Sony and Nintendo get sued for patent infringement (again)

by Andrew Yoon { Jan 11th 2008 at 9:00AM }

Sony can't just catch a break, can it? According to Gamespot, a company named the Copper Innovations Group filed suit against Nintendo and Sony for a patent it holds on a "Hand Held Computer Input Apparatus and Method." The patent, filed in January 1996 references devices and their ability to communicate with hardware reference numbers. Sony's PS3 controllers utilize a similar technology.

This isn't the first time Sony has had to face a lawsuit for its controller technology. Famously, Immersion successfully sued Sony for the use of rumble in the DualShock controller. Until the suit was settled, Sony had to remove rumble from their SIXAXIS controllers.

Neither Sony nor Copper Innovations Group has commented about the situation. Will this end up being another headache for Sony?

Tags: controller, copper-innovations, lawsuit

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

wonway01 @ Jan 11th 2008 9:15AM

Damn you can't cough these days without someone claiming wrights to some part of it.

Haiddasalami @ Jan 11th 2008 9:29AM

Hmm like all big lawsuits I think they will just settle with the company if their reason is valid. I cant understand all this technical jargon

Kellian @ Jan 11th 2008 9:42AM

I stopped reading after "According to Gamespot..."

robert @ Jan 11th 2008 8:03PM

It's weird that the company is only suing Sony and Nintendo. Isn't the 360 controller, or any controller *including guitar hero guitars*, "Hand Held Computer Input Apparatus and Method"?

That's the jist of controllers: its a computer apparatus that you hold in your hand and input stuff, using a computer input method.

finelicker @ Jan 11th 2008 9:46AM

American copyright laws seem to be a joke. Sony announced the specifications of the PS3 hardware (by law) prior to its release. If there are any breaches or infringements, its surely Sony's lawyers responsibility to ensure that no ones toes are stepped on. It seems awfully suspicious that this was filed and copyrighted all the way back in 1996 and the PS3 has been out for over a year and this suddenly crops up. It stinks of someone trying to make a quick buck to me.

finelicker @ Jan 11th 2008 9:46AM

finelicker @ Jan 11th 2008 9:47AM

Sorry, double post.

finelicker @ Jan 11th 2008 9:47AM

WTF just happened......

Galley @ Jan 11th 2008 10:45AM

I think the Weblogs servers are getting hammered, thus causing all the duplicate posts. Let's see how many times this gets posted!

Mr Khan @ Jan 11th 2008 11:52AM

Aye, i keep getting "Cannot Find Server" often when i click "Add Your Comments," and then my account registers as zero

Seems like another patent-hunter, Nintendo's been hit with more of these, but immersion's was the only legitmate one, it seems

finelicker @ Jan 11th 2008 9:47AM

WTF just happened......

Tim Parsons @ Jan 11th 2008 10:00AM

Another company trying to cash in On the Success of SONY & Nintendo nothing more,.

davivman @ Jan 11th 2008 10:02AM

I looked up the patent (US Patent Number 5,640,152) and it looks like the patent was issued from a divisional application whose earliest application for which benefit was claimed was filed back in 1991. This is important because due to a change in patent law in 1995 (Which applies since the divisional was filed in 1996) the patent term of 20 years starts to toll from that 1991 date. That means the patent at issue will expire in 2011, three years from now. Considering that any litigation would likely drag on for several years, an injunction seems very unlike to ever be issued.

derickoleary @ Jan 11th 2008 10:07AM

Is it just me, or is the technology they are referring to describing Bluetooth?

davivman @ Jan 11th 2008 10:18AM

The technology is not refering to bluetooth. Sixaxis uses bluetooth, The Wii remote doesn't and both are claimed to infringe. They are claiming the infringing technology does this:

1. A method for remotely controlling a function of a computer monitor or other equipment in response to transmissions from less than all of a plurality of transmitters remote from said equipment, including the steps of;

(a) transmitting an identification number as a part of each transmission from each transmitter to the equipment,
(b) comparing the identification number in each transmission received by the equipment with a previously designated identification number,
(c) rejecting each transmission received by the equipment which does not contain said previously designated identification number, and
(d) designating said previously designated identification number by transmitting a connect data packet from one of the plurality of transmitters to the equipment.

Mr Khan @ Jan 11th 2008 11:54AM

Wii does, just that Nintendo's too scared to make it open to development, as opposed to Sony

Tim Parsons @ Jan 11th 2008 12:51PM

So it would seem,. and Bluetooth to my knowledge has nothing to do with Nintendo or SONY it's board of Directors includes;

Ericsson Technology Licensing (founder member)
IBM (founder member)
Intel (founder member)
Microsoft (since 1999)
Motorola (since 1999)
Nokia (founder member)
Toshiba (founder member)

Tim Parsons @ Jan 11th 2008 12:55PM

@16 WiiMote's DO use Bluetooth ,. so these guys should be Sueing Bluetooth not Nintendo or SONY this is BoGUS!!

davivman @ Jan 11th 2008 2:13PM

You're right, Wii does use bluetooth. But that's still not the point. Sony and Nintendo are not being sued because they are using bluetooth, they are being sued for how they are using it. It really doesn't matter if they are transmitting using bluetooth, wi-fi, microwave transmissions, or whatever. What matters is how they use those signals to control a device. You have to look at the claim language in the patent to determine if that is what Sony and Nintendo do in their products. And as for the issue of whether somebody else would be more appropriate to sue, that really doesn't matter. Patent holders can sue any or all infringers as they see fit. I think the stronger arguement to make is that patent is just invalid for being obvious.

Easo @ Jan 11th 2008 10:20AM

3 double post in a row. Is that a record?

JaffaBoy @ Jan 11th 2008 10:48AM

I think these "state the obvious" patents are ridiculous and just stifle innovation. They just patent an idea without actually producing a product.

Worth taking a look through the online patents - some are just *so* funny.

Just waiting to sue the hell out of someone who invents a time machine, I'll get them with my patent...

"A device for moving an object from a to b"
"A -> B"

that should do it! ;-)

davivman @ Jan 11th 2008 11:00AM

Good point, The Patent Office would agree with you. A "state the obvious" patent should be rejected for obviousness under 35 USC 102. And if for some reason the patent examiner issues the the patent anyway, the patent can easily be invalidated if it can be shown to be obvious.

Christian @ Jan 11th 2008 11:32AM

There was a US Supreme court verdict on patents in the US essentially saying that the patent office had been way to lenient in granting patents and that a lot of current patents should be invalidated due to obviousness. This seem like such a silly patent which should never have been granted in the first place and hopefully a court will quickly disqualify it based on this obviousness criteria. Unfortunately there are a lot of patent troll companies set up in the US now trying to extort money from successful companies and trying to game the system by offering a license that is usually a little cheaper than the cost of taking the patent to court to get it invalidated.

Also to the earlier comment about copyright law, yes US copyright law is borked due to Disney bribes, but this specific case is about a broken patent law, not broken copyright law.

Bryant @ Jan 11th 2008 12:36PM

The U.S. Patent office needs to look into individuals and/or companies that just keep patenting stuff that they're not doing and R&D for. They're just like cyber squatters, except they make more money and they're far more disgusting.

Oh wait, I have an idea for a vehicle that can fly to the outerspace by means of gravitational force and natural gases combined with nuclear thermal reactions. Maybe I should file a patent for that too.

Saigon @ Jan 11th 2008 12:53PM

Can someone answer this for me...if sony is using Blutoth to connect their devices...how is this patent infringement...because if that is the case should they also sue Motorola, Samsung, Sanyo...etc...

davivman @ Jan 11th 2008 2:17PM

See comment 20

Millman @ Jan 11th 2008 3:36PM

This all revolves around Bluetooth (which this so called company doesn't have a patent for). Bluetooth REQUIRES a device ID to be connected. Due to the fact that these are devices utilizing Bluetooth technologies, requiring a unique device ID to be assigned and not device ID assigning just for the sake of device ID assignment as the patent specifies; this case should be dismissed. Otherwise, this company could make a claim against many device manufactures that have Bluetooth interoperability.

maryland157 @ Jan 11th 2008 5:58PM

I'm still waiting for God to get sued for voilating the design of humans.

Popfrogs @ Jan 11th 2008 6:20PM

Nah, God of War violates patent number 51058582, filed by William Bergman. In it, the patent refers to "the method and madness of an ancient hero, in Greek/Roman times, banishing foes in a reckless yet skillful manner, aided by the powers of ancient gods. Also this "hero" uses unusual weaponry and solves puzzles to accomplish his goals."

Highlader @ Jan 12th 2008 12:26AM

Apart from the obvious point that the bluetooth technology used by Sony is used under license, so it's not really Sony who's responsible for any infringement. This is a dumb case. The TCP/IP protocol adequately covers all the bases on this concept and it's almost entirely public domain. This company should get short shrift and kick up the arse for being cheeky.

Honestly this patent is so overbroad as to be invalid even before the case gets going. A nice test of th Supreme Court's recent guidance regarding the obviousness test. Basically it will come down to this. If you have more than one remote device communicating wirelessly using the same frequency or a spread spectrum of random frequencies, each unique remote device must have an identifier. Since this is a digital system thre is no way to do it except using a binary code which will obviously translate directly to a number. There is no other way to do it. This patent is not just obvious it's painfully bleeding obvious. And it was just as painfully bleeding obvious in January 1996 when it was filed for. That is BTW more than 10 years ago. I'm pretty sure that there have been devices in that 10 years that have used numeric codes to identity themselves. For example any cordless phone using digital transmission employs a handshaking protocol with the base station that automatically identifies each handset with a numeric code. Multi-hand set capability has bee around for years. Why in hell's name to idiots still think they can game the patent system?