Nintendo gets sued over Wiimote [update 1]
Poor Nintendo, just when it looks like they have a sure-fire hit on their hands, someone has to go and sue them. It would appear that someone claims they came up with the technology in the Wiimote and is now taking Nintendo to court; no, it isn't Sony.
Interlink Electronics, a California company most of us never heard of, thought that the good ol' Wiimote has infringed on one of their patents. From what the suit entails, they're not suing over the full-range motion, but over a trigger. Our best translation of the patent abstract is the trigger is pressure sensitive and transmits using infrared.
From what we can discern, this would appear to be a shot in the dark lawsuit. Pressure sensitive triggers have been around for a long while now and patent law does state that the patent needs to be novel; since the N64 [update: bad author memory, N64 simulated pressure sensitivity, not actual] PS2 featured pressure sensitivity -- the technology also most likely existed prior to that -- and the complete lack of infrared transmission (the remote senses the IR from the sensor bar to acclimate itself) from the Wiimote (it uses Bluetooth to transmit) makes this suit suspect. There seems to be too many key differences -- and irregularities -- to make this a winnable case for Interlink.
[Thanks, dark54555]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
silkylove @ Dec 8th 2006 8:23PM
weak.
biltmore @ Dec 8th 2006 8:25PM
Interlink Electronics should be ashamed ... there's no way in hell they're gonna win this. And the fact that they waited to do this until the damn thing (Wii) went out for sale, makes them look even worse in my opinion.
Money Grubbing bitches.
jgrey @ Dec 8th 2006 8:28PM
John: "Hey guys, they are using a kinda similar idea as ours!"
Luke: "Heh... but they got theirs to work."
Mark: "Actually, can't we sue them for some cash?"
Mathew: "You're right...! But we should wait till Wii lauches and see them sell out. That way we can max out the fees."
John: "Hmm... but Wiimote is quite different, push comes to shove."
Luke: "Yeah I know... but who knows, Nintendo is rich and it might work."
Mark: "I know. We could sue them for the trigger! It's our most likely path to a fortune."
Mathew: "Alright then guys, we'll sue them when they've sold enough units."
John Luke Mathew Mark: "ALRIGHT!!"
--------------
And so it all began...
Zack @ Dec 8th 2006 8:35PM
Lame, lame, lame. I'm a 360 fanboy but I'm totally rooting for Nintendo on this.
Verksus @ Dec 8th 2006 8:38PM
So I'm guessing that this is the remote that is supposed to look like the Wiimote:
http://www.interlinkbrand.com/index.php?id=Mzkz
The damn thing sells for $160!
Bahaha, I don't think this lawsuit will ever get off the ground.
Zodiak @ Dec 8th 2006 8:39PM
I mean it looks like a Wiimote but its nowhere near it. And where's the nunchuck extension and speaker in the Wiimote. Sorry, but like with everyone, Nintendo should be able to win against Interlink Electronics.
I'll bet 200 Wii points =p
Seifer @ Dec 8th 2006 8:40PM
I would like to see this go to court, if only to see Interlink Electronics get served, so to speak.
Ripperrim @ Dec 8th 2006 8:43PM
Is this whole "lets sue cause we have a kinda similar patent" thing only in america? I dont really hear alot about this in other places...Seems kinda pathetic really, getting loads of patents for obscure things in the hope of a rich company using something similar then suing
Robert @ Dec 8th 2006 8:51PM
This is just an attempt at getting some kind of settlement from Nintendo. It won't go anywhere. The patent, which was apparently issued in 2005, won't be valid because it's basically a minor modification of other existing inventions. Did anyone else play the Xbox in 2001? Come on...
DojoRacoon @ Dec 8th 2006 8:53PM
If you can simply patent putting a trigger underneath a pointer device then patent law is stupid. Unless the patent was for a pointer that uses two infrared sources to calculate where it is in relation to a certain object then I doubt they would have a case but who knows.
Zertoss @ Dec 8th 2006 8:53PM
NES Zapper, anyone?
fawazr @ Dec 8th 2006 8:56PM
Success attracts bottom feeders. Instead of banking on whatever similarities they share with a successful product, they decide to file a frivolous claim with the aim of making more money than their investors could ever hope for.
JustinTurner @ Dec 8th 2006 8:57PM
They waited until the Wii hit the market to sue because there are no damages (loss of sales) until you sell an infringing product.
It's a shit patent and they are likely just looking for nuisance value from Nintendo, but I've seen people comment on this suit all day and get the whole patent litigation process ass-backwards. Trying this thing from filing to Markman ruling to jury verdict would cost Nintendo upwards of $2M in attorney fees, so a few $100 K looks pretty good.
Patent litigation is the new medical malpractice. I'm just surprised they didn't file this suit in the Eastern District of Texas like a proper patent troll.
Gavin @ Dec 8th 2006 8:58PM
When this happened to Sony, everyone was all for the underdog, but when it happens to Nintendo, everyone is for the big guy. Thanks commentors, for proving to me once again that game fanboys are mostly hypocrites and spin more than Fox news.
Random Insanity @ Dec 8th 2006 9:06PM
@14 "When this happened to Sony, everyone was all for the underdog, but when it happens to Nintendo, everyone is for the big guy. Thanks commentors, for proving to me once again that game fanboys are mostly hypocrites and spin more than Fox news."
When did this happen to Sony? A link would be appreciated! :)
silkylove @ Dec 8th 2006 9:15PM
@ 14. Stop comparing apples and oranges. The difference between this suit by Interlink against Nintendo and the one by Immersion against Sony(and Microsoft) was that the latter actually had merit. Go back and review the facts of the case. Sony and Microsoft both took the vibration tech from immersion. Microsoft was smart to settle out of court. Sony was stupid to not settle out of court and they paid the price.
Nicholas Sulikowski @ Dec 8th 2006 9:22PM
Random Insanity, Immersion Corp. sued Sony for infringing on several patents with the Dual Shock 2, mainly how the rumble feature works. Except in this case they actually did infringe on something. Nintendo hasn't done anything that copies off Interlink. The Wiimote does not send any information to the sensor bar, it merely acts as an IR camera for the bar. As for the pressure sensitive trigger, it's to my understanding that the B trigger on the Wiimote is digital not analog. Furthermore, pressure sensitive triggers and buttons have been around since the PS2, and Interlink's remote was for use with a PC. It and the Wiimote aren't even in the same market.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6116423.html the link
This has nothing to do with fanboyism Gavin. Maybe if you'd read the facts before jumping to conclusions you'd actually know what was going on.
bill pullman @ Dec 8th 2006 9:22PM
"When this happened to Sony, everyone was all for the underdog, but when it happens to Nintendo, everyone is for the big guy. Thanks commentors, for proving to me once again that game fanboys are mostly hypocrites and spin more than Fox news."
that's like saying, "when Mother Theresa died, everyone was sad. but when Adolf Hitler died, everyone cheered. you're all hypocrites."
and "Fox news"? who the hell cares about Fox News?
Matt @ Dec 8th 2006 9:23PM
@Random Insanity:
Immersion lawsuit a year or two ago - basically MS and Nintendo paid Immersion for use of the force feedback systems, and Sony didn't. Sony got their asses handed to them and they deserved it. Unfortunately for that Sony fanboy, in this case Nintendo is completely safe - they've had the trigger since 1980-something and they're not transmitting anything over IR; it's all Bluetooth.
Kevin @ Dec 8th 2006 9:34PM
#14, at least Nintendo won't force Interlink Electronics out of business.
Night Elve @ Dec 8th 2006 9:51PM
Guys come on stop !!! it does not matter if it is Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony what matter is this silly and stupid patents and lawsuits has to stop ...
All this shit is killing the inventiveness, is killing the software as well the hardware ... you should see for the whole and not just for the company of your like.
J.Goodwin @ Dec 8th 2006 9:53PM
Yeah, this is an infrared mousing device that is used with PC projectors. The mouse pointer is directed using the rubber circle on top, not by pointing. You have the first and second mouse buttons on the bottom and top of the device.
Shouldn't be an issue, as triggers have been on game controllers for a long time now.
Justin @ Dec 8th 2006 10:19PM
The N64 trigger was not pressure sensitive.
The first pressure sensitive controller was the PS2's Dual Shock 2.
There's a difference between pressure sensitive and time sensitive.
Hellsing @ Dec 8th 2006 10:20PM
IF this is about pressure sensitive triggers, then they have no case. The Wii-mote's trigger is not pressure sesnsitive. It seems to be a regular digital button thats either pressed or not pressed. It's not like the dual shock's shoulder buttons.
EdEN @ Dec 8th 2006 10:53PM
Nintendo WAS NOT sued by Inmersion over the rumble feature because NINTENDO DEVELOPED IT's OWN TECH. Go back and read all those news of the lawsuit. Microsoft settled and actually bought part of Inmersion (and will get part of the biiiiiiiig payment Sony will have to make in a year when the ruling against them is upheld) and Sony went to court.
So to make that clear, Inmersion sued because tech WAS stolen by Microsoft and Sony. Nintendo was NOT sued. The lawsuit over the wiimote has no ground, both products are different. Nintendo should counter-sue and make Interlink Electronics go bankrupt just for being dumb.
ubiquityman @ Dec 9th 2006 12:13AM
I have used a number of remotes from Interlink including one very similar if not exactly as pictured above.
There are NOTHING like the wiimote in operation.
I could understand perhaps a lawsuit if there was some reasonable grounds, but this one is so far beyond sanity it's stupid.
Brandon @ Dec 9th 2006 12:20AM
@#25
I don't think they should counter sue unless harm is done to the wii sales. If we see a huge drop then there is some good grounds for a counter suit. However just some gold diggers looking for a quick mil is just stupid. It would solve nothing.
Gavin @ Dec 9th 2006 12:44AM
Again, the fanboys split hairs and try to pretend that it isn't a similar situation. Lawsuit over patents in video games, they are quite related despite the denials. Nintendo fans post so many excuses on the web, you'd think they get paid for PR.
daniel s. @ Dec 9th 2006 1:10AM
Interlink is just plain stupid... they are never going to win, I wonder why they even tried. Their control transmits the trigger info through infrared, but the Wiimote doesn't even use the infrared to transmit information. The trigger info is trasmitted through Bluetooth.
Moe A @ Dec 9th 2006 2:12AM
I remember reading an article here on Joystiq about the EFF's list of companies that abuse patents by licensing standard or widely used technology. Nintendo was quite prominent on this list. Nintendo has abused the patent system in the past as well so this is hardly a one way street. If anything should be attacked it should be the ridiculous patenting system currently in practice.
http://www.eff.org/patent/wanted/patent.php?p=nintendo
Shadow Hog @ Dec 9th 2006 2:58AM
"The first pressure sensitive controller was the PS2's Dual Shock 2."
No, I'm pretty sure it was the Dreamcast controller.
Lekko @ Dec 9th 2006 3:39AM
Man... I really need to get in on this patent thing. I should patent general things, like.. "visual input device" or "computer thingy" showing a box and some dotty lines going in various directions, wait about 10 years, and see who I can sue later.
ZeroSA @ Dec 9th 2006 4:04AM
@ #30
I hate to tell you this, but Nintendo is only mentioned once (once = 1 incase you didn't know) on the EFF for patent abuse. And that incident happened in 1999. And even what they did was simply try to stop the emulation of the Game Boy (yes, the original one) by making their own emulator so that if someone else tried to write on they could try to stop them. While I don't approve of that, it isn't the same level as needlessly patenting stuff you have no intention of using or have no right to patent. You might consider actually looking at the sources you sight next time. Just a suggestion.
dwl @ Dec 9th 2006 6:16AM
The only information I could find out about this Interlink company was a shareholder lawsuit regarding dodgy accounting practices: artificial stock inflation, that sort of thing.
http://biz.yahoo.com/pz/060105/91890.html
This action against Nintendo seems more and more like an act of desperation and looks to me like a last roll of the dice.
Tommy Mang @ Dec 9th 2006 8:04AM
Only in America ... ;-)
James @ Dec 9th 2006 8:33AM
@27: yes, a countersuit *would* accomplish something. If it is visible enough, it will have a chilling effect on patent trolls everywhere. The way the courts have been ruling of late, patent trolls are getting really bold because they almost never stand to lose anything. If a big-ish company went into bankruptcy because they filed a malicious lawsuit they really should have known was bogus, it would help other slimy asshats think twice about pestering people. And that would be a *good thing*.
DJ @ Dec 9th 2006 8:39AM
"Trying this thing from filing to Markman ruling to jury verdict would cost Nintendo upwards of $2M in attorney fees, so a few $100 K looks pretty good."
-
$2 million is meaningless to Nintendo. They hold about $10 billion, and make almost a billion dollars a year in profit. Settling would just invite other frivolous suits, and make them look soft enough for somebody to try to sue them on the strap issue as well.
They should go ahead and outspend these scumbags at Interlink.
Anybody who thinks this suit is slimey, and wants Interlink to know it should go to interlink's web site and tell them on their "contact us" link:
http://www.interlinkelectronics.com/contacts.html
DJ @ Dec 9th 2006 8:39AM
"I remember reading an article here on Joystiq about the EFF's list of companies that abuse patents by licensing standard or widely used technology. Nintendo was quite prominent on this list. Nintendo has abused the patent system in the past as well so this is hardly a one way street. If anything should be attacked it should be the ridiculous patenting system currently in practice."
-
Are you kidding me? You consider that "abuse" of the patent system? Patenting a gameboy emulator so that people couldn't reverse engineer their own gameboy emulators...
...whose sole purpose it to play STOLEN, COPIED NINTENDO ROMS on PCs (or eventually Chinese knock off devices)?
You call that patent abuse?
I call your post and the EFF an "ABUSE" of the word "abuse".
Axel @ Dec 9th 2006 9:35AM
It annoys me that with all the advances in modern technology, medicine, and education that we still live in an age of ignorance and greed.
If technology, of all things, increases so drastically each year, how come stupidity is still the same as it has always been?
Psaakyrn @ Dec 9th 2006 10:15AM
to #39 Axel
Because technology is one of the reasons why stupidity doesn't get weeded out of the human ecosystem.
qrayg @ Dec 9th 2006 11:09AM
They should have stole the design too since this thing looks a million times better than the Wiimote.
Sarge @ Dec 9th 2006 12:48PM
Nope, I'm pretty sure that the first console controller with analog triggers was the Saturn's analog pad. Looked almost just like the DC controller.
Also, this does reek of someone trying to make a buck, but hopefully the courts will sort it out. If Nintendo stole it (as much as I like them), they should get busted on it, and if they didn't, I hope these guys go out of business.
Sarge out.
megamanfuzion @ Dec 9th 2006 12:54PM
@ 41:Wow, you must be prettyyyyyyyyyyyyyy boring to actually think a big,black,dull mouse looks better than a Wii-mote.
P.S.:Nintendo should defenitely counter-sue Interlink.
driven2sin @ Dec 9th 2006 12:59PM
"RemotePoint allows PC or Mac mouse control from up to 40 feet away, and it requires no special software. Simply unplug your ordinary mouse or trackball, plug in the RemotePoint receiver and start pointing from anywhere in the room."
trackball?? there is actually a reason for a trackball besides being an upsidedown mouse. you can perform straight line varible speed input easily without needing a robot calibrated arm like you would if using a mouse.. so this thing will not truely replace a trackball unless u play something like missle command where a mouse is better anyway.. unlike marble madness where a trackball is the only thing you can use to correctly play that game.. and I use these examples since that is how old this tech is anyway...
driven2sin @ Dec 9th 2006 1:04PM
ps... microsoft should just plain steal these from the lame bastards for their Halo 3 launch party
http://www.interlinkbrand.com/index.php?id=NDA4
have it in times square with everyone shouting with these thing around their neck..
p-diddy @ Dec 9th 2006 1:58PM
*sigh*
Well kids, I gotta point this out. The filing date of the patent, as IGN claims, is not 2005. That is the ISSUE date of the patent. The filing date, the date you use to determine prior art, is 1997.
http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6850221.PN.&OS=PN/6850221&RS=PN/6850221
And it's not just on a pressure sensitive trigger. Read the CLAIMS. Claim 1 talks about a trigger operated pointing device with an elongated profile.
I can't say whether it is valid or not, or if Ninty infringes, but lets all at least talk about the right thing here. Infringement is determined based on the claims and prior art is based on the filing date of the application (and ideally 1 year before that).
One oddity though is that the application was abandoned in 1998 for failure to respond to a rejection from the patent office and the application was revived in 2003.
http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_CH/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.getBib/.ps/N/.c/6_0_69/.ce/7_0_3AB/.p/5_0_341/.d/1?selectedTab=fileHistorytab&isSubmitted=isSubmitted&dosnum=08932612
Weird.
-p-
Moe A @ Dec 9th 2006 4:30PM
"You might consider actually looking at the sources you sight next time. Just a suggestion."
"Patenting a gameboy emulator so that people couldn't reverse engineer their own gameboy emulators... You call that patent abuse?"
Perhaps you should read a bit more before making conclusions. And yes, that is patent abuse.
For your enlightenment: emulators are legal. Therefore Nintendo's patent to stop any kind of emulator creation or usage is an abuse.
"Are emulators legal?
Generally, yes. In 1982, precedent was set in the landmark Coleco vs. Atari case where Coleco produced an Atari 2600 emulator for the ColecoVision. Even recently, Sony was unable to prevent the distribution of the PlayStation emulator "bleem!". However, there have been emulators that used copyrighted BIOS code internally; those have generally found to have been illegal when distributed with that BIOS."
"Is emulation really legal?
Yes it is. The case of SONY V. CONNECTIX found that unauthorized emulation is perfectly legal. It was the decision of the court that CONNECTIX had the right to emulate the SONY Playstation and that reverse engineering of the Playstation BIOS for such a cause fell under fair usage. As a result of this case CONNECTIX was allowed to release it's Virtual Gaming Station for the Mac OS."
Maybe from now on we can treat Nintendo as the corporation that it really is in the same way we talk about Microsoft or Sony rather than pretending that Nintendo, just like any other company in existence, isn't purely operation for nothing but money.
Moe A @ Dec 9th 2006 4:33PM
"...just like any other company in existence, isn't purely operation for nothing but money."
Major grammar errors. Apologies. Should have been "isn't purely operating for anything but money."
ZeroSA @ Dec 9th 2006 6:11PM
@47/48
I don't think you seem to understand the idea of patent abuse. Patents are designed to protect ideas and their applications. Nintendo realized that emulators could be written to simulate the GameBoy and attempted to stop them the only way possible, by making one themselves and patenting the code. I will respect your arguement that emulators are legal (I own a copy of Bleem myself), but that doesn't exactly mean they should be. I know, I sound hypocritical, but it just really doesn't make a lot of sense.
Also, you kind of side stepped the main point of your original post (#30). You claim that "Nintendo was quite prominent" on the EFF's list. Again, I have searched their system for Nintendo and have only this one article about any claims of patent abuse.
Please explain how 1 claim of patent abuse, from 1999, in an attempt to protect their intellectual property rights (the ORIGINAL GameBoy) constitutes Nintendo's prominence?
ZeroSA @ Dec 9th 2006 6:26PM
UPDATE:
I looked into the EFF some more and for some reason, there are NO records of Microsoft or Sony having ANY sort of patent abuse...So I guess another question to be asking is, "Exactly how well informed is the EFF regarding patent abuse?" I highly doubt Microsoft or Sony have never ever abused a patent. Again, Moe A, you should really look at your sources before you go around citing them.