And Of Course: Nintendo Sued For Patent Infringement Over Wii Devices
from the only-a-matter-of-time dept
These days it's almost guaranteed: if you do something innovative in the tech world, bringing a new type of product to market successfully, get ready for that lawsuit. If anything, it's almost surprising that this lawsuit wasn't filed earlier, but research firm HillCrest Labs has sued Nintendo for patent infringement over its Wii controller. And, of course, HillCrest gets two cracks at it, since the company is using the popular loophole to both file a lawsuit in court and ask the International Trade Commission (ITC) for an injunction against Nintendo.At this point, plenty of companies are recognizing that it's just too expensive to actually innovate. If you do something well, you're only going to get sued by someone else who hasn't been able to innovate as well as you. While we can point to the various examples of companies getting sued, it's also worth thinking about all the companies who don't even bother to innovate, recognizing it's just not worth the expense of these lawsuits. The patent system is functioning in exactly the opposite manner from its constitutional purpose. It's not promoting the progress, it's hindering it by making sure that "progress" has a toll booth attached to it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: controllers, innovation, itc, patents, wii
Companies: hillcrest, nintendo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hillcrest Labs probably has the right to sue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hillcrest Labs probably has the right to sue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hillcrest Labs probably has the right to sue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hillcrest Labs probably has the right to sue
Amazingly poor reasoning Mike. The truth is that there is an incentive for others to invent a better solution, if they can. And if they cannot then they have to pay the toll.
Your problem is that you, probably with good cause emphasize with those who cannot invent.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.patentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hillcrest Labs probably has the right to sue
What incentive is that exactly, the fun of being sued?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hillcrest Labs probably has the right to sue
Generally they are warned repeatedly and when they ignore those warnings they get sued. And this is EXACTLY the way the patent system is designed to work.
The solution to this is really simple, acquire rights before use of another's property!!!
The patent system is designed with a toll booth to compensate inventors for the time, energy, and costs of their producing an invention and then TEACHING the invention through a patent with the purpose of advancing the arts. This system has produced the greatest economic powerhouse the world has ever seem.
Today that economic system is strained in large part because of widespread theft of American ingenuity.
You really need to work on those critical thinking skills. Being a wordsmith without the ability to see what the underlying story is pretty much useless. Repeated failure to learn from such mistakes makes the person making them pretty much useless.
You really need to spend some time learning about the patent system and learning about economics rather than writing idiotic drivel like this.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.patentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wish I got sued by a patent troll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah Hillcrest has products but why are they filing suit?
There product is a device pointer that looks a little like the mario kart wheel. That is used for IPTV and a media center type application.
Overall i'm not that impressed, they should have released this years ago if they are so cutting edge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What Trash!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copy Right/Patents
Same with patents. The instead of a legalistic view, they need a functional deffinition. The instant exercising one's power of patent ownership hurts the public, they are bared from exercizing the ownership on whatever action.
Even if Nintendo wass infringing, putting an injuction would be concidered hurting the public and would no be allowed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copy Right/Patents
They wont get an injunction . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Again why shouldn't their work be protected
Why exacly shouldn't this company be paid for their invention being used by Nintendo? In this case they have working models of their patents. If Nintendo did cross the line and used their ideas, the they deserve to be paid for them.
If you wish to complain about patents, then harp on the thousands of them that have been granted to companies and individuals who a) never intended to create anything from their ideas or b) cannot even prove that their concept is possible.
I agree that the copyright and patent laws are far from perfect but allowing anyone to take and profit from another's work/ideas is far from the solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again why shouldn't their work be protected
That's a mighty big IF there. What if Nintendo proves it just came up with the idea around the same time without knowledge of this patent. Should they still have to pay ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again why shouldn't their work be protected
You're assuming someone can "own" an invention. Why should that be the case? What if Nintendo came up with the idea on their own?
In this case they have working models of their patents. If Nintendo did cross the line and used their ideas, the they deserve to be paid for them.
What's wrong with just competing in the marketplace. You don't say that there can't be any Burger Kings because McDonalds came up with the idea first, right? We let the marketplace and competition sort it out and everyone's better off.
If you wish to complain about patents, then harp on the thousands of them that have been granted to companies and individuals who a) never intended to create anything from their ideas or b) cannot even prove that their concept is possible.
Sure, we point that out too, but that doesn't mean that situations like this one aren't an abuse worth discussing as well.
I agree that the copyright and patent laws are far from perfect but allowing anyone to take and profit from another's work/ideas is far from the solution.
Why? What is so wrong with competition? Historically, competition is what leads to growth and innovation. Why block that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Again why shouldn't their work be protected
Why not come right out and say it, instead of dancing around the issue by answering questions with questions? You do not like patents based upon your study of economics. You feel they stifle "innovation", and for at least that reason patent law should be eliminated. The same can be said for copyright law.
Now, perhaps you may want to parse my words, but do try and keep an open mind by asking whether or not your reference to "abuse" accurately reflect your views. I seem to recall a recent comment you made that you have not ever seen a "good" patent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Again why shouldn't their work be protected
You may call it "parsing" words, but it's important to be precise here. It's not that I "do not like patents." I do not like anything that stifles innovation, and I consider anything that does an abuse of the system -- since, after all, it was designed to encourage innovation.
I have said, repeatedly, that I am willing to consider any system that can be shown to encourage, rather than stifle, innovation. I have asked you, in particular, for such examples. To date, you have refused to take up that challenge.
Now, perhaps you may want to parse my words, but do try and keep an open mind by asking whether or not your reference to "abuse" accurately reflect your views
As I have made clear: stifling innovation is an abuse of the system, since the system is designed to encourage innovation. I'm not sure what you are suggesting with the comment above. Should I not call it an abuse even though it appears to meet the definition of an abuse?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe, just maybe, someday in the future you might sit down and read the historical record relating to what "progress" was meant to signify by our Founding Fathers.
Of course, I do not expect that "someday" to be anytime soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've read it. I've written about it.
Which part did I miss?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patent
The mouse was also able to contol an airplane. Move up down, left or right to control the plane, when you "flew" into teh ground the plane became a truck and you could drive it using the mouse. The graphics were pretty basic but it was very smooth. The idea was that a pilot could "fly" through a mock up before making an actual flight.
It was for all intents and purposes an early wii contoller. We were told by the vendor that they were working with Nintendo on the device.
I think the hardware was run on a Silicon Graphics machine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent
Each of these "advancements" could be argued by a bunch of pro-patent people as "non-obvious" and therefore qualify as a valid patent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There, fixed that for ya.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And it's really sneaky that they only sue Nintendo now, because the more successful Nintendo's Wii is, the more compensation HCL can ask for. If a company doesn't sue immediately, they should lose that right as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's like the old joke: Q: "Why do you rob banks" A: "That's where the money is".
So people sue companies that have money. Not exactly news. How many lawsuits does MS have against it now? Or McDonalds (hot coffee spill?).
And the biggest pursuer of successful companies: the government. The government is guaranteed to sue, tax or regulate any new company or industry that makes money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, but can I patent slipping on their sidwalk ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And thus we shouldn't complain about a system that is contributing to that issue and making it worse?
You lost me there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmmmm . . .
I finally understand Balmers strategy now . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My opinion
I read all the posts here, including Ronald Riley’s post. Seems to me, people always take the position on issues that best supports there monetary interests, not the collective interests of the people.
“The patent system is designed with a toll booth to compensate inventors for the time, energy, and costs of their producing an invention and then TEACHING the invention through a patent with the purpose of advancing the arts. This system has produced the greatest economic powerhouse the world has ever seem.”
I think the above statement Ronald may have been the intent of the patent system, but as even the common person can see, there are some who are using it as a weapon prevent innovation. Whole business models have been created and are being used to exploit the patent system, this in itself is proof that the system is flawed and is in desperate need of being changed.
I really enjoy Ronald’s personal attacks on Mike, it in itself validates Mike’s position by pointing out the lengths people will go to protect their cash cow we call a patent system.
Keep up the good work Mike.
AJ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stop the shilling!!!
Once you’ve sobered up you may realize the truth of the matter is many large companies commandeer creations of small firms who then have no choice but to sue if their rights are to be respected and to have any hope of financial benefit from their discoveries. The large firms aren’t targets because they innovate, but rather because they “borrow” the discoveries of others who do. Rather than pay, their reaction is frequently “so sue me”. They get what they deserve. Some of these big companies are working in the shadows to destroy our world leading patent system. But then, you know all about them; don’t you, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stop the shilling!!!
Your take is that without patents, then no small business can succeed?
So that means that any small company needs to start with an idea and a lawyer? That sure makes the capital needs for a startup go through the roof....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idea stealing
I am in favor of patents on the whole, but feel reform is needed.
Patents need to be specific, not general (i.e. a patent on using a small battery powered laser as a pointer, not a patent on light to indicate something).
Patent usage fees need to be commensurate with price of the product produced. MP3 players can cost $30, but in today's patent rich environment, might be remotely connected with 500 patents. If each patent wanted $1 per device, or even worse, 1% of the sale price, the device would not be produced.
Forget software patents, it's math.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hillcrest sues Nintendo over Wii devices
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hillcrest sues Nintendo over Wii devices
I favor innovation.
Does Techdirt have a bias in this discussion?
My bias is towards making sure innovation is allowed, not stifled.
Isn't it possible that, just maybe, Nintendo should have sought out all the small innovators for this type of device BEFORE they invested in launching the Wii, apparently with extremely little external research?
That doesn't make any sense to me. If you have an idea for a product and decide to build it, why should you be responsible for looking to see if someone else is doing it also. Why can't you just build it?
Seems like Nintendo was planning to steamroll little guys like Hillcrest with their huge presense in the market for games.
Uh, or they just decided to build a cool game controller and didn't know/care about Hillcrest.
That seems a lot more likely
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nintendo Sues Wii
[ link to this | view in chronology ]