http://videogames.yahoo.com/feature/nintendo-facing-patent-lawsuit-over-ds/1226062

Supposedly Nintendo illegally violated a patent that protects "an improved method of operating a touch screen on a CRT or ICD computer screen [that] uses finger release as input registering" in "an electronic game device system [which] is switchable between an amusement mode and a gaming or gambling mode and is useful for vehicles such as airplanes or boats..."

The patent was originally filed 10 years ago.

So now in addition to loading screen minigames, motion sensitive controls, and featuring zombies in mini-malls; touch-screens on hand-helds are illegal. Christ, I won't be surprised if someone comes forward with a patent on 'a device designed to entertain.'

this only convinces me that i should buy patents like hot-cakes...

Lets see... immersion gel?

full body feedback suits?

im off to the patent office right now.

I reckon that some measures should be put in place to stop people from just buying up patents and suing other companies putting them to use, when the technology wasn't even used before. It's a shame really...

Screw the patent system. It makes no sense.

I think by now we're all tired of patent trolls...the system just doesn't work anymore. I'm thinking that once a company has a patent, they should a) have to have some physical product to back it up (even if it's just a part of another product), and b) have a time limit to get there. We've been seeing more and more decades old patents being brought up against new and innovative products by companies who never produced anything under the patent anyways. It's just plain bad for the consumer

Wouldn't Apple, Microsoft, and probably dozens of other computer manufacturers be liable too if they make touch screen computers? Why did they sue Nintendo first and only? This seems more like someone trying to get attention then an actual complaint. Although Nintendo is the biggest "offender" I would go for the most people to increase my chances of winning something, if I had that patent that is. And cared enough.

Edit: I think clarinet is on to something. But besides needing a physical demonstration of the patent, they shouldn't be able to sue years after a product's release. There should be some statute on how long a company can wait, that way people can't get greedy and wait for something to get huge then decide that they want to sue this suddenly wealthy and wide-known company.

A patent does not make it illegal, just you need to pay royalties to use it. Not the first time Nintendo has been under fire and won't be the last. Not quite as awesome as the Blackberry lawsuit in my opinion, though right up the lines.

Calobi:
Wouldn't Apple, Microsoft, and probably dozens of other computer manufacturers be liable too if they make touch screen computers? Why did they sue Nintendo first and only? This seems more like someone trying to get attention then an actual complaint. Although Nintendo is the biggest "offender" I would go for the most people to increase my chances of winning something, if I had that patent that is. And cared enough.

you would go against Microsoft in a legal dispute?

Your balls are bigger than watermelons my friend, i bow to you.

Calobi:
Wouldn't Apple, Microsoft, and probably dozens of other computer manufacturers be liable too if they make touch screen computers? Why did they sue Nintendo first and only? This seems more like someone trying to get attention then an actual complaint. Although Nintendo is the biggest "offender" I would go for the most people to increase my chances of winning something, if I had that patent that is. And cared enough.

Well Apple and Microsoft's touch enabled devices aren't "electronic game device system[s]". So there's no violation.

clarinetJWD:
I think by now we're all tired of patent trolls...the system just doesn't work anymore. I'm thinking that once a company has a patent, they should a) have to have some physical product to back it up (even if it's just a part of another product), and b) have a time limit to get there. We've been seeing more and more decades old patents being brought up against new and innovative products by companies who never produced anything under the patent anyways. It's just plain bad for the consumer

Just playing devil's advocate: Under that system: if a simple guy with no corporate backing comes up with a great idea, he's fucked if he tries to patent it. He cant sell it to a corporation, because the time limit devalues the patent. They know he wont be able to market it, and all they'd have to do is wait until the patent expired.

IMO, the best solution would be to cap the amount of money you can get in back-royalties. Somewhere low, like $500,000. That would discourage people from sitting on a patent, waiting until a company hits it big, and then torpedoing them for a big payout. Future royalties could be left uncapped, or capped at a moderately high percentage, because the company can pass the cost on at that point.

DeadlyYellow:
A patent does not make it illegal, just you need to pay royalties to use it. Not the first time Nintendo has been under fire and won't be the last. Not quite as awesome as the Blackberry lawsuit in my opinion, though right up the lines.

They used to play mean, apparently. Drove a lot of rival companies out Wal-Mart style before they finally got investigated. The punishment was to issue a $5 discount for any game playable on the NES. Science has been unavble to determine how this hurts Nintendo in any way, but it's all ancient history by now.

So, trolling internet forums isn't enough for these attention whores anymore, now they want to break into the realm of frivolous lawsuits, which was originally reserved for people who just wanted to make money without working. What a lucrative field.

This is the Princess Diana and Chamberlain Case all over again...

If he really did patent it, why didn't he sue earlier?

My opinion: This guy's American. Don't trust him. (Excuse my rant)

Lord Krunk:
My opinion: This guy's American, and they love to get something for nothing.

Hey, hey, hey, now there's no need for that.

That said, being American, I can't say I disagree. :)

SilentHunter7:

Lord Krunk:
My opinion: This guy's American, and they love to get something for nothing.

Hey, hey, hey, now there's no need for that.

That said, being American, I can't say I disagree. :)

Sorry, edited that. Don't want to be a hypocrite: everyone wants something for nothing.

Time to patent "the human body" so being alive costs you a certain fee each month. Does anyone have "Earth" patented? How about the moon? Every time you look at it you owe me a nickel.

Now I just have to patent oxygen and water, every breath and sip = 5 cents each.

(I heard Gene Simmons patented the phrase/term "O.J." for orange juice, so if you say "hey pass the O.J." or "O.J. IS GUILTY DAMNIT!" then you have given Gene a nickel. I also heard someone patented/claimed the rights to the "Happy Birthday" Song. Everyone just wants money for free don't they?)

I have a silly question: how exactly can companies protect themselves from these patent ghouls? I have heard of patent lawyers, but I heard they deal with helping to get patent registered. How can you protect yourself from using a product that you never knew exist?

But in the patent it says the RELEASE of the finger causes the input.

Correct me if i'm mrong, but the DS registers an input as soon as you TOUCH the screen.

Case dismissed.

There have been stupid patents, but there have also been STUPIDER patent lawsuits. This is a prime example. Plus, the guy above me is correct.

olicon:
I have a silly question: how exactly can companies protect themselves from these patent ghouls? I have heard of patent lawyers, but I heard they deal with helping to get patent registered. How can you protect yourself from using a product that you never knew exist?

By searching through every patent ever registered, and either not making anything that remotely sounds like a patented idea, or contacting the holder of the patent, and working out a deal.

SilentHunter7:

olicon:
I have a silly question: how exactly can companies protect themselves from these patent ghouls? I have heard of patent lawyers, but I heard they deal with helping to get patent registered. How can you protect yourself from using a product that you never knew exist?

By searching through every patent ever registered, and either not making anything that remotely sounds like a patented idea, or contacting the holder of the patent, and working out a deal.

Holy crap.. for real? That's just stupid! I don't know how many patents are out there, but I hope the records are well cataloged in digital format so you can just search it up like Google. Or else it'd be a total failure on the system's side.

olicon:
Holy crap.. for real? That's just stupid! I don't know how many patents are out there, but I hope the records are well cataloged in digital format so you can just search it up like Google. Or else it'd be a total failure on the system's side.

I'm pretty sure you can look up patents on the internet, but considering the sheer volume of patents that are registered in the US alone (Over 4 million as of 2007), it would be very impractical to look up every single one. Even recent ones, as half of the total patents were registered since 1994 (another issue I have: the US patent office handing out patents like hot-cakes.).

But working out a deal with holders of patents you are potentially violating really is the only fool-proof way to protect from a patent suit.

I would like to know what would happen if someone registered a patent similar to another, considering that even the patent office would have a hard time searching through 4 million patents.

Ultrajoe:

Calobi:
Wouldn't Apple, Microsoft, and probably dozens of other computer manufacturers be liable too if they make touch screen computers? Why did they sue Nintendo first and only? This seems more like someone trying to get attention then an actual complaint. Although Nintendo is the biggest "offender" I would go for the most people to increase my chances of winning something, if I had that patent that is. And cared enough.

you would go against Microsoft in a legal dispute?

Your balls are bigger than watermelons my friend, i bow to you.

You know that Bill Gates would just bitchslap you with his team of super lawyers. You've got guts mate. *Also bows*

SilentHunter7:

olicon:
Holy crap.. for real? That's just stupid! I don't know how many patents are out there, but I hope the records are well cataloged in digital format so you can just search it up like Google. Or else it'd be a total failure on the system's side.

I'm pretty sure you can look up patents on the internet, but considering the sheer volume of patents that are registered in the US alone (Over 4 million as of 2007), it would be very impractical to look up every single one. Even recent ones, as half of the total patents were registered since 1994 (another issue I have: the US patent office handing out patents like hot-cakes.).

But working out a deal with holders of patents you are potentially violating really is the only fool-proof way to protect from a patent suit.

I would like to know what would happen if someone registered a patent similar to another, considering that even the patent office would have a hard time searching through 4 million patents.

Vegeta what are the patent levels!!?
OVER 9000!!11one!!1

SilentHunter7:

olicon:
Holy crap.. for real? That's just stupid! I don't know how many patents are out there, but I hope the records are well cataloged in digital format so you can just search it up like Google. Or else it'd be a total failure on the system's side.

I'm pretty sure you can look up patents on the internet, but considering the sheer volume of patents that are registered in the US alone (Over 4 million as of 2007), it would be very impractical to look up every single one. Even recent ones, as half of the total patents were registered since 1994 (another issue I have: the US patent office handing out patents like hot-cakes.).

But working out a deal with holders of patents you are potentially violating really is the only fool-proof way to protect from a patent suit.

I would like to know what would happen if someone registered a patent similar to another, considering that even the patent office would have a hard time searching through 4 million patents.

Vegeta what are the patent levels!!?
OVER 9000!!11one!!1

So? Why precisely should the law endeavour to protect companies like Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony over the patent holder. After all, tis the former who can afford to pay for the most expensive lawyers.

Companies should only allowed to patent something if they have proof they are going to use it. They should get like 5 or 10 years to show the patent office the product the patent was used in.

And tis the latter that hasn't realeased any product and made a patent that sounds, literally, like a time bomb. With new tech coming out for touch screens in the 90s, just make a patent for a gaming system using the touch screen and wait. You will get what you want.

It's basically an economic time bomb, and I could do it as well. All I have to do is get a patent on an enhanced "consumer marketable" pair of those virtual reality goggles they have on really high end arcade machines, wait 20 years, and be set for life in a lawsuit if it works. If not.... I wasted barely any to (excuse the meme here) set us up the bomb.

The point is, IF THE GUY HASN'T MADE A PRODUCT (key phrase), there is no sense in letting people randomly make patents and collect massive back royalties off the big companies later.

I wouldn't worry about anything bad happening to Nintendo. After all, their robot ninja legal team of doom has a very high success rate.

Fondant:
So? Why precisely should the law endeavour to protect companies like Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony over the patent holder. After all, tis the former who can afford to pay for the most expensive lawyers.

Because the Patent Holder is NEVER going to use the Patent. Imagine if people did that in other walks of life...

Say I owned the "patent" for your favourite football team. I never do anything with it, which means they can never play. I don't own the team, I don't contribute to the team, I don't even know what team it is! All I am doing is denying you your team for no reason, other than the possibility that one day someone will break the patent and I can sue them.

That isn't fair. It doesn't matter if it's a big company or some small-time twat. You should not be allowed to cling to a patent you cannot use.

Ha, when I read "The Big N" in the topic title I thought along the lines of the "N Word". Didn't really know what to expect, but I'm disappointed.

I kinda find this in the same vein as Gibson suing the makers of Guitar Hero because they suddenly remembered they "had an idea similar to it" that they patented.

Not sure which of the two is more ridiculous. Probably the Gibson one because they spent 3 years being sponsors of GH.