The filing date is not important to this type of patent. The original application was presented to the PTO on 4/30/2004. If that original application described the invention claimed in the final patent - then the inventor is entitled to that invention date.
What a joke. It is obvious Hillcrest and the other companies sat on things until they felt the Wii had a enough money in it. Only in the great USA can the most dishonest people claim money that is not theirs. Way to step up Hillcrest and show your one of them.
these patent trolls should go away. the patent system needs to be redone so that when someone files for a patent, the MUST HAVE AN INTENT TO PRODUCE. none of this bull crap about "yeah ive got this technology" when you are completely broke, making money off someone else's success. because of patent trolls trying to make some money, they are going to get everyone in america ticked off because there are so many things that can't be produce.
In fact, I have an example. There is a company that holds ALL PATENTS for RGB LED's. Basically, the patents state that no one, under any circumstances, can use the LED's without first going to the company and asking. The things I'm talking about are the ways the LED's change color, or how a group of them changes color in a certain pattern. Having the patent on the technology is OK, but beyond that it is really pushing it.
[citation][nom]jqk[/nom] Only in the great USA can the most dishonest people claim money that is not theirs. [/citation]
Surely you aren’t suggesting that people in other countries don’t steal money. Are you?
…And really? "the most dishonest people"?
What does it matter how dishonest someone is when they’re stealing?
I thought taking money that doesn't belong to you was stealing no matter how dishonest you are.
Or are you saying that, in other countries, the dishonesty requirements for stealing money are lower? Is it that you don’t have to be the most dishonest steal in other countries? Even the average dishonest person can steal money? Is that it?
Yes that must be it. So…then you weren’t claiming that people outside the USA don’t steal money. You must have meant that more people steal money in other countries than in the US.
Well I’m glad that in the USA, only the most dishonest steal money. That’s far better than all of the dishonest people stealing.
I agree with you, this USA place must be pretty great after all.
I’m also glad you wrote such a stupid post... ...so I could make fun of you.
It seems as though "patent trolling" is increasingly popular, as companies will file suit at the drop of a hatpin and on the shaky (or even nonexistent) grounds(Creative Technology Limited has been doing this for years). This sort of "patent trolling" is encouraged by allowing increasingly vague wording and non-proprietary technology to be patented.
This article has a little bit misleading information in it. For example, the term "accelerometer" is mentioned in Hillcrest Lab's patent #7158118 filed in May 2005, claim #9, and that claim is an independent claim. All 3 independent claims in that patent must be cleared before the patent can be cleared, and I'm not sure if Nintendo can do that.
Wiimote is filed in Sept 2006, under application number 11/532,328. It then points to its parent application 60/716,937 (according to USPTO's website), which is filed in Sept 2005. That is still 4 months after Hillcrest Lab filed patent #7158118.
If Nintendo cannot clear all 3 independent claims from #7158188, then it probably has to show some engineering documents to prove when Wiimote was developed earlier than May 05. I don't remember when Wii introduced its Wiimote to public for the first time, but if it appeared in 04, let's say in E3, that info would help. Also, Nintendo's legal/engineering team must has done some patent research before Wii was released, so they probably came across patent #7158188 (even though back then it was only an application) and hopefully they took the time to document why they think their product did not infringe #7158188. Even if Nintendo turns out to loose this case, that document would cut the cost of settlement tremendously.
2nekatreven> I'm not going to defend anyone, but your fun post is wrong
jqk: "Only in the great USA can the most dishonest people claim money that is not theirs."
nekatreven: "Well I?m glad that in the USA, only the most dishonest steal money."
Because "claim money that is not theirs" isn't stealing. Court is independent and should say if the money is their or not. In the end, they
1, get the money if it's theirs (that's not stealing)
2, don't get the money if it's not theirs (that's not stealing)
So I understand it this way:
"can the most dishonest people ('everyone knows' they are dishonest) claim money (can -legally- get to money) that is not theirs ('everyone knows' shouldn't be theirs)."
But IMHO that's everywhere so in one form or another...
nekatreven, Love your debating style. Are you a politician? You just went round and round and ended up nowhere. moriaty got it right. That is why I put claim. Companies are making a joke of our US court system. Pretty soon you will have to pay to sit down on a toilet a certain way because someone has a Patent
[citation][nom]jqk[/nom]nekatreven, Love your debating style. Are you a politician? You just went round and round and ended up nowhere. moriaty got it right. That is why I put claim. Companies are making a joke of our US court system. Pretty soon you will have to pay to sit down on a toilet a certain way because someone has a Patent[/citation]
Yea, I know...it was a pretty good sized stretch. My opinion is just much like that of kami3k above us. The anti-US comments that make it on here so often just sound ignorant to me. Most of the people that make them don't live here, and wouldn't make those comments if they did or had even ever been here. I say most because some of them have visited or do live here and are still stupid enough to make comments like that. Anyway I like to try and analyze them and make them look bad for it.
I was suggesting that you made it sound like only the most dishonest steal here. I happen to know that in other places even averagely dishonest people steal.
That wasn't exactly what you said though, and I couldn't quite bridge the two. I'll take that politician joke as a compliment though, cause with a little more material I'd have torn you apart.
Also, for anyone who is confused: just because it is legal doesn't mean it isn't stealing. Laws change, what is right and wrong does not. Why the heck do you think the US tax code is such a mess? People find new legal ways to steal money and congress has to close the holes. In fact if you think legality = morality, you probably just shouldn't talk anymore.
More on topic though, I agree with the concept that DOING something with one's intellectual property (or at least TRYING to) should be a requirement of owning it in the first place.