View Full Version : Court rules against Sony in Immersion patent case
Lord007
09-23-2004, 06:07 PM
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/news.php?aid=4558
Is this another "McDonald's Hot Coffee" lawsuit or a legitimate case?
AnAngel
09-23-2004, 06:14 PM
Boy, they got paid. I have a ThrustMaster Gamepad with Immersion technology so it would probably be easy for the jury or arbitrators to see that Sony and Microsoft probably did infringe on their rights. According to that article, they *could* be restricted from selling any more controllers that have that but all they'd have to do is replace the technology with another I gather. After all, it's just a motor with a weight on it, LOL.
As far as that person and Mickey D's, she was in her 80s and had the coffee in her lap and she got paid out the shade in punitive damages. Who woulda thought...you can be in the passenger seat of a car with a hot cup of coffee
- NOT SODA - in between your legs and you take off the top and it spills...and you get paid millions. Where's that Starbucks at... :D
Sylentwulf
09-23-2004, 07:35 PM
"Immersion filed suit against both Sony and Microsoft for infringing these patents in early 2002, and settled out of court with Microsoft in mid-2003, with the Seattle-based giant paying the company $26 million to license the technology, and buying a portion of the firm in the process."
Microsoft says: "Sorry we stole your technology. If you want, we can buy your company and help you sue the crap out of sony."
Now that Microsoft has paid $26 million and partially bought the company 2 years ago, microsoft helps sue sony for $86 million, makes their money back and then some, AND owns another company.
That's one slick fucking move right there....
Ed Oscuro
09-23-2004, 07:41 PM
I find it laughable that there was a patent for that in the first place. Surely the idea has been used elsewhere.
Add a computer and you can re-patent ANYTHING!
AnAngel
09-23-2004, 09:26 PM
"
Microsoft says: "Sorry we stole your technology. If you want, we can buy your company and help you sue the crap out of sony."
Now that Microsoft has paid $26 million and partially bought the company 2 years ago, microsoft helps sue sony for $86 million, makes their money back and then some, AND owns another company.
That's one slick fucking move right there....
You aint lyin' about that one.
Ed Oscuro
09-23-2004, 10:02 PM
Hey, I'm sure Immersion's owners didn't mind a fat payoff from Microsoft. After all, it's what the SCO Group was trying to pull off (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_v._IBM_Linux_lawsuit), except Immersion has done it successfully.
YoshiM
09-23-2004, 10:56 PM
Here are the patents (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=6%2C275%2C213&FIELD1=&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=ptxt)
The first patent listed was awarded August 14, 2001 and the second was awarded July 23, 2002 as Immersion looks to have purchased the original company. What I don't get is that there is has to be prior art. Arcade machines had tactile feedback years before the patent was filed (Hard Drivin' comes to mind). What's interesting is that Immersion went after Microsoft and Sony but not Nintendo (or are they next?). What about the handheld fishing games that have motors in them?
Is there a patent lawyer in the house?
Oh, from the link above you'll see Nintendo's patent on portable cartridge based game system.
farfel
09-24-2004, 08:03 AM
If the patent was filed in 2001 and Sony PS1 controllers had spinning motors/weights in the late 90s
doesn't that make Sony the inventor?
FantasiaWHT
09-24-2004, 08:12 AM
Shouldn't the money go to the first person to invent a vibrating... ahem... toy?
Or shouldnt they be grandfatherd in?
AnAngel
09-24-2004, 11:13 AM
Shouldn't the money go to the first person to invent a vibrating... ahem... toy?
LOL
rbudrick
09-24-2004, 11:33 AM
"Immersion filed suit against both Sony and Microsoft for infringing these patents in early 2002, and settled out of court with Microsoft in mid-2003, with the Seattle-based giant paying the company $26 million to license the technology, and buying a portion of the firm in the process."
Microsoft says: "Sorry we stole your technology. If you want, we can buy your company and help you sue the crap out of sony."
Now that Microsoft has paid $26 million and partially bought the company 2 years ago, microsoft helps sue sony for $86 million, makes their money back and then some, AND owns another company.
That's one slick fucking move right there....
Whoa...you're right, SylentWulf...damn, I didn't even think of that. Don't fuck with Microsoft!!! Holy crap!
-Rob
brykasch
09-24-2004, 12:47 PM
It has nothing to do with who made it or put it on the market first. Whoever trademarked it first is who gets the pie:)
om3ga
09-24-2004, 12:52 PM
Thats what you get when you sell viberators to kids underage .....
davidbrit2
09-24-2004, 01:18 PM
Shouldn't the money go to the first person to invent a vibrating... ahem... toy?
Ha ha, Sega's going to get sued to hell for Rez.
Oobgarm
09-24-2004, 01:59 PM
Shouldn't the money go to the first person to invent a vibrating... ahem... toy?
Ha ha, Sega's going to get sued to hell for Rez.
Actually, that would be ASCII. :P
YoshiM
09-24-2004, 02:27 PM
It has nothing to do with who made it or put it on the market first. Whoever trademarked it first is who gets the pie:)
Welllll....as far as I understand not really. If you have a patent someone can contest it by proving it's not patentable or that there is "prior art", thus making the patent invalid. To contest requires proof of why the and a decent amount of money. Small companies usually don't stand a chance in these situations. What really sucks with patents and suing is small companies that don't make a damn thing but they have patents and will sue the pants off of smaller companies who infringe to build up clout and possibly their patent portfolio by acquiring the now financially raped company. They just move up higher on the food chain to where the "big money" is.
For the "big boys", it's usually cheaper, less time consuming and sometimes more strategic to settle, like Microsoft did in this case, than to fight. The most classic and still ongoing battle is, what Ed said, SCO vs IBM. Only this time IBM is very big and has MANY patents of its own to fight with, so it had no problem throwing down its own gauntlet and its horde of rabid lawyers.
AFAIK, anyways. I could be dead wrong
LOL