Nintendo, Sony face new patent suit.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Disgusting. Kind of like with Immersion, these guys filed a broad, speculative patent with the hope that someday the back of the napkin sketch would bear a passing resemblance to someone's final product sometime in the future. The original purpose of patents was to give innovators/risk takers a window of exclusivity for their products, which is a wonderful thing because if there was no reward for innovation, few would innovate. Nowadays the patent system is being increasingly abused by speculators, who tend to file faster than innovators because innovators only patent what they have done or are well on the way to doing, not something they have merely considered.
Too bad time travel is still impossible. If it wasn't these clowns could go back and sue Atari for their 2600 wireless controllers, which probably had as much to do with the back of the napkin sketch as Sony and Nintendo's do. But the system is what it is, so I wouldn't be shocked if the company winds up getting rich off the sweat of another man's brow, to quote Andrew Ryan.
Considering the expense of getting a patent and the fact that more than half the patents applied for dont result in a patent I dont think your concern is valid. Read the patent claim at issue in this case. Its not some broad idea, its a very specific and narrowly drafted statement of a device that might likely describe exactly how to make some aspects of the Wii remote over a decade before it was commerically used. The inventor even gives some example uses for controlling lights and audio equipment etc. It could be that the inventor tried to market his invention but there were no takers at the time. Bottom line, there is a lot of info on this case we dont know, and we cant really predict how this case will go, but its more often than not a misconception that there are just "greedy" people out there with patents praying on poor little billion dollar game console makers. If anything its probably the opposite, big game consoles makers ignore obvious patents and rely on the holder to enforece his rights instead of licensing the technology on the front end.Disgusting. Kind of like with Immersion, these guys filed a broad, speculative patent with the hope that someday the back of the napkin sketch would bear a passing resemblance to someone's final product sometime in the future. The original purpose of patents was to give innovators/risk takers a window of exclusivity for their products, which is a wonderful thing because if there was no reward for innovation, few would innovate. Nowadays the patent system is being increasingly abused by speculators, who tend to file faster than innovators because innovators only patent what they have done or are well on the way to doing, not something they have merely considered.
Too bad time travel is still impossible. If it wasn't these clowns could go back and sue Atari for their 2600 wireless controllers, which probably had as much to do with the back of the napkin sketch as Sony and Nintendo's do. But the system is what it is, so I wouldn't be shocked if the company winds up getting rich off the sweat of another man's brow, to quote Andrew Ryan.
CarnageHeart
I have nothing wrong with true innovators seeking exclusive rights to their hard work and ingenuity. With that, Copper Innovations has a huge credibility gap to overcome in this instance. I'm with Carnage on this one.
This is another case of a broad patent that was filed without any semblance of intent of producing any such product (speculation). Now that Sony and Nintendo are doing their work for them including picking up the tab on production costs, advertising, R&D, and all the overhead involved and now these hacks show up to reap the rewards and subsequent residuals? What a load of horse ****.
You can't tell me these guys aren't reading the news and previews where they would have known exactly what control schemes Sony and Nintendo were implementing into their respective consoles. They waited for the cash to start piling up (right after the holiday season too I see) to strike to make a quick buck off the backs of others, plain and simple.
I don't need to read the patent to know that this lawsuit is sheer nonsense, especially when the Blu-Ray remote control is named in the suit as an infringing product (what, these guys invented Bluetooth and Infrared as well?). Sounds like Al Gore saying he invented the internet.
For me, this is the sentence that most jumped out:
"Copper Innovations Group is seeking damages plus interest, legal fees, and an injunction permanently prohibiting Sony, Nintendo, or their agents from infringing upon the patent."
Forcing Nintendo to make a new controller for the Wii could destroy the console, and cripple Nintendo as a company. Like Marcus pointed out if the company was solely interested in protecting their patent then they should have filed as soon as possible. The fact that they waited until now, combined with the terms of the lawsuit, suggests that they are much more interested in wringing as much money out of Sony and Nintendo as they can, rather than protecting their patent from infringement.
I agree with THE_DZA. Sony and Nintendo deserve to get sued if they are making money off of a technology that someone else patented. It's their own fault for not doing their research. I'm betting that everyone complaining about this would be on the phone witha lawyer in about 10 seconds if it was their patent that was getting infringed upon. As to why Microsoft isn't included in the suit, there's really two possible reasons. Either Microsoft saw the patent and designed their controllers with technology that didn't infringe on it, or the company that owns the patent contacted them about the infringment and they worked out a licensing deal rather than get sued (much like they did with the Immersion patent). Both choices are much smarter than what Sony and Nintendo have apparently done, which is decide to try and win in court (which Sony has already tried to do with Immersion and failed).RMGreenIn some cases I would agree with that sentiment, but not this one. So what, we're never supposed to have wireless controllers because some obscure company filed a patent that they are never going to use, and probably had nothing to do with gaming in the first place? This seems like a misuse of the patent system to me.
After reading through the patent, my first impression is that the lawsuit could apply to any wireless computer mouse. However, reading GameSpot's article, it looks like the infringement has to do with how one device can keep track of several wireless controllers.
Setting aside the question of how the Copper Inovations Group knows that these devices infringe on its patents (truthfully, I think it's a stab in the dark), they're probably right that at least the PS3 controllers are using the technology described in patent #5,485,171.
Wireless mice have a one-to-one relationship with the devices that recieve their signals. This is done by varying the frequency that each mouse uses very slightly. In this way, I couldn't buy a wireless mouse and use it on someone else's computer, even if it's the same model. As far as I can tell, there are two ways to tell wireless devices apart: their frequency, and their datastreams. Truthfully, I think that the Wii is in the clear on this one. Anyone who read the Wii manual knows that to set up a new controller for your Wii, you have to synch it with your system. During this time, the Wii is scanning for other controllers, probably by checking for signals in the designated frequencies for the Wii. In this way, the Wii is using a tried-and-true method for connecting to wireless devices.
PS3 controllers, on the other hand, need no setup. They connect right out of the box. For this to work, either the PS3 needs to be scanning for a large range of signals at all times, or the PS3 just has to respond to data streams that say "Hey, I'm a PS3 controller!". In that case, the controllers would be differentiated by a unique key that they send to the PS3 with every action. This is exactly what Copper Innovations Group is claiming.
To be sure, the unique key is a far more elegant solution than having several frequencies, but if Copper Innovations really has the patent on using unique keys, then Sony might be in trouble.
As a side note: I have no problem with inventors getting paid for their ideas, and if Sony did in fact steal this idea then they deserve to be sued. BUT...if Sony independently invented this technology (a similar thing happens in math and science all the time), then I don't think that Sony should have to pay. I guess that's what the trial is for.
I dont know where to start but with the obvious -- "You can't tell me these guys aren't reading the news and previews where they would have known exactly what control schemes Sony and Nintendo were implementing into their respective consoles." Like when? Back in 1996 when they thought of the thing they were reading the Wii previews? Thats the year the N64 came out! Your just not thinking this through with the facts. Also they dont have a credibility gap, they have a patent. When you get a patent you create a legal asumption in your favor. Thats why the process to get one is so hard.I have nothing wrong with true innovators seeking exclusive rights to their hard work and ingenuity. With that, Copper Innovations has a huge credibility gap to overcome in this instance. I'm with Carnage on this one.
This is another case of a broad patent that was filed without any semblance of intent of producing any such product (speculation). Now that Sony and Nintendo are doing their work for them including picking up the tab on production costs, advertising, R&D, and all the overhead involved and now these hacks show up to reap the rewards and subsequent residuals? What a load of horse ****.
You can't tell me these guys aren't reading the news and previews where they would have known exactly what control schemes Sony and Nintendo were implementing into their respective consoles. They waited for the cash to start piling up (right after the holiday season too I see) to strike to make a quick buck off the backs of others, plain and simple.
I don't need to read the patent to know that this lawsuit is sheer nonsense, especially when the Blu-Ray remote control is named in the suit as an infringing product (what, these guys invented Bluetooth and Infrared as well?). Sounds like Al Gore saying he invented the internet.
MarcusAntonius
PS3 controllers, on the other hand, need no setup. They connect right out of the box. For this to work, either the PS3 needs to be scanning for a large range of signals at all times, or the PS3 just has to respond to data streams that say "Hey, I'm a PS3 controller!". In that case, the controllers would be differentiated by a unique key that they send to the PS3 with every action. This is exactly what Copper Innovations Group is claiming.
To be sure, the unique key is a far more elegant solution than having several frequencies, but if Copper Innovations really has the patent on using unique keys, then Sony might be in trouble.Magus2914
Sorry Magus, but I believe you are badly informed...
In order to connect a sixaxis to one PS3, you need to plug it through the USB cable. That's the only way to authenticate the controller on each PS3.
In some cases I would agree with that sentiment, but not this one. So what, we're never supposed to have wireless controllers because some obscure company filed a patent that they are never going to use, and probably had nothing to do with gaming in the first place? This seems like a misuse of the patent system to me. I understand your frustration and worry because you like the Wii or PS3, trust me the inventor here doesnt want to stop the sales, he wants the companies to license his patent. An injunction is just one item of leverage that a patent holder has to negotiate. Sony and Nintendo, if the patents are valid would need to license this technology to keep selling it. Its a cost of doing business for them and they would always take that option rather than let an injunction happen.For me, this is the sentence that most jumped out:
"Copper Innovations Group is seeking damages plus interest, legal fees, and an injunction permanently prohibiting Sony, Nintendo, or their agents from infringing upon the patent."
Forcing Nintendo to make a new controller for the Wii could destroy the console, and cripple Nintendo as a company. Like Marcus pointed out if the company was solely interested in protecting their patent then they should have filed as soon as possible. The fact that they waited until now, combined with the terms of the lawsuit, suggests that they are much more interested in wringing as much money out of Sony and Nintendo as they can, rather than protecting their patent from infringement.
[QUOTE="RMGreen"]I agree with THE_DZA. Sony and Nintendo deserve to get sued if they are making money off of a technology that someone else patented. It's their own fault for not doing their research. I'm betting that everyone complaining about this would be on the phone witha lawyer in about 10 seconds if it was their patent that was getting infringed upon. As to why Microsoft isn't included in the suit, there's really two possible reasons. Either Microsoft saw the patent and designed their controllers with technology that didn't infringe on it, or the company that owns the patent contacted them about the infringment and they worked out a licensing deal rather than get sued (much like they did with the Immersion patent). Both choices are much smarter than what Sony and Nintendo have apparently done, which is decide to try and win in court (which Sony has already tried to do with Immersion and failed).Archon_basic
One more point regarding all of you talkign about why MS is not involved and why this seems like just a patent on a "wireless" issue. I think Gamespot got the story wrong, or at least a little confused by not doing their research fully (surprise surprise). The part you guys are talking about is only part of the patent and the most missleading. If you read it closely the patent describes more clearly sort of a free floating hand held mouse that doesnt have to be on a surface to work. Think of a device like a track ball inside of a mouse that you hold in your hand. Kind of like the way the Wiimote knows how you are tilitng it. From the patent: "In particular, the present invention relates to a means of generating command and/or cursor position control through the use of a remote manipulandum. When in operation, the apparatus does not require a dedicated surface or placement in a fixed position, thereby providing an arrangement which is portable and convenient." "Accordingly, the primary object of the present invention is to provide a computer input apparatus which the user may move about in virtually any dimension while exercising control over the host computer. This flexibility is achieved by means of a physical design which facilitates both hand-held and stationary desktop operations; and by providing electronic support for a plurality of communication modes and control functionality. This invention will also allow the user to perform functions, such as the control of the movement of a cursor on a video display, without the use of a large dedicated surface. Finally, the invention has incorporated many ergonomically advantageous human-computer interactions, such as the creation of a device which can be manipulated by a human user's natural pointing finger to select and control functions of a computer or other apparatus without having to be close to the apparatus being controlled."THE_DZAJust to clarify my earlier comments: While I would rather not see Nintendo and/or Sony get saddled with a huge lawsuit my main source of anger was what seemed like a frivolous lawsuit. Now, from what you've posted just now it does sound like Copper has more of a case, but I still take issue with the timing. Once again, this doesn't seem like it's a matter of protecting a copyright, but rather a grab at a huge settlement from companies that developed this technology on their own and made it profitable (something Copper hasn't done). As Marcus was trying to point out earlier Copper Innovations should have contacted Sony and Nintendo when the respective controllers were unveiled and either worked out a deal then or demanded they use other technology that didn't (allegedly) violate the copyright. Instead what they have seemingly done is sit on this patent until both systems have become established, then filed a lawsuit that would force the defendents to pay virtually whatever Copper Innovations wants if the lawsuit goes in their favor. I'm not arguing the legality of it, but rather whether or not it's ethical. And, if I am reading the case right, I don't think it is.
[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]I dont know where to start but with the obvious -- "You can't tell me these guys aren't reading the news and previews where they would have known exactly what control schemes Sony and Nintendo were implementing into their respective consoles." Like when? Back in 1996 when they thought of the thing they were reading the Wii previews? Thats the year the N64 came out! Your just not thinking this through with the facts. Also they dont have a credibility gap, they have a patent. When you get a patent you create a legal asumption in your favor. Thats why the process to get one is so hard.I have nothing wrong with true innovators seeking exclusive rights to their hard work and ingenuity. With that, Copper Innovations has a huge credibility gap to overcome in this instance. I'm with Carnage on this one.
This is another case of a broad patent that was filed without any semblance of intent of producing any such product (speculation). Now that Sony and Nintendo are doing their work for them including picking up the tab on production costs, advertising, R&D, and all the overhead involved and now these hacks show up to reap the rewards and subsequent residuals? What a load of horse ****.
You can't tell me these guys aren't reading the news and previews where they would have known exactly what control schemes Sony and Nintendo were implementing into their respective consoles. They waited for the cash to start piling up (right after the holiday season too I see) to strike to make a quick buck off the backs of others, plain and simple.
I don't need to read the patent to know that this lawsuit is sheer nonsense, especially when the Blu-Ray remote control is named in the suit as an infringing product (what, these guys invented Bluetooth and Infrared as well?). Sounds like Al Gore saying he invented the internet.
THE_DZA
I'm not sure where to start but with the obvious--"Back in 1996...." Nice try, but purposefully taking my statement out of context isn't going to uphold your argument, hate to break it to you.
If you want to talk about the facts, yes, I read the patent and it is IMO, far too broad and I'm thinking that this was intentional. Patents weren't meant to futureproof extortion.
If Copper were really serious about this, they would have to go after every arcade manufacturer as well that implemented a similar technology years before Nintendo did it on the Wii. And even then, Copper likely has no case as Nintendo and Sony could merely point to something as simple as acordless mouse or even a wireless controller to make their case, after all, the patent-5485171 is described as a "Handheld Computer Input Apparatus." (source freepatentsonline.com) You'll pardon my skepticism here, but there are a great many handheld devices that interacted with a "computer" well before 1996.
I'll be genuinely surprised if this suit isn't thrown out of court.
[QUOTE="THE_DZA"][QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]I dont know where to start but with the obvious -- "You can't tell me these guys aren't reading the news and previews where they would have known exactly what control schemes Sony and Nintendo were implementing into their respective consoles." Like when? Back in 1996 when they thought of the thing they were reading the Wii previews? Thats the year the N64 came out! Your just not thinking this through with the facts. Also they dont have a credibility gap, they have a patent. When you get a patent you create a legal asumption in your favor. Thats why the process to get one is so hard.I have nothing wrong with true innovators seeking exclusive rights to their hard work and ingenuity. With that, Copper Innovations has a huge credibility gap to overcome in this instance. I'm with Carnage on this one.
This is another case of a broad patent that was filed without any semblance of intent of producing any such product (speculation). Now that Sony and Nintendo are doing their work for them including picking up the tab on production costs, advertising, R&D, and all the overhead involved and now these hacks show up to reap the rewards and subsequent residuals? What a load of horse ****.
You can't tell me these guys aren't reading the news and previews where they would have known exactly what control schemes Sony and Nintendo were implementing into their respective consoles. They waited for the cash to start piling up (right after the holiday season too I see) to strike to make a quick buck off the backs of others, plain and simple.
I don't need to read the patent to know that this lawsuit is sheer nonsense, especially when the Blu-Ray remote control is named in the suit as an infringing product (what, these guys invented Bluetooth and Infrared as well?). Sounds like Al Gore saying he invented the internet.
MarcusAntonius
I'm not sure where to start but with the obvious--"Back in 1996...." Nice try, but purposefully taking my statement out of context isn't going to uphold your argument, hate to break it to you.
If you want to talk about the facts, yes, I read the patent and it is IMO, far too broad and I'm thinking that this was intentional. Patents weren't meant to futureproof extortion.
If Copper were really serious about this, they would have to go after every arcade manufacturer as well that implemented a similar technology years before Nintendo did it on the Wii. And even then, Copper likely has no case as Nintendo and Sony could merely point to something as simple as acordless mouse or even a wireless controller to make their case, after all, the patent-5485171 is described as a "Handheld Computer Input Apparatus." (source freepatentsonline.com) You'll pardon my skepticism here, but there are a great many handheld devices that interacted with a "computer" well before 1996.
I'll be genuinely surprised if this suit isn't thrown out of court.
Sorry but your post said that these guys were looking at previews of games as a basis for their suit, but the fact is they invented the technology way prior so I dont know what you are saying about being out of context. Also if you read the patent you would understand that the gamespot article is not really acurate, this is about hand held interface devices that can sense tilt ect, like the two controllers subject to the suit. The system is not perfect, but trust me being intentionally broad is not somethign you can do in patent law, there are elements you have to prove about your patent to be successfull and the patent office is not going to grant you a patent that is overly broad.Just to clarify my earlier comments: While I would rather not see Nintendo and/or Sony get saddled with a huge lawsuit my main source of anger was what seemed like a frivolous lawsuit. Now, from what you've posted just now it does sound like Copper has more of a case, but I still take issue with the timing. Once again, this doesn't seem like it's a matter of protecting a copyright, but rather a grab at a huge settlement from companies that developed this technology on their own and made it profitable (something Copper hasn't done). As Marcus was trying to point out earlier Copper Innovations should have contacted Sony and Nintendo when the respective controllers were unveiled and either worked out a deal then or demanded they use other technology that didn't (allegedly) violate the copyright. Instead what they have seemingly done is sit on this patent until both systems have become established, then filed a lawsuit that would force the defendents to pay virtually whatever Copper Innovations wants if the lawsuit goes in their favor. I'm not arguing the legality of it, but rather whether or not it's ethical. And, if I am reading the case right, I don't think it is. Frankly I dont know what Marcus was saying, I think he thinks this Copper guy thought this up in 96 in anticipation of the Wii or something. I think you are saying, why wait to file your suit till now (as a side note his motive has nothing to do with the validity of the suit). Here are the reasons. -- you want to sue someone with money or it isnt worth it. Someone unsuccessfull uses your invention you have no incentive to enforece your rights to the invention. -- maybe the inventor might not have been aware that his invention was part of these devices at first -- most likely scenario, the filing of the lawsuit is way furhter down the chain of events than we know, there may have been settlement talks or attempts to work out license agreements long before the suit was filed. The time between when you sue someone and when you make your first demand can be a long time. These consoles have only been out for 14 months.[QUOTE="THE_DZA"]One more point regarding all of you talkign about why MS is not involved and why this seems like just a patent on a "wireless" issue. I think Gamespot got the story wrong, or at least a little confused by not doing their research fully (surprise surprise). The part you guys are talking about is only part of the patent and the most missleading. If you read it closely the patent describes more clearly sort of a free floating hand held mouse that doesnt have to be on a surface to work. Think of a device like a track ball inside of a mouse that you hold in your hand. Kind of like the way the Wiimote knows how you are tilitng it. From the patent: "In particular, the present invention relates to a means of generating command and/or cursor position control through the use of a remote manipulandum. When in operation, the apparatus does not require a dedicated surface or placement in a fixed position, thereby providing an arrangement which is portable and convenient." "Accordingly, the primary object of the present invention is to provide a computer input apparatus which the user may move about in virtually any dimension while exercising control over the host computer. This flexibility is achieved by means of a physical design which facilitates both hand-held and stationary desktop operations; and by providing electronic support for a plurality of communication modes and control functionality. This invention will also allow the user to perform functions, such as the control of the movement of a cursor on a video display, without the use of a large dedicated surface. Finally, the invention has incorporated many ergonomically advantageous human-computer interactions, such as the creation of a device which can be manipulated by a human user's natural pointing finger to select and control functions of a computer or other apparatus without having to be close to the apparatus being controlled."Archon_basic
[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]Considering the expense of getting a patent and the fact that more than half the patents applied for dont result in a patent I dont think your concern is valid. Read the patent claim at issue in this case. Its not some broad idea, its a very specific and narrowly drafted statement of a device that might likely describe exactly how to make some aspects of the Wii remote over a decade before it was commerically used. The inventor even gives some example uses for controlling lights and audio equipment etc. It could be that the inventor tried to market his invention but there were no takers at the time. Bottom line, there is a lot of info on this case we dont know, and we cant really predict how this case will go, but its more often than not a misconception that there are just "greedy" people out there with patents praying on poor little billion dollar game console makers. If anything its probably the opposite, big game consoles makers ignore obvious patents and rely on the holder to enforece his rights instead of licensing the technology on the front end.Disgusting. Kind of like with Immersion, these guys filed a broad, speculative patent with the hope that someday the back of the napkin sketch would bear a passing resemblance to someone's final product sometime in the future. The original purpose of patents was to give innovators/risk takers a window of exclusivity for their products, which is a wonderful thing because if there was no reward for innovation, few would innovate. Nowadays the patent system is being increasingly abused by speculators, who tend to file faster than innovators because innovators only patent what they have done or are well on the way to doing, not something they have merely considered.
Too bad time travel is still impossible. If it wasn't these clowns could go back and sue Atari for their 2600 wireless controllers, which probably had as much to do with the back of the napkin sketch as Sony and Nintendo's do. But the system is what it is, so I wouldn't be shocked if the company winds up getting rich off the sweat of another man's brow, to quote Andrew Ryan.
THE_DZA
Your answer doesn't make much sense. Neither expense nor a failure rate precludes speculative patents (large scale currency speculation is quite expensive and sometimes results in big losses, but it happens). If the amount of money one can extort from innovaters is large enough, speculation makes sense. Like I said, the problem is that while inventors file patents for things they have actually done, speculators file patents for what they suspect others will do. Then when someone turns theory into reality, the jackals converge.
Some lines from the big lebowski: Walter Sobchak: Were you listening to The Dude's story, Donny? The Dude: Walter... Donny: What? Walter Sobchak: Were you listening to The Dude's story? Donny: I was bowling. Walter Sobchak: So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know... Actually its not really your fault, the Gamespot article doesnt do a very good job of explaining what the patent claims. It really describes the wireless tilt sensing features in the Wiimote and Sixaxis. Think of a description of how to turn up a stereo, or dim the lights, but with a wireless device.This guy's patent is BLUETOOTH.
Tell me again why he's sueing Sony and Nintendo, and not Bluetooth? Perhaps some "incentive" from Microsoft?
Zeke129
[QUOTE="THE_DZA"][QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]Considering the expense of getting a patent and the fact that more than half the patents applied for dont result in a patent I dont think your concern is valid. Read the patent claim at issue in this case. Its not some broad idea, its a very specific and narrowly drafted statement of a device that might likely describe exactly how to make some aspects of the Wii remote over a decade before it was commerically used. The inventor even gives some example uses for controlling lights and audio equipment etc. It could be that the inventor tried to market his invention but there were no takers at the time. Bottom line, there is a lot of info on this case we dont know, and we cant really predict how this case will go, but its more often than not a misconception that there are just "greedy" people out there with patents praying on poor little billion dollar game console makers. If anything its probably the opposite, big game consoles makers ignore obvious patents and rely on the holder to enforece his rights instead of licensing the technology on the front end.Disgusting. Kind of like with Immersion, these guys filed a broad, speculative patent with the hope that someday the back of the napkin sketch would bear a passing resemblance to someone's final product sometime in the future. The original purpose of patents was to give innovators/risk takers a window of exclusivity for their products, which is a wonderful thing because if there was no reward for innovation, few would innovate. Nowadays the patent system is being increasingly abused by speculators, who tend to file faster than innovators because innovators only patent what they have done or are well on the way to doing, not something they have merely considered.
Too bad time travel is still impossible. If it wasn't these clowns could go back and sue Atari for their 2600 wireless controllers, which probably had as much to do with the back of the napkin sketch as Sony and Nintendo's do. But the system is what it is, so I wouldn't be shocked if the company winds up getting rich off the sweat of another man's brow, to quote Andrew Ryan.
CarnageHeart
Your answer doesn't make much sense. Neither expense nor a failure rate precludes speculative patents (large scale currency speculation is quite expensive and sometimes results in big losses, but it happens). If the amount of money one can extort from innovaters is large enough, speculation makes sense. Like I said, the problem is that while inventors file patents for things they have actually done, speculators file patents for what they suspect others will do. Then when someone turns theory into reality, the jackals converge.
I do think the economic risk is a significant bar to the type of "speculative patents" that you are describing. Also the elements you are required to prove to get a patent contain usefulness. The Supreme Court has heard cases regarding the usefullness argument before, the one that comes to mind is an inventor that came up with a chemical process that yielded a type of steroid that had no known use at the time. The court basically said that its not enough to say A+B=C when C doenst have a use. However that is not a problem in this case. I think back in 1996 the inventor described serveral usefull applications for his invention, though he was describing something akin to a wireless handheld turning of a knob, to turn up music or dim lights. We dont know the history behind what his efforts were to put his invention into use, but we dont need to. The current scheme doesnt require that you describe something useful and then make X-million dollars, only that you describe something useful. I think clearly what he described had use, he just didnt figure out that the best way to make money off of it would be virtual nose-picking in WarioWare, as opposed to dimming the lights with a handheld. Again the case could go either way, there are a lot of things we dont know, but I think your beef is more with the system as it is today, but i think given the facts i know this guy is totally within that system.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment