Well, there isn't much info about it, but if you guys actually read the thing, it has nothing to do with rumble.

It has to do with the invention of analog control sticks.

Sony and Microsoft paid them for the rights to use them, Nintendo has been refusing to.

Hence, the lawsuit.

Arsenicberyllium

@MSUSteve: Hey look, someone who has a clue!

Wolfers

It's a good thing they didn't ban anything I don't have, but... Those bastards! What does Anascape do anyways (other than sue people)?

Metal_Slug_Solid

wow that sucks for nintendo, i mean they got the money to pay it off but still. i'm really hating all this patent b.s. some people/ companies just take out patents for stuff they are never gonna build or fully develop, forget about it and leave it but when it becomes popular they suddenly remember it. and claim infringement and all that other crap.

Milkzhakes

How does this apply to the Wavebird? No rumble there. Same with the classic controller.
Assuming the patent linked in the earlier Kotaku article is the right one, they need rumble... right?

brainwav

Guys, don't you know... Analog sticks are LAST gen...

Aex

oh crap! time to go out and buy some wavebirds!

bigman88zz

Yikes. Maybe I should see if I can pick up another one when I get FFIV today.

CyricZ

@Angryrider: Yeah! Nintendo should be able to infringe on others' patents instead of paying to use their ideas. It's not like they're flush with cash and could afford to go about this stuff in the proper manner. Damn intellectual property laws!

MSUSteve

For awhile I still saw Wavebirds at Wal-Mart. They were on sale for $25, but I figured I had enough for the time being. This is sad though. Hopefully the appeal goes through, and quickly.

formina

I think it's been established this is something to do with Nintendo's analogue triggers, which I think will be a blessing in disguise. I hate using the mushy analogue triggers of the classic pad for SNES and N64 games. Maybe Nintendo will get around to releasing a more suitable pad for those games (particularly N64 which also suffers from having the c-buttons mapped to an analogue stick).

photoboy

Yargh! Those greedy Anascape b-.
Nintendo better win on appeal. Rumble controllers are basically a no-brainer considering some people like their force feedback.
Great, now it's even harder to buy an official Nintendo controller.

Angryrider

Wow...how did MS fair after this? Dang patent squatters ruining gaming for everybody.

TRT-X

As if it wasn't already hard enough to get wavebirds...

Volante007

I thought Nintendo stopped manufacturing Wavebirds and the like? But to put a stop on the flow of the Classic Controller would be nasty - I imagine Nintendo will pony up the bond.

If not - I feel bad for anyone who likes Starfox 64.

Tonx

If you're on Anascape's side on this patent case, don't you have to be on Konami's side on their patent case against Harmonix/MTV? You can't have it both ways.

Torgen got his apology faceplate but not his fixed GH3 disc

@brainwav: I'm still confused as to how the patent doesn't violate prior art though. As RigorMortis said, N64 controller predates that patent.
If it has something to do with the analog buttons, I guess they can make a case.

Bleh, this is why I'm not a patent lawyer.

brainwav

@Volante007: I found two platinum Wavebirds earlier this year, one of which I still have in the original packaging.

Arklop

Wait, wait - you can still find wavebirds aside from ebay?!

xvkarbear

@agies: The fact that a U.S. District Court found that Nintendo infringed upon patents and awarded the plaintiff $21 million is more compelling to me than the fact that Nintendo somehow went through three controller generations before the verdict came down.

MSUSteve

@RigorMortis:
Ever played Atari? That was a Analog stick, very primative but it was.

flukielukie

@RigorMortis:

I'm sure Nintendo hadn't thought about that 9_9

Vidunder

In b4 "I have them already I'm so cool!"

@Metal_Slug_Solid:

Too late.

Vidunder

@Arsenicberyllium:
@agies:
Ah, when I started typing my post, they hadn't appeared yet. I figured rumble to be a major part of the patent, as it is mentioned in the patent's title... I wasn't going to read the whole wall-o-text too thoroughly.

brainwav

Wait, what? What the hell kind of case does Anascape have here?

Nintendo INTRODUCED the analog stick with the N64 THREE GENERATIONS AGO.

RigorMortis

@MSUSteve: Screw patent laws! I should be able to go make a home made pswii60 and sell it to make million! (Then get sued for using rumble features)

Sinfwho

[www.google.com]

There you go, applies to every single last gen controller.

I especially like "Remote Control" patent circa 1947.

PsycheE

I'm sure Nintendo really cares about non-Wiimote products. Unless you're talking about balance boards or plastic shells. All the people laughing at the SONY Immersion suit get a good giggle out of this too. It's the same issue, so you should find it equally funny. I'm not sure Nintendo has as many fanboys left however. :)

Mongoosekun

@MSUSteve:
Arsenicberyllium:

It's good to know that some people still have the capabilities of rational thought

KanjiGear

yay! thanks for using the tip, i figured someone beat me to it.

@TRT-X: MS got out of this by the usual method - ponying up some dough.

geekgrrl

To quote:

"Cawley said he argued last week that Anascape was entitled to a ban on the Nintendo controllers because Anascape wants to enter the market and Nintendo has ``clogged the channel.''"

To summarise:

Bullshit patent squatting.

TrjnRabbit

@MSUSteve: The fact that Nintendo could release three iterations of controllers before getting sued makes this a little questionable.

@brainwav: As Photoboy stated above this probably has to do with the analog triggers and definitely not rumble.

agies

does the analog stick in the nunchuck count?

Gutter_Trash

@PrivateJ0ker: I don't know if you can call the N64 controller an "Analog Controller with Rumble" since the rumble was an add-on pack and did not come standard in all controllers.

Aex

My friend flung my wavebird into the side of a brick fireplace in a fit of drunken rage brought on by his girlfriend at the time. I can still see it happening in slow motion. I'm like "Noooooo" and reaching out my arm to stop him, but it's too late, there's nothing I can do. It slams into the side of the fireplace, hard. I pick it up and test it out...thank god, it still works (I'm super broke at the time, I didn't want to buy another one). I still use it to this day. I can hear something moving around inside though, something broke off. I guess it wasn't important.

True story.

insaneo

@MSUSteve:

That's not the problem. In the US people get patents for all sorts of stuff they never actually make for the sole purpose of sueing companies when they come up with a similar enough idea. Furthermore, where was this suit during the GC era? I find it awfully convenent that they wait until Nintendo is flushed with cash to sue.

EmeraldDragon

The common problem with lawsuits like this that have such unbelievable outcomes, rests in the Jury system. Essentially the cases are decided by people that are completely unqualified to do so. What makes absolutely no sense was that the suit was over a patent that Anascape filed in 2000, over an analog controller with rumble. Weren't we not playing Starfox 64 with analog and rumble almost five years prior? THIS little Jury appears to have enabled to scam Nintendo, until they appeal in Federal Court. I hope Nintendo has a life-breaking counter suit against those people. NO ONE MESSES WITH THE MARIO PEOPLE!!!!

PrivateJ0ker

I just patented smart assed comments. You all owe me. Big time.

Anyway, the law's the law. If Nintendo's creations infringe, they should pay reparations or royalties or whatever you want to call them.

As a side note, I got my first Wavebird as a wedding gift.

Eltigro

@brainwav: That's kinda what I was thinking... I followed the link to the actual patent description, and it specifically said that rumble was in there. If so, the classic controller and wavebird would have nothing to worry about. However, I'm sure that these people have done their homework, so this lawsuit must be valid. But Brawl is completely pointless without gamecube controllers, so they better fix this crap FAST.

willparry79

@MSUSteve: Not to mention the part about the classic controller - a Wii peripheral.

Tonx

PANIC BUY

Majorasblaze

This lawsuit confuses me to no end, I still havent figured what did Nintendo and Microsoft did to violate the patents... didn't they use an analogue stick on the N64? And Sega on the Saturn Nights pad? In fact, wasn't the very first analogue stick the one on the Atari 5200!? Ok, I need a vacation now...

Shiryu

@okenny :): I think you missed the part about the $21 million.

MSUSteve

@Torgen got his apology faceplate but not his fixed GH3 disc: Patents are so complicated, most of us, without some help, couldn't decide whether someone violated one or not. That's for the courts to decide with the help of patent lawyers that can explain all of it to juries, so that they can make an educated decision.

MSUSteve

Yah... go ahead and sue... ban the controller for a dead system.... Dumb ASSES!

okenny :)

Nintendo should just buy out Anascape and fire all of their legal department. That'll show 'em.

Sooku

@Mongoosekun: No, this is not the same as the Immersion suit. In fact Sony had to license the "tech" covered by this pattent.

Either way this looks to be a prime example of a bullshit patent. Sony released the DualShock two years before the filing.

agies

So hold on, Nintendo has to pay 21 million? Why don't they just have a board meeting, and get all the execs to empty their pockets of loose change and golden lint. That ought to pay for it and get this crap over and done with.

Oh...and have the dudes in charge of the company assassinated. Poisoned mushrooms would be appropriate.

Quilt

@Torgen got his apology faceplate but not his fixed GH3 disc: Not at all, you should judge each case independently based on its own merits.

Aex

@Aex:

However, anascape's patent was based on that, and was essentially an integration. They were patent squatters out to chase the coat tails of Nintendo. The N64+Rumble pack was a brilliant invention, I can't believe the Jury would be so easy to manipulate. It could be one of those things, where people on the Jury just want to see the "big company lose".

PrivateJ0ker

WTF? I call bullshit on the patent lawsuit.
Consider this, Nintendo had Gamecubes with their controllers at SpaceWorld 2000 (August) whilst this patent was filed in November of the same year. Did Nintendo ransack their office and throw together some pieces of plastic at the last minute and nobody noticed?

_Hayko

@EmeraldDragon:

Yeah, the patenting system here in the states is truly fucked. I agree with you, in that they should be able to provide a working device before they get the patent.

dead_red_eyes

@TrjnRabbit: "clear the channel". I love it.

So if you ever want to release a competitive product in a market already dominated by one or more entities, just sue your way in.

I always thought the idea was that an up and coming product had to prove itself in order to gain a market share?

TRT-X

Ugh, stupid patent trolls. I only have 1 GameCube controller, perhaps I should pick up another, or a Wavebird.

dead_red_eyes

@Aex: "In the US you get to patent IDEAS not actual items. You have an idea you can patent it for a small fee. Someone takes your idea and builds success off it, even if it happens before you get a chance to physically make it, they infringed upon your patent."

I think there in lies the problem with the system. You should not be able to patent an idea, you should have to present at the very least a prototype. Or you should ahve to present a working prototype for your idea with in a time limit of the patent being issued or lose said patent.

This doesn't just apply to video games, but all things.

EmeraldDragon

@okenny :): Well, the end of the Cube and Classic Controllers would hurt Nintendo with the Virtual Console (especially N64 titles and GC backwards compatibility)

TRT-X

I <3 my Wavebird.

el.sand.bag

The USPTO is broken. I feel like I'm always having to explain this, but 1) "patent" comes from latin "patere", "to stand wide open" (Dictionary.com), ergo 2) the point of the patent system is to encourage people to explain in detail how their contraption works to save society the costs of reverse engineering. Anything that's obvious upon inspection should be thrown out, regardless of how clever it is.

shimage

@Aex: Blah, curse my lack of proof reading... I meant to say "Now I'm not saying that the system isn't abused by some people, ..."

Aex

@EmeraldDragon: A couple of things to answer your post.

In the US you get to patent IDEAS not actual items. You have an idea you can patent it for a small fee. Someone takes your idea and builds success off it, even if it happens before you get a chance to physically make it, they infringed upon your patent. Often times people will take their ideas to big companies and those big companies will push them aside, using their idea only "developed in house". This is why patents exist in the first place. Now I'm not saying that some people do abuse the system, but I think you are taking a rather cynical view on this suit just because a company we like is the defendant (and has lost)

Continuing, The lawsuit may not have had enough time to raise during the GC era. It is possible that the patent owner gave Nintendo plenty of time to settle before bringing the case to a court of law, and when the owner finally had enough resorted to a lawsuit as the last resort (after plenty of research to make sure he had a case). Of course, that is just conjecture on my part, but it is a possible explanation for your question.

Aex

@Gutter_Trash: "Note that the ban does not affect the Wii remote or nunchuck controllers - just the standard controllers that include analog sticks."

Aww man, I couldn't have asked my Wavebird to break at a better time! Dammit...

DONNYchiban

@MSUSteve: *shrug* Depends on Nintendo's legal strategy. Are they arguing that they don't violate the patent as it stands, or are they arguing that the patent itself should be invalid?

The patent system is so inherently broken these days that I really can't take any sort of patent judgement at face value anymore.

Jazhuis

What in the holy flying frick is this gosh danged extortion all about?!

Ptolemy

@MSUSteve: Na :3 I think that's how much Iwata uses to wipe his ass hourly.

Well granted $21 million dollars is really nothing to sneeze at, I'm not sure the payout is definitively paired with the controller ban. At least in that small universe of likelihood, asshats like myself get to post snarky comments but you're probably more in the right :)

okenny :)

Doesn't the nunchuck contain the same analog stick that the other controllers that are actually on the ban list do?

Patent lawsuits confuse and INFURIATE me!

phor11

Oh, the delicious irony of having this story immediately preceeding one on the CNBC's Sony vs. Microsoft story.

The intelligence exhibited by those commenting on patents here makes Jane Wells and her son look like freakin' geniuses in comparison.

emag

[www.technologyreview.com]

All you have to do is google "patent Marshall Texas" and you get hundreds of interesting articles (like the one above) on this case and cases simliar to it.

blackjaw

Yes, because all of Texas is filled with drunk cowboys. I know, why don't you go sit on a saddle horn for all your lame stereotypes.

The reason why most of these cases are filed in Texas is because they do business in Texas and for some stupid reason Texas courts tend to side with the infringed. On top of that it costs these companies millions of dollars to defend (lawyers, engineers gathering all the information on the products accuesed of infringing, paper to put it in court, etc) that it is cheaper to settle than to prove innocence. This is the new form of Blackmail.

rabidkeebler

I'm surprised they just don't pay off whatever this guy wants. I mean, with their money-printing machines and all, you figure they might as well.

bangbangblah

Gun manufacturers should sue Anascape for designing a trigger used by the index finger. "Simply place your index finger over the trigger, and pull your fist closed." Follow that by a dozen complex looking diagrams and you have a patent. Not a valid one mind you, but one that might be good enough to fool the patent office and a judge.

Someone should hold a contest to see who can file the most absurd patent involving something that was invented hundreds of years ago. The top tier prize goes to someone who can sue without getting dismissed, or settle.

royaljester

I think the atari controller was just a joystick, it wasn't analog. The system didn't pay attention to how far you were pushing it in any direction, it just noted when it moved in one of eight directions (or 4) regardless of how far you pushed it. Analog sticks are different than classic joysticks, way way more input happening.

If the patent was filed after analog sticks were already in use, I don't know how it can be valid at all. It's possible that some little technical thing, like the literal shape of the stick or something is what is being infringed upon.

TDub301

@PrivateJ0ker: but patents work also with simple ideas.

"using a controlling device to control the movements in a display using advanced hardware"

a global idea like that can't be patented and that's a patent also owned by that company.

VakeroRokero

Can anyone tell me what big change Nintendo made between the N64 analog stick and the Gamecube Analog sticks that makes their analog technology an infringement on Anascape instead of an evolution of N64 analog technology? I know the N64 analog patent is before Anascape's. Nintendo should be able to sue them for copying the N64.

Ceezsa

@EmeraldDragon: That's great in theory but by not allowing patents on ideas it then becomes heavily skewed in favor of corporations versus small independent inventors. If Dr. Joe Blow comes up with an incredible idea for a hydroelectric dam but doesn't have the money to build it would it be fair for a government with oodles of excess money to come along and build it off of his idea?

KanjiGear

with all those patents based in Texas, would would think the state would be as advanced as Japan, but looking at mostly farms and drunk cowboys makes me think these companies just wanna fuck up the patent system.

VakeroRokero

*goes to buy more controllers

bobdisgea

@dead_red_eyes:

Yea, but what if espionage went on checked, the diagram/blueprint for building a device was copied and then built by another company? Thats why the patent system works the way it does, because it really does protect the genuine originator, in some cases.

PrivateJ0ker

@EmeraldDragon:

Some judges would agree with what you have stated. I have read that some courts are extremely unsympathetic towards patent squatters. Regardless of wether or not they "thought of it first", or thought they did at least.

PrivateJ0ker

I'm curious how old the patent is. I don't like they took this long to say something about this but the Bloomberg article shows the guy who claims to have invented this started designing in the 70's making controller in his garage for the PC. A person does deserve credit for their invention and this could be a definite case where there invention was used without permission.

But I still think there needs to be a statute of limitations and some Patent reform it has taken too long for them to decide their was a problem more than enough time, I feel they should lose their claim based on that lacking alone(there may be some extenuating circumstances that change this though).

I feel Patents like these can impede progress to some degree. Basically I think there should be a statute of limitation on how long an invention can be exclusive to the inventor(or that they should have the ability to hold of other manufactures) but they should still receive fair royalties for a good amount of time. But eventually I believe it should become open domain after an extended period of time I mean who owns the wheel patten. This potentially leads to every new invention having to pay royalties on top of royalties to maybe thousands of patten holders for a single invention and the inevitable overlap on pattens that cover similar things(I mean a game controller alone could have hundreds of potential pattenable features).

Konchu

@photoboy: Analog triggers, now that makes sense, I was trying to figure out why the thumb stick in the nun-chuck wasn't implicated in this suit but now it makes sense. Its the analogue trigger buttons from the cube and classic controllers.

I've always wondered why they put analog on the classic controller. It's not like you can use the controller when playing cube games on a Wii. Smash Bros. ditched the analog shielding for digital. There's just no need for it.

I must say, those triggers were awesome for driving games as gas and brake, and an absolute necessity in F-Zero GX. Its a shame they don't get put to good use anymore.

Ptolemy

@PrivateJ0ker: Rofl, I wish I would have read this comment before I started writing mine. Please disregard the Patent system "working prototype" section directed at you above.

@KanjiGear: @VakeroRokero: Again.. Rofl, Took me too long to post that someone else already covered it for me.

Aex

@PsycheE: That image looks like it belongs with the Atari O.o

Eventually, all colors will be copyrighted (there's that one purple color that this one company hates sharing, iirc), as will sounds (already happening), sight (already happening), touch (already happening), taste (already happening), smell (already happening) thought (about to happen), even nature (thanks to loopholes, will happen eventually) itself. Life to a certain extent already is owned by someone else. Don't even get me started on language.

Our senses are owned by people with ink on paper, upheld by people that have no idea what is going on.

Hell, I remember reading a book like that once. Forgot what it was called, though. There were these implants that basically allowed people instant access to all information and each other. Of course, it was -loaded- with ads...ads relevant to what you were seeing were streamed into your heads, and literally everything was copyrighted (even clouds) Of course, it was only the implied-future-US that had this tech, and the end of the book has literally every other country nuking the daylights out of the backwards-copyright land. It was a high school level of reading, and it's been a few years, but I think that's how it went.

On a tangent, what ever happened to that US bill that would force literally every piece of art to be registered (at a fee, of course) or it can be legally stolen?

masterage

@PrivateJ0ker: Even new ideas based on the foundation of old ideas are "NEW IDEAS", and have a right to be patented. Lots of new inventions and ideas are improvements of old ideas, new ways of doing things or a combination of all of that.

@EmeraldDragon: @dead_red_eyes: @PrivateJ0ker: The funny thing about ideas is that there is no true way to find out who had the idea first and who "owns" the idea. Ideas often pop up all over the world around the same time and that is what the patent system is there for, to give credit to the first person who "claimed it as their own". If we required a working prototype all those people trying to make it that need financial backing would never get credit for it.

Let's say you had a great idea for a new controller, and the patent system required a working prototype before you could lay claim to your idea. How are you going to build a working prototype if you don't necessarily have the engineering skills or materials to do so? You are either going to have someone build it for you or you are going to sell your idea... But what if the people you have build it for you claim it as their own idea? They are the ones with the working prototype, not you. Or what if the company you pitched it to and declined you, decides to make it after you leave their office? It wasn't your idea to begin with, so what can you do?

Sure, it isn't some magical perfect system and some people abuse it, but that is why issues like these go to courts. I don't think any of us know enough about this case to make a better decision than a group of twelve people that have sat through countless hours of evidence and argument. What we do know is Microsoft settled out of court with Anascape, and Nintendo decided to fight it and lost in court. So that leads me to believe there must be some meat behind Anascape's patent and that they are not just a bunch of squatters.

Aex

I'm no expert regarding patents, but from what I can tell based off the comments and the actual patent, they are using a patent filed in 2000 to sue over the use of analog sticks, something that was in use for years before in video games. How in the world are these guys allowed to sue with this? I don't see how they "invented" anything.

Xenigma

Nintendo must have some really crappy lawyers. Damn. I have to go buy another controller quick since my other one broke.

zeldarooles

@Silent Predator: Sounds funky, but most quotes taken out of full context can.

I'm just guessing here, but maybe that meant they wanted to enter the market by selling their idea to a larger company, like Nintendo. But since Nintendo made the controllers without buying his idea, they clogged his channel by subverting giving credit (money) to the original inventor? :P

Again, without full context I don't think anyone could decipher that quote.

Aex

@Silent Predator: Agreed.

masterage

What the fuck, Anascape's argument doesn't make any godddamn sense.

"Cawley said he argued last week that Anascape was entitled to a ban on the Nintendo controllers because Anascape wants to enter the market and Nintendo has ``clogged the channel.''"

What market has Nintendo 'clogged the channel' to? Making controllers for Nintendo systems? I don't understand this at all.

Silent Predator

Yowza. I'm surprised Nintendo let it get this far. Haven't they learned from Sony's mistake? They need to go the Microsfot route and just buy them wholesale and forget this silly patent business.

Rebochan

For everyone that is curious on Patents... The source is aimed at children, but it does a rather good job of explaining everything clearly without all that legal mumbo jumbo most of us don't understand.

[www.uspto.gov]

Aex

I've searched the internets but can't seem to find even a company website for anascape.

Exactly what do they do?

BTFzor_Freestyle

@Konchu: As far as I know, there is no statute of limitations on patents as long as the patent is is valid. So, as long as the person who started the patent keeps it updated with fees and renewals, it is A.O.K. I think there are some stipulations on what you can file for damages, I don't think if you create a patent 20 years ago, and wait 20 years to file a lawsuit you can sue for all 20 years of damages.

Aex

@shimage: What? You can't decide what the purpose of a system is based on the Latin root of its name. Your second point after the 'ergo' (nice extra use of Latin there just to make it clear you know your stuff ;) is such a massive leap of faith it's hilarious.

The purpose of a patent is to grant the inventor a temporary right to exclusively exploit their invention.

Now the real problem with patents is that they can just sit there unused until someone comes along and does the same thing you thought of, then you can attack them, which is far from what the original purpose was and actually retards the market rather than encouraging it. IMHO it's time we went back to much more limited time frames for patents, a few years.

slight

@Ceezsa: Its the analog triggers

Ptolemy

@Xenigma: If it was that simple do you think Nintendo would have lost the case? :p Geez, have SOME faith in our court system.

Aex

@dead_red_eyes:
If that happened technology would shoot off. Think of the increased competition. Instead of having someone think up ideas, a company would have to build a working prototype before anyone else, making it a much more competitive process to obtain a patent. Might make new shit a lot more expensive though in order to recoup R&D costs of not only that product but ones that failed as well.

ca$h

@zeldarooles: That is why I am sort of leaning on the side of Anascape after this judgement :P If Anascape's suit had no basis, how could Nintendo possibly lose? They should have more than enough money to hire a team of lawyers and specially trained hitmen :p

And with that, I'm off this topic for the day. This is a real solid topic (Patents) and If anyone wants to discuss this issue further, feel free to send me a message on XBL, PSN, or Steam and we can delve deeper :)

Aex

@Aex: Hmm. That makes sense, if that is indeed the case.

Having looked at another source (which can be found at this link.) it seems that Nintendo didn't even attempt to defend the infringement claim. Nintendo's efforts in this trial were to simply get the Wiiremote and Nunchuck out of the cross hairs, which they did (as those are N's big money makers right now). I guess they figured it would be too big a hassle to fight after MS gave in.

Disappointing really. I think (from what a brief glance at Wikipedia) Nintendo could have argued that Anascape is a NPE (non-practicing entity) to get off the hook. Do a google search on Anascape and you don't get anything other than these lawsuits. Does anyone know if these guys actually manufacture anything?

Silent Predator

@KanjiGear: Thus the "OR" part. In cases like that he could patent his idea and then get a corperation to fund him.

At the very least this patent system sould apply to companies and corperations.

EmeraldDragon

So what about the Sega Dreamcast. It had those analog shoulder buttons first. Does not Sega own the patent for that. Nintendo could say they copied Sega since the Dreamcast pad copied the rumble pack of the N64. Nintendo and Sega made a fair trade which is why they are so chummy now.

Ceezsa

So here's what it seems happened. Some guy decided that Sony was a great company, and that the Playstation was a great system, and that they were going to go places, and that guy, his name being Brad Armstrong (according to information about Anascape) tried to get a job with them, but they denied him. So he went home, and started drawing up different designs for the outer and inner workings of controllers until he had thousands of them, and he patented every one of them. Then when Nintendo released their Gamecube controllers he started going through all of his designs. Finally, in 2006, he realized he'd found designs that matched not only Nintendo's controllers, but Microsoft's, and Sony's as well. On his attempt to claim that these were his patents and to get his revenge on Sony, a representative from Sony revealed himself to Brad, and then proceeded to knock him out and show him the seedy underbelly of the gaming world. There, they beat him and forced him to continue with his ridiculous patent infringement lawsuit, but only against Nintendo and Microsoft, and they told him if he didn't, well let's just say they told him this wasn't a video game.

So he continued, but things did not go according to plan. Microsoft immediately gave in, and Sony gained nothing from this, and everything remained fine with them. But Nintendo started to fight back and this pleased Sony. Unfortunately nobody expected the process to continue for this long and now here we are, on the verge of the big decision, what will happen!?

To Be Continued.

Desmondia

@Aex:
Interesting read man, thanks.

Though for some reason, something about all Government web pages for kids always creeps me out.

ca$h

Well, i hadn't had the chance to get a WaveBird myself, but i had seen some wavebirds variation done by Pelikan who claim they can be used on the Wii

Though I don't know if they work

KristenBal

@TRT-X: Tell me how you feel about it when you create the next great gaming device and some big name copies your design without your consent or giving you any credit.

JokesJokes

If the ban affects just the standard controllers that include analog sticks, then what about the N64?

And on the subject, what the HELL does Anascape Ltd manufacture themselves anyway?

humongous_mouse

@dead_red_eyes: @EmeraldDragon: It's reasonable to expect a prototype of small inventions such as controllers, but what about a design for a new kind of airplane? There's no way a single designer can afford something like that. You would be restricting advances in expensive products to be big company only.
Also, it's not as easy to get royalties from a patent as you might think. You can't just patent the idea of an electric car (for instance) then every time someone comes up with an electric car they have to pay you. You have to have feasable working design clearly laid out on paper, and you canonly charge someone with patent infringement if their electric car works in the same way as yours does. In that sense, you do have to have a prototype before you can get a workable patent.
Think back to all the other controller related lawsuits that have gone on in the last year (most against the wiimote) most of them have failed because they were too vague or did not have a clear enough resemblance to the defendant's product. Just because a company is charged with patent infringment doesnt make it so and doesn't mean the holder of the patent will see any money for it. The courts will decide what is legitimate and what is frivolous.
Personally I'd rather protect the independant inventor (even if people abuse the idea, once again I look to the courts to decide and hope for their protection) than, than to take his rights away to make gaming easier for the consumer.
Note: I'm actuallya big supporter of big business and capitlis in general, but for our system to work we have to be fair to everyone. Their work, their idea, their design, their property.

JokesJokes

For one, as far as I can tell, prior use wins by several years on this one.

Also, we must kill this company as if they win, the wording of their patent means they own video game controllers.

Maybe they WANT to lose this suit so they can feed it into the Nuclear Wiiactor that converts lose into win...

fuchikoma

@CobAlGhul: It's a moot point. Nintendo didn't attempt to argue against the infringement. Their defense was simply that the Wiimote and Nunchuck weren't infringing on the patent because separately they don't fall under the patent. That was their only aim here: to exclude the Wiimote and Nunchuck from the damages claim.

I'm curious as to why they didn't even attempt to mount a defense against it. Maybe they knew they were in the wrong? Maybe MS's decision to pay Anascape screwed Nintendo?

Silent Predator

Here's what I don't get:

The patent (6906700) was filed November 16, 2000.

The Gamecube was first unveiled to the press on August 24th, 2000.

[www.google.com]

How can you infringe on someone's patent if their patent came out after your product?

CobAlGhul

@Mongoosekun: yes the balance board is the only thing nintendo care about hahaha your so funny *dies*

Still confused as to whats happening....But I'm going to patent brain control right now!

excel_excel

good thing i had a couple of controllers left from the gc era. playing smash with anything else sux.

maraxusofk

I'd love a Wavebird 2.0. A Wii-veBird, if you will. Something that can connect without the dongle, has rumble built in, and hell, throw on an IR camera in front for navigating Wii menus.

Numerous

Game companies must be pretty sick of arguing against frivolous patents in court all the time. The first couple of times this happened is fair enough, and I agree with JokesJokes's comment above about protecting the rights of individual inventors... but how is this idea even patentable any more? Lots of people are patenting tiny variations on the classic controller, waiting until 5 years after the console is released, and then demanding millions of dollars back payments. It just seems like 25 years of prior art in the evolution of video game controllers is largely not being taken into account.

iLov3

sweet, glad i got two wavebirds in the era of the gamecube...

rebelj12a

Man, it's like almost every other day there is a new patent lawsuit, and why? Because someone feels like their unique idea has been stolen? Probably not, they just want money. And dope can file a ton of patents and sit on them, wait for a company to accidentally use something slightly similar, and BAM. Cash.

Talleh

wow do i feel stupid for taking my 2 silver wavebirds in to rapestop for a mere $12 bucks a piece a few months ago..

get2theDeLorean

They'll post the bond. They made enough money to cover that in the time it took me to write this response.

Spartan1308™

Someone needs to take these patent trolls out back behind the chemical shed and put them out of their (our) misery. And I'm not saying all companies with patents are trolls. Only the ones that try to patent as many ideas as possible without any attempt to bring them to market so they can profit off of someone else's hard work.

"Gee, I think that I'll patent a space elevator. Sure, I can't possibly build one (nor would I want to), but if anyone else ever does, I demand my money for the (zero) work that I put into making this a reality!"

wiregr

What a bunch of BullCrap!!! If Anascape had the patent, why didn't they sue Nintendo 10 years ago? I think it's one of those deal where they sneak a patent and don't let anyone know about it until they can collect. Anascape's a Dbag company in my opinion.

todde7

Quick! Someone patent the D-pad and sue Nintendo for everything they've got since it's the default control on Wii and DS... That'll be the next "OMG U TUK MAH IDEAZ" issue Nintendo has to deal with.

I still wonder why Sony hasn't sued Nintendo over the Classic Controller...

Shaoko

@Silent Predator:
Probably because if they lost, they'd have a solid reason to shut down production of their old controllers for North American distribution and use them for something else or keep the money.

fuchikoma

Good thing I work at GameStop. I don't normally believe in gouging people over the Wii and such but this is too good to pass up. Time to get the nintendo junkies by the short hairs.

Ebay here i come. Muahahahahahaaaaaa!

postulio71

Ok, so apparently I posted the same post many more times then intended. I apologize for all the crap I have spammed on here. If there are any mods that have the ability to, feel free to delete all but one of them.

DOSteveSz

@Aex: That's mostly correct. There are ways of finding out who invented it first. However, most of the world is "first to file" meaning that it doesn't matter if you invented it before someone else. The US is actually the only country left that still does "first to invent."
@masterage: You're confusing patents and copyrights. You also have a little bit of trademarks in there too.
@Konchu: There is a statute of limitations on patents. Unlike copyrights, patents expire after 20 years.
@Silent Predator: Neither do I. I have a feeling that this wasn't quoted in context and probably misinterpreted.

DOSteveSz

@VakeroRokero: Actually it can be patented as long as no one else has. However, if someone does end up getting a patent for that, it's pretty much useless as someone can patent something more specific. Unfortunately, this creates a stand-off since neither person can make that invention without infringing on the other person's patent. This is what patent trolls live on (yes, there are MANY companies that do this kind of thing).
@royaljester: If it was invented hundreds of years ago, good luck actually getting it patented.
@rabidkeebler: Anascape is actually based out of Nevada.
@emag: I unfortunately agree.
@phor11: Not necessarily.

DOSteveSz

@EmeraldDragon: That's not practical and many times not possible. For example, if you are going to patent a way of managing people to work more efficiently, how exactly would you have a working prototype? Many things that are patented are not actual items, but conceptual. For example, a patent on how an interface for an MMO works, could not be built. But it works. Anything that is patented must work (like you cannot patent a perpetual motion device).
@TRT-X: I don't understand that part of the lawsuit either, but I think the underlying theme is that Anascape came up with the idea first. Even if Anascape wins this, I doubt they will ever actually make controllers.
@dead_red_eyes: The patent system worldwide is essentially the same (there are differences, but none that apply here).
@KanjiGear: I couldn't agree more.
@Ceezsa: Again, this patent goes back to 1992, long before the N64.

DOSteveSz

@Jazhuis: Actually I disagree. This is actually the patent system working like it's supposed to be.
@Aex: Actually that's almost completely wrong. You have the opportunity to patent both ideas AND actual items. According to US Law, and I quote, "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvements thereof, may obtain a patent therefor" This pretty much leaves a lot of room on what can be patented. It also is not a "small fee." The cost to patent something is extremely expensive. The rest of your comment is pretty much spot on.
@shimage: You're right. Anything that is obvious should be thrown out. And that's the law. The USPTO is supposed to follow this. (And if it doesn't, as a US citizen, you can point this out and possibly get a patent reversed.)

DOSteveSz

@agies: Again, the original patent happened years before the Dual Shock.
@Shiryu: That may be true, but the controllers on the Atari did not include everything that is incorporated into the patent. Which means that Anascape still does have a valid case (imo).
@Eltigro: Good luck trying to get this patented. Lol.
@MSUSteve: Unfortunately true. I work in the patent system and even I don't get all the intricacies in it.
@EmeraldDragon: Not entirely true. Nintendo probably has had issues with this company for a long time and kept pushing off Anascape until Anascape threatened legal action. And here it is.
@Aex: Being separate doesn't necessarily absolve it. Only if the patent actually claims it being integrated does it count.

DOSteveSz

Ok, first of all, I work in the patent system (I won't say where). Most of what the other comments have said is incorrect.
I'd like to clarify a little bit. First of all, yes this patent was filed for in 2000. However, it is a continuation of another patent. This means that it essentially adds upon an existing idea (or changes it slightly). The thing about that is that it gets the benefit of the original patent date. Meaning, that although this was filed in 2000, it counts as if it was filed in 1992 (the date of filing for the original patent that this one continues from). This is the basic gist of this and is why Anascape DOES have a case here.
@brainwav: Not necessarily. The only thing that really counts in the patent are the claims. The rest of it is there to basically support them. In that means, the claims use "tactile feedback" which can pretty much be anything (even the spring resistance on the analog stick) related to analog sticks.@Milkzhakes: Actually most companies do this. Only about 5% of all the things that get patented actually make money. So the rest of it is there just for "protection" of their ideas.

DOSteveSz

Ok, first of all, I work in the patent system (I won't say where). Most of what the other comments have said is incorrect.
I'd like to clarify a little bit. First of all, yes this patent was filed for in 2000. However, it is a continuation of another patent. This means that it essentially adds upon an existing idea (or changes it slightly). The thing about that is that it gets the benefit of the original patent date. Meaning, that although this was filed in 2000, it counts as if it was filed in 1992 (the date of filing for the original patent that this one continues from). This is the basic gist of this and is why Anascape DOES have a case here.
@brainwav: Not necessarily. The only thing that really counts in the patent are the claims. The rest of it is there to basically support them. In that means, the claims use "tactile feedback" which can pretty much be anything (even the spring resistance on the analog stick) related to analog sticks.@Milkzhakes: Actually most companies do this. Only about 5% of all the things that get patented actually make money. So the rest of it is there just for "protection" of their ideas.
@agies: Again, the original patent happened years before the Dual Shock.
@Shiryu: That may be true, but the controllers on the Atari did not include everything that is incorporated into the patent. Which means that Anascape still does have a valid case (imo).
@Eltigro: Good luck trying to get this patented. Lol.
@MSUSteve: Unfortunately true. I work in the patent system and even I don't get all the intricacies in it.
@EmeraldDragon: Not entirely true. Nintendo probably has had issues with this company for a long time and kept pushing off Anascape until Anascape threatened legal action. And here it is.
@Aex: Being separate doesn't necessarily absolve it. Only if the patent actually claims it being integrated does it count.
@Jazhuis: Actually I disagree. This is actually the patent system working like it's supposed to be.
@Aex: Actually that's almost completely wrong. You have the opportunity to patent both ideas AND actual items. According to US Law, and I quote, "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvements thereof, may obtain a patent therefor" This pretty much leaves a lot of room on what can be patented. It also is not a "small fee." The cost to patent something is extremely expensive. The rest of your comment is pretty much spot on.
@shimage: You're right. Anything that is obvious should be thrown out. And that's the law. The USPTO is supposed to follow this. (And if it doesn't, as a US citizen, you can point this out and possibly get a patent reversed.)
@EmeraldDragon: That's not practical and many times not possible. For example, if you are going to patent a way of managing people to work more efficiently, how exactly would you have a working prototype? Many things that are patented are not actual items, but conceptual. For example, a patent on how an interface for an MMO works, could not be built. But it works. Anything that is patented must work (like you cannot patent a perpetual motion device).
@TRT-X: I don't understand that part of the lawsuit either, but I think the underlying theme is that Anascape came up with the idea first. Even if Anascape wins this, I doubt they will ever actually make controllers.
@dead_red_eyes: The patent system worldwide is essentially the same (there are differences, but none that apply here).
@KanjiGear: I couldn't agree more.
@Ceezsa: Again, this patent goes back to 1992, long before the N64.
@VakeroRokero: Actually it can be patented as long as no one else has. However, if someone does end up getting a patent for that, it's pretty much useless as someone can patent something more specific. Unfortunately, this creates a stand-off since neither person can make that invention without infringing on the other person's patent. This is what patent trolls live on (yes, there are MANY companies that do this kind of thing).
@royaljester: If it was invented hundreds of years ago, good luck actually getting it patented.
@rabidkeebler: Anascape is actually based out of Nevada.
@emag: I unfortunately agree.
@phor11: Not necessarily.
@Aex: That's mostly correct. There are ways of finding out who invented it first. However, most of the world is "first to file" meaning that it doesn't matter if you invented it before someone else. The US is actually the only country left that still does "first to invent."
@masterage: You're confusing patents and copyrights. You also have a little bit of trademarks in there too.
@Konchu: There is a statute of limitations on patents. Unlike copyrights, patents expire after 20 years.
@Silent Predator: Neither do I. I have a feeling that this wasn't quoted in context and probably misinterpreted.

DOSteveSz

What? Besides the quality, how is the analog on the Wavebird and Classic Controllers any different than the N64 controller which predates the patent? Could it be the fact they have two analog sticks? Which if so is pretty stupid imo.

Phantom5800

The patent is from 2005... whereas the gamecube controller goes way back, is there something I'm missing here? The patent is supposed to be for an Analog controller with rumble features.

corronchilejano

Didn't Nintendo patent the analogue stick way back when with the N64? Why is that exempt?

L___E___T

Err why? I already have 4 GC controllers (1 wavebird) so im safe. But why? I mean the GC has been out for almost 7 years why ban its controllers now? Doesn't even make sense...

Mundus

hey maybe after this gamecube controllers will get rare and actually be worth some good money

TWentt37

@zeldarooles: It's not about the quality of their lawyers ... it's about the company's willingness to abide by patent laws. Pretty cut and dried, in my opinion.

larry_horse

So I guess we can't expect a rerelease of a white gamecube controller (like they did recently in Japan)? Bummer.

TryonicPrinv

Oh dear! ;X

Solidus

A quick perusal of the patent shows that there was an original patent dated May 5th in 1992 for some part of the devices that later after a number of iterations over the years turned into this current patent. That doesn't mean I necessarily believe this suit is valid but it shows a prior investment in the ideas.
Anyway, this looked interesting:
[wii.kombo.com]

rubyrod