| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Spanca
PALGN Moderator
Status: Offline
Joined: 17 Feb 2003
Posts: 7926
$poons: 106.00
Location: Sydney
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| Fly wrote: | Actually reading various sources on this you also see some rather interesting numbers:
| Quote: | | The US firm said it has 29 patents relating to technology that allows consumers to interact with digital media on television. |
So 29 patents by Hillcrest for interaction for TV's, then when you look at Hillcrests site which Benza provides, hmm copyright 2008 for the Freespace product? |
Copyright and patent are completely different. Copyright is only awarded when you have actually expressed the idea. You can't get copyright in an idea alone, so the years of work you put into the development and research of a product are best protected through patents. Copyright can only protect what has actually been created from direct copying.
As for the rest of your post, I don't see what the problem is. That is a patent describing their idea and seems to pretty accurately describe what their product now does (assuming I understand their product correctly).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fly
Status: Offline
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 1774
$poons: 250.40
Location: Melbourne
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Spanca wrote: |
Copyright and patent are completely different. Copyright is only awarded when you have actually expressed the idea. You can't get copyright in an idea alone, so the years of work you put into the development and research of a product are best protected through patents. Copyright can only protect what has actually been created from direct copying.
As for the rest of your post, I don't see what the problem is. That is a patent describing their idea and seems to pretty accurately describe what their product now does (assuming I understand their product correctly). |
The copyright was more if the patent was made in '05 as it claims and Hillcrest decided to release said device this year and then turn around and sue for patent problems, seems mighty like a cash grab that within months of release they turn around and sue a large scale operator. In one word, coincidence. How much really happens in issues such as these with companies?
And you also summed up my problem with it, it described their idea which is, in effect, moronic.
Enhance how? Type of System? Point how? Fingers? Arms? Feet? Firing from a canon at a screen to emulate a forward motion? What methods? Specific motions? You can patent motions now? A second reference? Touch screens? Rippled water interaction? keybaords generated through mist or air? Looking at a TV and thinking about pointing at an option? Tilting? Degrees of tilt? Everything else has to be right angled now? Oh no I can use any conceivable product in my hand at any angle and it will work fine!
How many other notions can you think of to replace or substitute for what could be meant with their terminology? How do you know that that is not what their intention was?
And holding by a user, correct me if I'm wrong but their device does not look as if it is meant to be held but to be worn, unless the circular design is a model to please males. But you can patent people holding pointing devices now?
It's generic because it's vague, it's vague because either the company is full of idiots or they wanted it that way so interpretation could be precedence. You can patent a design idea, if you have a way to transport human thoughts into instant data so that you have a full VR environment then you patent the design, you don't patent "the transfer of humanity to a secondary reference" because then woah step back on the videos, you make a testimonial your sharing memories, that's sharing humanity you then owe me money because you're sharing it to a second reference in a second individual that's not yourself!
So really, just because they made a product for it does that immediately make everything fine and dandy?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
/\nthony
Status: Offline
Joined: 22 May 2007
Posts: 86
$poons: 19.20
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
What I dont get is why Nintendo gets sued left right and center? (well yea I do, its money and they made it big, but hear me out)
Technically, assuming Nintendo is in the wrong in the first place, shouldnt only one company be entitled to sue them over the Wii remote? Or does the Wii remote miraculously infringe on all these different patents that somehow do not infringe on each other? Nintendo technically shouldnt owe any more than 1 company anything.
_________________
Economical Gamer - Video game bargains, competitions & freeware games
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swatmajor1
Status: Offline
Joined: 08 Jul 2008
Posts: 14
$poons: 0.60
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think that the Wiimote breaks any patent held by this mob, but the Motion Plus would. Anyway, the patent was filed June 30, 2007. And the Wii came out what, 3 years ago. So their claim of patent breaking is invalid, since the Motion Plus was in dev prior to this filing, or so I understand it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swatmajor1
Status: Offline
Joined: 08 Jul 2008
Posts: 14
$poons: 0.60
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shadeslayer
Status: Offline
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
Posts: 180
$poons: 4.70
Location: Albany
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Lord Haart wrote: | Worst thing is patents are global, so you can basically be sued for anything these days. The legal system in America is a bigger joke than Bush.
|
Technically Patents aren't reconised in China.
They are legally allowed to steal others Ideas
That's why we see lots of cheap crap TV's
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Brett
Status: Offline
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 970
$poons: 47.60
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
People seem to think these lawsuits are "unfair" basically because motion technology is so standard now. But... there was a time when it wasn't, and companies who thought of these ideas should be recognised for it if they've deserved it. People might laugh at me now if I say I have an idea for scratch n sniff videogames or something, but if it were huge in ten years time, I would hope that wouldn't affect my legal rights.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanca
PALGN Moderator
Status: Offline
Joined: 17 Feb 2003
Posts: 7926
$poons: 106.00
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
^ Some IP lawsuits are ridiculous though, like claiming copyright in a TV guide...
*sigh*
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
genxevo
Status: Offline
Joined: 18 Nov 2006
Posts: 1680
$poons: 233.60
Location: Melb
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| The Brett wrote: | | People seem to think these lawsuits are "unfair" basically because motion technology is so standard now. But... there was a time when it wasn't, and companies who thought of these ideas should be recognised for it if they've deserved it. People might laugh at me now if I say I have an idea for scratch n sniff videogames or something, but if it were huge in ten years time, I would hope that wouldn't affect my legal rights. |
but motion sensors seems like natural evolution (if thats possible) for the way we play gaming (like joy stick to controllers, to controllers with analgoue stick to wirless controllers).. just because some guy thought of it first, doesn't mean someone else (who didn't even know about the first guy) won't think about it, and do it better.
could you imagine somone patent 'having a machine that lets you control characters or things in a virtual enviroment on your tv'? There'd only be one console out there, and there would be no gurantee thats it'd be a good one
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanca
PALGN Moderator
Status: Offline
Joined: 17 Feb 2003
Posts: 7926
$poons: 106.00
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| genxevo wrote: | | The Brett wrote: | | People seem to think these lawsuits are "unfair" basically because motion technology is so standard now. But... there was a time when it wasn't, and companies who thought of these ideas should be recognised for it if they've deserved it. People might laugh at me now if I say I have an idea for scratch n sniff videogames or something, but if it were huge in ten years time, I would hope that wouldn't affect my legal rights. |
but motion sensors seems like natural evolution (if thats possible) for the way we play gaming (like joy stick to controllers, to controllers with analgoue stick to wirless controllers).. |
It's incredibly easy to argue something "seems" like evolution in hindsight as the alternatives forgone look silly simply because they aren't mainstream.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Benza
Status: Offline
Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Posts: 14586
$poons: 119.20
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
If it was a natural evolution then everyones reaction to six-axis wouldn't have been "OH MY GOD RIP OFF NINTENDO MUCH!?"
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Brett
Status: Offline
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 970
$poons: 47.60
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| genxevo wrote: | | The Brett wrote: | | People seem to think these lawsuits are "unfair" basically because motion technology is so standard now. But... there was a time when it wasn't, and companies who thought of these ideas should be recognised for it if they've deserved it. People might laugh at me now if I say I have an idea for scratch n sniff videogames or something, but if it were huge in ten years time, I would hope that wouldn't affect my legal rights. |
but motion sensors seems like natural evolution (if thats possible) for the way we play gaming (like joy stick to controllers, to controllers with analgoue stick to wirless controllers).. just because some guy thought of it first, doesn't mean someone else (who didn't even know about the first guy) won't think about it, and do it better.
could you imagine somone patent 'having a machine that lets you control characters or things in a virtual enviroment on your tv'? There'd only be one console out there, and there would be no gurantee thats it'd be a good one |
But as has already been mentioned - what about the telephone? Alexander Graham Bell has been universally credited with inventing the thing, yet it wasn't actually him. He just got the patent first. And now a poor Italian guy, whose hard work was essentially stolen from Bell, is left in the shadows. The Americans even went to the extent of passing a symbolic resolution recognising the true inventor, but do you know his name? I can't even remember.
Patents aren't a modern-day corporate thing. It wasn't just invented in the last few years - it's a cornerstone of law designed to protect the rights of individuals.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
