Sony loses Dual Shock court battle
by James Ransom-Wiley 
{ Sep 24th 2004 at 11:28AM }
A federal jury has ruled that Sony must pay $82 million in damages to Immersion Corporation for
violating "haptic feedback" patents—basically, using computer-controlled vibrating motors to stimulate users. Immersion
filed against both Sony and Microsoft two years ago, but settled out of court with Microsoft for $26 million, in turn
allowing the Seattle-based giant to license the technology (and own a portion of the firm). This turned out to be the
right decision, as Sony will be hit for more than three times that amount, not including legal fees and of course,
future licensing of the dual shock technology. See where stubborness (and greed) gets you…
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
julian oliver @ Dec 18th 2005 9:58PM
Front loading washing machine manufacturer Bosch has patented 'An Incidental Method for generating both Square and Triangular Shaped Vibration Patterns' on the basis of prior art.
Immersion will no doubt be found to be in breach of both these wave-shapes and thus sued accordingly.
Bosch is currently seeking damages from the Nikola Tesla Foundation, again..
lynn @ Dec 18th 2005 9:58PM
Two questions:
Jury did NOT find willfullness, which is, I thought, what would cause damages to be trebled. Why did writer say Sony will have to pay three times the $82 mmillion? I think Judge meets with them on Friday this week . . .
For writer about Bosch . . . LOTS of patents out there on this. Why did you mention Bosch?
Thanks.
Julian Oliver @ Dec 18th 2005 9:58PM
umm, it was a joke, meant to highlight the absurdity of a patent based on the coupling of ubiquitous phenomena (like vibration) with an input device.
when discussing patents, we need to remember they are rarely about protecting IP (that is the job of copyright) so much as marginalising or directly damaging competition.
many patent holders for instance, never ever wish to manifest the given invention. instead, they register a patent on an 'invention' to ensure *no one else* invents this product, a product that might threaten the stable returns of their existing, *inferior* product.
Microsoft are a shining example of this. Microsoft 'pre-emptively' patents inventions to ensure that software does not develop beyond their patrolled market horizon. apparently habitually register patents at about the rate of 8 a week.
the EFF are fighting patents of this kind, especially those relating so software patents (the notion of a software patent is completely absurd anyway).
many patents the EFF fights implicate upon game development directly:
http://www.eff.org/patent/
problems and issues surrounding IP, patents and game development are discussed in some clarity here:
http://www.armchairarcade.com/aamain/content.php?article.35
and here:
http://www.fineartforum.org/Backissues/Vol_17/faf_v17_n08/reviews/oliver.html
Harvard Economics professor explains succintly the extreme dangers of the current patent system:
http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/7810.html
and finally, to alleviate lighten the burden of such discussions, see another example of the patently absurd ;)
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,368,227.WKU.&OS=PN/6,368,
+227&RS=PN/6,368,227
James @ Dec 18th 2005 9:58PM
If you read closely, I wrote that Sony will be paying more than three times the amount that Microsoft settled for ($26 million). 3 x 26 = 78. 82 > 78. Get it?
lynn @ Dec 18th 2005 9:58PM
Thanks - guess I was keying in on the treble issue and willfulness. Thanks for setting it straight.
BTW, Glad to see you picked this up here. Sony promises to appeal, and I wonder if they think they can have the patent overturned (or invalidated), or if it is just a stall and an attempt to avoid an injunction which would not bode well for Holiday sales . . .
We may know more this Friday (Oct 1).
Thanks again.
khizar @ Dec 18th 2005 9:58PM
The patent should have never been awarded as arcade macheines already had this technology back in 1986 (segas Outrun ) see http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/02/03/montfort0302.asp?p=3
Just because they brought it to a controller dosent mean they have the right to stop others using it. If souch a patent can hold then Nintendo can force others to stop selling handheld games macheines.