, at any rate.

Avatar image for ASK_Story
ASK_Story

11455

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 ASK_Story
Member since 2006 • 11455 Posts

Yeah, it makes no sense. Why did Hillcrest wait two years after the Wii came out to pursue this lawsuit? If their patent really was in danger, why didn't they sue when Nintendo first revealed the Wii at E3?

They're patent whores, a small talentless company who only seeks to make a petty cash from big companies. I hate this practice. It's sickening, disgusting, repulsive, and is a insult to everyone who's in the creative business.

Hillcrest doesn't even have a Wiki page. They're a bunch of nobodies. They did absolutely nothing to the technological industry. And yet they're pursuing this huge lawsuit trying to ban Nintendo from selling within the US. Crazy.

Avatar image for CarnageHeart
CarnageHeart

18316

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 CarnageHeart
Member since 2002 • 18316 Posts

Yeah, it makes no sense. Why did Hillcrest wait two years after the Wii came out to pursue this lawsuit? If their patent really was in danger, why didn't they sue when Nintendo first revealed the Wii at E3?

They're patent whores, a small talentless company who only seeks to make a petty cash from big companies. I hate this practice. It's sickening, disgusting, repulsive, and is a insult to everyone who's in the creative business.

Hillcrest doesn't even have a Wiki page. They're a bunch of nobodies. They did absolutely nothing to the technological industry. And yet they're pursuing this huge lawsuit trying to ban Nintendo from selling within the US. Crazy.

ASK_Story

That's an odd criteria, but I completely agree with the rest of your post. Congress needs to do something about speculative patents (of course, they have bigger fish to fry at the moment).

Avatar image for MarcusAntonius
MarcusAntonius

15667

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 MarcusAntonius
Member since 2004 • 15667 Posts
[QUOTE="ASK_Story"]

Yeah, it makes no sense. Why did Hillcrest wait two years after the Wii came out to pursue this lawsuit? If their patent really was in danger, why didn't they sue when Nintendo first revealed the Wii at E3?

They're patent whores, a small talentless company who only seeks to make a petty cash from big companies. I hate this practice. It's sickening, disgusting, repulsive, and is a insult to everyone who's in the creative business.

Hillcrest doesn't even have a Wiki page. They're a bunch of nobodies. They did absolutely nothing to the technological industry. And yet they're pursuing this huge lawsuit trying to ban Nintendo from selling within the US. Crazy.

CarnageHeart

That's an odd criteria, but I completely agree with the rest of your post. Congress needs to do something about speculative patents (of course, they have bigger fish to fry at the moment).

Organizations are already engaged in patent busting.

Avatar image for ASK_Story
ASK_Story

11455

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17 ASK_Story
Member since 2006 • 11455 Posts
[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"][QUOTE="ASK_Story"]

Yeah, it makes no sense. Why did Hillcrest wait two years after the Wii came out to pursue this lawsuit? If their patent really was in danger, why didn't they sue when Nintendo first revealed the Wii at E3?

They're patent whores, a small talentless company who only seeks to make a petty cash from big companies. I hate this practice. It's sickening, disgusting, repulsive, and is a insult to everyone who's in the creative business.

Hillcrest doesn't even have a Wiki page. They're a bunch of nobodies. They did absolutely nothing to the technological industry. And yet they're pursuing this huge lawsuit trying to ban Nintendo from selling within the US. Crazy.

MarcusAntonius

That's an odd criteria, but I completely agree with the rest of your post. Congress needs to do something about speculative patents (of course, they have bigger fish to fry at the moment).

Organizations are already engaged in patent busting.

I hope they bust all these suckers.

Also, what other ridiculous patent lawsuits will show up next? Suing Nintendo for Motion-Plus? You know it will happen. "So-and-So small time company sues Nintendo for infringing on their patent for Wii Motion-Plus. Asks 100 million dollar in losses and damages, even though they never made a controller that was sold on the market before."

Avatar image for YourChaosIsntMe
YourChaosIsntMe

1228

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 YourChaosIsntMe
Member since 2007 • 1228 Posts

They always research....R....and D. The Tariff Act is mired in minutae (more so than your average congressional act, mind you), and easily overlooked. Likewise, Nintendo is in many ways a detestable company for various reasons, from distribution of increased revenues through increased salaries and benefits to the third-parties they contract to manufacture their hardware and software, Nintendo makes a lot of dubious choices as a corporation, and their corporate culture makes it rather difficult for journalists to gain the full measure of their operating procedures. The patent-holding companies that do so are entirely within their rights to withhold litigation for a certain period of time (and no, I don't know what that period of time is), and there's technically nothing unethical about doing so, especially when you consider the anemic state of Nintendo prior to the release of the Wii (anemic compared to Sony, for instance). A number of other factors may have compelled H.L. to withhold and eventually pursue litigation, including foreign exchange rate, market demand, prospective market demand in the near future, and the state of technological progression in terms of the use of wireless connectivity. H.L. are not only asserting their control over this patent with Nintendo, but with every future corporation that wants to utilize their specific wireless technology. The vast majority of technological innovation is spearheaded by smaller firms in the technologies sector that consist primarily of research and development departments, which eventually license the use of said technology to corporations (Sony, Nintendo, IBM, Lockheed Martin, Airbus...) While patent fraud does exist, it is rarely an applicable conclusion to come to. Patent fraud is rarely the legal decision on the part of the judge. While many of these cases are dismissed or are ruled in the defending firm's favor, roughly 30-40% are legitimate claims. "Most" is a bit of an exaggeration regardless of the position one chooses to take. One of the major factors in the increased amount of patent suits, especially in the technologies sector, is the increasingly global aspect of development, sales, hardware manufacturing, hardware development, patenting, etc. Globalized capitalism increases in scale and reach on a daily basis, while thousands upon thousands of patents are issued every year globally through over a dozen different governments. Sometimes a firm's legal claims are ethically dubious, but they are rarely illegal; only a court case or private settlement with prove anything, and biased conjecture doesn't accomplish anything.

Because every single civil liberties group in the U.S. ISN'T a bloated beauracratic mess of ineffectual idealistic micro-management.

Avatar image for YourChaosIsntMe
YourChaosIsntMe

1228

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 YourChaosIsntMe
Member since 2007 • 1228 Posts

America, home of the talentless hackjobs who make obscure patents and sit back and wait for other people to do something with it, hell yeah.CronoSquall

Funny, because everyone said the Japanese simply (mis)appropriated technology from American and European companies since...they went through industrialization (and subsequently, post-industrialization). While it isn't true in either case (obviously....), I just wanted to point this out for you.

Avatar image for MarcusAntonius
MarcusAntonius

15667

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 MarcusAntonius
Member since 2004 • 15667 Posts

Please use paragraphs, it makes anything you say basically legible.CronoSquall

Would you like to actually contribute to this thread in some manner besides making offensive, trolling comments?

Avatar image for EnigManic
EnigManic

1804

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 34

User Lists: 0

#24 EnigManic
Member since 2008 • 1804 Posts
...wait until well AFTER the tech that has been infringed has made money for a company before issuing the lawsuit, as opposed to, say, investigating matters as soon as they felt there was an infringement.

Instead of using their patents for their own tech, this ends up coming off more like they patent techs in a way that they can wait until someone else makes money on the idea, then use lawsuits to get their money instead...Skylock00

I agree.

Avatar image for elagricola
elagricola

133

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 elagricola
Member since 2002 • 133 Posts

This could be a very interesting case. There is a company that is releasing a controller for the XBOX 360 and the PS3 that is similar to the Wii remote (yet they claim it is better) and I think they also said they have had this technology of years. the idea of having a controller\remote and have something happen on screen is nothing new. We have had in arcades for a long time pistols\rifles and there are two games in particular where you have a samurai\ninja blade and another one that has a pair of boxing gloves... Also Nintendo back in the day had the "power glove" which I think used basic principles of sensing and stuff....

So the idea of moving something to have something (controller) and have something happen on screen has been around for a while, also this company has a software to do what? presentations? hardly comes close to performing life like movements to have an on screen character try to perform you movements on screen....