Astounding creativity! You move your hand and the little guy on the computer screen moves his hand the same way. Wow!

The extraordinary genius that thought of that deserves much more then they will get. I just wish I had him alone in a room for five minutes so I could give it to him.

What about Nintendo's SNES wireless controllers or superscope? How about the gun used in duck hunt for NES? Was a stink made back then?

wow so nintendo has spys everywhere?!

Patent fishing ftw! Me wants a piece of this action asap... :D

Love the mindset around here.

If I (or you) have an idea, patent it, and try to capitalize on it, it can be stolen, right in front of me (or you) by a company with a *huge* amount of capital to make even more money on without paying me (or you) a dime...

...and you're all OK with this?

You can't blame them for following Mr. Conneally's biased presentation of the facts in his cut and paste summary above. Statements like "That company walked away with $21 million" doesn't really add much sympathy for the "other" company.

Perhaps to even things out, he could replace Nintendo with "The RIAA of the Gaming Industry" and call Hillcrest the "law-abiding working-class startup."

Well, at least the 4 patents were mentioned even though they only linked to one of them.

The problem is that anymore, most of these lawsuits anymore are for patents that are just ideas, not concrete implementations or designs. As previous posters have joked about, the name of the game anymore is patent something now, and then sue the person/company that actually figures out how to do it. Patents should reward those that figure out how to do something, not guess what someone else might figure out how to do.

I nearly agree.

I think a patent should still be given before the product has been made in order to allow the inventor a set time limit to construct it in before the patent is null and void. Big companies always find out that someone is making a product that they would now suddenly like to make, and there should still be some protection during the construction period.

Say 5 years from when the patent is given, and if after that 5 years is up and the product is not complete (or near complete) the patent is revoked and only reinstated once the product has been completed.

"I think a patent should still be given before the product has been made in order to allow the inventor a set time limit to construct it in before the patent is null and void."

Oh, definitely, I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise. I was just posting about how a lot of these squatter patents are for the ideas, not concrete workable implementations.

this has become the American way of the 21st century. people are not smart enough to make an honest buck these days so they leech off everyone else

Wow, that's a bold statement to make, particularly since you obviously have no knowledge of the legal system and patent rights. Ever pick up an international story on patent disputes? This is not a dishonest approach to protecting your intellectual rights. The argument could be made that the idea was leeched off and Nintendo is making profit on another's hard work.

Most controllers that have been included with various game consoles were invented by the company that built and sold the game console.

Yeah! Just look at the PS2...

Oh, wait...

Sorry, you were saying?

The original PS2 controller design (not the DualShock) was entirely Sony's idea.

The original PS2 controller WAS DualShock (version 2).

PS1 wasn't.

There is no requirement that a patent be implemented by its creator. Nintendo must have plenty that they have never brought to market.

I know that buts its retarded when companies just sue other companies that come out with better products than the pieces of crap that they produce.

So because Nintendo has more capital to develop a better implementation of your patent, Nintendo can walk all over your rights?

Oh, that's right, I keep forgetting that people no longer care about the rights of others when it comes to what they've decided they are entitled to...

There ya go the key "ENTITLED to"

Exactly. You know Nintendo would jump on the opportunity to sue if you were to violate any of the patents that it has idling.

No. I thought Nintendo had already had licensed patients regarding this.

Please explain how this infringement on the rights of others with regard to the invention of an item of hardware differs from those people who would infringe on the rights of others by stealing their copyrighted material in the forms of software, musical and written compositions ?

Won't there be lawyers upon lawyers involved in the Nintendo actions as well ?

The only reason why companies are doing this is because Nintendo is a well known, extremely large and successful company. Everybody wants a piece of the pie! (even though they didnt work for it) :/ Go figure lol!

Yeah...LOL!

They can afford it.

For f' sake. Tell 'em to get stuffed. These ridiculously vague patents with no money at all invested in product development REALLY piss me off. As soon as someone comes up and and implements a good idea, every wanker and his lawyer wants a piece because they didn't have the skill or inclination to develop something themselves.

Something has got to be done to stop this patent-squatting and legal profiteering from others work. Seriously. :p

Actually Hillcrest Labs has developed something... I wouldn't call it fancy... but..
http://www.nintendowiifa...t-suit-against-nintendo/

Meh...

Wow umm that is pretty ugly. I wonder if Nintendo knew of this patent.

Unless they have actually developed these "motion sensitive pointers" rather than just have them on paper, then they dont deserve a stinking penny.

Also, im not sure what patents im looking for as the link above shows me a single patent with a list of 2 other patents followed by another lengthy list.

So if I created an instruction manual on how to develop a new product, but have no money to actually build it, then I don't deserve any money.

Then you come along and have capital to invest in this idea, and actually create it. I still deserve nothing for making the instruction manual.

Finally, why don't you think about how this benefits the people who invested their time and effort into creating ideas, hoping they can be used down the road to create a quality product, and then being told you don't deserve any money, but keep patenting these great ideas at your expense for no real protection or reason.

By not protecting the rights of the developers and inventors, innovation would never come to the marketplace. People would not publish their ideas unless, under your analysis, they can afford to create the product first to protect their interests.

Oh by the way, Hillcrest did actually bring this product to life, as reported back in 2006:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6133791-7.html

And here are the patents since they article isn't very complete. The patents at issue are 7,139,983; 7,158,118; 7,262,760; and 7,414,611.

Here are quick links to read about them:
http://www.google.com/pa...AAEBAJ&dq=7,139,983
http://www.google.com/pa...AAEBAJ&dq=7,158,118
http://www.google.com/pa...AAEBAJ&dq=7,262,760

and the latest which is already linked is: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7414611.html

"The company holds four patents for a three-dimensional, motion-sensitive pointer that affects on-screen actions, filed in 2004."

As opposed to those 2 dimensional ones that you get.

That's a good point actually. I've now taken it upon myself to patent the same form of controller with 4 dimensions so that when time travel is possible, a controller that can exist non-linearly can't be developed without my OK. Of course the conundrum there is that once time travel is possible, one could go back in time and patent my patent before I do and create a paradox that will wipe out our universe.

It's no more insane then the crap we have to deal with now. I'll bet multiple theories of time travel have already been patented in hopes of cashing on once it's been discovered which will seriously affect the time travel safari industry (okay, A Sound of Thunder wasn't *that* bad).

heh... THREE-DIMENSIONAL MOTION-sensitive. it's a wonky phrase anyway. meaning the real life motion corresponds to three dimensional renderings on the screen. I was using the patent's unfortunate lingo

Screen != 3D

I get what you mean though.

lol clever.

You are exactly right. A two dimensional pointer is what you typically get...

A mouse, while it exists in 3 dimensions, is a "two-dimensional pointer". It tracks points only on the x and y axis.

The fact that their pointer tracks in the z axis does indeed indicate that it is a three dimensional pointer.

I'm no where near being a lawyer let along a patent lawyer but, I can see why they pursued this.

Would you have guessed I write sci-fi for a hobby?

LAW != MORALITY

Just because Patent laws exists, doesn't mean it's right/moral/proper. The laws were created so the hardworking people of the world would have a chance to recover their development costs, and hopefully profit before someone else steps all over them. These laws are ABUSED to the core now.