Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq, a column on legal issues as they relate to video games:

GamePolitics recently posted a piece on Forbis, the makers of the weemote, and an issue that is all too familiar in Trademark law: trademark infringement. To summarize the GamePolitics piece, Forbis Technologies trademarked "weemote" in the year 2000 for a children's television remote. According to a Time piece on the weemote, sales have fallen considerably since the Nintendo Wii was released. The blog-o-sphere coined the term "Wiimote" soon after the Wii hardware was announced, and the term has stuck ever since. Nintendo, however, does not have a trademark on the term "wiimote," only on "wii."

Forbis is hoping to enter into a business arrangement by which it can re-brand its product and Nintendo can take control of "wiimote" and "weemote" (pronounced the same) because, as they put it, "the damage has been done here (whether intentional or not)." In fact, in cases of possible infringement between a significantly larger player and a smaller one such as this, a settlement of this nature would not be unusual. Even if Nintendo believes it would be successful in an infringement suit with Forbis, this may be the far cheaper option to resolve the issue. After all, the weemote brand had minimal value before the introduction of the Wiimote based on the company's self-described weak sales. Nintendo has thus far declined to purchase "weemote." But stopping at an out-of-court settlement wouldn't do much to illuminate the legal points that exist here, so let's take a look at this as if it were going to go to trial.

Nintendo has been ordered to pay $21 million to Anascape Ltd. for infringing on a patent with its Gamecube and Wii Classic controllers. The AP reports Anascape Ltd., a "small East Texas gaming company," also sued Microsoft, but that was settled out of court. Nintendo says it will appeal the decision.

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.

Immersion CEO Vic Viegas says in an interview with GameDaily that he doesn't understand why Sony decided to put the DualShock 2's rumble technology into the DualShock 3, considering he believes the new next-gen rumble technology is cheaper. Viegas says, "The old technology utilizes two motors to create the complex set of sensations, whereas Immersion's new TouchSense technology utilizes a single motor, but we drive the motor in unique ways so that you can get stronger yet crisper effects." He says the one motor uses less power, "the cost to implement is less expensive than the old tech" and he says they won't charge Sony extra.

Viegas also talked a little about handhelds and implementing rumble into the DS or PSP. Currently Nintendo does not license its vibration tech from Immersion and may be working on their own ways of bringing rumble to the DS. As to whether Immersion might sue Nintendo one day like they did Sony, Viegas says, "We have not yet formally taken a position on whether it's infringing or not infringing any of our IP." Then again, if Nintendo can afford $18 million in Wiimote jackets, licensing some next-gen rumble might be an afterthought for them.

Were you aware that every single major console maker operating right now is a dirty, criminal enterprise? It's true, if you believe a suit by Fenner Investments (PDF link) which claims that Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are all violating its patent for "a low-voltage joystick port interface," specifically one that converts an analog joystick input into machine-readable digital form.

Never mind that the patent was filed in 1998, years after both Sony and Nintendo had introduced analog joysticks into their PlayStation and Nintendo 64 controllers (and filed patents for the same). Never mind that Microsoft had patented an interface for Windows-based analog controllers in 1997. Never mind that the idea of an analog joystick on a video game console goes at least as far back as the German VC4000 from 1978.

None of this matters. Clearly all the major console manufacturers are willfully infringing on the long-held patents of this relatively unknown company. We predict a court decision for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to be awarded to Fenner any day now. We're holding our breath even as we write this.

[Thanks pandlcg]