[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]if i were the judge i would sue these patent trolling losers out of existence. not that Nintendo needs the money just got to send a message to the other patent tolling companies out there[/citation]
I agree that any company that tries to enforce an invalid patent should have to at least pay restitution for any damages caused by their patent and any efforts taken to defend that patent. It would make a lot of companies think twice before they patent things they didn't create, or were so obvious that no one else ever thought to patent it before.
I mean, seriously, an A/D converter for controllers? How does this differ in any form from a regular A/D converter? Modifying technology doesn't just mean using different words to describe it.
@Hellwig - welcome to the ludicrous world of intellectual property. The main thing in this case wasn't som much the A/D converter, but the way an A/D converter is used to solve a specific problem is IP.
[citation][nom]spongebob[/nom]The main thing in this case wasn't som much the A/D converter, but the way an A/D converter is used to solve a specific problem is IP.[/citation]Only if it is non-obvious. Even if Nintendo didn't have prior art it's likely the patent wouldn't have survived a court challenge.
I always wonder, does this current patent system protect IP or destroy potential products.
It's not uncommon for a company to think about something and than try to sell it. And if seen some a lot worse pass over the internet. From really basic handling of things that I'd say why would any judge award that patent to begin with.
Patents should protect the interest of inventors, but it shouldn't feed the greed of some people who can't think of good inventions and just add some basics together and claims a patent that hits both oceans, preventing other people from inventing, the cruise line that has to run between the ocean.
I've said it before and I still believe in it. The system needs a rework. It's preventing good inventions and filling the pockets of greedy companies, who want to get a dime out of everything they can claim as their own.
[citation][nom]jhansonxi[/nom]Only if it is non-obvious.[/citation]Yes, and they're supposed to be new as well, but that didn't stop the plaintif in this case from obtaining a patent. Whether or not something is obvious depends on who you're asking, and given some of the patents I've heard about recently, I have to wonder who they are consulting on this point, my goldfish?
[citation][nom]SirCrono[/nom]I'm wondering how many more of this cases does americans need before realizing that their legal system is stupid...[/citation]
What we really need is a "loser pays" system. This should cut down on most frivolous lawsuits.