Nintendo controllers facing possible ban

Judge reportedly set to stop sales of Wii Classic Controller, WaveBird, and standard GameCube pads after game maker loses patent suit.

It was already known that Nintendo was on the hook for $21 million in a patent suit over the company's controllers. A Texas judge last week denied the game maker's request for a new trial, and Bloomberg is reporting that the judge will issue a ban to halt sales of the controllers tomorrow.

However, if the ban were to be issued, it would not take effect until after a Nintendo appeal on the original ruling was resolved. Nintendo could also avoid the ban by posting a bond or putting royalties into an escrow account, according to Bloomberg.

The original suit sought to have Nintendo's Wii Classic Controller, Wii Nunchuk, GameCube controller, and GameCube WaveBird all deemed in violation of an Anascape patent for a "six degrees of freedom" interface device. A jury found that all of those products, with the exception of the Wii Nunchuk, infringed on Anascape's patent.

Microsoft was also named as a defendant in the suit, but settled out of court before it went to trial. Sony has licensed the patent for use in its own products since 2004.

397 Comments

  • Element_Seraph

    Posted Aug 24, 2008 9:40 pm PT

    Oh, so Anascape files lawsuit a DECADE after the infringement began?

    If I were the judge, I'd say '**** you, Anascape. If you wanted the cash from the copyright infringement, you should NOT have waited a decade so you could claim a fat stack of money.'

    But however, the judge is from Texas and so is Anascape. The judge favors one side over the other...

  • D3j1k0

    Posted Aug 21, 2008 8:52 pm PT

    I just LOVE how "companies" that have never done anything except file insanely broad patents can win any kind of patent lawsuit.

    I could probably file a patent for a "controller that does stuff" and win random patent suits

  • UltimateXShadow

    Posted Jul 25, 2008 8:07 pm PT

    Man, **** Anascape.

  • matrixman2k

    Posted Jul 25, 2008 3:25 pm PT

    I say pay up then hire some poeple to disable 'em, simple. Should also tell others who are looking to make a quick way of living from others hardwork think twice.

    I'd do it. Ha, ha, ha...

  • Gamerguy92

    Posted Jul 25, 2008 7:55 am PT

    Man, this sucks.

  • kavadias1981

    Posted Jul 25, 2008 12:30 am PT

    Is this just in America or does it affect the rest of us?

  • jamesh-42

    Posted Jul 25, 2008 12:02 am PT

    Note that paying off a patent troll like this is not necessarily a sign that you believe that the patent is valid.

    Sony and Microsoft could easily have decided that defending the lawsuit would be more expensive than paying the licensing fee. Furthermore, having their competitor (Nintendo) as the sole target of the lawsuit is a further advantage. None of this requires that they believe the patent to be valid.

  • necronaux

    Posted Jul 24, 2008 1:00 pm PT

    Like Nintendo is going to loose. And WHY is the GameCube even involved?

  • StillWingless

    Posted Jul 24, 2008 12:01 pm PT

    This must be why Nintendo is shipping the balls off of their Wii remotes right now. I can barely find places to put them in my store right now. I think they were anticipating this.

  • Weddum

    Posted Jul 24, 2008 10:01 am PT

    People really need to get over themselves. Sure the Wii is nothing but a machine for casual gamers, but let it have its fun while it lasts. Stop trying to suck money out of it that isn't yours.

  • KhanhAgE

    Posted Jul 24, 2008 7:05 am PT

    I really gotta stop reading news piece about patents infringements. It always seems to be the same thing. Some guy patents an incredibly broad idea (I repeat incredibly broad idea) and only decides to cash in a long/really long/very long/ awfully long time after their patent has been infringed upon.

  • retrofraction12

    Posted Jul 24, 2008 5:24 am PT

    Nintendo should defiantly go all the way in this case.

    first of all I have seen many posts about how the pattion was made after the nintendo 64 came out. it was written very generically to cover all sorts of game pad sticks.

    generally I see some of the connections ,but why haven't they sued logitech of other brands that make game pads for PC's?

    why didi it take them so long to file the suit if the game cube has been out for 7-8 years?

    the classic controller direction stick goes in 8 directions not 6.

    why can a judge in texas ban all nintendo controllers in USA even though he does not have the power to do so? ( only federal court can deal with foreign affairs and trade transactions : after 1844 after the revolution states lost the power to block trade of good to their state or other states and is given in the constitution to the government which texas is not all the government)

  • Blackhawk692

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 9:19 pm PT

    "Microsoft was also named as a defendant in the suit, but settled out of court before it went to trial." translates into Microsoft signed a check. Money is epic

  • WeWerePirates

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 9:09 pm PT

    Mr_Bodywave
    "It looks pretty cut and dried to me. They patented the idea and either they copied it (likely) or came up with the same idea themselves (unlikely)."

    It is pretty likely that some one is copying some one but lets look at the dates. Patent application is first filed late 2000, yet the first pads which would be in breach of this patent came out over three years before that... hmm.

    The US courts are pretty awful when it comes to dealing with patents. I can think of one example where the same patent was used to bring lawsuits in several countries and in every country the case was thrown out and the patent invalidated because of glaringly obvious prior art... except in the US where the complainant won.

    You don't need to have been at the hearings or read the transcripts to know that there is something blatantly wrong. You just have to look at the patent and realise that it describes something that existed long before the application was filed. Asides from prior art the patent office should never have allowed the patent because it essentially patents 6df input device, possibly with buttons without actually giving a design for a 6df device. That's like patenting cold fusion to generate energy, possibly using magnetic induction. Actually it's not quite, it's like waiting for some one to invent cold fusion and then speculatively patenting it hoping they haven't so you can gore them for money.

  • cybergooch

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 8:23 pm PT

    Unless you were present at the court hearings, how can any of us say the court decision was wrong? I know you want to defend your "favorite", but do you honestly think that things in America are so screwed up that the judges will make a totally biased and uninformed decision? There are reprocusions to that, and most career orientated judges won't make rulings that they know will be overturned. Judges have huge egos to stroke, and having another judge overturn their verdicts gets them a bit pi**y. Face it, Nintendo fought this for principle and lost. Can't blame for trying, but appeals court may be the only way out from losing their livelihood.

  • Mr_Bodywave

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 7:52 pm PT

    It looks pretty cut and dried to me. They patented the idea and either they copied it (likely) or came up with the same idea themselves (unlikely). MS and Sony knew they would lose so did what they should have done in the first place--pay to license the patent. Nintendo lost because they broke the law. It would be hilarous if they refused payment and required them to remove the controllers. Wonder if it would hurt Wii sales?

  • haloshalo

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 6:24 pm PT

    sorry nintendo , every one wants a piece of the cake .
    This remind me of hyenas trying to steal some of the lions hunt ?

  • dzimm

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 5:35 pm PT

    INMATEofARKHAM: "...successful companies at that, don't give money away for no good reason... Yet both Sony and MS did just that."

    It's not nearly so cut and dried. Sony and Microsoft may have decided it'd be cheaper to settle than to fight it in court while Nintendo looks to be fighting this out of principle.

  • greenbuk75 posted Jul 23, 2008 4:36 pm PT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    greenbuk75

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 4:36 pm PT (hide)

    Ive always said nintendo has gone down the drain..first they only make mario based games now they cant even get their own ideas

  • quincy0191

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 4:30 pm PT

    Quick! Someone help me come up with a zany, new, broadly-based idea to patent and then attack a major corporation with when they market something sort of similar to it! Before they come up with themselves!

  • lamprey263

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 4:21 pm PT

    I found a link about the lawsuit if anyone is interested, and goes over Anascape's claim. It's a brief from Microsoft [LINK].

    So if I get this right, the "six degrees of freedom", which in short they call the 6DOF, concerns the ability to control the user along 6 axes which include up/down, forward/back, left/right, along a single input device, so I'm failing to see how any one of these companies violated this patent since for starters it was written poorly. Mainly their claim to this single input device include controller sticks and rollerballs. Though, this patent doesn't take into account that no single controller stick or rollerball provided by any of these companies controls these 6DOF with a single input device. For instance, you're left analog stick may control forward/back & left/right or up/down & left/right motion, but you need another input device to control the missing axes, such as a second analog or one of the various buttons on the remote. I believe this by itself should void the patent claim by Anascape. Though, they also claimed another patent including bi-directional sensors as it pertains to 6DOF, which is iffy, but I'd throw this case out to because the bi-directional censors in the patent mentioned refer again to its use in 6DOF sticks or balls. Though, again, no controller truly does have 6DOF, so instead of the single input item being the analog stick or rollerball, Anascape tried claiming the entire controller was the single input device, language much different than their claim about just the sticks violating the patent, and this change in claim leaves contridictions in the patent. Though Anascape was blowing a lot of smoke in this lawsuit, their claim to the flexible membrain sensor sheets sounds to be their most legit claim. Though, I'm curious as to how/why the Texas court decided to favor Anascape, since there were a lot of BS claims in their lawsuit, I'd like to at least know which claims the court felt were valid and which ones weren't.

  • Losarii

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 3:57 pm PT

    This is the stupidest thing i have ever heard. They are just hungry for money.

  • thestickman

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 3:37 pm PT

    Well, I guess we can forget about them re-releasing the Wavebird in white like they did for the wired GameCube controller in Japan (with a longer cord too). That pretty much sucks hardcore nuts.

    Anybody know the address of this place so we can kill all the workers? (just a joke, don't piss your pants)

  • mr_laurie

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 2:17 pm PT

    Having looked at their "patent" filing online I think Anascape are are bunch of f*ckheads.

    Check out the filing for patent 06102802 on the US patent office web site, particularly pages 2 & 3. The date on the patent is 2000 - 3 years after the N64 came out and numerous years after the SNES came out.

    Anascape as a company should crawl into a hole and die.

  • Grantsplace2004

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 1:53 pm PT

    Nintendo should have settled outside of court right when this was brought up, no matter how stupid anascape is for doing it, you cant fight and win a patent infringement suit when your product really does incorporate some of the ideas.

  • Darkman159

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 1:49 pm PT

    Why doesnt Nintendo just pay a lot of money to this freak company and buy the patent? I mean, what the hell does Anascapae win by making Nintendo ban theiur controller?... NOTHING!!! Just make a compromise and stop suing each other's butts.

  • cfamgcn

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 1:42 pm PT

    Ridiculous... if you patent a idea, use it!

  • mortono

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 1:28 pm PT

    want to make a quick buck? file a patent and then wait for somebody to infringe on it.

  • DarkWarrior42

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 1:25 pm PT

    Why are they getting sued over controllers ???

  • iamthespd

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 1:25 pm PT

    deadkingdg

    "delta3074
    i think they should introduce a law that you can't patent something unless you are going to actually manufacture it. anyone can think of an idea, patent it then lie in wait for people who 'unintentionally' make something 'similar' and mug them for millions, Anascape should be ashamed of themselves"

    Manufacturing something can cost millions in R&D. Most companies cannot afford to jump into the unknown. They got the idea first, good for them. Usually, companies check if something similar was patented, consult their lawyer and pay the fees. It's MUCH less expensive than if you go to court, and it saves you from having to work on the idea."

    The purpose of the patent law is to protect inventors from having their ideas stolen. That's fine. This issue is when companies patent ideas that they have no intention of bringing to market and just sit on the patents until someone comes up with a similar idea. That does nothing but LIMIT the advancement of ideas and technology. That is where patent law fails.

    As some others have stated, if you're going to patent an idea, you better damn well be prepared to bring the concept into reality. If you're not going to even build a prototype, you lose your patent. If you're not going to contribute anything to society with your patent, let it go. If you wait 7 years to enforce your patent, you should lose it. To claim that they're protecting their IP is a joke; they're only after the cash.

  • VanIII

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 1:11 pm PT

    If stupid lawsuits like this keep happening there would probably start banning games as well just for it looking like another game.

  • lamprey263

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 1:10 pm PT

    Jeez, just about every idea is patented these days, what is this "six degrees of freedom" anyways?

  • INMATEofARKHAM

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 1:10 pm PT

    Considering Microsoft and Sony both settled and/or licensed the patent for use I think Nintendo could be HONESTLY at fault here.

    I don't know for sure, I don't work in a patent office nor am I a lawyer, but I do know companies, successful companies at that, don't give money away for no good reason... Yet both Sony and MS did just that.

    So yeah. Nintendo is going to lose this one and should just ask how much the license costs and accept the cost of doing business.

  • PacoL250

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 1:08 pm PT

    Time to find a WaveBird to finish my collection; already have 2.

  • shabowboi345

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 12:37 pm PT

    What someone won't do for money. Jeez It's PS3 Dueshock all over again.. God ,componies are just trying to swueeeze money out of hardworking componies like Sony and Nintendo. I Appluad Nintendo for trying thier hardest and wish them luck, then again if they buy the judge which is quite possible considering how corrupt the world is today then why should it stop here? Soon it's going to be lawsuits on Bottons.. and controller design...

  • rennik_l

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 12:32 pm PT

    I'm all for protecting patent holders. But this is just stupid, if this Anascape or whatever has a patent for this controller config, why don't they have a website that I can see what the company is, and why haven't I seen their controller that they got the patent for? and while I'm at it, why the hell didn't this lawsuit appear back in 2000 when the gamecube was released if it's controller is a violator of the patent?

  • budboarder posted Jul 23, 2008 12:22 pm PT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    budboarder

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 12:22 pm PT (hide)

    Good, just upholding the law. Stupid nintendo should have done thier research first.

  • prdroog

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 11:56 am PT

    Patents rock!

  • dzimm

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 11:47 am PT

    deadkingdg: "They invented something first and they want the money from their idea."

    They didn't invent jack. They simply filed the paper work for an obvious idea and then waited around for the industry to naturally move in that direction with hopes that someone would start handing them money.

    I think Nintendo needs to challenge Anascape to produce an actual controller following the patent specifications to the letter to determine if the patent is for a viable design and to see if Nintendo's designs are appreciably similar to qualify as a patent violation. My guess is it'll be no on both counts.

  • VelociBlade

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 11:32 am PT

    This is crap. Just premium crap. I don't know WHAT is going on in that judge's head but he is either on LSD or Anascape is on crack. I'd say more, but grigjd3 has already summed it up.

  • plague32390

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 11:14 am PT

    Big business is ripping off the little guy? GTFO!!

  • grigjd3

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 11:11 am PT

    I've said this before but I think it needs to be said again. Is this a case where patent law allows a company to research new technology profitably, or is this really a case where patent law is in the way of companies delivering a product to the consumer? I mean, really, Anascape feels that because they came up with the idea of "six degrees of freedom" (a d-pad and two analog sticks) that they deserve a cut of the money. Really, they're argument is that this was exceptionally hard to come up with? Was Anascape really the first to come up with this idea or merely the first to file a patent on it? I never heard of a patent suit for joysticks. There were literally hundreds of joysticks designed and sold for PC in the eighties and nineties but not one patent suit. The reason - no patent suit could rake in twenty million dollars for going after a joystick.

  • TimeToPartyHard

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 11:11 am PT

    This is ridiculous. Sure, it's entirely possible they had some form of patent that could possibly be linked to the controllers mentioned, but I'd like to see this 'substantial evidence' at least. "A remote that controls 6 types of motion at once," is far to broad to be seriously considered a patent.

  • stilesman

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 11:07 am PT

    ha!

  • twolegsbad

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 11:04 am PT

    Sony actually did something up-front?

  • grigjd3

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 11:04 am PT

    lextexrex
    "bochero
    "In Soviet Russia, controllers ban you!"

    lol. Any reference to family guy somehow always deserves a +1."

    What's funny, most people probably think that line is a family guy original.

  • phase4illini

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 10:45 am PT

    This kind of patent "litigation" has become such a thorn in big business' side that major corps like Intel, Sony, and MS have opened univeral contracts, in which any and all other corps are allowing to contribute to buy into the purchasing of a patent, so that the technology is available to a greater majority of the industry, and subsequently reducing costs overall by avoiding insanely expensive patent litigation.

    That being said, there still needs to be an effective statute of limitations on holding patents. Patents terms should be heavily limited, no greater than 5 years, unless it can be proven that the patent is actually in use for production or sale, at which point is can be continually renewed every 5 years for the remainder of a standard 30 year patent life. This would provide inventors ample time to market a design, acquire financing, and begin production while preventing think-tanks from squatting on designs for the sole purpose of litigation.

    At the same time, patents should not be granted for oppressively vague patents like this one. A working prototype should also be delivered within a set period of time. Patent Law as enforced today only serves to weaken and limit new development and discovery here in the states. And they wonder why the U.S. is lagging in legitimate scientific contributions in recent history.

  • juddstudd

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 10:45 am PT

    ...could the wii be the first console to die by lawsuit?!

  • lextexrex

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 10:40 am PT

    bochero
    "In Soviet Russia, controllers ban you!"

    lol. Any reference to family guy somehow always deserves a +1.

  • Videogamefan123

    Posted Jul 23, 2008 10:37 am PT

    My question is how are gamecube controllers involved at all? The patent in question is one of motion sensing and gamecube controllers have none. Also the classic controller.

advertisement

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!