Nokia, Sony, and Nintendo Sued for Patent Infringement

[Doctor Setebos]

More headaches for at least a couple of console manufacturers, as a company called Wall Wireless has filed a lawsuit against Nintendo, Sony, and Nokia for patent infringement regarding the functionality of their wireless systems.

A court filing obtained by Edge from February 13 shows that Plano, Tex.-based Wall Wireless LLC is suing Sony, Nintendo, Nokia and related companies including Sony Computer Entertainment America and Nintendo of America for allegedly infringing upon U.S. patent 6,640,086, named "Method and Apparatus for Creating and Distributing Real-Time Interactive Media Content Through Wireless Communication Networks and the Internet."Specifically named in the lawsuit are Sony's PSP device, Nintendo's DS, and several of Nokia's N-series of mobile phones, along with several games on each device that include online multiplayer and leaderboards.

Source - Edge (http://www.edge-online.com/news/sony-nintendo-nokia-sued-over-wireless)

I'm waiting for the day when someone patents a "Method and Apparatus for the intake of Oxygen and Re-distribution of Oxygen Molecules within the Body and Eventual Release of Carbon Dioxide" and then proceeds to sue the entire world. Of course, the pathetically mis-managed US Patent Office would not only allow, but also support such a patent.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I'm glad this promotes business....some...how...?

[Jboy001]

I'm waiting for the day when someone patents a "Method and Apparatus for the intake of Oxygen and Re-distribution of Oxygen Molecules within the Body and Eventual Release of Carbon Dioxide" and then proceeds to sue the entire world. Of course, the pathetically mis-managed US Patent Office would not only allow, but also support such a patent.


So much hate for my chosen career :(

In patents the name of the game is the claims, don't judge a patent solely on the title...

[KSmitty]

So why aren't all machines that offer wireless game downloads a part of this suit? Right, because then it would sound even more ridiculous than it already is...

Honestly, patent squatting should be punishable by serious (I mean bankruptingly high) fines in some of these silly lawsuits.

[Jboy001]

For reference and further discussion, here is the first claim of the patent.
(I am in no way defending the company or representing the USPTO, just figured I would share this)

Claim 1:
A method for using a handheld apparatus having one or more output devices including a rasterized visual display that present output to an operator, one or more input devices including an array of switches that receive input from the operator, a wireless transmitter, and processing circuitry that controls operation of the one or more output devices, the one or more input devices and the wireless transmitter, wherein the method comprises steps that perform the acts of:

presenting information through the rasterized visual display to the operator that assists the operator in controlling the operation of the handheld apparatus;

providing through the one or more output devices to the operator a presentation of a representation of first content;

receiving through the one or more input devices from the operator a second content that overlaps in time the presentation of first content according to a temporal relationship controlled by the operator and an identification of one or more recipients; and

sending through the wireless transmitter a representation of the second content and identification of one or more recipients to a remote server that is separated in space from the handheld apparatus, and causing the remote server to send to the one or more recipients a message representing the first content and the second content arranged according to the temporal relationship.

--

Again, this is just for reference sake, I really don't know what to make of the claim, this isn't my area of work

[opsin]

I'm trying to think whether there's anything that you could use to claim prior art on this one... Regardless I think it's a shame both that some really stupid/stupidly obvious things get through the patent process, and that there isn't a 'this is fucking stupidy obvious' clause, like there's prior art.

Let alone the frequency with which people seem to be able to gain patents on devices that are basically just the combination of two existing products. I mean, as I say, it's just obvious someone's going to use wifi to connect portable gaming devices... God it pisses me off!

[Narradisall]

Seriously, fuck the patent system. If this was such an obvious breach of their patent how come they've done nothing till now? I suppose the DS and PSP have been little known in the world until recently.

[Ancalagon]

Seriously, fuck the patent system. If this was such an obvious breach of their patent how come they've done nothing till now? I suppose the DS and PSP have been little known in the world until recently.

This is why I consider myself to be Neutral Good in alignment (its a D&D term (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_&_Dragons))). Laws exist to serve the cause of good - if they dont serve the cause of good, your laws are wrong and need to be changed. There should never be a conflict between what is legal and what is right.

[Hemalin]

For reference and further discussion, here is the first claim of the patent.
(I am in no way defending the company or representing the USPTO, just figured I would share this)

Claim 1:
A method for using a handheld apparatus having one or more output devices including a rasterized visual display that present output to an operator, one or more input devices including an array of switches that receive input from the operator, a wireless transmitter, and processing circuitry that controls operation of the one or more output devices, the one or more input devices and the wireless transmitter, wherein the method comprises steps that perform the acts of:

presenting information through the rasterized visual display to the operator that assists the operator in controlling the operation of the handheld apparatus;

providing through the one or more output devices to the operator a presentation of a representation of first content;

receiving through the one or more input devices from the operator a second content that overlaps in time the presentation of first content according to a temporal relationship controlled by the operator and an identification of one or more recipients; and

sending through the wireless transmitter a representation of the second content and identification of one or more recipients to a remote server that is separated in space from the handheld apparatus, and causing the remote server to send to the one or more recipients a message representing the first content and the second content arranged according to the temporal relationship.

--

Again, this is just for reference sake, I really don't know what to make of the claim, this isn't my area of work
Did he just patent the internet? I'm just baffled that someone can make the distinction between wireless and landline and handheld and desktop in cases like this. Shouldn't the patent for the wireless transmitter already cover that?

[agentgray]

From what I gather, they want just some royalties?

Yeah, good luck with that.

EDIT: Also, I think there should be a statute of limitations on making the claims, and not after such claim (supposedly) used by someone else makes a boat load of money.

The DS is what, almost three years old? This should have been filed way back then.

What about Wacom? They fit.

[Deadend]

For reference and further discussion, here is the first claim of the patent.
(I am in no way defending the company or representing the USPTO, just figured I would share this)

Claim 1:
A method for using a handheld apparatus having one or more output devices including a rasterized visual display that present output to an operator, one or more input devices including an array of switches that receive input from the operator, a wireless transmitter, and processing circuitry that controls operation of the one or more output devices, the one or more input devices and the wireless transmitter, wherein the method comprises steps that perform the acts of:

presenting information through the rasterized visual display to the operator that assists the operator in controlling the operation of the handheld apparatus;

providing through the one or more output devices to the operator a presentation of a representation of first content;

receiving through the one or more input devices from the operator a second content that overlaps in time the presentation of first content according to a temporal relationship controlled by the operator and an identification of one or more recipients; and

sending through the wireless transmitter a representation of the second content and identification of one or more recipients to a remote server that is separated in space from the handheld apparatus, and causing the remote server to send to the one or more recipients a message representing the first content and the second content arranged according to the temporal relationship.

--

Again, this is just for reference sake, I really don't know what to make of the claim, this isn't my area of work

Sounds like a laptop using wi-fi. Or any sort of antenna.

I hate patents.

[Bone]

The DS is what, almost three years old? This should have been filed way back then.

I think the DS came out in 2005 even. EDIT: 2004!

This patent, like so many other technical patents, is a load of shit. Bottom feeders should be lined up and shot.

[violent]

McDonalds is suing me for gaining weight elsewhere.

[Purple Santa]

McDonalds is suing me for gaining weight elsewhere.

I see many food establishments lining up waiting to sue me now. I wonder if I can declare bankruptcy ;)

[violent]

I see many food establishments lining up waiting to sue me now. I wonder if I can declare bankruptcy ;)

Most popular chapter in the book called life: 7.

[jpublic]

These devices have been kicking around for 5 years now, shortly after the patent was filed. If they haven't made any claims about it until 2008, doesn't that mean they've shown they have no inclination to defend the patent and thus lose it?

Or does that only work for copyright?

[Bone]

It means they may once have had a viable business model (or convinced an idiot they were worth his venture capital) but now need to look to... other means... to make a living.

[MagGnome]

Yay for Patent Law! I wish something would be done about Patent and Copyright abuse, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. Especially with Disney dumping big dollars into keeping Copyright Laws going and going and going...

[Antipode]

With my powers of prediction, I foresee that it was filed in the Eastern District of Texas. No big deal though; Some things (http://www.google.com/patents?id=T2QKAAAAEBAJ&dq=6368227) just need to be patented.