Nintendo is $21 million richer today - and that's not including the money it made from thousands of hardware and software sales.
It has just won a patent infringement appeal, with a US court overturning a 2008 ruling that had required the platform holder to fork out $21 million to Texas-based gaming company Anascape.
It had been alleged that numerous Nintendo controllers infringed upon the patent in question, which is for a "3D controller with vibration" technology.
Two years a go a jury said Nintendo was in the wrong, but the US Court of Appeals today begged to differ.
"Today the Federal Circuit's ruling confirmed that none of Nintendo's controllers infringe," said Rick Flamm, Nintendo of America's general counsel. "We appreciate that our position has been vindicated."
It was All three being sued. Microsoft settled Nintendo lost but then Sony managed to prove that there was prior art and so Nintendo gets its money back and Microsoft are probably thinking "Doh!".
It was All three being sued. Microsoft settled Nintendo lost but then Sony managed to prove that there was prior art and so Nintendo gets its money back and Microsoft are probably thinking "Doh!".
Ah, Even Sony settled and it was Nintendo siting parts of the Dual Shock as prior art. So a "doh!" moment for both Sony and Microsoft.
This yet another reason why I feel the 'jury of your peers' system is broken. The whole idea of a jury is destroyed when you let random people (of varying intelligence) decide the outcome.
But anyway it seems like a good call in the end, mainly because Anascape have done absolutely nothing with their designs to actually claim damages for.
This yet another reason why I feel the 'jury of your peers' system is broken. The whole idea of a jury is destroyed when you let random people (of varying intelligence) decide the outcome.
But anyway it seems like a good call in the end, mainly because Anascape have done absolutely nothing with their designs to actually claim damages for.
As opposed to the fact that the things they patented had already been done years before?
As opposed to the fact that the things they patented had already been done years before?
no, i'm just making an abstract comment on people who file patents and do nothing with them except sue a company around a decade later, although i did confusingly relate it back to this particular case.
As opposed to the fact that the things they patented had already been done years before?
no, i'm just making an abstract comment on people who file patents and do nothing with them except sue a company around a decade later, although i did confusingly relate it back to this particular case.
I do agree with you. I think patents should become invalid if the holder can not demonstrate at least a working prototype in a certain time period. Also there should be a better procedure to look for prior art and patents should be very specific. Lets face it, it is not as if the playstation pad was obscure when they filed this patent! Software patents should also not be granted unless they are complex algorithms (ie codecs etc), it is unbelievable that Amazon were allowed to patent their one click shopping!
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
