Not really. What is being referred to here is the following:
An innovative new start up forms using a some cool technology. They get a bunch of press and some venture capital financing. The markets then value the company and its technology at a total of $50 billion.
Then a patent troll lumbers from under its bridge and sues said tech company for infringement. No matter the out come, whether they settled or lost, the market then reduces the valuation of the company to $5 billion or less. That is a $45 billion loss in value. That is what is measured.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 10:22am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ok. So At the point of being notified of potential infringement Nintendo has a couple options.
1) Pay some kind of licensing fee which is probably far more than any other option.
2) Continue on the course they have already set upon and fight the legal battle when it comes to it.
Only option 2 has and real benefit for Nintendo. Option 1 means admitting that ThinkOptics is the better company and paying out money to them for R&D work Nintendo did.
Option 2 means that they have a possibility of invalidating ThinkOptics patents and potentially being reimbursed for legal fees. Sure they may lose and end up being forced to go with Option 1, but at this point they are getting ready to launch a new console and will be able to work around it.
There is no option to remake their hardware. That would have been far more expensive than either of these options and there is no way Nintendo would have gone with it.
Sounds like the same situation we had in the US. One Mickey Mouse cartoon was threatened with the public domain and all US copyright law was changed to prevent that.
While they did not get into the technical details, they did talk about the motion controls, the pointing ability and how the Wii Remote interacted with games.
But again, you ignore the fact that Nintendo developed their technology independently of ThinkOptics and prior to the application of ThinkOptic's patents.
How do they willfully infringe on a patent that did not exist at the time of development?
How can they copy something that did not exist prior to development?
Look at the dates again. Both the final Wii product and ThinkOptic's patents were made public in the same year. Nintendo had their hardware finalized before ThinkOptic applied for the patent. Unless Nintendo had a mole inside ThinkOptic, there is no way they could have willfully infringed on the patent.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline and article is misleading
If the purpose of ThinkOptic's lawsuit is to invalidate their very own patent by proving prior art on the part of Nintendo, then I guess you would have a point. It would be a bad move on ThinkOptic's part though.
However, they are claiming that Nintendo willfully infringed on patents that did not exist when Nintendo was developing their technology. How could Nintendo willfully infringe in this case?
Did they infringe? Maybe. Did they do so willingly? No. That is my point.
As for the patent act punishing those who do not disclose their technology, I am not sure what you mean. If by punishment you mean they do not get a monopoly if that technology is ever leaked, then I guess you are right. But many people create new technology and do not seek patents just as many people create art and release it to the public domain.
I think the other guys covered this fairly well, but I will toss is a few comments.
Just because this is the status quo for patents in the US does not make it the most fair or best way to do things.
Here we have two companies making similar technology, both in secret. In the same year, one applies for a patent and the other shows off working product at a trade show.
6 years later, the one who filed the patent sues the one who showed off a working product.
They both developed their technology independently of each other. Neither had prior knowledge of the other. How can Nintendo willfully or even innocently infringe on the patent in this case?
Why hello there. This is "Not Mike" here. I did look into that angle, but 4 months prior to the Wii's announcement is still not enough time to determine if a product you have been developing for 2-4 years is infringing on un-granted patents.
That's the rub. Nintendo had been developing the Wii since at the latest 2003. That is two years before these people even applied for the provisional patent.
Re: And if the copyright holder ever shows up, the work is immediately removed."
Hello, My name is *author on the book* and I want you to remove my book from your digital library.
Or how about:
Hello, I am from the estate of *author on the book* and I want you to remove my book from your digital library.
I don't see how it is that hard to prove you own the copyright.
Also, if it is that difficult to police your own copyrighted works, perhaps the authors/artists should be fighting for shorter terms so that they don't have to expend as much effort later in life.
Honestly, I don't know how you ACs can claim to support the authors/artists behind copyrighted works when you would rather orphaned works rot in obscurity rather than being preserved so they outlast their obscene copyright terms and enter the public domain.
Step 1: Contact the author. If author is dead or cannot be found proceed to step 2.
Step 2: Contact Publisher. If publisher cannot be found. Proceed to step 3. If publisher is found, ask them who controls the copyright. If they know, you can get permission, if they don't proceed to step 3.
Step 3: Attempt to identify author's next of kin. If next of kin cannot be found, do what you will with the orphaned work. If Next of kin is found, ask permission.
If that is not enough effort, then I don't know what is.
On the post: Citizen Recording Of Police Proves Officer Lied About Arrest
Re:
On the post: Full List Of Sites The US Air Force Blocked To Hide From Wikileaks Info; Includes NY Times & The Guardian
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Patent Trolls Cost The Economy Half A Trillion Dollars
Re: Re: Re:
An innovative new start up forms using a some cool technology. They get a bunch of press and some venture capital financing. The markets then value the company and its technology at a total of $50 billion.
Then a patent troll lumbers from under its bridge and sues said tech company for infringement. No matter the out come, whether they settled or lost, the market then reduces the valuation of the company to $5 billion or less. That is a $45 billion loss in value. That is what is measured.
On the post: Full List Of Sites The US Air Force Blocked To Hide From Wikileaks Info; Includes NY Times & The Guardian
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Netflix: We're Sorry About The Huge Price Increase, So, Uh... Qwikster!
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/netflix
Seriously check it out.
On the post: British Transport Police: Illegal Downloading Kills Babies [Updated]
Re: Confused - With Many Others
On the post: British Transport Police: Illegal Downloading Kills Babies [Updated]
Re:
On the post: Guy Who Created The TSA Says It's Failed, And It's Time To Dismantle It
Re: Re:
On the post: Nintendo Wii Accused Of Willfully Infringing Patent That Was Applied For After Wii Was Introduced
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) Pay some kind of licensing fee which is probably far more than any other option.
2) Continue on the course they have already set upon and fight the legal battle when it comes to it.
Only option 2 has and real benefit for Nintendo. Option 1 means admitting that ThinkOptics is the better company and paying out money to them for R&D work Nintendo did.
Option 2 means that they have a possibility of invalidating ThinkOptics patents and potentially being reimbursed for legal fees. Sure they may lose and end up being forced to go with Option 1, but at this point they are getting ready to launch a new console and will be able to work around it.
There is no option to remake their hardware. That would have been far more expensive than either of these options and there is no way Nintendo would have gone with it.
On the post: Reasonable Anger In Europe Over Ridiculous Copyright Extension
Re: Original reason
On the post: Nintendo Wii Accused Of Willfully Infringing Patent That Was Applied For After Wii Was Introduced
Re: Re: Re:
But again, you ignore the fact that Nintendo developed their technology independently of ThinkOptics and prior to the application of ThinkOptic's patents.
How do they willfully infringe on a patent that did not exist at the time of development?
On the post: Nintendo Wii Accused Of Willfully Infringing Patent That Was Applied For After Wii Was Introduced
Re: Re: Re: Re: So what you're saying...
Look at the dates again. Both the final Wii product and ThinkOptic's patents were made public in the same year. Nintendo had their hardware finalized before ThinkOptic applied for the patent. Unless Nintendo had a mole inside ThinkOptic, there is no way they could have willfully infringed on the patent.
On the post: Nintendo Wii Accused Of Willfully Infringing Patent That Was Applied For After Wii Was Introduced
Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline and article is misleading
However, they are claiming that Nintendo willfully infringed on patents that did not exist when Nintendo was developing their technology. How could Nintendo willfully infringe in this case?
Did they infringe? Maybe. Did they do so willingly? No. That is my point.
As for the patent act punishing those who do not disclose their technology, I am not sure what you mean. If by punishment you mean they do not get a monopoly if that technology is ever leaked, then I guess you are right. But many people create new technology and do not seek patents just as many people create art and release it to the public domain.
On the post: Nintendo Wii Accused Of Willfully Infringing Patent That Was Applied For After Wii Was Introduced
Re: Re: Re: Re: Headline and article is misleading
On the post: Nintendo Wii Accused Of Willfully Infringing Patent That Was Applied For After Wii Was Introduced
Re:
Just because this is the status quo for patents in the US does not make it the most fair or best way to do things.
Here we have two companies making similar technology, both in secret. In the same year, one applies for a patent and the other shows off working product at a trade show.
6 years later, the one who filed the patent sues the one who showed off a working product.
They both developed their technology independently of each other. Neither had prior knowledge of the other. How can Nintendo willfully or even innocently infringe on the patent in this case?
On the post: Nintendo Wii Accused Of Willfully Infringing Patent That Was Applied For After Wii Was Introduced
Re: Re: Headline and article is misleading
That's the rub. Nintendo had been developing the Wii since at the latest 2003. That is two years before these people even applied for the provisional patent.
How is that infringement?
On the post: Why Does The Authors Guild Hate Education So Much? Sues Five Universities For Providing Access To Orphan Works
Re: Re: Re: I don't like the opt-out part: assumes rights in itself.
They are using them for educational purposes.
On the post: Why Does The Authors Guild Hate Education So Much? Sues Five Universities For Providing Access To Orphan Works
Re: And if the copyright holder ever shows up, the work is immediately removed."
Or how about:
Hello, I am from the estate of *author on the book* and I want you to remove my book from your digital library.
I don't see how it is that hard to prove you own the copyright.
Also, if it is that difficult to police your own copyrighted works, perhaps the authors/artists should be fighting for shorter terms so that they don't have to expend as much effort later in life.
On the post: Why Does The Authors Guild Hate Education So Much? Sues Five Universities For Providing Access To Orphan Works
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Does The Authors Guild Hate Education So Much? Sues Five Universities For Providing Access To Orphan Works
Re: Re: Re:
Step 2: Contact Publisher. If publisher cannot be found. Proceed to step 3. If publisher is found, ask them who controls the copyright. If they know, you can get permission, if they don't proceed to step 3.
Step 3: Attempt to identify author's next of kin. If next of kin cannot be found, do what you will with the orphaned work. If Next of kin is found, ask permission.
If that is not enough effort, then I don't know what is.
Next >>