Joystick Port Patented, Now the Lawsuit 222
Panaqqa writes "It appears that Fenner Investments, a Texas based patent troll, is at it again. This time, they are suing Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo for infringing a patent they hold on joystick ports. Perhaps they felt they needed a "Plan B" now that their lawsuit against Juniper Networks, Nokia, Cisco, Alcatel and Ericsson is not going so well."
I'd like to see (Score:4, Insightful)
Patent Troll list (Score:5, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll [wikipedia.org]
And.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'd like to see (Score:0, Insightful)
Anyone read Patent-ese? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Business based on law suites (Score:4, Insightful)
How does this relate to the culture of the US? Sure, there are some companies that are trying to make money as patent trolls, just as there are always people trying to get a quick buck. But the vast majority of Americans are never a party to a patent lawsuit.
The idea that you can only get ahead by suing the pants off of some corporation.
There are a lot of companies out there that innovate and compete in order to get ahead. Just because there are a few examples of cases like the above does not mean that it's the standard operating procedure for a business.
In typical slashdot style, somebody has taken a situation, and extrapolated it out to now cover the entire population of the United States. The above case sure does seem frivalous, and it in no way represents the culture in the US.
-dave
Re:This is junk (Score:5, Insightful)
Filing date: Jul 10, 1998
Does more really need to be said?
Prior art... Nintendo 64 (Score:5, Insightful)
Their patent applies to analog joysticks. It's a method of sending the information of a joystick's position as a digital pulse, therefore requiring less wiring for multiple analog sticks and buttons. The controller could send the information about the various states of the buttons and joysticks encoded as a digital stream.
Unfortunately for them, they applied for the patent in '98, long after the N64 was released. I don't know for sure, but since the N64 controller only has (IIRC) 3 wires in the cable, they must be using something like what this patent describes.
It's interesting that they applied for the patent two months after the release of the dual-shock controller for the PS1. IMO, someone saw the dual shock and patented the idea on how it would work.
Re:Capping the maximum damages awarded. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Prior art? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Prior art? (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, it would be nice if a patent could be voided on the grounds that it was deliberately worded to obscure similarity to prior art.
Re:Capping the maximum damages awarded. (Score:3, Insightful)
<pedant>when talking about money M usually means thousand, and MM million.</pendant>
Re:I'd like to see (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Prior art? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Business based on law suites (Score:3, Insightful)
That's true, but I think the parent was referring to the lawsuit lottery mentality whereby people dream of ways to snare wealthy corporations by suing them in unanticipated ways and thus get rich. In the US, no jury's findings are binding on another's, so if the first jury says, "placing a warning this way would have sufficed", and the corporation switches to that way, the next jury is free to rape it again for insufficient warning. Plus, juries are likely to rule out of sympathy ("Well, the doctor didn't really do anything wrong, but gee, it would really suck to be the patient now, and gosh, those insurance companies sure have unlimited money, so what the hell...") or desire for fame ("Hey, we can't get on Oprah unless we rule against the big evil corporation, and gosh, isn't that plaintiff's attorney so sweet the way he smiles...").
Does it happen in other countries? Sure, but not nearly as often. For example, Japan has a similarly developed economy but only a fraction of the lawyers per capita and "investment" in the legal system.
To many, this behavior is wrong (it certainly introduces greater inefficiencies), but at a minimal level, it provides the benefit of killing off the weak.
Well, it provides the "benefit" of killing off those who are weak *along a certain dimension*, but being weak along that dimension rarely means you're a drain on the economy somehow. Sure, Mr. Viklstein can't defend his bank against arsonists, but that doesn't mean he's a drain on the economy.
That said, I agree there should be a sort of "loser pays" system for frivolous suits like you've suggested.
Re:I'd like to see (Score:1, Insightful)
And if getting pissed at the misspelling of 'loser' makes me a troll then I'll proudly wear my label as troll.
Re:Fixing the system (Score:4, Insightful)
The fundamental problem is that the potential cost of losing is so low that it is becoming commoditized, which is why we're starting to see patents being bought and sold in bulk.
My recommendation for patent reform (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'd like to see (Score:3, Insightful)
I've heard some excellent ideas here but (Score:2, Insightful)
The only thing I can think of is to patent a method of "Reducing and preventing severe head pain, through the application of a system which regulates the velocity of any high density object as it approaches the cranial system. The forumla for the appropriate approach is F=MA, where F is less than painful"; and then suing the patent trolls for infringement. Of course, I wouldn't settle out of court; I'd demand an immediate cease-and-desist.
Not smashing yourself over the head with blunt objects? Hey... that's *my* idea!
Bogus claims describe a PC Joystick (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is junk (Score:5, Insightful)
However, it is still neither non-obvious nor particularly inventive, to the people whose opinion should count (of course, the people whose opinions count in the USA are MBAs, PHBs, Lawyers and just about anyone other than engineers!).
Asking USPTO folk to judge patent novelty is a bit like those stereotypical primitives on a tropical island who are wowed by the god-like power of motor boats and airplanes. People judging the validity of patents are, almost necessarily, unqualified: the people who would be qualified either detest patents (most engineers, not just in software, btw) or can earn far more actually working as engineers or both. So you end up with, well, weenies, in charge of handing out 20 year monopolies.
Re:Prior Art anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
A Fascinating Patent (Score:4, Insightful)
An explanation for those who don't want to read the patent:
An anlog joystick is pretty much a variable resistor. In order to convert this into a digital domain, the resistance must be measured. We know that the resistor itself can be used to change the discharge time of a capacitor -- this is common. Meauring the discharge time means determining the time the capacitor goes from one voltage to a lower voltage. Which, by its very nature is a "pulse".
And this patent seems to cover all such interfaces in the "joystick" domain.
Now, I can come up with alternate methods for reading the resistance. First one (off the top of my head), is to use a series of resistors controlled by a latched value to produce a reference voltage which is then sent through the joystick resistance. The final output is run through a gate which triggers at a reference voltage. Via search, we can determine the target joystick resistance. (I would probably use a binary search). But this is not any where NEAR as simple or obvious as the R-C approach.
Now, the R-C approach has been used for other variable resistors (prior to 1998) -- the "joystick" application is the only new thing. I used it myself in the 80's. Just never for a joystick (not being into gaming). Its main benefits are that it needs only a single input pin and the circuit is simple. But, given those constraints it is obvious.
Oh well -- go patent trolls. Sure glad I am not in the US.
Re:Prior art? (Score:3, Insightful)
"The patent system is cumbersome, imperfect, costly, etc. but it is also the best system to stifle innovation by anyone not able to field a thousand lawyers to protect themselves from someone who patented an obvious technology after it had been in existence for 20 years due to an idiot in the patent office."
Re:Capping the maximum damages awarded. (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of the patents we see today are stupid, transmitting email wirelessly over a tcp connection...durr. They're granted because the examiners have -zero- clue what they're doing in most cases... and if you don't like the examiner you got, feel free to resubmit till you get one stupid enough to grant your inane bullshit.