Comments on: Hillcrest Labs sues Nintendo over Wii controller patents

Hillcrest claims the console's "Wiimote" violates four of its patents.

[Scott Gardener]

More patent trolling! Give them the SCO award!

Notice that the lawsuit only was filed now? It's not like they hadn't heard of the Wii before now. They waited until the last minute; I bet there was a statute of limitations coming up. They let Nintendo make as much profit as they could before filing the suit for "damages," with the idea that Hillcrest could never have possibly profited the way Nintendo has.

We've got to overhaul our legal system here in the U.S., because patent laws as they are are stiffling innovation rather than supporting it. There's too many people and companies right now whose very business model is litigation. These days, you don't even need a product--just a patent and some attorneys to sue anyone else making something that resembles it.

[daftkey]

I would counter that with the obvious - do you really think, given Sony and Microsoft's position in the marketplace, and the fact that "motion sensing controllers" existed for the last ten years, that the WII would even have been invented if there were no patent protection?

I think the risk would have been too great for Nintendo to even do any research on, as it would have been stolen by the other two the minute it was released.

[Lerianis]

Yes, daftkey (I should call you daffy!) the Wii would have been invented without patent protection. People like you keep on saying "X wouldn't have been invented without patent protection!" WRONG! The motivation to make money is key, that is why before patents were even INVENTED, people kept on making new devices and new ways of doing things.

[everwanted2]

I abhor these idiots.. Greedy as hell, just make a better one since you already have the patents, oh wait, you just want more money :D

[C_Miner]

Most of these patent lawsuits are for patents that are incredibly broad.

Seriously: a "navigation interface display system that graphically organizes content for display on a television." They basically hold a patent on any sort of GUI that is displayed on a TV. Are things like Cable/Dish companies' channel navigation systems next?

And: "a handheld three-dimensional pointing device," So, are laser pointers covered under this too?

I realize CNET is just giving the general overview of the patent, but when you dig into many of these, there's not much more too them. A lot of words meant only to try and cover every possible variation of an idea. Companies don't even have to make something with their idea, or have a working model, or even plan to do anything with the patent.

The two things that makes me most believe these people are just trolling for undeserved money, are what was pointed out above about the delay in Hillcrest suing for damages, and their demand that the ITC "stop the import of Wii consoles into the U.S". The console itself has nothing to do with the patent, its the remotes that they claim they have a problem with.

Patent systems really need an overhaul to require much more specific specifications, and to cover a much more narrow range. Just because Hillcrest makes and has a patent on 'a' wireless pointing device does not mean they have a patent on 'all' wireless pointing devices. But that's the attitude that a lot of companies have, and our patent system supports it.

[Nith84]

"Hillcrest is asking the ITC to stop the import of Wii consoles "

Hahahaaha. Ha-Ha. Ha

Somehow I dont believe that will EVER happen, even if Nin is in breach. And why now, why not a year ago why not 2 years ago. Its not like the Wii mote was news by the time the Wii was released. Everyone knew that the Wii will have an interactive, motion sensing controller.

OK so im gonig to try to get a patent for wrist worn pointing device (sorta like in Iron Man's wrist mounted cannons, I hope Marvel wont come after me)....

[Ev720]

"Hillcrest Labs says the technology behind the Wii remote is too similar to its own The Loop remote."

Well, if you use this reasoning, then inventor of the television could turn around and sue the inventor of the monitor, because they are just too similar. This is greed, pure and simple.

[daftkey]

Sure, if the television patent were still valid - which it's not. Because patents only last for a limited time (20 years).

[gtdtm]

I'm really sick of patent holding companies trying to stifle innovation by trying to sue the pants off of successful companies. If the company holding the patent has created a product and it is a legitimately marketable product, fine, protect your patent, but Anascape doesn't even have real products and has made millions suing all of the major video game companies...That's a problem. If Hillcrest has legitimately tried to produce a controller with the technologies in question maybe they have a case, but if they are just holding on to a prototype ready to sue, they need to get a life.

[tosandrew]

Everything is similar to the original creation! like what Ev720 said, the Moniter and TV are very similar, but nobody got sued over that! and Who ever heard of this company or a "Loop" remote?
And STOP importing Wiis into USA? The Wii Console itself has nothign to do with the wiimote when it comes to this patent.
Handheld 3 Dimentional pointing device? The Ps3 has something like that, rumor is that the 360 will too, so will this company ALSO sue them both as well?

[hnovick]

1. Those who call this a patent troll law suit have not read the facts. The patent owner did not buy the patents with a view to then suing others. They developed the technology and patented it and licensed it to reputable companies (e.g. logitech). They raised over $100 million in investments. Nope, this is a legitimate use of the patent system to protect one's investments of time, money and efforts.
2. As for the comments about the Wii technology not being the same as that in the patents, again they do not reflect a correct knowledge of the facts. I surmise that those complaining were not able to get any patents themselves to protect their technology, but rather would like to live free off the efforts of others. If you want to know what a patent covers, do not read the newspaper or even a blog. You must read the patent claims. They will tell you how broad the patent coverage is. You might be surprised how narrow they are.
3. As for waiting so long, the patent laws permit a patent owner to sue for infringements for up to six years before the filing of the law suit (called a statute of limitations). The strategy on when to file a patent infringement law suit is very complex and could involve in this case a mere ant going up against a huge blue whale. Why not put yourself in the shoes of this small Maryland company and see what your decision is instead of jumping up and down in disgust.

4. There is much wrong with the patent system, but then it is the only system to help someone protect their legitimate interests. Just think back to Microsoft's intentional infringement (i.e. stealing?) of a software compression method patent (I think DOS 6.0). The small guy there was able to win because of the system. Our imperfect American patent system is designed to protect the little guy. Try the European or Japanese system that is designed to protect the big company and see where you end up.

5. I am stepping down from my soapbox now..

[Lerianis]

The European and Japanese system seems to work pretty well for them. I've talked with people who have made things in Europe and Japan that were new, and they said that it was very easy to get and hold onto a patent and almost all patents are enforced.... as long as you are making an item that uses your patent AND it isn't something that falls under the 'obvious' clauses in patent law.

Meaning that the method to make a #2 pencil would not cover a patent on the making of a number 3 pencil. Those patents have been around for so long, that the #2 patent would be unenforceable because EVERYONE knows how a number 2 pencil was made, and making a slightly larger pencil is obvious, so doing that wouldn't fall under the original patent.

We have to start ONLY allowing patent on SPECIFIC DEVICES, not on piecemeal software and piecemeal products.

[make_or_break]

Nintendo's lost before...and they can very well lose again. Just because it's a small company that holds the patent doesn't mean it's patent trolling; this is not the case where some patent holding outfit goes out and buys up patents and intellectual property, in the hopes that one day someone with deep pockets will inadvertently step into their trap. People who legitimately develop and idea and patent DO have the right to protect what they come up with.

Just because a favored company happens to be the target of a patent lawsuit doesn't make them free and clear of patent responsibilities. If they were guilty of not doing their due diligence and properly investigate possible patent pitfalls, then they SHOULD AND WILL pay for that shoddy upfront work.

[Lerianis]

Sorry, but this is BLUNT patent trolling. The fact is that this patent is so overbroad, that it falls under the 'obvious' thing that makes a patent in violation of numerous other patent laws and unenforceable.

[Lemon5]

Its not like this is going to be the end of the Wii (as much as i would hope, lol). These small companies will just get payed off by Nintendo, then get royalties from here on out. This kind of crap probably happens all the time to a lot of major companies. I really wish it wouldn't happen, but this is the US. Lawsuits are too common.

[kmp091]

It seems like EVERYONE has a patent for a "three-dimensional pointing device". Next time, I could probably see some company suing Nintendo for infringing their patents for a mouse! God!

[jsjbingxi]

i really like to come here, i often have seen the lastest news here about wii, this kinds of news are always happen between this big company, such PROPERTY RIGHTS, http://www.epathchina.com/wii-accessories-c-292.html, many kinds of wii accessories here.