Nintendo sued over DS touchscreen patent

Rule 63 strikes again?

I agree. But don't do it for me, do it for the children.

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/7660/dspatentfigjk9.jpg

F for effort.

***For the children.

The children give Donald +1

Oh and if anyone got any ideas from how it goes through her arm, don't. She's got that copyrighted too.

or conversely...

Big Corporations will do anything today to get money off of people today

So true...its a conspiracy all around

@trooper

Welcome to the world of business!!

I honestly think Reggie could buy air time, let alone the station, of G4... and simply show a marathon of him counting, diving into, and "letting it rain(in the strip club)".


It would be hilarity-TV.

weren't you getting on for your birthday?....

Except these people didnt INVENT ANYTHING at all. They just THOUGHT of something, not even the technology behind it! They just thought "Hey! Wouldn't it be cool if there was a screen you can touch to give commands." And then they patented it. They didn't MAKE a screen that you can touch, they didn't even think of how it would work. All they did was think of a screen that you can touch. You think that they should be able to get money out of anyone how ACTUALLY makes a screen you can touch? You know, designs it, makes the technology behind it, and manufactures it? The person who just took 5 seconds to THINK of something should NOT get money.

I thought of flying giraffe, but have not been able to produce it because...you know...I just think of stuff. I don't actually do anything with my ideas. But if I EVER see a flying giraffe out there you can bet I'll be asked to be well compensated!

Oh please. Save it for the moveon.org forums.

the above is all true, but just to clarify for everyone a bit more: estoppel reveals the natural conflicts in the patent system. when an inventor files an application, they're hoping to achieve protection on the broadest claims the patent office will allow. That will eventually give them a government granted monopoly over a large area. The examiner, on the other hand, is trying to whittle claims away until they represent only the truly novel aspects of an invention and no more. so as davivman said, there's generally a back and forth between inventor and examiner during which the claims are amended or clarified. this dialogue represents the "prosecution history" of a patent, assuming it eventually grants. so as to prevent parties from tricking the office, courts will not allow patent owners to claim something during suit that is counter to an argument they made in the prosecution history. basically, if you limit your invention by clarifying or amending a claim to avoid a concern of the patent office, you can't later sue somebody and pretend that the court shouldn't interpret your claim as limited.

Well said elvio, are you a fellow patent attorney too? However, just as kind of a nitpicky point, It is not really accurate to refer to a patent as a monopoly. A monopoly is something in the public domain that the government takes from the public and gives to a person (such as certain local utilities). An invention is something that did not exist before and was not in the public domain. It is something novel, that upon publication of the patent enriches the public domain with the knowledge of the invention, and upon expiration of the patent, enters into the public domain, free to be used by anyone. One of the reasons that many monopolies are illegal in this country is that they are anti-competitive and stiffle innovation. Patents do neither of these and infact encourage competitors to invent around patents and give an incentive to innovate knowing that time and effort spent in R&D can be rewarded with a patent allowing you to exclude others from practising your invention.