And Sony avoids the suit, why? Not much will come of this, it's just someone looking for a little easy $.

Nintendo should probably counter sue since they had patents on the N64 long before those patents existed(those patents are from 1999). The technology mentioned by those patnets were in use during the N64 days. Idiots.

I call shinanigans!

*turns over table*

How can you have a patent on "3D controller with vibration" ? That's just insane.

ok.. what kind of idiocy is this!?

Wait...where's the suit against Sony? Does Sony own Anascape Ltd or something? (Or do they know that Sony will never pay them, just like they will never pay Immersion?...and thus, they didn't even bother?)

I'm happy that Sony isn't involved in this.

...MS and Nintendo go down, down I say.

Let the conspiracies begin! Is this how Sony will get their edge? By digging up dirt on the other companies and bogging down their competitors with lawsuits! Sure, it's Anascape, not Sony, but I wouldn't be surprised if Sony gave them a little nudge.[/sensationalism]

Give me a break.... its not like that small little company that nobody has ever heard of is actually going to make a game console sold all around the world whats the difference if Msoft and Nintendo uses those things its not like the company is competeing with them.

The whole industry is plagued by bizarre copyrights.

@ 1.

You are not seeing the point, this criminal patent system must stop.

It is doing serious damage to the market, some stupid companies are dedicate just to register generic patents about everything and of course when some company developed a tool or software similar to their patents this company get a sue.

It does not care if the company sued is Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony ... this must stop.

I know they don't care what company it is, but Sony's controllers obviously violate the same patents (which probably aren't even upholdable anyway), so why aren't they included here?

And if nothing comes of it, what's the harm? Nintendo and MS could counter-sue for slander or something equally as frivolous.

And I'm totally sure Anascape Ltd would have actually followed through with creating these products too.

Microsoft will just settle and invest money in Anascape then Anascape will sue Sony.

Yeah, my company makes devices to load CDs into a drive. An arm picks it up, rotates to the drive, and lowers it. Someone patented "rotate". No specific model, no working prototype, they just patented the concept of a rotating arm used to pick up CDs. So we have to pay the piper. It's incredibly stupid that someone can make such a broad patent with no intention of developing it and then demand money later.

That's about exactly what this looks like, a patent farm. Knowing MS and Nintendo, though, Anascape is about to have some attorney lawyer the fuck out of them. Also, a more appropriate pic for thep ost would have been an image captured from a Phoenix Wright game.

The reason Sony didnt get sued, is most likely because they didnt infinge on the patents. Anyone who thinks this is a conspiracy led by Sony, really needs a life.

I wonder what would happen if Bill Gates got in a brawl with Adam Sessler. Would the world as we know it end? Would squid like creatures emerge from beneath the sea to claim land as their own, forcing us back into the ocean from which we once came? I wonder...

Anyhow, Microsoft should buy whatever company that sues them just to make a point. They have enough money to do it so why not?

This company doesn't even seem to exist on the internet beyond the pages for the patents. And then of course there's the patent dates. What a joke.

I think I shall file some lawsuits of my own!

Directional Pad with 4 directions, directions are as follows: Up, Down, Left, Right.

Button with the letter A imprinted on it.

Internet based games where voice can be used to communicate instead of typing.

A device that uses lasers to read data off a glossy reflective disc.

The "Start" button.

And finally, I will sue over my patient of the circular object used to move or transport objects... I call it a "wheel", anyone using said "wheel" will have to pay me royalties.

What I find really funny is, if you search this company up on the web, they don't even exist apart from these patents.

Don't you just love business?

Wow! This is incredible "Remote Controller with Analog Button". That would mean just about every remote control in the world is violating this. It is very disturbing that this type of patent phishing is allowed. I think any judge is going to laugh this out of the court and I hope they reclaim those patents. Of course this company is based out of good 'ol California, the A-Hole of America... This is obviously someone trying to make a buck.

This'll be thrown out: the implications are too far-reaching and the grounds too tenuous. If by some miracle this charge ws upheld, there'd be a lot of ruckus, a lot of unhappy shareholders and the odd ruined livelihood or two.
Not going to happen, gold-diggers! Nyah!

Anything that will annoy Nintendo/Microsoft fans is good news to me. I doubt it, but I hope this becomes a real pain in the ass for both companies.

OK a 3D controller with vibration patent issued in 2005. Nintendo has yet to launch their new console with a new controller. Their last console was released over 6 years ago with a redesign of their controller the following year. Years before this 2005 patent.

This is a frivolous lawsuit that will just make Nintendo and Micorosft pay up big money for their lawyers while this small texas company gains nothing but a chance to steal some money. They even ask if they win the suit that Microsoft and Nintendo pay for lawyer fees. What happends if Nintendo and Microsoft win? Anascape should pay for their lawyer fees.

Wow. Maybe I should've hopped on this make-a-patent, sue-a-game-manufacturer, rake-in-the-dough scheme.

I mean, Immersion, I could understand pulling that. They had product technology and partners who use it. Who in the f**k are THESE jokers, though? Anascape, Ltd.? They don't even have a web domain.

Not to mention, the claims as far as copyright infringement goes are hokey at best. Here's hoping both Nintendo and Microsoft make it past this without dealing a dime to any hustlers.

This is what should happen.

OBJECTION!

Dang, no links allowed...copy and paste i guess.

http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=609455

what kind of fucked up company called "Anascape Ltd" and who the hell is "Brad A. Armstrong"? How come there is nothing about him on the internet besides the pornstar and the wrester of the same name?

Sony isn't getting sued because they already settled their lawsuit.

Oops, nevermind. That was with Immersion.

When it happens to Sony most of you laugh and say "they deserve it" but now its a big conspiracy once the precious Nintendo (Who seemingly invent everything first) and Microsoft get a lawsuit slapped on them.

Funny and not in the HA HA way.

I'm gonna have to call BS on this.

The reason Sony didnt get sued, is most likely because they didnt infinge on the patents. Anyone who thinks this is a conspiracy led by Sony, really needs a life.

Doesn't the DualShock 2 count as a "Game Controller with Analog Pressure Sensor"? The buttons are all analog. If this is a serious suit, Sony belongs on the list of defendants.

#19

Technically, it's refering to an analog button, not a digital button as seen on many remotes. Considering that both the GC and the x360's controllers are both wireless and have analog shoulder buttons, there is some truth to that one point, but it's incredibly weak to patent some of the crap they patent and enforce it in the way they do.

It would stand to reason that a smart patent holder would take his idea and license it to these companies rather than sue them. At least that way, when they do rip off your patent, you know it's because they stole your idea rather than develop their own idea and likely only find out that you've already patented it later on when you attempt to sue them for pocket change.

That said about my previous comment, said patent is meant for:

"The present invention relates to hand-held electronic remote controller or remote commander devices such as are used to control host devices such as televisions, video players, audio players and cable boxes, and the like."

Doesn't sound like a video game system to me...

phiposcrube,

I have to laugh at guys like you who can't see the difference.

@31

But it says "and the like." Video game systems are like video players because they're in a box that connects to your TV. AND you have to use an object that's not contained within the system to control them!! Yeah, that's close enough...

Seriously though, I also call BS.

When Immersion sues Sony, it's all fair and nice. When it happens to the other 2, it's a shame and patent law should be rewritten.

What a bunch of lovely double standards you have there people!

Personally, I do think patent law is blasted. So, I consider this case to be as worthless as Immersion's case versus Sony.

I don't think anyone has yet mentioned the legal system in which this action is occurring. The lawyers are looking for a slice of the pie and are usually more than happy to target a big corporation like Microsoft, Nintendo, or Sony (though Sony is sitting this one out).

Q: What's black and brown and looks good on a lawyer?

A: A Doberman Pinscher.

@Darth Pixel and others;

Immersion at least had a semi-legitimate claim against Sony. Their patent for rumble technology was filed years before Sony (or Microsoft, who was also named in the original suit and decided to settle out of court) used it in their controllers. According to wiki, they had the patent as of 1995.

In this situation, the patents were filed years AFTER those being sued already used the technology. It has nothing to do with who is being sued, though I find it odd that Sony is "at fault" as much as the others (which is to say, not at all), and they are not indicated here.

I'm not expressing an opinion on this particular lawsuit, but I do want to make a few comments about the overall attitude expressed towards the patent system.

For the record, I'm not an inventor, I don't own any patents, I have never tried to patent anything, and I don't work for a company that owns, develops, or makes use of patents for profit.

Paul P:

Although that rotating arm your company uses may seem obvious and "stupid" today as a device, I can assure you that at the time it was first thought of it was novel and ingenious. The problem with people's reactions to issues like this is that they don't realize that the devices and inventions we have today are taken for granted. Our society progresses by people thinking of new and better ways to do things.

Your company manufactures and profits from selling those devices because someone, many years ago, figured out a better, faster, more efficient, more compact, etc. way of moving a CD that is stored in the device. Without the creator of that rotating arm, your company either wouldn't be able to manufacture its product as cheaply, as uniquely, or maybe even be able to manufacture it at all.

The devices we have today are the result of years, decades, and even centuries of hard work by scientists, inventors, etc. The fact that they are now owned by corporations shouldn't change the fact that the patent system rewards people who contribute to and advance society.

Post-It notes were invented (if I remember correctly) approximately 30 years ago. Few people can look at those little yellow notes with a small section of adhesive and say, "Wow, why didn't I think of that?" But until someone designed an appropriate adhesive and applied it to cut out sections of paper, they didn't exist. People just used normal paper with magnets, paper clips, staples, tape, etc. Now, no office would be complete without them.

If Post-It notes are such a stupid and obvious invention, why didn't someone else "invent" them when paper and adhesive were first both readily available? The simple reason is that most people don't think of it and, even if they do, they rarely develop the idea so that it can be used by the rest of society.

Don't get caught up in the large, faceless owners of patents. They are conceived of by individual people who may or may not work for that owner and usually spend years coming up with these ideas, many of which never result in a useable patent (news flash: you can't just patent anything - the process is very demanding, specific, and critical).

I don't know anything about the patents involved with this controller lawsuit, but if they are valid and enforceable, then Nintendo and Microsoft should pay the licensing fees. If they were able to get away with it, there would be no incentive to come up with the idea in the first place - which is the primary purpose behind the patent system.

@36

If you own the patent, you own the patent.

Microsoft and Nintendo must license the technology and pay the fees.
Or, the sale of their systems could be halted by decision of the courts.

There is no such concept of "my patent is more legitimate than your patent".

Besides, last time I checked, Immersion had no console or controller in the marketplace, nor do they have any intention of ever manufacturing consoles or controllers. In other words, they file patents hoping that some big company will someday infringe on their rights. For fun and profits.

:: "Last time I checked, the "Remote Controller" of Nintendo's wasn't "WITH Analog Button."

:: "At least one of the patents mentioned, 3D controller with vibration, was filed in June last year.
It seems to me that Nintendo's controller was in R&D long before this, which will give them quite a bit of scope to fight this lawsuit in court." Besides Nintendo allready filled a patient for the Wiimote.

:: "Nintendo can easily slip-out by saying that the Wiimote is not a remote controller, but a wireless console controller, in the same category as the Wavebird."

:: "Whilst Xbox 360 controllers with their battery life display ring could be considered "Analogue controls housed with electronic displays", this particular charge doesn't mean anything to Nintendo"

::

38. you obviously don't get what paul is saying. His company thought of a way to use a rotating arm to move CD's. Then they figured out that somebody patented it. If that person had not patented it, they would not need to pay royalties to that person. and they would still have the advantage of using the rotating arm because they came up with the idea. What he is saying is that the patent system is FAR too broad. You could patent a music player with a hard drive and that could technically apply to a computer right? do you catch my drift here?

oh right, aren't all of the dual shock's face buttons "analog" but nobody seems to use them that way because it doesn't really make a difference anyway? looks like this lawsuit is a bit biased... if that makes any sense at all...

@ #38

Perry Mason couldn't have said it any better Scott. Let me guess, your not an inventor, are you a lawyer?

-jasonb

"6,208,271: "Remote Controller with Analog Button"

Um, that would mean every TV remote invented, amirite?

I recall reading a news article that talked about companies who get as many vague-sounding patents as they can, so if a bigger company makes a product that just happens to fall within the description of the patent, they can sue them for a profit. Unfortunately, since the legal process can be expensive, most of these larger companies just settle the issue out of court, which again, gives these patent-mongering-companies a profit. Looking at Anascape, they certainly seem to fall into one of those patent-mongering-company type.

I really hope Nintendo and Microsoft can get their ways out of this (BTW, I also think that Sony shouldn't have been penalized with that Immersion thing). This is almost as bad as that person who copyrighted "Happy Birthday," preventing its use in any public domain...

Do you know what analog means, Shadowstorm?

Don't worry it will be thrown out

There are tons of patents that fall under the realm of "obvious" that don't hold water in court.