Nintendo, a top 10 patent abuser [update 1]
by Ross Miller 
{ Jul 5th 2006 at 8:25PM }
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, looking to defend freedom in the digital world, has listed the top 10 most bogus software patents. Making the list is Sheldon F. Goldberg (online gaming), Acceris (VoIP), and the House that Mario Built.Nintendo's faux pas patent has to do with software emulation. Jason Schultz, EFF's staff attorney, accuses Nintendo of being "a big bully" against small game companies writing computer emulators. Schultz believes the technology used to be allowable under the fair-use doctrine.
We all know how aggressive Nintendo is towards piracy, but some small-time developers use SNES and GBA emulators to make their own original titles. Wouldn't Nintendo benefit from a pool of support / titles from the independent scene?
Now, how about we nullify that damn load screen patent held by Namco. Load times wouldn't be so bad if we could play a minigame while we wait.
[via Evil Avatar]
[update 1: This news is so frickin' old -- 2004 old. I got hosed, and sorry guys for presenting this as recent news, 'cos it was pretty stupid of me to overlook the date.]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Raynre @ Jul 5th 2006 8:30PM
I should buy a patent on breathing. Then everyone would have to work their entires lives just to pay me so that they could live. ^_^
MetaHuman @ Jul 5th 2006 8:43PM
Usually independent developers make LEGAL deals with the company they want to develop for. Not only did Tom Fulp get to put Alien Hominid on GC and PS2 and GameBoy Advance but he found a company that was willing to help out: 0~3 Entertainment. He was happy enough with AH's performance that he is developing Ye Olde Sidescroller for GC (the only announced version, I think). Hopefully uber-cheap devkits (which people have said to be cheaper than PSP kits) will catch peoples' interests.
With that patent Nintendo wasn't going after ROM gamers but the people who distribute programs that emulate copyrighted coding. They are catching unlicensed companies making money off of their work.
Why is it so hard to be legal?
Why can't homebrew be played on PCs? It's far less hassle, as I see it. *shrugs*
epobirs @ Jul 5th 2006 9:06PM
This is hardly about Nintendo being mean to homebrew developers. They represent a drop in the bucket compared to the illicit ROM gamers. Nintendo is hardly going to listen to proposals to produce new SNES games but cares a great deal about ROM traffic devaluing the games for revival on later platforms.
It is far simpler to go after Napster than millions of Napster users. Likewise, it is easier to shut down emulator development than go after all of those using the emulator for illegally obtained ROMs.
EFF all too often pursues extreme cases that have little bearing on real life. Anyone calling a hobbyist developer of SNES games in any recent year a 'company,' as if there was real potential for someone to make a living at it, cannot be taken seriously. Not only is there no market worth mentioning for SNES software at this point, it cannot be produced without use of proprietary and copyrighted Nintendo materials. It is not and has never been an open platform. The hobbyist developer simply has no valid legal complaint if Nintendo does not choose to cooperate with his desires regarding Nintendo's property.
Other obsolete platforms have been placed in the public domain. Anyone can produce and sell Atari Jagaur games, on actual cartridges no less, without fear of repercussions. The platform is wide open for people to do as they like, including under emulation.
Sean @ Jul 5th 2006 9:09PM
Sorry #1, Microsoft already has the patents to that. ;P
Artimus @ Jul 5th 2006 9:45PM
I don't get this, Nintendo is perfectly sensible to try and stop people from downloading their products for free. See the music industry?
Paulo @ Jul 5th 2006 10:04PM
The patent is about software emulation on portable devices, not any kind of emulation; check the patent. You can still develop you own GBA emulation, and develop your own games for it.
Probot @ Jul 5th 2006 10:25PM
I don't get the problem people have against patents. If a company invents a new, useful technology, they have every right to ensure they make money from it. I don't buy this bullshit about them trying to "limit free expression." It wasn't free to the company that poured millions of dollars into R&D.
If you want to use a technology, try to license it. If the company isn't allowing licenses, then just wait 20 years or so till the patent expires.
As for the loading screen thing, I have a suggestion. How about you, Joystiq, call up Namco and ask them how much their license fees are for that game-on-load-screen technology.
http://www.namco.com/contact.php
Main: (408) 235-2000
vrf @ Jul 5th 2006 10:27PM
I wonder if Ross Miller typed this sentence with a straight face:
"...some small-time developers use SNES and GBA emulators to make their own original titles."
You know just as well as Nintendo that 99.99999% of emulator use is for running commercial ROMs.
"Wouldn't Nintendo benefit from a pool of support / titles from the independent scene?"
From the .00001% of legitimate emulator use? I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be worth letting the piracy scene run rampant.
sonofnone @ Jul 5th 2006 10:38PM
Nice pic. Ironic too, since Nintendo got its start making a Japanese card game waaaaaaaaaay back in the late 1800's.
thunderleg @ Jul 5th 2006 10:40PM
Such an incredible concept! Game-on-load!
A single amateur flash programmer could produce one of these by themselves in less than half an hour.
Hurray for patents!
Rhork. @ Jul 5th 2006 10:55PM
@ epobirs.
Nicely said. I was about to throw in my little rant, but upon finishing I realized I would just be mimicking your point.
Regardless of what I was about to say, let me at least say this:
Jason Schultz, you need to look at the big picture before labeling nintendo as "a big bully" in evaluating the situation. These independt developers are not the target, but just a sacrafice nintendo has to make in order to at least make an attempt in savoring the value of their software.
Of course, I should be one to talk- I'm not doing anything but adding to nintendo's growing problem. ;-]
idioteraser @ Jul 5th 2006 11:21PM
Due to the vc and Nintendo comments anyone who has a good gaming idea using NES, SNES graphic engines could apply and get published by Nintendo.
About the only good things the EFF does such as the NSA spy scandal and Sony rootkit other agencies and indivudals were also against. Such as the ACLU and consumer protect agencies in the case of the rootkit since it damaged people's computers.
If someone wants to make a game based on a past Nintendo game engine apply for it. You might be surprised how little it costs. Most of the access is how you present it and what for.
The Nintendo patent has more to do with preventing 50 in one ripoff gaming consoles or companies selling handhelds that play gba games or roms.
The patent makes perfect sense it doesn't harm any legal game development since those people first develop the games on the pc then apply to publishers or release it as flash getting props.
idioteraser @ Jul 5th 2006 11:23PM
Yeah the no minigames before loading screen patent is surely abusive and doesn't have any real merit. Patenting the tech used for the Namco game loading screens is all right since any other game company would have to devise a different tech costing time, money but wouldn't violate the patent.
roy179 @ Jul 6th 2006 2:28AM
omg. I'll never buy another Namco game again. grrrr
AcceptableRisk @ Jul 6th 2006 3:04AM
United States patent law as a whole needs revision. This Nintendo patent, in particular, I have no real problem with. It has a rather narrow scope and was filed to protect legitimate business interests of the company. That's exactly what a patent is for.
The problem with patent law is that you can more or less patent a general idea. It's one thing to invent and patent a better mousetrap. It's another thing entirely to patent the concept of using a device to capture small rodents.
Here's the way to make easy cash in today's intellectual propery cesspool: Dream up some vague concept that someone might want to use some day and file for a patent on it using the broadest possible terms and the bare minimum of description. Then just sit on it and wait until someone actually figures out how to do something remotely similar and nail them with patent infringement litigation. Instant money!
Martin @ Jul 6th 2006 7:53AM
OMG!!! "Nintendo is a bully because they want people to come up with their own platform if they aren't going to give anything to Nintendo for using their system emulators!!! WAHHH!!!" That is the most messed up whining over a patent I have ever heard.
If a company creates something, then they should have a say in what happens with it. Why don't these people just program games based on the Genesis or Master System if they want to be cheapskates about it!
Joey @ Jul 6th 2006 10:05AM
HAS ANYONE ACTUALLY READ THE PATENT?
"A software emulator for emulating a handheld video game platform such as GAME BOY.RTM., GAME BOY COLOR.RTM. and/or GAME BOY ADVANCE.RTM. on a low-capability target platform (e.g., a seat-back display for airline or train use, a personal digital assistant, a cell phone) uses a number of features and optimizations to provide high quality graphics and sound that nearly duplicates the game playing experience on the native platform. Some exemplary features include use of bit BLITing, graphics character reformatting, modeling of a native platform liquid crystal display controller using a sequential state machine, and selective skipping of frame display updates if the game play falls behind what would occur on the native platform."
So this would prevent someone from developing and SELLING a gb/gbc/gba emulator on something like a cellphone. It DOES NOT prevent hobbyists such as ZSNES, VisualBoy, RockNES, etc. etc. etc. from creating emulators for the PC and even other consoles. Seems like a pretty reasonable patent to me, it's Nintendo's hardware and they realize the value of having portable games play only on their own portables.
bladestar @ Jul 6th 2006 10:38AM
I can't imagine a world without patents it would be caos. but one can only imagine how advance we would be. Patent prevent technology from maturing/advancing faster since they only purpose of patent is to secure that a company gets no real competition for a period of time (i.e 20 years). Patent in general do not benefit the consumer, since this blocks any other company from offering similar or better technology/product. Now imagine if we had patents 1,000 years ago. We would still be riding horses. Patents slow the speed of technology so companies can make money and milk the cow. Take Motorola for example: they had that patent so no company could provide a walkie-talkie (hand-held portable, bi-directional radio transceiver) on a phone. Though their service sucked if you wanted this feature; as a consumer you had to swallow it and pay wherever they ask for.
Every time a patent is made it holds us back years.
The first patent:
http://www.me.utexas.edu/~lotario/paynter/hmp/The_First_Patent.html
Patent No. 1 was made on July 31, 1790 or 216 years ago. So, our technology is probably 100-200 years behind schedule. Sometimes companies or people have to wait until a patent is over to improve or do more research to improve a technology since an active patent do not allow them.
idioteraser @ Jul 6th 2006 12:07PM
Actually tech in the labs is often 30-40 years ahead of what we the consumers actually get.
Patents in no way have slowed down tech advancement.
Hell it took guns a few centuries to have standardized cartridges as well as having smokeless powder.
Sorry but tech advanement has been drastically growing.
Companies all the time look to patents as to what to improve. Often they change enough to not get a lawsuit or figure a small deal is worthwhile.
The first cars made by Henry Ford had a patent notice on them with a few dollars off of every car going to the patent owner which wasn't Henry Ford but someone who wasn't interested in cars at all.
In reality a patent is dirt cheap to deal with if you want to use it. More often then not a few cents off of every dollar goes to the patent owner.
Probot @ Jul 6th 2006 12:12PM
#18 Bladestar,
You talk as if once a company invents something, they'll never use it. On the whole, consumers will benefit from new technology. And companies will be able to protect their investments.
"Patents slow the speed of technology so companies can make money and milk the cow."
Welcome to reality, buddy. That's Business 101. It's stupid for a company to put money into researching and developing something, only to have another company use it for free.
The idea of patented technology is sound. It helps business, which in turn helps consumers. If businesses can't make money on a product, they won't waste money on it, and then consumers will have no choice at all.
Like #15 AcceptableRisk said, the US patent system is broken. It's difficult to use and often allows for overly-broad patents. But the idea of someone being able to protect their inventions is a good one. One that is essential for the free market.
drurywalker @ Jul 6th 2006 12:13PM
Our technology is 100-00 years behind, excuse me but that is simply not true. if you look at the number of new inventions over the course of humanity it approximately follows an exponential curve (specifically x^2); It starts out at a very slow rate, which always increases, eventually reaching a near infinite slope. patents have not slowed that down, in fact the number of inventions per year has been skyrockeing in the last few decades. Scientist even predict that much like with the planck energy hypothesis that there will be a capping off point so that the curve previously mentioned will slow its increase to eventually resemble a straight line meaning that we are approachng a time when the number of inventions per year will cap off and wwe will only be able to invent so much. admittedly this number is stars above older figures but to say that we could have been as much as 200 years behind in technological advances is pure folly
Adam Blinkinsop @ Jul 6th 2006 12:56PM
@4 - Well, they _have_ patented ones and zeroes... (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29130)