Nintendo ordered to pay $21 million to patent troll
By Thomas Ricker 
posted May 15th 2008 6:02AM
posted May 15th 2008 6:02AM
Remember Anascape Ltd, the little "gaming company" that sued Microsoft and Nintendo back in 2006 for controller patent infringement? Well, it's payday to the tune of $21 million after a jury found Nintendo's Wii Classic, WaveBird, and Gamecube controller designs all guilty of violating Anascape's patents. Nintendo will appeal naturally while Microsoft settled the case before the matter ever went to trial. Now go ahead and Google Anascape with the challenge of finding a single service or product offering. Oh, did we mention that they are based in the patent-lawsuit friendly state of Tejas? Patent Trolls? Oh, you betcha.Anascape... there is none.
tejas?
but i'm interested to see where this whole lawsuit will head.
whatever happened with the midway lawsuit?
We should pull a switcheroo and get Jack Thompson to sue them in Texas for infringing on his patented concept of being an asshole.
By which I mean, sue Anascape, not Nintendo. Durr.
Where is Tejas?
I believe it's somewhere near Texas.
If I'm not mistaken, for Spanish speakers, 'Tejas' and 'Texas' would both be pronounced the same, as the 'j' and the 'x' both make the 'h' sound in Spanish.
But I think the 'x' spelling is archaic; i.e., it's no longer used in Spanish.
If I remember rightly, 'j' is similar to 'h' but 'x' is more like 'ch'. I used to live near Valencia where the towns have names like Xiva (Chiva), Xeste (Cheste, where the Valencia MotoGP track is) and Vilamarxant (Vilamarchante). (Bits in brackets are the modern spelling, some signs still use the old spelling).
Tejas is a Native American (not sure which dialect) word for "friend". The information is difficult to find; but, Texas requires all students to take a course on Texas history in middle school. This information is covered during that course.
Also, I can't help but be a little annoyed by the stereotyping that Engadget just threw at us. It's pretty common knowledge on Slashdot that the patent lawsuits are all filed in a certain county. Which one? I'm not sure. It's a small county that seems to exist only for this purpose. The population is quite low from what I remember.
On my keyboard, Tejas is closer to Tehas and Tekas
In Spanish there are some exceptions with "x". While in most of the words this letter is pronounced as "ch" as Acaeris states, there are some words that is pronounced as "j" ("h" sound in English), such as: Mexico (pronounced as Méjico /SP/ or Mehico /EN/) and Texas (pronounced as Tejas /SP/ or Tehas /EN/)
:)
Zencyde, it's the US District court in Marshall Texas where these cases are all filed. The judge is corrupt to the core. his son is making millions. why? because if you hire him as your lawyer, even if he does nothing, his judge has a conflict of interest and can't hear your case. If you let this judge hear your case, you get IMPOSSIBLY short discovery periods, where Nintendo would have to produce every document relating to its controllers in a couple of weeks. The judge is abusive to major companies, and patent trolls treat his family to buckets of cash.
As your congressman why he hasn't been impeached.
The patent trolls like the federal judge there. Read all about it here:
http://www.technologyreview.com/InfoTech-Software/wtr_16280,300,p1.html?PM=GO
I really should bug my congressman on this one. It seems to be the only good way to get things done. : /
are there really this many serious posts about this? what the hell is going on with engadget today! rofl!
This is another one of those junk lawsuits that really hurts industry and innovation. Here is the troll that is actually behind the suit. http://www.altitudecp.com/index.html Enjoy :-p
What makes a troll a troll? If dude came up with a good idea and tried to sell it to Nintendo, and they say 'no', then go ahead and use the idea. Is he still a troll? Does innovation have to come from the major corporations of the world? Can not an individual or small company develop a patent and try to sell it? We're going to call this trolling? Why, because we lack the creativity to beat anyone to original ideas ourselves?
Wow James you actually have a good point. This person/small company could have created a great idea for a gaming console, as they obviously did, but they didnt have the resources (read: money) to develop a game console to use their great idea.
Okay, obviously you have visited the site I linked to or read anything about this case at all. The company holds patents on a box with buttons that you can touch, and an analog controller that you can push with your fingers.
That is a really broad patent, it doesn't cover anything real, the company has never produced an actual product. They have no annual budget and they offer no services, nor have they ever attempted to materialize their patented designs, as vague as they are. They don't even have a webpage. The company that is funding them, specializes in the protection of intellectual property. They are the epitomy of a patent troll. They fund the entire lawsuit and take most of the money won.
The point being that they are a blight on the entertainment industry, and though it has no real impact on nintendo this time, we should all remember the death and ressurection of dual shock. They have no right to what they are suing for and such bogus lawsuits should be banned.
im sorry to disagree but if they stole the inventions already patented they have to pay...and PAY ALOT!
Patents don't have to be inventions.
In this case it is merely an idea for some type of controller that vibrates. That is basically what the patent says.
It is equivelant to patenting the idea of some type of container for food and then suing Glad and every china maker.
Shyam, read the claims. They particularly point out what the applicant regards as the invention. The accused device must have each and every element of a claim to infringe the claim.
Hint: The claim requires more than "Claim 1. A vibrating controller."
yay for ill-tempered business men.
"that" not "which"
yeah, cuz Microsoft has never hurt industry or innovation with it's tactics, ever!
(mmmm...can you tast the bitterness?)
Their company name sounds more like Anal Scope, which I think would be more appropriate for a company of patent trolls.
I hope they choke on it.
My goal is to some day choke on 21 million dollars. Dare to dream.
Hilarious replies...like any of you lot would give up the chance of $21 million.
"No, no, tho i thought of the design and patented it, im all for innovation.
Tho im poor, you can keep your dirty millions"
Buffoon's
It isn't so much the idea of someone suing to keep their intellectual property safe as much as it is about a company that is trying to ride coattails of another for profits.
All the while, their precious patent remains sitting in a dusty cabinet somewhere, unused. Just like the NiMH battery patents that Chevron owns! ;D
You're totally right. You really can't blame anyone for trying to make an easy $21mil on something that doesn't involve hurting children or puppies. Not a single one of us would pass that up if given the opportunity.
It's the courts who should take the blame in letting something like this actually pass through. They're supposed to be the checks and balances.
Buffoon is what? Or, Buffoon owns what? Because that's what an apostrophe would mean.
Patents were originally granted to reward innovation (or rather importing ideas from other countries) by allowing you to a certain period to make a profit from your discovery.
Buying patents with no intention to ever produce anything is not in the spirit of things, especially in a country where patents are granted for extremely vague and/or obvious ideas.
To all of the armchair patent attorneys out there:
If these patents were of such disdainful merit:
1. Why did microsoft take a license?
2. Why didn't Nintendo just provide the court with the invalidating prior art?
3. Why did 13 people (judge included for JNOV purposes) find the patents valid and infringed?
Or are you guys just spewing propaganda on a topic of which you have no knowledge at all?
By the way, the purpose behind issuing patents is not to "reward innovation". It is to promote disclosure to the public in order to advance the useful arts. The US founding fathers (and the EPO creators) were much smarter than you know-it-alls.
And by using the term "patent troll", you're just another mouthpiece for Cisco and IBM, those same "multi-national corporations" that you hypocrites probably claim to oppose.
Haha... Andy's a patent troll.
Vidikron:
Actually, I'm one of the big bad corporate IP attorneys for companies like MS, Tyco, Boeing, etc.
However, my favorite work is for small companies and individual inventors who are trying to get "make or break" patents, or trying to enforce those patents that we've gotten for them.
That's why this "troll" stuff bugs me. It's just propaganda (like patent troll tracker, aka Cisco's chief IP counsel) to try and weaken the patent system so that companies like MS and Nintendo can get buy without paying any royalities to patentees. Think about it. If this "investment firm" hadn't spend (on average) 10mil of their own money to litigate this, then Nintendo would have successfully taken someone's work and investment and not paid them for it. Now if the patent system is weakened to the point where Nintendo knows they won't get an injunction against them (already happened in Ebay v. Mercantile Exchange) and they know that treble (triple) damages for willful infringement are unlikely (see Seagate), then why not just steal other people's ideas? No one is going to risk losing 10mil dollars only to get that same 10mil back, and individuals can't afford to do it anyway. If you can't enforce patents, why get them. If you can't protect your ideas, why work on them or disclose them to others? Weak patent systems prevent innovation by the smaller entities which often have the "best" "breakthrough" type inventions.
So what's your opinion on people that patent ideas with the sole intention of suing someone else after they do all the hard work of bring a product to market? I don't know if that's the case here, but that does seem to be the case all too often these days. Someone patents a fairly broad concept and then simply sits on it and shows absolutely real attempt to produce a product based on their patent. That stifles innovation.
That should read, "shows no real attempt". I started to type one thing and then switch to another.
Vidikron:
That never happens. Seriously. Individuals and small companies don't spend 20k+ (we do some in this range, but most firms start at 30k including prosecution and if BPAI action is necessary you're looking at more like 50k) just to get and "sit on" an issued patent.
The usual scenario is that someone gets a patent and then either tries to get investment money for a new company and/or shops the idea to existing companies in the industry if it's really an improvement to an existing, complicated product. If you succeed, you either start making it through your company (see Z4 technologies), or you license it to one of the companies already in the business.
However, the current modus operandi (MO) for large companies is to pretend that these guys and their patents don't exist. They either meet with them and simply steal the idea (maybe try to vary it JUST a tad). Or, they don't meet with them at all because they're going to do as they please in the first place without regard to these "small guys." After all, that guy's not going to put up 10mil to sue anyway, right? Besides, no individual has 10mil laying around to do that.
I personally find value in these "patent investment" companies. They risk LARGE amounts of their own money to enforce someone else's patents. And with the currently reduced value of patents (i.e., no permanent injunctions (thanks ebay) and no treble damages (thanks seagate)), they're essentially going to vegas and dropping 10mil on "black". That's a pretty big risk (albeit somewhat calculated) for a fairly small return on investment. So, these investment companies essentially provide a viable enforcement mechanism (which would otherwise be unavailable) for small inventors and small companies, and I therefore find them valuable.
Again, if you can't enforce your patents, why spend the time and effort to get them? And if you can't get them (i.e., existing players can freely use your ideas), why spend the time and effort to come up with something new?
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6906700.html
Uhmmm, this patent seems kinda vague....
Google Patent Search reveals nothing...other than the controller...
So if thats the only one I found how can they sue Nintendo for Gamecube's controller? It doesn't use any motion crap in it, does it?
$21 mil must be a drop in the bucket for a company like nintendo. The DS prints money.
$21 million is a lot of dosh that could be better spent on R&D.
Instead it goes to someone who has never done more than to file a patent for a vague 'product' they never intended on producing.
Patent trolls are scum of the earth, just coming up with extremely broad ideas and patenting them in the hope of making a quick buck (or 21 million for that matter) out of the big companies. A bit like ticket scalpers really
Why are these guys trolls? According to the courts they legitimately drafted a product that others with better access to resources stole and brought to market. Why does nintendo and microsoft get a free pass and yet companies like Meziu get shunned?
I swear for some of you, if Engadget say its so, then it must be right. Use your brains. There are alots of creative people out there that arn't part of corperate R&D departments that use patents to protect their ideas.
Also Thomas Ricker is bloger writer, what the hell does he know about the law? His 5 minute google research on this case is bullshit.
Well well, what a bunch of sour grapes. I wonder how many whiners here have ever even tried to patent anything. I wonder how many have ever developed any designs. Do any of the complainers even know what it takes to patent something? If it's so dang easy, get off your whiney butt and go get rich.
Hey, you could patent condescending, ignorant posts! And you've even got an example to back it up.
It depends on the circumstance. I don't know the details of this story, but some of you are assuming that this person must have presented their ideas to Nintendo or that Nintendo, because they have so much time to kill, had been searching through patents looking for one to steal.
So there's 2 types:
1. I come to you and say, "Look whut I done made!" and you say, "That there's a dumb ideer"... then later you steal it and make it for yourself. That's lawsuit-worthy, no doubt.
OR
2. You invent a video game controller that makes sandwhiches and gives blowjobs at the same time. You're a millionaire. My fat ass sees you on the idiot box with all your millions and I vaguely remember a patent I filed for a rubber vagina mp3-player/toaster that also plays Tetris. Convinced that you must have stole my idea somehow... I sue you. That makes me a worthless human being.
Also see, Gibson Guitars VS Rock Band.
Best. Analogy. Ever. You win.
Anything involving rubber vaginas AND sandwiches gets my vote.
Did someone pass out drugs to the jury before the trial? I just read the patent and the only real similarity between it and the wiimote is that it can control a gaming console and it vibrates.
Visited the link that was posted in an early response. Company claims to be an "intellectual property investor." That is the biggest croc of shit I've ever heard. Thats fancy speak for "We buy patents and sell them at ridiculous prices after someone else does the work of moving a product to market... or we sue the piss out of you." I for one am highly displease that this crap is clogging up our courts.
oh and btw i patent the idea of moving an electron through a metallic conductor, im gonna start suing ppl next week if they don't start handing over buttloads of cash
Sorry but the prior art will easily read on claims that broad.
I'll get it on file for 10k though if you insist on filing. 3k per Office action after that. First action should be expected in 2-3 years and final disposition (can't sue until patent issues) will be in 3-7 years. Let me know.
If you DID go through that like these guys did, then offered licenses to people who were stealing your idea, I'll bet you'd feel good about suing them and wouldn't be referring to yourself as a troll.
I thought one had to be practicing a patent in some way for it to be valid. It was never my understanding that you could file some paper, sit back, and sue. So where's their products?
That's what I thought, but it appears that this practice is more and more becoming similar to the idea of cyber-squatting which I think is ridiculous and should be stopped. I do think that there are many people out there with great ideas and no funds to produce those ideas and in some cases because of this they take their patents to large companies, expecting to get paid. In turn they get told no and then the company blatantly rips off the idea. However I think more cases nowadays have to do with the cyber-squatter type - people just filing away with no intention of ever making, just collecting. I think some laws need to get set against this.
They don't have any..... they're patent trolls. They buy up every conceivable patent, never actually make anything, and sit around suing everyone all day.
I HAVE PATENTED OXYGEN!
PAY UP
Just no. That's all I've got for you, no.
When you actually invent something, give me 20k, and I'll get a patent for you (assuming you actually invented something not taught by the prior art). It involves slightly more than "filing some paper and sitting back" as I'm sure you actually suspected. By the way, at 20k including prosecution, I'm cheap. Most US firms run about 30k total, and in the EPO, you're looking at around 40-50k depending on how it goes.
Practicing the invention is not required for enforcement, only a valid, ISSUED patent. You are disclosing your contribution to the useful arts in exchange for the right to exclude others from practicing your invention AS CLAIMED in any subsequently ISSUED patent for a period of 20 years from filing (plus or minus any patent term adjustments due to delay, usually up or down 3 years or less).
Havok (has no clue about patents or law suits).
You're right, trials are a snap. It's not like anything happens. Why did this take 2 years in a jurisdiction with a supposed "rocket docket" again?
I'll file that oxygen patent for you for 10k. I'm not saying you'll get a patent (because you won't due to prior art and subject matter issues) but I'll file it.
It's amazing how easily armchair attorneys can dismiss 2 years of multiple real attorneys' lives and the time and money spent by small inventors.
Seriously, as a small inventor, with the avg patent suit costing 10mil, how am I supposed to pay for that? Easy, I sell my patent to a patent investment firm that risks THEIR 10mil on enforcing my patent. How else would you suggest that I make my 20k investment in the patent alone pay off, not to mention my R&D time. Do you really think an individual can muster the resources to successfully sue Microsoft, Nintendo, IBM, HP, etc? No, they need these patent investment/enforcement companies to risk THEIR money. I personally consider a 10mil "everything on black" bet too rich for my blood (if I could even muster the 10mil to put on the table in the first place).
If Microsoft settled, perhaps they were hoping their settlement funds would fuel a more damaging lawsuit against Nintendo.
Or, as is more likely, they paid outside counsel to look at the patents and the prior art and issue an opinion. The opinion probably said "uh oh, patents valid, and you're probably infringing." So MS just went ahead and paid a resonable royalty instead of spending ~10mil defending at trial plus the infringement damages found by the court (another 20mil).
I mean, that makes business sense, but yeah, you're probably right. MS probably just said "SURE! Here's 20 mil, give Nintendo hell".
The name of the lawyer that represented Anascape in Anascap v. Microsoft is Anthony M. Garza, Anthony M. Garza is an Associate in the Dallas office of McKool Smith. Though lawyers sometimes don't like to reveal client details, I can't help but see the guy who assisted with Microsoft settling out of court not wanting to say a word or two. The court docs from Anascape are here [ http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/texas/txedce/9:2006cv00158/97919/ ] I'm sure there is a "Anascape DBA" line somewhere if anyone really feels like looking.
Dallas Office, McKool Smith TEL: 214.978.4243
i my self once almost filed for a patent once a long time ago on the advise of my friend who once work for one the so called intellectual properties investment company
i will tell u what he told me my patent idea was not that great he said that it didn't really matter becuz he could easily sell my idea to one the the investment companies when as i ask y would they buy such a lame idea
the respounce was they buy almost any idea it doesn't really matter what it is they don't make money off actually producing anything from it they just wait to see if anything comes out down the road t hey can sue over
basically he said works like this his actual words was here how the scam works they scroll pat office and look at trends then they pat some vague or ridiculous obvious idea
the vague part being the most important becuz almost any good lawyer can twist it in to what he wants lawyers hate detail they like things vague and obscure
to answer the question that some 1 ask before on y did 12 jury and judge rule for the pat trolls if there want true well i can sum that up with out a law degree just look at the oj Simpson case it called resomable doubt kinda works the same in civil cases
with really vague pat that got a lot room to argue any 2 bit lawyer would has no trouble twisting hings around that all it takes
not to mention my friend told almost always will side with small company cuz most jury don't really understand all tech stuff there talking about any how and figure a big in this case Nintendo company can afford to pay any how so no big deal
wel there my 2 cents on side note if u look at the history of the companies u will see most were original started by lawyers that should tell u something
sorry for the poor gramer i am using my phone right now and i am not verry good with it yet
Saying "a friend told me" doesn't make the information any more true.
35 USC 103 prevents the issuance of a patent that is obvious in light of the prior art. So your friend is full of it, and so are you.
Please stop spreading THIRD-HAND disinformation.
Which is it? Do they look through the patents and file on "obvious" trends (which costs a lot of money and never issues as a patent therefore preventing them from filing suit), or do they buy up validly issued patents on marginally valuable inventions and hope that someone wants to (or does) use the invention in the future?
http://www.google.com/patents?id=OLIVAAAAEBAJ&dq=anascape
Man that Patent coveres everything..
the buttons the d-pad hell it covers trackballs and those lil laptop button mouse pointers..
even rumble functionality:
A 3-D graphics controller used with a television based game according to claim 1 wherein said active tactile feedback vibration is provided by a motor and offset weight
wonder if they could sue all the 3rd party controller people.. looking thru the pictures gives you a better sence of the patent.. and the ideas therein..
as for um being trolls.. meh who knows .. but they definitely got a point that theres infringement there.. i mean how couldn't there be.. its a patent on "a controller" that does "something" using "circuitry" and involving "controlling" something ..
Wonder if theres a patent on Religion.. THE POPE'S GOING TO PAY!!!
The claim you cited refers back to claim 1 which means that it incorporates all of the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, to infringe that claim, you must also have everything described in claim 1, which I'm sure has a lot more limitations, but doesn't look as outlandishly broad as a dependent claim printed in the abstract without the independent claim from which it depends.
IMO, "trolls" are like he stated, people that patent ideas with the sole intention of suing someone else that happens to infringe on your rather broad patent. I understand the issue of startup costs, but no one says you have to start big. Too often it's quite clear that there was never any intention of bringing a patent to fruition.
I'm going to patent a thing that is able to cause one or more things to happen spontaneously and/or through things happening to it.
Andy I noticed you didn't answer Vidikron's question (at least not that I could see) and as someone that appears to have knowledge on the subject I too want to know what you think.
What is your opinion on the following:
Patenting an idea with the sole intention of sitting on it and not making a real attempt to produce a product or licence it.
The problem I have with this patent is that it covers input based on broad and vague wording. It does not ptant a product or product layout, but just the ability to translate tactile input into onscreen motion.
I'm sorry but there never should have been a patent granted for this. An idea to take electrical input and make it do something is not worthy of a patent.
This patent looks like it was stolen from somebody elses description of a product they saw soemwhere. That is why th ecompany is a "Patent Troll" they do not actually make anything they just buy patent for the explicit purpose of suing based on broad claims.
Andy if you are a lawyer surely you can tell the difference between patenting a product and patenting a vague description that should have been thrown out as soon as it hit the clerks desk.
The types of devices this patent covers have been around for 60 years or more in some form. Flexible membranes covering circuit boards to relay switching information.
This is total BS
2. A 3-D graphics controller used with a television based game according to claim 1 wherein said active tactile feedback vibration is provided by a motor and offset weight.
Sorry but the idea of attaching a weight to a motor can not and should not ever be a patentable idea. How you attach the weight and the size of the weight could be but not just the idea of a weight. What does Immersion have to say about this. Don't they have a patent for rumble. Or is it that they added the words 3-D and somehow that gives them a brand new or better idea.
Andy, the biggest problem is that not a single one of these patents would hold up in international court. In fact Nintendo was probably issued an international patent based on far stricter standards and should be enforced above this companies BS claims.
Please learn to read.
Each claim is not "a patent".
Each claim is not it's own "patentable idea."
The claim you reprinted includes the limitations of the independent claim from which it depends and further limits that claim.
Put your money where your mouth is. Show me the reference that predates the filing of this patent and teaches each and every element of the claims.
Neither the Nintendo lawyers nor the USPTO examiners could find the invalidating prior art, but I'm sure you're much smarter than all of them. Let's have it.
See this is where the rubber hits the road and where all of your "well, I'm sure this is old because I've seen it" goes down the toilet. PROVE it.
There's a thing called hindsight (what you're using) that you can't do in patent cases. You can't look at a patent and say well, this is obvious in light of its own disclosure. OF COURSE it's obvious AFTER you've read the patent and seen the product.
Here is the patent:
---------------------------------------------------------
1. A 3-D graphics controller used with a television based game, comprising:
a game, said game at least in part controlled by
circuitry, said circuitry located on
at least one sheet, said at least one sheet comprising:
a circuit board sheet connected to
a flexible membrane sheet;
a first element structured to activate
four unidirectional sensors, said four unidirectional sensors at least in part connected to said at least one sheet, said four unidirectional sensors useful to control said game;
a second element with structure to activate
a first two rotary potentiometers, said first two rotary potentiometers at least in part connected to said at least one sheet, said first two rotary potentiometers useful to control said game;
a third element with structure to activate
a second two rotary potentiometers, said second two rotary potentiometers at least in part connected to said at least one sheet, said second two rotary potentiometers useful to control said game;
an independent first button structured to activate
a first button sensor, said first button depressible by a single finger of a user, said first button sensor at least in part connected to said at least one sheet, said first button sensor creates simple switched On/Off data useful to control said game;
an independent pivotal second button structured to activate
a second button sensor, said second button pivots upon depression by a single finger of the user, said second button sensor at least in part connected to said at least one sheet, said second button sensor capable of outputing a proportional signal useful to control said game;
an independent pivotal third button structured to activate
a third button sensor, said third button pivotal upon depression by a single finger of the user, said third button sensor at least in part connected to said at least one sheet, said third button sensor capable of outputing a proportional signal useful to control said game;
active tactile feedback vibration detectable by the user of said game.
----------------------------------------------------------
The patent was filed in 2000 and issued in 2005. Every one of the above claims can have prior art cited. It is the definition of every input controller made including every joystick ever made. This is the textbook definition of a bogus patent.
Again, find the prior art that teaches each and every element of the claim.
Nintendo and the PTO couldn't do it, but let's see it.
I’m on your side Andy.
Patents, such as this one, are made available for viewing so that corporate attorneys can ensure that R&D isn’t infringing on the intellectual property another patent holder. If Nintendo’s legal team didn’t catch this as something that could be problematic then it’s their fault for not being thorough enough in their research.
Microsoft’s not exactly a company that rolls over on command, especially for tiny patent holding firms, so if they settled they probably recognized the merit in the plaintiff’s case. Nintendo should follow suit (no pun intended).
Patent Trolls = SCUM SUCKING BASTARDS
Hey all.
I am on the fence if this is patent trolling or not. I have to really look deeper into this particular case to determine what it is. However Andy, are you saying that patent trolling is a myth?
I think everyone should be reminded that Andy as a patent attorney is biased source as he benefits from this stuff.
On the other hand, don't listen to the idiots that say the "my friend said" BS. I can assure you that everyone who talks about what their friend said is a complete and total uninformed idiot who has zero critical thinking skills.
So Andy, I guess you must have a really light case load considering the fact that you can spend all day arguing on the Internet all day.
Patent trolling is a term invented by IBM's general counsel during the course of some of their litigation (no joke). It may or may not exist depending on how you define it. Seriously, try to define it. If you just use nonpracticing, then you're including people who tried but failed to bring something to market.
As to whether this abstract idea exists, asks yourself this: would you spend 20k over 4-5 years to get a patent and then sit on it until another company brings an infringing product to market? Or, would you actively try to bring it to market yourself or license your idea to someone who could?
Actually, I don't benefit from litigation. I benefit from large corporate clients setting filing quotas. I prefer small business clients with shoot the moon type ideas. So really, I'm on both sides. We all benefit from promoting the useful arts, so you decide the relevance of that.
As far as my workload goes, I'm coming out of a dark several months of 60-70hr weeks (mid-February till now). It's hard to find much motivation today.
Patent trolling is a term invented by IBM's general counsel during the course of some of their litigation (no joke). It may or may not exist depending on how you define it. Seriously, try to define it. If you just use nonpracticing, then you're including people who tried but failed to bring something to market.
As to whether this abstract idea exists, asks yourself this: would you spend 20k over 4-5 years to get a patent and then sit on it until another company brings an infringing product to market? Or, would you actively try to bring it to market yourself or license your idea to someone who could?
Actually, I don't benefit from litigation. I benefit from large corporate clients setting filing quotas. I prefer small business clients with shoot the moon type ideas. So really, I'm on both sides. We all benefit from promoting the useful arts, so you decide the relevance of that.
As far as my workload goes, I'm coming out of a dark several months of 60-70hr weeks (mid-February till now). It's hard to find much motivation today.
By the way, trolling and validity are separate issues.
Regardless of someone's situation, if they own a valid, infringed patent, they deserve to be compensated.
If an Examiner has failed in his duties and allows a patent having claims that read on the prior art, that bothers me. The Examiners are currently over-extended and need to be allowed more time to search the relevant prior art.
I really wish patents would require more strict definitions. Let say Nintendo develop a really neat controller like that Wii-thing. The implementation would be patented, i.e. the firmware, component layout etc. But not the general idea of the controller.
Let's face it, talk (and ideas) are cheap, what's expensive is actually making it into a working product or a working product idea.
The patent is was filed in 2000. The DualShock came out in 1997.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DualShock
How could they get a patent on this idea if it already existed and was public (i.e. Sony was not sitting on the idea, it had produced and was selling a product)?
@tsmvengy
the patent is describing the original dual shock
I was thinking that, as well
Wake up! The patent system is broken.
Patent trolls are real, and they are sickening.
A company with no products, 1 engineer, 30 lawyers and a 'license or litigate' business model is a PATENT TROLL.
The notion that patent trolls protect the 'small time inventor' is laughable, and merely a myth that the trolls create so they can sleep at night. The trolls buy patents from small inventors or distressed companies for pennies on the dollar, and then go looking for companies to sue. Patent trolls exploit weaknesses in the patent system for their own economic gain. Nothing else. They offer nothing to the economy. They stifle innovation, and distract resources from companies generating legitimate economic activity. Every dollar spent fighting or settling with patent trolls is a dollar that is not spent on creating true innovation and creating jobs.
The patent trolls exploit key weaknesses in the system:
1.) The USPTO is over-worked, under-informed and unable to effectively discharge its duties. They do not understand the technologies involved. They do not have time to fully research the prior art. The backlog of patent applications is staggering. The USPTO makes mistakes all the time. They grant vague 'patents of method' which are very open to interpretation. But even if a patent should never have been granted, or is obvious, PROVING invalidity is the burden of the defendant, and that is extremely difficult and expensive. After all, the patent has a government seal of approval. Your average jury member in Marshall, Texas is incapable of understanding a technology patent suit, and the government seal of approval is all he needs. The trolls know this and exploit it to the hilt.
2.) Most companies don't want to risk a trial with a jury that has no ability to understand the merits of the case. The trial by jury system depends, of course, on the jury members. Where can you find the least educated people in the entire country? In eastern Texas. Where are most patent suits filed? In eastern Texas! Don't you think it's odd that all the big high-tech companies are being sued in Marshall, Texas? I mean, who has even heard of it? (except for those of us familiar with patent litigation...and we know it all too well.) The trolls know that the companies they sue are scared to death of having their fate in the hands of jury members who haven't even graduated high school.
3.) Patent suits are expensive. It's usually cheaper to pay and make the trolls go away. So when you hear a patent troll trying to legitimize their
'technology' by saying that such-and-such company licensed it, please understand what really happened. The company in question would rather pay, say, $1M in license fees than $5M to litigate a patent suit, which they may or may not win. The trolls would also rather take the easy $1M than pursue an expensive case. So the sooner the extortion money is paid, the better.
4.) Trolls file their suits in the Eastern District of Texas becasue the Judge there is extremely plaintiff-friendly, and 90% of the time will not rule on plaintiff's motions. He just punts decisions to juries. His attitude seems to be 'Why take a position, which could be overturned on appeal and make me look bad? Let the jury decide.' And few defendants want to risk a jury trial. The judge is accountable for nothing and to no one. The costs of the trial, the costs of his indecision, are invisible and irrelevant to him.
5.) Most of these patent trolls are companies that no one has ever heard of, while the defendants are large, well-known and seemingly 'rich' companies. The average jury member (who flunked out of the 9th grade and is unemployed) thinks of the troll as the 'little guy' while the name-brand company is the 'big guy' who can afford to pay. I know this is true, because I have seen the commentary from actual jury members. It's a complete perversion of reality, since the trolls are often backed by rich VCs, but that fact is inexplicable to the typical jury member who has no idea what a VC is. But he sure knows who Nintendo is.
My experience dealing with patent litigation was shocking and horrifying. It offended every moral fiber of my being. I thought, How can this be going on in America? This is extortion with a government seal of approval!
But it is real. Our patent system is terribly broken.
Does anascape have any products out? I googled it and found nothing.
For all of you that says this company is a troll just because it filed a patent and has no product, you have to realize that a lot of companies do that nowadays, including your beloved Nintendo, Microsoft, Google, etc.
Companies file patents into their IP portfolio whenever they have an idea, whether they plan to make a product on it or not. Many times, large corps use these these threaten each other when there are infringements. In your definition, that would make Nintendo a troll too, and they deserve what they got.
As far as this company goes, you think the patent was vague because controllers with those mechanisms seem so obvious nowadays, but I am sure someone had to come up with that idea... don't be bitter because it wasn't you who filed it.
Kick ass! Now Anascape can incorporate!!
Exactly how can they claim :
2. A 3-D graphics controller used with a television based game according to claim 1 wherein said active tactile feedback vibration is provided by a motor and offset weight.
When this specifically has been covered in all of Immersions previous claims and subsequent lawsuits?
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,424,333.PN.&OS=PN/6,424,333&RS=PN/6,424,333
Or is the difference that one is referencing a computer peripheral and one is referencing a 3-d graphics controller?