Nintendo ordered to pay $21 million for patent infringement
by Alexander Sliwinski 
{ May 15th 2008 at 11:35AM }
A representative for Nintendo stated that no infringement was found in any of the Wii's motion-sensing technology and it expects that on appeal the award to Anascape will be reduced "significantly." Remember kids, if you want to stick it to some big corporation in the future and cash in, just make patents for everything imaginable.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
samfish @ May 15th 2008 11:38AM
Hooray for patent trolls...
Lars @ May 15th 2008 4:39PM
Texas: making money off frivolous lawsuits since 1870.
D_Average @ May 15th 2008 5:41PM
I just patented time travel!!
ThornedVenom (Harley Quinn Defense Force) @ May 15th 2008 6:11PM
I just used your patented time travel machine to travel back in time, so that I could patent it before you.
4MyFriends @ May 15th 2008 11:38AM
"and it expects that on appeal the award to Anascape will be reduced "significantly.""
In other words, Nintendo might end up not even paying all that much in the end, and causing the other company even more legal fees.
tmacairjordan87 @ May 15th 2008 11:42AM
If they want it to go away they should just pay it and move on. What's $21 million to them nowadays?
arrrgh @ May 15th 2008 12:03PM
I'd be willing to bet they DONT want it to go away. They probably want to draw it out a bit, knowing they'll win (huge army of lawyers ftw) and bleed the other company out of some money, while in the end spending less than the 21M that they were ordered to pay originally
NATO_Duke @ May 15th 2008 12:05PM
"In other words, Nintendo might end up not even paying all that much in the end, and causing the other company even more legal fees."
Well, yeah Nintendo would pay less if it won an appeal or got the other side to settle with them rather than pay to go through appeals. (It is costly.) Yet, you are likely wrong about the attorney fees. Many plaintiff cases where there is big money on the line are done on contingency - so there are no legal fees. It would be costs (filing fee, postage, etc) and a percentage to the attorney if they win. I can’t speak on how that firm operates on this kind of case, but that generally how plaintiff work is done, otherwise people wouldn’t come to sue as they wouldn’t be able to pay in advance for all the hours that go into a suit.
GRANTED @ May 15th 2008 4:33PM
well, tmac, the aim of a business is to always make money. so, if nintendo is faced with 2 options, they are always going to choose the option that loses them the least amount of money.
few lawyer armies will charge 21 million dollars, even in a multiyear lawsuit. this isnt smoking litigation, its patent infringement.
Zertoss @ May 15th 2008 11:48AM
Which patent was this again? Was it the "hurrr numbered controllers" patent? Surely not, I see no mention of Sony.
Oh, following links from AP, I see that it was the analog buttons patent. So... don't the Dual Shock 2 and I assume the Sixaxis and Dual Shock 3 have analog buttons? I guess they were different enough to not infringe on this patent?
Martez @ May 15th 2008 11:53AM
They're probably waiting until Sony starts making money off the PS3, the same way they waiting until Nintendo struck gold with the Wii.
t_m @ May 15th 2008 10:37PM
I think sony and MS already paid out on this patent. Plus they already paid out on the "rumble" patent. Plus every other stupid patent that some patent hoarding company has filed.
The whole patent system is irretrievably broken.
Paviel @ May 15th 2008 11:49AM
Wait a second. The Gamecube and its controller have been out... how long now? Five, six years?
Surely it takes less than five or six years to figure out that a product infringes on a patent...
joeyg @ May 15th 2008 11:52AM
no no...the patent infringment was noticed 5 seconds after the gamecube controller design was released...
it took 5-6 years to allow nintendo to accumulate a nice amount of dough before calling them out.
Sir Fidlious Wong (Justin T. McElroy Memorial Burn of the Day Award) @ May 15th 2008 12:46PM
You know, even when Nintendo was failing, they were winning in pure profits. I want to know when this "poor hurting Nintendo" concept came from....
Microswirl @ May 15th 2008 1:10PM
@Sir Fidlious Wong
No one said Nintendo was poor or hurting back then. There's not even that implication joeyg's comment. What he said was that Nintendo made a shit-ton of money in the past few years; that's an undeniable fact. Just look at their stock history:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=NTDOY.PK&t=5y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
It went from 8pts/share in 2003 all the way up to 69.7pts/share today.
hydralisk456 @ May 15th 2008 2:48PM
They were probably waiting for Nintendo to have a large presence in mainstream media so their suit would get all sorts of attention. Nintendo made shit-loads of money with the Gamecube but they were hardly in the mainstream press.
Dracard @ May 15th 2008 11:51AM
I can't find any info about Anascape, Ltd. The only thing I see with their names on it is news articles about this case.
Zertoss @ May 15th 2008 11:59AM
I can't find a website for the company or anything so far, but I did find the people working this case (if that's of any interest to anyone).
http://www.bromsun.com/practices/patent-prosecution/patent-prosecution-inter-partes-reexamination.html
http://www.lw.com/Attorneys.aspx?page=AttorneyBio&attno=71123
Dracard @ May 15th 2008 12:05PM
Thanks, man.
Zertoss @ May 15th 2008 12:17PM
They don't have a website, and the "3D controller with analog buttons" patent is the only patent I can find. No physical address, no mailing address, nothing.
But I'm no internet detective. Maybe someone else with more time on their hands will have better luck.
Fernando Rocker @ May 15th 2008 11:52AM
This patent thing is a little bit out of control.
You can basically patent everything, even if you don't a physical prototype or even worse, even if you don't have intentions in build the thing.
Sir Fidlious Wong (Justin T. McElroy Memorial Burn of the Day Award) @ May 15th 2008 12:48PM
Patent abuse is getting quite bad. Did you know a patent was awarded in the adventure game genre from an independant developer who used "nouns as the action decider?" So instead of saying Use Hammer, you'd just say Hammer.... AND THAT"S A FUCKING PATENT!
Richard Mitchell @ May 15th 2008 11:58AM
I hereby patent the following:
Input device which utilizes "buttons"
arrrgh @ May 15th 2008 12:04PM
I already patented "input device requiring input"
sry broseph
CJC @ May 15th 2008 12:14PM
I patented the patent application process.
Pay up.
Microswirl @ May 15th 2008 2:53PM
I hold trademarks for "application" and "process" and have already filed a preemptive injunction against any and all prior art exception clauses, to be applied immediately and retroactively.
I duno what I just said, but I think you all owe me $$$.
BPM [SSBB: 5026 4120 1186] @ May 15th 2008 3:53PM
I patented breathing and living.
Where's my money, bitches?
ThornedVenom (Harley Quinn Defense Force) @ May 15th 2008 6:15PM
How I canz patent universe and Godz?
fred @ May 15th 2008 8:50PM
I OWE ALL OF YOU MONEY.
Sora @ Jul 22nd 2008 10:04PM
I patented the concepts of transactions involving any form of currency, owing someone currency, or thinking about currency. Now you're trapped into an infinite cycle of paying me!
Misfit Toy @ May 15th 2008 11:58AM
If getting sued over a patent is really hot right now then soon we'll all owe Al Gore a lot of money. All bow before the creator of the Internet! >-o=
matt @ May 15th 2008 12:00PM
Sometimes patents suck, especially went some douchebag watches Star Trek and patents everything of the show. Unless you are physically making something, you should has no right to patent it.
NATO_Duke @ May 15th 2008 12:00PM
Another day where I wish I was a patent attorney...
ScottG13 @ May 15th 2008 12:03PM
A lot of those patents are pretty dodgy. Combining one technology with another does not make it patentable. Putting something into a "game controller" does not make it patentable. Things like accelerometers and gyroscopes are patentable. Not #6,347,997 "Analog Controls Housed with Electronic Displays" or #6,208,271 "Remote Controller with Analog Button."
Dirt @ May 15th 2008 3:55PM
Yeah, I thought if it was an 'obvious' thing, it couldn't be patented. It's pretty obvious that controllers will have analogue buttons, screens, sticks, motion controls, attachment ports, etc etc etc. I mean controllers are meant for CONTROL, so anything that helps that would be pretty obvious to add into a controller at some point.
ScottG13 @ May 15th 2008 4:01PM
Exactly. There is a ton of prior art on Analogue controllers or screens or even motion sensing. Just combining them does not make something patentable.
matt @ May 15th 2008 12:06PM
I'm patenting "box that spins dics" and "box that connects to things"!
quickshade @ May 15th 2008 12:08PM
Remember kids, if you want to stick it to some big corporation in the future and cash in, just make patents for everything imaginable.
LOL, best line ever. Anyways I agree.
lee @ May 15th 2008 12:17PM
patents arnt that easy. it costs 5 grand and up to put up a patent. so aneescape or whatever did have a real idea BEFORE nintendo. ive tried to patent shit. it sucks.
Jacksons @ May 15th 2008 12:29PM
They thought up a great idea knowing that people would eventually want to license it, so they paid to patent it. How is this weird?
shMerker @ May 15th 2008 12:41PM
There are successful businesses though, whose whole business model is based on coming up with patents to license.
http://www.innovationalliance.net/patent-fundamentals/patent-based-business-model
There's a nice chart there explaining the whole process. The thing that gets me about it is that normally a patent encourages industry because when you have a great idea you can implement it without worrying that someone else will get to there first. Not having patents would be like if a farmer worked a crop all year and than anyone could just walk in and take whatever he wanted.
The problem with a business that makes all of it's income from patent licensing is that money is invested in research that's already going to be invested in research somewhere else. It benefits no one except the shareholders and weighs down real R & D companies that implement new ideas they came up with on their own and still end up having to pay licensing fees on them.
Obie @ May 15th 2008 12:41PM
Doesnt Nintendo make 21 mil a second with the money printing DS and Wii? No skin off their teeth.
BMErdin @ May 15th 2008 1:01PM
I'm still waiting for my Wii Wavebird that doesn't need the GameCube dongle. Make one with rumble and put in a little sensor on the front so I can still navigate Wii menus? I'd be a happy man.
Kweli @ May 15th 2008 1:08PM
I should start patenting random shit too:
Skate boards that hover
Cars that hover
Anything that hovers
Patents are great for a company protecting its creation.. but if someone patents something and does nothing with it, they should LOOSE that patent..
Except my hover patents.. lets leave those alone
Tommy Jun @ May 15th 2008 1:39PM
what a bunch of losers. IF their case was true, they would have sued them when the controller originally came out. It has nothing to do with their entitlement of the copyright but rather their indication of greed in a shameful manner.
ill trooper @ May 15th 2008 3:31PM
"Patent trolls!" "What a bunch of losers." "Why'd they wait 6 years?"
It really upsets you guys when someone else thinks of something before any of your favorite companies. So what? Nintendo might owe someone money. If success is reached using ideas others thought of, then maybe money is owed. Let the qualified and informed settle this, not a string of internet comments where people type 'loose' interchangeably with 'lose.'
BPM [SSBB: 5026 4120 1186] @ May 15th 2008 3:57PM
It isn't because it's Nintendo, it's because it's a lawsuit from some no-name company noone's ever heard of. They have some patent, with no proof they've made anything on that patent (or anything at all, for that matter).
If it was Sony in the hot seat here, would you still feel the same way?
NATO_Duke @ May 15th 2008 4:12PM
"It isn't because it's Nintendo, it's because it's a lawsuit from some no-name company noone's ever heard of. They have some patent, with no proof they've made anything on that patent (or anything at all, for that matter)."
None of those issues you raise have any effect on someones rights when it comes to their own IP.
J @ May 15th 2008 4:30PM
Duke,
I was just working on a novel to say what you just said. Thanks for saving me the trouble ;)
tee hee @ ill trooper: good point.