Here's a possible interesting item of interest concerning patent laws in the US: By law, any member of the public can demand that the Patent and Trademark Office reexamine an issued patent, and the PTO is (usually) bound to do so.
If there are knowledgeable folks on technologies such as these in forums such as AI, it is time to take a stand, and confront this type of junk head-on.
Put your money where your mouth is and do it, rather than stirring up others to do it for you. And keep in mind what Abraham Lincoln said abut that sort of activity:
"Never stir up litigation. A worse man can scarcely be found than one who does this."
It is pretty clear to me that nobody knows enough facts to do anything more than guess.
But your guesses ("It took them almost 5 years to figure out that the Wii was using their patent, yet only a couple months for the iPhone 4? Or did Nintendo recently change the way the remote works, putting it in "violation" of the patent?)" all seem wrong.
It is unlikely it "took them almost 5 years to realize". It is unlikely that Nintendo did a basic change to their product without marketing the improvement or even changing the model number.
The reasons for the timing of the suit are not known to anybody on the outside.
What are your speculations as to the reason(s) for the timing of the suit?
That Triton tried to go to various companies to get them to pay royalties. The companies decided that Triton wasn't going to get anything from them and left them the choice of fighting it out in court. Pragmatically speaking you can't do much better, no need for righteous indignation.
There are many others. People complain about the poor and downtrodden. Since there aren't any rules made in the history of mankind that would solve that problem, the market will continue to find its own solution. The solution being: if you've got some leverage or you dare to venture out in the world and create some leverage of your own, either by convincing people to back you or by gaining power by being a player in your chosen field then you can exercise that leverage to protect your assets and hard work. If you don't, you can't. Whether that's right or wrong, I don't know, perhaps don't care.
I mean negotiations to license the IP. Do you think that they would sue without first trying to make a reasonable deal?
They may have done something like tell Apple/Nintendo they were infringing on patents but I doubt there were any actual negotiations. If they felt there were no violations, I doubt it would result in more than a form letter (if even that) telling them anything used are their own inventions or properly licensed from someone else.
Quote:
I assume that they didn't try a dangerous, expensive, speculative method (litigation) before trying a near-costless and potentially profitable method (a deal).
This in itself could open a big can of worms. If Apple and Nintendo felt they were not in violation of anything, they would even discuss a deal as this could prove they thought they needed a deal.
Quote:
I could be wrong. But the alternative makes little sense, unless there are many, many facts left out of the reporting.
The fact is a lawsuit was filed. The story didn't go into any detail about what happened before.
"...and the filing specifically mentions a "mouse" that senses motion in six axes."
Are we talking "hyperspace"? Last time I checked our reality was in 3D (3 axes). Autor probably confuses directions or vectors with axes.
Actually translational motion along the three axes and rotational motion along the three axes is the basis for referring to it as a six axis sensor. This is common in the industry and not wrong.
I'm not a lawyer of course, I just use logic and common sense. It just seems to me that the patent in question fails on obviousness and that it's pretty clearly different from what Apple is doing.
Since no one seems to have even heard of this person before, and since the patent covers devices that came out before the iPhone but apparently were not taken to court, it also makes me question the motivations of the people involved.
Actually translational motion along the three axes and rotational motion along the three axes is the basis for referring to it as a six axis sensor. This is common in the industry and not wrong.
Although I now remember that degrees of freedom is a better term (that robotics class finally surfaced from the depths of memory!). There are only three axes, as we all are content to believe
Put your money where your mouth is and do it, rather than stirring up others to do it for you. And keep in mind what Abraham Lincoln said abut that sort of activity:
"Never stir up litigation. A worse man can scarcely be found than one who does this."
Stop being such a drama queen.
Nobody is stirring up anything, except appealing to the typical (and understandable) apathy and inertia that we in the 'lay' public tend to have in using the 'public comment' opportunity on matters such as IP battles, antitrust issues, government rules regulations, and so forth. Despite the fact that outcomes in these battles affect us as individuals.
As a result, lobbyists and lawyers (you sure sound like one) and other 'big boys' often end up hijacking these issues to the detriment of the lay public.
All government agencies allow you to comment (and if they don't, you have the right to petition them as a citizen) on matters of importance to its citizens. That's all I am talking about, and that too, as an appeal to people who might know something about this. (If I knew more about this issue, you bet I would be putting my "money where my mouth is."
What are your speculations as to the reason(s) for the timing of the suit?
As with many of these, my default speculation is: they are looking to get paid to get rid of the nuisance factor for large companies like Apple, for whom a couple of million dollars is a rounding error.
What's your speculation for the timing? (I missed it in your previous musings).
If I understand patents correctly this is an 11th hour suit. Here is the patent info.
Patent number: 5181181
Filing date: Sep 27, 1990
Issue date: Jan 19, 1993
The patent is good for 20 years from the filing date. They are filing with less than a month left on their patent, but by the time they go to trial it will be expired. Not sure what can be done then other than back pay for that period at best.
Actually I will bet you that Apple can show prior artwork on this patent. Back in 1990 or maybe before that they demonstrated a 3 dimensional mouse where you could move in space and have it control a computer and use it a 3 dimensional input device.
Plus I believe using motion and direction in 3 dimensions is not new and has been around a long time and probably before Apple's demonstration themselves. What interesting about patents like this, there are lots of companies who demonstrated the idea but it was not patented for various reason and when these people go and sue and all the prior artwork is pulled out the case falls apart and you never hear about them again.
The problem is these idiot companies who bought these patents have not clue about the technologies, and bought it as part of a portfolio and think they can make money off them.
A new lawsuit takes aim at the accelerometer- and gyroscope-powered abilities of Apple's iPhone 4, alleging that the interactive, three-dimensional input methods are in violation of a U.S. patent.
The complaint was filed Monday in a U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas. Patent lawsuits are often filed there in hopes of a favorable outcome.
We have to stop this nonsense - given this, someone will soon have a patent on breathing and all beings who breathe will either have to pay some fat moron or die.
Wow. Has anyone noticed apple have layed off the suing, and are now becoming the sued???
It's how patent trolls work. They patent something obscure, then wait years for a real products company like Apple to come along and actually put said patented idea to use in service of something great. Apple takes all the risks, and if it pays off, the patent trolls spring their trap. If the resulting products fail, the patent troll waits passively, doing nothing, never taking the risks, never producing anything with their patent, never changing the world. Just sit and wait.
Comments
Here's a possible interesting item of interest concerning patent laws in the US: By law, any member of the public can demand that the Patent and Trademark Office reexamine an issued patent, and the PTO is (usually) bound to do so.
If there are knowledgeable folks on technologies such as these in forums such as AI, it is time to take a stand, and confront this type of junk head-on.
Put your money where your mouth is and do it, rather than stirring up others to do it for you. And keep in mind what Abraham Lincoln said abut that sort of activity:
"Never stir up litigation. A worse man can scarcely be found than one who does this."
Wii has been around for a number of years now, so the question is why Triton filed nothing before this.
My guess is contained elsewhere in the thread.
What are your speculations as to the reason(s) for the timing of the suit?
Then what would be an accurate explanation?
It is pretty clear to me that nobody knows enough facts to do anything more than guess.
But your guesses ("It took them almost 5 years to figure out that the Wii was using their patent, yet only a couple months for the iPhone 4? Or did Nintendo recently change the way the remote works, putting it in "violation" of the patent?)" all seem wrong.
It is unlikely it "took them almost 5 years to realize". It is unlikely that Nintendo did a basic change to their product without marketing the improvement or even changing the model number.
The reasons for the timing of the suit are not known to anybody on the outside.
My guess is contained elsewhere in the thread.
What are your speculations as to the reason(s) for the timing of the suit?
That Triton tried to go to various companies to get them to pay royalties. The companies decided that Triton wasn't going to get anything from them and left them the choice of fighting it out in court. Pragmatically speaking you can't do much better, no need for righteous indignation.
Furthermore, there are so many patents that essentially cover the same space, that you've got wonder who deserves the credit. Here's one, for example : http://www.intomobile.com/2010/03/30...-nick-of-time/
There are many others. People complain about the poor and downtrodden. Since there aren't any rules made in the history of mankind that would solve that problem, the market will continue to find its own solution. The solution being: if you've got some leverage or you dare to venture out in the world and create some leverage of your own, either by convincing people to back you or by gaining power by being a player in your chosen field then you can exercise that leverage to protect your assets and hard work. If you don't, you can't. Whether that's right or wrong, I don't know, perhaps don't care.
"...and the filing specifically mentions a "mouse" that senses motion in six axes."
Are we talking "hyperspace"? Last time I checked our reality was in 3D (3 axes). Autor probably confuses directions or vectors with axes.
Amusing incompetence:
"...and the filing specifically mentions a "mouse" that senses motion in six axes."
Are we talking "hyperspace"? Last time I checked our reality was in 3D (3 axes). Autor probably confuses directions or vectors with axes.
Their mouse must be magic.
Oops!
I mean negotiations to license the IP. Do you think that they would sue without first trying to make a reasonable deal?
They may have done something like tell Apple/Nintendo they were infringing on patents but I doubt there were any actual negotiations. If they felt there were no violations, I doubt it would result in more than a form letter (if even that) telling them anything used are their own inventions or properly licensed from someone else.
I assume that they didn't try a dangerous, expensive, speculative method (litigation) before trying a near-costless and potentially profitable method (a deal).
This in itself could open a big can of worms. If Apple and Nintendo felt they were not in violation of anything, they would even discuss a deal as this could prove they thought they needed a deal.
I could be wrong. But the alternative makes little sense, unless there are many, many facts left out of the reporting.
The fact is a lawsuit was filed. The story didn't go into any detail about what happened before.
Amusing incompetence:
"...and the filing specifically mentions a "mouse" that senses motion in six axes."
Are we talking "hyperspace"? Last time I checked our reality was in 3D (3 axes). Autor probably confuses directions or vectors with axes.
Actually translational motion along the three axes and rotational motion along the three axes is the basis for referring to it as a six axis sensor. This is common in the industry and not wrong.
Are the second and third factors even relevant?
Relevant to me
I'm not a lawyer of course, I just use logic and common sense. It just seems to me that the patent in question fails on obviousness and that it's pretty clearly different from what Apple is doing.
Since no one seems to have even heard of this person before, and since the patent covers devices that came out before the iPhone but apparently were not taken to court, it also makes me question the motivations of the people involved.
Actually translational motion along the three axes and rotational motion along the three axes is the basis for referring to it as a six axis sensor. This is common in the industry and not wrong.
Although I now remember that degrees of freedom is a better term (that robotics class finally surfaced from the depths of memory!). There are only three axes, as we all are content to believe
Put your money where your mouth is and do it, rather than stirring up others to do it for you. And keep in mind what Abraham Lincoln said abut that sort of activity:
"Never stir up litigation. A worse man can scarcely be found than one who does this."
Stop being such a drama queen.
Nobody is stirring up anything, except appealing to the typical (and understandable) apathy and inertia that we in the 'lay' public tend to have in using the 'public comment' opportunity on matters such as IP battles, antitrust issues, government rules regulations, and so forth. Despite the fact that outcomes in these battles affect us as individuals.
As a result, lobbyists and lawyers (you sure sound like one) and other 'big boys' often end up hijacking these issues to the detriment of the lay public.
All government agencies allow you to comment (and if they don't, you have the right to petition them as a citizen) on matters of importance to its citizens. That's all I am talking about, and that too, as an appeal to people who might know something about this. (If I knew more about this issue, you bet I would be putting my "money where my mouth is."
What are your speculations as to the reason(s) for the timing of the suit?
As with many of these, my default speculation is: they are looking to get paid to get rid of the nuisance factor for large companies like Apple, for whom a couple of million dollars is a rounding error.
What's your speculation for the timing? (I missed it in your previous musings).
I'm filing a patent for "Thing that does stuff"
See you all in court.
No offense to iLove, but see what I mean? See last part of #21 above.
They may have done something like tell Apple/Nintendo they were infringing on patents but I doubt there were any actual negotiations.
Why? If they could have been gotten rid of without litigation? Do you assume that they have no viable claims?
it also makes me question the motivations of the people involved.
My guess is that they are motivated by money. Do you have anything that strikes you as more likely than that?
No offense to iLove, but see what I mean? See last part of #21 above.
Was that the part where you claim to tune out background noise? I'm not getting your point.
If I understand patents correctly this is an 11th hour suit. Here is the patent info.
Patent number: 5181181
Filing date: Sep 27, 1990
Issue date: Jan 19, 1993
The patent is good for 20 years from the filing date. They are filing with less than a month left on their patent, but by the time they go to trial it will be expired. Not sure what can be done then other than back pay for that period at best.
Actually I will bet you that Apple can show prior artwork on this patent. Back in 1990 or maybe before that they demonstrated a 3 dimensional mouse where you could move in space and have it control a computer and use it a 3 dimensional input device.
Plus I believe using motion and direction in 3 dimensions is not new and has been around a long time and probably before Apple's demonstration themselves. What interesting about patents like this, there are lots of companies who demonstrated the idea but it was not patented for various reason and when these people go and sue and all the prior artwork is pulled out the case falls apart and you never hear about them again.
The problem is these idiot companies who bought these patents have not clue about the technologies, and bought it as part of a portfolio and think they can make money off them.
Here is the full patent for your reference
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36666515/C...patent-5181181
A new lawsuit takes aim at the accelerometer- and gyroscope-powered abilities of Apple's iPhone 4, alleging that the interactive, three-dimensional input methods are in violation of a U.S. patent.
The complaint was filed Monday in a U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas. Patent lawsuits are often filed there in hopes of a favorable outcome.
We have to stop this nonsense - given this, someone will soon have a patent on breathing and all beings who breathe will either have to pay some fat moron or die.
I say kick their ass and be done with it.
Wow. Has anyone noticed apple have layed off the suing, and are now becoming the sued???
It's how patent trolls work. They patent something obscure, then wait years for a real products company like Apple to come along and actually put said patented idea to use in service of something great. Apple takes all the risks, and if it pays off, the patent trolls spring their trap. If the resulting products fail, the patent troll waits passively, doing nothing, never taking the risks, never producing anything with their patent, never changing the world. Just sit and wait.
If you cant beat them, sue them.
Was it the same when Apple sued everyone around?