RSSUSITC to investigate whether Wii violates month-old patent
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published September 18, 2008, 4:18 PM
Can a two-and-a-half-year-old game console infringe upon a company's IP portfolio that includes patents that are younger than the device itself -- including one that's only days old? A new case now tests a curious loophole.
The US International Trade Commission says it will formally investigate whether Nintendo's Wii game console violates Section 337 of the Tariff Act -- specifically, whether Nintendo is importing devices that infringe upon the intellectual property held by Hillcrest Labs. This after the licensing firm filed suit against Nintendo in US District Court in Maryland for infringing four patents, literally one day after the US Patent Office granted Hillcrest one of those patents.
The most recent patent under consideration, number 7,414,611, was filed on June 20, 2007, and was granted just last August 19 -- the day before Hillcrest filed suit against Nintendo. Entitled "3D pointing devices with orientation compensation and improved usability," it essentially describes how a control device with two on-board sensors can determine how much that device may be tilted by its user, by means of pairing two-dimensional transforms to make a three-dimensional one. The Wii was introduced to North American gamers at the E3 show in Los Angeles in 2006, and was already being sold by Christmas of that year.
Hillcrest's lawsuit does not claim willful infringement by Nintendo, but it does include boilerplate language that makes reference to past actions by Nintendo that constitute a trend. "Defendants' past and continued acts of infringement have damaged Hillcrest in an amount not yet determined and will continue to damage Hillcrest in the future," the August 20 lawsuit complaint reads, "and thus Hillcrest is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for that infringement."
Typically, a patent system rewards the first to file for an invention, so long as prior art -- the pre-existence of the thing which the filer is claiming -- has not been demonstrated. But the US system currently gives precedent to the first to invent an item or concept, even if someone else has filed an application earlier, if it can be proven that the inventor started work on the concept prior to that earlier application.
Patent reform legislation that passed the House of Representatives in September 2007 would reform US law, changing the patent system to favor the first-to-file. That bill was supposedly fast-tracked upon reaching a Senate committee, but has since gone nowhere. It would also make provisions for average citizens -- beta testers, if you will -- to serve the patent system by researching and demonstrating when and where prior art exists.
Had the Senate passed the Patent Reform Act last year, as at one time appeared likely, Hillcrest Labs would probably never have been able to file this suit. Even if it were the first to file for such things as a tilt-determination scheme -- or, as one other patent describes, a way for a TV viewer to switch channels via remote control using menu items that zoom in and out -- Nintendo itself could conceivably have proved the existence of prior art.
The ITC has a 45-day time limit from yesterday in which to determine a target date for the completion of its investigation.
I hope that patent reform does not actually succeed that is completely ridiculous. Clearly it would favor U.S. companies and make it impossible for foreign companies to compete in the U.S. market. It would slow the spread of technology. I hate to say it, but Globalization is not such a bad thing, and legislation that would slow that by making companies refuse there goods to the U.S. is an idea made by a profiteer trying to work the system.
Score: 0
As long as industry does not lobby for legislative changes to get rid of the trolling we will see a lot more of the same. The patent system is useless slack in dynamic markets.
Score: 0
Hillcrest and Nintendo both have licenses with Gyration for 3D wireless pointing devices.
What Hillcrest is suing about is not the pointing device, in this case the Wiimote but the cursor and some features of software related to a 3D pointing device
http://gizmodo.com/50395...-the-wii-out-of-america
Gyration had a press release about this whole subject but I can't seem to find the sucker.
So is Hillcrest a parasite, sure. Will they win, I hope not, I can only imagine the nightmare such a precedent would allow.
Something I can't help but wonder as well, being a conspiracy nut :) (you have been warned). Could this be a lawsuit with Microsoft somewhere in the background. This kind of tactic would be right up their alley.
Score: 0
For what it's worth, the patent specifically mentioned in this article is only the newest in this series of patents.
7,158,118 was filed May 2, 2005 by the same people and also describes "3D pointing devices with orientation compensation and improved usability". It is referenced by the newer patents (which are more likely invalid due to prior art) and is probably the more troublesome one.
Score: 0
Another guy trying to get easy money...
the world is just full of parasites...
Score: 0
Hello. I was reading someone elses blog and saw you on their blogroll. Would you be interested in exchanging blogroll links? If so, Add the follow links.Thanks!
wow gold
wow gold de
wow gold fr
Age of Conan
Apple News
Asia Travel
Body jewelry
Eat near you
gift shop
learn chinese
MMORPG News
Mobile News
Nintendo DS
Pc Gaming
PlayStation 3 News
PSP news
Web Design
Wii News
WOW GOLD
Score: 0
Hello. I was reading someone elses blog and saw you on their blogroll. Would you be interested in exchanging blogroll links? If so, Add the follow links.Thanks!
wow gold
wow gold de
wow gold fr
Age of Conan
Apple News
Asia Travel
Body jewelry
Eat near you
gift shop
learn chinese
MMORPG News
Mobile News
Nintendo DS
Pc Gaming
PlayStation 3 News
PSP news
Web Design
Wii News
WOW GOLD
Score: 0
Bullet = cure for spammers
Score: 0
Nintendo should not be punished because someone patented some of the technology they used. Prior art and all that. On a slight tangent, maybe it should be law that only the original company that invents something can license something and that licensing firms are not allowed.
Score: 0
Agreed!
Score: 0
This is fine, wonderful non extant instruments, in this case it ain't variations on CDR's or the link, simply another variation on economic vapourware!
Yep! A commie from way back, but then I've never had to be subsidised, get offa the teat ya fools'
As Imafurby would say, well? What would the dummy say, we'll wait for the riposte.
Score: 0
Asinine. Why do they even waste money on this rubbish?
Score: 0
I'm not patent expert so I'm probably missing some details, but even within countries who honors first-file, wouldn't they lose a ground if the invention is publicized before filing?
Score: 0
I have bad news for all of you...
I have just secured an exclusive patent on air.
Beginning immediately, you must all pay me a licensing fee for inhaling.
Anyone found breathing without the exclusive, expressed and written permission from me or my attorneys will be held liable for patent infringement and we will seek relief in court.
Also, each unauthorized breath will be viewed as a separate act of patent infringement and will be dealt with via individual lawsuits.
Score: 0
Congratulations on setting a new standard of ****iness, American citizen.
Score: 0
Spoken as one who embodies that which he accuses others of being.
There is a fundamental difference with being able to file a case and actually prevailing in court - unlike some countries so used to a history of denied and violated freedoms that they restrict the freedom of expression as one group may not like it...anyone for cartoons??????
But gee, no one in the US is being killed over this...so it obviously can't be as important as a cartoon in the oh so sophisticated Europe.
Score: 0
Foxy,
Been a bad week has it buddy? Me thinks too much, you might be Appled outa sight.
Yet I'm sure IW07, and the Pitdrongo, are back.
Curious indeed.
Toolie, Where are you.
Score: 0
I'm suggesting this US citizen is a ****, I'm not suggesting the US is full of ****s.
This case shouldn't even be heard, let alone him having a chance (thankfully, as very small one) of winning.
Score: 0
Oh a country run by lawyers.. No wonder our system is falling apart around us.. Great laws congress!!
Score: 0
It would certainly be nice to see someone who has actually done something of merit bring suit against someone attempting to infringe upon their earned marketshare, rather than so many who have produced nothing tangible trying to capitalize of others efforts and market investment.
Score: 0
Oooooh, my head hurts
Score: 0