Nintendo escapes patent troll in appeals court -- thanks to Sony
By Sean Hollister 
posted April 14th 2010 3:13AM
posted April 14th 2010 3:13AM
posted April 14th 2010 3:13AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
talk about moral victory. they probably spent way more than $21 million in legal fees.
@Eraser
haha true.
So Sony's dual-shock saved Nintendo's @ss.
Shouldn't Nintendo thank them one-way or another?
If I were Sony I would sue Nintendo if they didn't
Moral: hit Ctrl-S after each design and have alot of money handy!
Its a fish-eat-fish world with patent trolls everywhere, buy Palm!
@Eraser
No, sir, this is no moral victory. Overall, Nintendo did spend millions to fight this case but probably well less than $21mil. The average patent litigation case costs $3-10mil for a case this size. But the important thing is, this is a REAL victory, for common sense and a victory in the war against patent trolls, which is something we can all cheer about.
@tonicboy no, the only party that's victorious is patent lawyers, pretty much everybody else loses
@Kangal
You mean, crtl + Shift + S.....your gonna wanna save ever version you have encase the initial and final versions are completely different, which they will be.
@abedinthehouse
i think the end moral of the story is you just don't Fuck with Sony.
Kinda ironic considering Sony stole their controller design from the SNES.
@Elranzer How havent you been banned? You're such a troll
@Eraser
Nelson: Ha-ha!
Wow, so Sony and Microsoft paid when they were not guilty of patent infringement? Do they get the money back?
Will this happen every single generation?
@Ridgecity
No they don't get the money back
No this won't happen every generation. They may get sued, but all they have to do is point to this case.
@Ridgecity Only MS settled, Sony appearantly wasn't sued..
So, actually Sony should sue MS en Nintendo.. hihi...
@SuperDre
Sony wasn't sued because they licensed the patents back in 2004. So, they paid but proactively.
@Ridgecity: Actually MS should sue Anascape [A] to recoup their funds. The settlement was essentially compensation for MS breaching a A's patent, a patent which is invalid because the design, for lack of a better word, was created by Sony. I'm sure that MS's lawyers were watching this case and will hop all over A as soon as legally possible.... pending any appeals that A may bring
@Ridgecity
the whole point of patent-trolls is that you can make it cheaper for them to pay you, then fight you in court.
Its basically corporate blackmail.
These patent trolls are actually incredibly well-organized businesses usually funded by investor money from large hedge funds, etc. They go around buying small patents in bulk, from small or bankrupt companies, for peanuts. Then a group of lawyers go out to try to extort money from companies.
The US patent system needs to be changed. Patent trolls are uniquely American.
In Japan its close to impossible to patent-troll, because there is precedence against it, the case of ADC Tech. vs. NTT. Basically, you get your patent revoked, if you buy purchase the patent with the sole intention of suing people.
Its a matter of common sense, in Europe most patent trolls are from American firms (like Infineon vs Rambus), but nowhere near the levels of patent trolls as the US.
We've been trying to change it. In 2005, there was the Patent Reform Act, which failed because of patent-troll lobbyists, then there was the Patent Reform Arm of 2007, again lobbyists hired by lawyers shot it down.
Now wer're trying the Patent Reform Act of 2009, which is dramatically weakened in language. But it still hasn't passed..
Patent trolls really piss me off. I am glad to see that there is still SOME semblance of logic within the US legal system.
Patents have their place, and I know that they are important to protect intellectual property but it just seems that in recency they are being abused for the pursuit of money rather than protecting an idea.
@JKooL
The US patent system was created for the sole purpose of ensuring that only the patent holder could make money. Credit for ideas use copyright.
@JKooL The worst bit is that when you have a genuine case of patent infringement, there's absolutely no assistance or automatic protection for the little guy - he has to fight his own legal battles. Just take a look at James Dyson vs Hoover.
Good on them. Fucking patent trolls.
@ChazClout
An ironic statement coming from someone who supports a company that is doing the same damn thing(your avvy if not clear)
@JebusChrist I also support HTC and Google & Android with my Nexus One (and HTC Hero prior to that). I also support Microsoft with my many purchased Windows licences. I also support canonical being an Ubuntu user. I also support Nintendo and Sony with the Wii and PS3 respectively.....
Unfortunately the avatar size limits stop me from putting all of these company logos in. :(
Fail
@angelnilo06 More like Wintendo!
(OK, that was one bad pun....)
@ChazClout it wasn't a pun. absolutely no ambiguity there...
So Sony can sue Nintendo?
Sony should sue Nintendo, then.
/s
@Coufu No, cause they didnt patent it
@Coufu Yea if Sony had the patent then sued... Nintendo could just blast their asses back for the playstation move and break even.
@jbreez
Actually if you'd watched ANY of the videos posted on here you'd know Sony has prior art for the Move dating back to around 2000.
Also, Sony and Nintendo probably have cross-licensing agreements already.
Sony sue Nintendo over controller design??
Have you ever compared the PlayStation controller to the SNES controller?
@jbreez Except move operates completely the opposite that Wii does.
@Elzanatroll: And PS1s controller is nothing like SNES.
No, Sony doesn't own that patent either ;-)
Prior art doesn't mean priorly patented.
@fiduce A patent is really just to protect your 'art' in a legal/financial sense. However, if you're art is already out in the public sphere, and widely produced for that matter, you don't need to worry about a patent if you aren't trying to make money off of it. Which obviously wouldn't be the case here. But anyone who's taken a semester of Intellectual Property knows that these guys would't be able to patent 'art' that was previously produced by someone else. I'd be like engadget not copyrighting their logo, using it for 5 years, and person X trying to lodge a CR patent after that amount of time.
I'm assuming this just invalidates the patent that was held by the troll? If so, good news!
So when is the patent system getting that well-needed overhaul? Anyone?
@KupoCheer 21/12/2012 (UK date format) as far as I am aware
Dear Sony,
F##k yeah
Signed
Reggie Fils-Aimé
trolll? isn't that kinda bias?
Actually it is not necessarily true that Microsoft gets nothing back. Though not common, I have seen and drafted settlement agreements which call for a refund on the license/settlement fee if the licensed patent is subsequently invalidated as happened here.
This is getting out of control eh?? See what I did there?
Knowing nothing about the case other than a few net postings, it is also not at all clear to me that Anascape is a troll in the classic sense. I note that the patent was assigned to Anascape prior to issuance, and that, at the time, Anascape and the inventor were both located in Carson, NV. It is more than possible that Anascape is just a holding company set up by the inventor to hold his own patents. This is a very common set up. So, while Anascape may not have been actively making gaming controllers, it may still be linked directly to the inventor and the invention in the patent, which is not what we usually think of as a patent troll. Trolls buy up patents they had nothing to do with for the sole purpose of litigation.
@Rufus H
Good point - I think we should all be a bit more careful before making judgments based on the often small about of information that we get about a topic.
Why should you be able to patent something like a controller? I mean I know this gets tossed around every once in a while, but this literally is like patenting a steering wheel on a car. I mean unless there is something else here I don't understand.
Ha! Suck it troll! Go Nintendo :)
Sony sues Nintendo in 3..2..
No they don't. Sony does not have a patent on that form of controller. As they don't have a patent, they are in no position to sue Nintendo. Read the info on the story before commenting please.
A horrible day for patent fascism... :(
I guess none of the big gaming companies profiting from this controller design actually have the patent for this then.
I wonder which Microsoft controllers were being called on by this patent, Xbox, Xbox 360, or somewhere in their PC line up? (Sidewinder?)
As far as I see it, the Gamecube controller has a lot less in common with the Sony Playstation DualShock Controller than the Xbox and 360 have in common with the PS DS Controller. Which makes it surprising that Nintendo actually lost whereas Microsoft had it settled...
I wonder if Nintendo will send a fruit basket over to SCEJ.
Yeah, I didn't think so either.