Wii controller lawsuit costs Nintendo $21m Nintendo has vowed to fight a court order demanding it pay $21m (£10.7m/€13.5m) to a US gaming company for patent infringements associated with controllers for the Wii and GameCube. Although specific details of the violation of Anascape's intellectual property rights haven’t been disclosed yet, the US court found that Nintendo …
McCreevy's at it again, he's trying to reduce the innovation test needed to determine if a patent represents a new invention and widening patents to software and business processes. Bringing patent trolling to EU.
Specifically, he's trying to slot in ' AS A WHOLE' to the patent wording.
So they can make ever more bullshit inventions simply by adding extra clauses until they find something that hasn't been patented.You invent a cold fusion, a patent troll patents 'cold fusion used to power houses' and blocks your invention for use in powering houses.
Then there's the computer trick, you can't patent software, you can't patent business processes or pure maths or discoveries.... but with the new McCreevy text you can just tack on something else to make it patentable.
I patent x+1 used in a ballot counting machine....
I patent handshake transactions as used in the financial industry....
So Symbian recently patented late loading of dll's thereby undermining the whole computer industry with every PC late loading their device drivers that way. (Which idiot didn't know we late load dlls for every driver?)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/19/patents_software_online/
If they are found to not be able to patent software, they'll simply tack on 'late loading dlls in a phone' and 'late loading dlls in a pc', ... to make it patentable again.
In typical McCreevy style, he's agreed this change in a treating with the USA, bypassing the EU law making process and taking his orders direct from Washington.
The fact that he decided to exclude the fact that Microsoft was also sued as part of the same patent infringement.
Way to go james, make the entire Register journos look like a bunch of biased buffoons..
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2008/05/12/daily26.html?jst=b_ln_hl
They should get thrown out of court unless they can prove that they actually developed and retailed a competing product. The lawsuit should represent losses that they can prove (or even explain) that they have incurred. Otherwise it's just too easy to patent squat, and simply register patents for whatever captures the imagination and in the vaguest terms possible, for a product that you've no chance or intention of ever building.
I might just go an register a patent for a "thing" that "does stuff".
Only the Nintendo suit has been completed; there is nothing to report in the Microsoft case yet.
But then, giving that Mark considers it to be Xbox fanboyism for there to be a single story on the entire Register site that doesn't desperately scramble to shoehorn a mention of the RROD in, what do you expect. Seek professional help, Mark; it's not funny any more.
So by "analogue pressure sensors" it seems it's the analogue triggers that are the target of this suit. I'd have thought the neGcon controller that Namco made for the PS1 would have qualified as prior art (since Anascape's patents are dated from '97 onwards and the neGcon is from around the PS1's launch in '94).
More can be found on the neGcon here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negcon
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
