|
Nintendo wins patent appeal over controllers
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 13 April, 2010
In late 2006, Texas-based Anascape filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft and Nintendo for allegedly infringing a number of controller-related technology patents.
12 patents filed by Brad Armstrong were added in the claim including US Patent 5,999,084, granted in 1999 which covers a "sensor having a housing" and a depressible actuator in a "resilient dome cap," appearing ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
Senior Member
2 product reviews
|
13. April 2010 @ 21:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
It's nice to have your ideas legally protected but I hate patents due to how abused they are.
Patents are not meant to be abused where all you do is "patent" something and hope you can sue a company for millions of dollars before your patent expires in ten years.
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
SProdigy
Senior Member
5 product reviews
|
14. April 2010 @ 09:27 |
Link to this message
|
Yeah patent trolls suck. Now the gamecube controllers can fly off the shelf! LOL
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. April 2010 @ 10:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
Ya know....whoever comes out with a patent to the market first should have that patent, unless if you can directly link information leaks from that irritations R&D.
|
|
hastypete
Junior Member
|
15. April 2010 @ 12:12 |
Link to this message
|
I hope this means Nintendo will now sell GC controllers again. I hate the aftermarket controllers and all my GC contrllers are starting to crap out.
|
Senior Member
|
15. April 2010 @ 12:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yay Ninty.
|
|
kwiksilve
Newbie
|
16. April 2010 @ 00:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
It all boils down to who's got the big bucks
|
|
xtwister
Newbie
|
19. April 2010 @ 13:32 |
Link to this message
|
A patent holder should actually have a working prototype instead of just an idea.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
19. April 2010 @ 15:07 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by xtwister:
A patent holder should actually have a working prototype instead of just an idea.
As long as they have a functional idea before soemone else its not so bad an idea to let them patent it
|
Senior Member
2 product reviews
|
19. April 2010 @ 16:33 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
Originally posted by xtwister:
A patent holder should actually have a working prototype instead of just an idea.
As long as they have a functional idea before soemone else its not so bad an idea to let them patent it
EDIT (by Pop_Smith): I agree with ZippyDSM on this one. I think a decent amount people that come up with brilliant, and plausible, ideas don't have the money (or, possibly, time) to come up with a working prototype.
However, I believe when applied for patents need to something that is realistic within the five years or less.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. April 2010 @ 16:39
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
19. April 2010 @ 21:02 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Pop_Smith:
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
Originally posted by xtwister:
A patent holder should actually have a working prototype instead of just an idea.
As long as they have a functional idea before soemone else its not so bad an idea to let them patent it
EDIT (by Pop_Smith): I agree with ZippyDSM on this one. I think a decent amount people that come up with brilliant, and plausible, ideas don't have the money (or, possibly, time) to come up with a working prototype.
However, I believe when applied for patents need to something that is realistic within the five years or less.
Oh I forgot to finish my thought on that one.
As long as they have a functional one FIRST, anything that comes after the first is derived and may not be changed enough to warrant a new patent.
|
