Woo-Fu
Banned
You're assuming Sony doesn't already have a deal in place to use any Phillips patents.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Philips asking for damages, ban on sale of Wii U due to patent infringements
- Thread starter S¡mon
- Start date
You're assuming Sony doesn't already have a deal in place to use any Phillips patents.
Oh. Ithought this was the case involving the patent that was filed in 2009. My apologies.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Edit: No need to repeat my post since it's quoted above.
No probs Joe!
No probs Joe!
Bulbagarden
Member
And people wonder why I joined the Pirate Party. Patent law across the world is an utter mess. That goes double with relation to sophisticated technology, and especially so when so many judges seem utterly incapable of understanding that technology. especially so when applied to technology. Neither patent matches the way the Wii Remote sensors operate. This is a complete joke.
soulassssns
Banned
So tired of patent trolls.
Palette Swap
Member
Remember that 1991 summer CES when Sony announced their SNES CD add-on, only to be betrayed on the next day when Nintendo announced onstage their partnership with Philips for CD games?
It's kind of funny seeing where all these guys are now.
It's kind of funny seeing where all these guys are now.
Starwolf_UK
Member
Is there any summary PDF or minutes? The case reference HC12E04759 seems to only be giving me info on where the trial was held and who the prosecutors and defendant teams were.
Uh, this is Philips. You know, the company that invented the Cassette Tape, Boombox, VCR, CD, Laserdisc, DVD, light bulb, electric razor, 3D x-ray, etc. I'd hardly call them a troll.
Prax
Member
True.. they may have secured a deal.
But this still sounds all kinds of ridiculous.
The Wiimote doesn't send "pictures" of an "object" with its "camera" for the processor to "recognize". :T It really takes a lot of poor understanding of tech to confuse what the patent describes with the wiimote unless patents are really applied liberally to everything (like a smartphone connecting to a smart tv or something--does that count??).
The 3D body one especially sounds all kinds of vague too. Does any controller (with gyro?) controlling a 3D avatar infringe on this too?
QuicheFontaine
Member
No, sorry. I've had a brief google around, and I can only find a load of blog posts / news articles with no source.
Of course, not reading the actual decision won't stop half of GAF from immediately citing this as an example of "broken patent laws", "patents gone mad", etc.
The implication being that they are wrong, and there is nothing wrong with modern copyright and patent laws, in their current form. Sure thing.
DanteGhost
Member
what Wiiu momentum? It is still selling like crap.
Mario Kart 8 is driving Wii U sales. E3's positive buzz has also driven sales. Things won't suddenly be amazing, but the Wii U is gaining some positive momentum.
Jimmyfenix
Member
Competition is always good. Nintendo just needs to put out more games frequently. 2015 may help them a bit.
Nicktendo86
Member
Ah OK, I was going by what others were saying in the first couple of pages of this thread. Anyway, these patents are so bloody vague!
I just can't get my head around a company filing ultra vague patents, with no prospect of releasing a product that uses them, can go on to sue another company that has patents granted for their application. This is Nintendo we are talking about, a company infamous for its ignoring trends and doing its own thing! Why not go after PS move or kinect? Have delas been struck behind closed dorrs or is it just that they were flops?
QuicheFontaine
Member
Not at all what I'm saying, yeesh way to put words in my mouth. I don't see how saying, "Hey guys, maybe we should read the decision before jumping to any conclusions" equates to the bolded. And for the record, there are plenty of aspects of patent and, particularly, copyright law that I think should be changed.
I initially came in the thread to find people saying "This decision is bullshit, Nintendo were selling the Wii before this patent was granted!". That's just a a simple misunderstanding of how the system works (the relevant date is the filing / priority date for novelty and inventiveness of the patent, and damages for infringement can be back-dated to the publication date). These threads are usually filled with similar uninformed sentiments, as well a load of drive-by "Tch, bloody patents again" type posts.
Edit:
Easily done. I got a bit confused too, since the first couple of pages are talking about US patents, and then the bump switched to a UK High Court decision.
Aeroglyphics
Member
Yeah they make the baby bottles we use. Quite a departure from what I used to know them for.
Ray Wonder
Founder of the Wounded Tagless Children
Wow, this sucks.. Wouldn't this include the Move too?
EP1573498's terms is pretty vague and seems different enough from the Wii's pointer to have stayed clear from it. Will see how the appeal goes I guess. Presuming Sony got clearance for the Eye/Move at least.
"The user interaction system comprises a portable pointing device (101) connected to a camera (102) and sending pictures to a digital signal processor (120), capable of recognizing an object (130) and a command given by the user (100) by moving the pointing device (101) in a specific way, and controlling an electrical apparatus (110) on the basis of this recognition."
"The user interaction system comprises a portable pointing device (101) connected to a camera (102) and sending pictures to a digital signal processor (120), capable of recognizing an object (130) and a command given by the user (100) by moving the pointing device (101) in a specific way, and controlling an electrical apparatus (110) on the basis of this recognition."
Nicktendo86
Member
Impending tie up with Nintendo to make qol products? Lol.Yeah they make the baby bottles we use. Quite a departure from what I used to know them for.
My fault for jumping the gun and not reading properly!
QuicheFontaine
Member
Well, sometimes you invent something and you aren't in a position to make / sell it yourself. This is pretty common with universities: they don't want to set up a factory, they just want to license a patent to somone else.
From what I can tell from the blog posts I've read, Phillips brought the potential infringement to Nintendo's attention back in 2011 and have been trying to settle / sort out a licensing deal ever since. It didn't work out, for whatever reason, so they took them to court.
As for why MS or Sony haven't been targetted, I dont know. Maybe they have licences from Phillips?
shinra-bansho
Member
I think you're reading it wrong. So far as I can tell the patent isn't about a camera detecting a pointing device. It's about a camera in or on a pointing device as part of a user interaction system.
They also have a pretty broad definition of camera.
This is from body of the patent that has been upheld. The other patent about body modeling hasn't been.
From memory, the Wii Remote contains an IR CMOS that aids in determining motion/position by the position of the eight IR lights on the sensor bar. That's presumably what Phillips have argued corresponds to their patent.
Guys, the court case that Nintendo lost was in the U.K.
The lawsuit that was discussed in the OP was filed in the U.S., there's also a lawsuit filed in Japan.
Phillips is taking a multi-national approach to these IP infringements lawsuits against Nintendo. There's bound to be a few victories and failures on both sides until its all settled.
The lawsuit that was discussed in the OP was filed in the U.S., there's also a lawsuit filed in Japan.
Phillips is taking a multi-national approach to these IP infringements lawsuits against Nintendo. There's bound to be a few victories and failures on both sides until its all settled.
not just audio, they are also working in the medicine space. plenty of stuff in a hospital is made by philips.
So iOS and Android devices with TV connectivity would/could fall under this as well?
This description is so vague that it defies explanation.
Amazeballs
Member
This is such bullshit.
Cause Sony didn't make as much money with the Move as Nintendo did with the Wii.
Cause Sony didn't make as much money with the Move as Nintendo did with the Wii.
This is the fundamental problem with patents in my opinion.
"Sorry you can't do that, I thought of it first"
Being able to patent something you have no intention of manufacturing is one of the things keeping actual patent trolls in business. Can you imagine the mess if patents had existed when lots of cavemen simultaneously thought of the wheel?
licktheenvelope
Member
Patents are fine, it's US Patent Law that's silly.
Read both the patents... apparently Phillips doesn't know how a Wii or a Wii U work.
Edit:
Wow, apparently Nintendo couldn't explain to a UK judge the differences...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-20/nintendo-s-wii-infringed-philips-patents-u-k-court-says.html
QuicheFontaine
Member
There wouldn't be any mess. The first wheel-inventing caveman would have to disclose his invention in his patent application, i.e. how to make wheels, and it would have to be an enabling disclosure, i.e. other cavemen reading the patent would need to be able to make wheels from reading the patent, for it to be granted. After 20 years of exclusivity, every caveman would then be able to make wheels freely. That's a good thing, right? Better than that first guy keeping his wheel-making-method secret, surely?
If cavemen wanted to make wheels within that first 20 years, yes they'd have to pay the first wheel-inventing caveman. But that seems fair game to me: he did do everyone a big favour after all.
Anyway, what I feel you're really getting at with your question is that patents shouldn't be allowed to cover something that society really needs. Well, in the UK at least there are provisions for that: Crown Use, for example, would allow the govt to produce a patented pharmaceutical if there were some kind of epidemic. And for patents necessary for interoperability (in mobile phones for instance) the EU ensures that licences are given on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory basis (FRAND).
Amazeballs
Member
People can come up with the same or similar innovations through coincidence. Who's doing who a favor then? It's not like patent trolls go out of their way to make their patents known. They wait until someone else does all the work to make money off of a vaguely similar product and then sues for easy money.
Furthermore, the issue with patents like these is that they do not take a holistic view of products; it doesn't differentiate between the fundamental purpose or idea. It instead targets for some random similarity which can be anything given how vague these patents are. This in no way protects innovations, it inconveniences them in fact. Inventors have to rely on agencies to make sure that their products are "stealing" patent rights.
No, I really do mean that I don't think patents should be allowed on:
1) Obvious ideas - there's some provision for this allegedly but it's too grey.
2) Things you don't plan to produce, or no longer produce.
I'm not on board with the concept of owning an idea. Patents in isolation stifle creativity.
CadetMahoney
Member
This.
However aren't the ppl selling something supposed to check every single thing in the product does not infringe on someone else's patent?
QuicheFontaine
Member
They can, and I'm sure it happens all the time. There's not much anyone can do about that. Pretty much every country in the world these days operates on a first-to-file system just because someone has to be first, and that's pretty much the easiest way to do it.
If you come up with something clever, I'd say either:
i) file a patent application ASAP; or
ii) just publish it - you won't be able to stop other people from using it, but at least no-one else will be able to get a patent for it (there are plenty of sites like Research Disclosure that provide this service)
I don't know what more you want patent trolls to do. Their patents are all published when they're granted, with the claims that set out what it is you must to do infringe. Patents are searchable online.
As far as "waiting until someone else does the work", well yes you do have to wait until someone actually infringes your patent before you can sue them for infringement.
I don't know what you mean regarding not taking a holistic view of products. Patents have claims that set out the legal monopoly. You do an infringing act with respect to a claim (make, sell, etc.) then you might get sued.
With respect to point 1), obviously patents shouldn't be granted if the invention is obvious. Every patent system I know of sets this out in the law (certainly in the US, UK and Europe at least). I don't think anyone will disagree with that. Some will slip through, but it's also a ground for revocation of granted patents.
With respect to point 2), there's no "Use Requirement" for patents. Nor do I really think there should be. There is for trade marks, but that's kinda because you can renew them forever provided you're using the mark. Patents last a maximum of 20 years, and typically they don't because the annual renewal fees increase each year (I think the average lifetime is 12-13 years).
You can either pay up for the relatively short time they last or, using some creativity, come up with something new that doesn't infringe.
Well Philips does use the patent though.
http://www.uwand.com/smartertvgaming/
"The patented uWand technology was initially developed in 1999 from conceptual research into the potential adoption of pointing technologies in a living room environment.
Since then hundreds man-years of work has been invested in pointing research and development by a highly skilled multi-disciplinary team, ranging from engineers, computer vision expert, psychologist, and anthropologist, with a broad understanding of all user interaction paradigms and human behaviour."
So hundreds man-year invested in the technology and nitendo copies it and has almost no r&d cost. Thank god we got patents. Imagine a world without patents no-one would invest in r&d because you can copy ideas for free.
A world without patents would be unfair imagine a company spending a lot of money in research & development and it has to earn it back by including the costs in the price of the product. Than another company just copy paste the idea and basically can put the same product at a lower cost on the market. The company that did all the research could go bankrupt, because the competitor can produce the same product at a lower price.
http://www.uwand.com/smartertvgaming/
"The patented uWand technology was initially developed in 1999 from conceptual research into the potential adoption of pointing technologies in a living room environment.
Since then hundreds man-years of work has been invested in pointing research and development by a highly skilled multi-disciplinary team, ranging from engineers, computer vision expert, psychologist, and anthropologist, with a broad understanding of all user interaction paradigms and human behaviour."
So hundreds man-year invested in the technology and nitendo copies it and has almost no r&d cost. Thank god we got patents. Imagine a world without patents no-one would invest in r&d because you can copy ideas for free.
A world without patents would be unfair imagine a company spending a lot of money in research & development and it has to earn it back by including the costs in the price of the product. Than another company just copy paste the idea and basically can put the same product at a lower cost on the market. The company that did all the research could go bankrupt, because the competitor can produce the same product at a lower price.
The problem is that the whole disclosure thing hardly works anymore. It's unfeasible to dig through patents for useful inventions: the sheer number of patents and the utterly vague description of the inventions (which in most cases are utterly useless in aiding anyone to replicate the invention). Nowadays patents are nearly always enforced after someone went through the work and R&D expenditure to reach a vaguely similar solution to a problem (or any solution to the problem at all, depending on how vague the patent is on in the case of nearly all software patents).
Arcade games were using IR cameras for controlling pointers in 1997, if not earlier.
At any rate, I'm not opposed to patents to physical devices, since it does take significant effort to solve physical problems, like finding ideal materials and mechanisms which can be copied by anyone the instant the product is on the shelves. It's in abstract areas like software and business methods where things get ugly: not only most of the time the patent covers the problem itself and not the solution but most of the results of R&D are already protected by copyrights, the patent itself being devoid of anything useful at replicating the "invention".
Yup, pretty sure Nintendo just printed out that patent, ran it through a patent-to-blueprint conversion machine and started manufacturing Wii Remotes.
The philips patent is from 1995.
https://www.google.com/patents/US62...a=X&ei=uqSjU8fMEIGwyAT48IKoBA&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAQ
QuicheFontaine
Member
Hmm, I'm not so sure about that. I mean, I agree inasmuch as I don't think anyone is seriously browsing through the latest patent publications for ideas. However, in many industries you know who your competition is, and you'll probably be keeping an eye on what they file (maybe via a watching service). Many inventions I see are either a development on, or circumvention of, a competitors idea. So yes, I still believe patent publications are adding to the corpus of human knowledge in a way consistent with the philosophy underlying the patent system.
Absolutely, and these two areas are specifically excluded from patentability in the UK. My understanding is the US has more of a "anything under the sun" approach, and I think the most alarming "patent troll" news stories emanate from the US.
Also they have jury trials for patent infringement in some states, which just baffles me.
Amazeballs
Member
I think you should reread that patent. No where does it say infrared pointer or camera.
shinra-bansho
Member
I don't think a light gun works in the same method described in the patent that was upheld. They don't determine positional information based on a camera/CMOS in the pointing device.
TheRedSnifit
Member
Can you imagine how much less innovation there would be if you needed to build a factory to be granted a patent? You'd be giving more power to the big corporations while screwing over everyone else.
Right, light guns work by flashing the screen white and measuring how long it takes for the CRT pixel aimed at to change color to determine the coordinates. However, in the late 90's a few lightgun games like Gunblade and The Lost World started featuring an always-on crosshair that used arrays of IR LEDs placed around the screen.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
Nintendo should sue Phillips for those terrible cd-I games. No love lost there. Nintendo did Phillips a favor and then they came back and fucked them in the ass without even applying lube for the Wii