Playstation sales halted?

P

PoisonedPawn45

Gawd
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
897
Check out this news release I just saw on slashdot:

http://games.slashdot.org/games/05/03/27/2119206.shtml?tid=212&tid=123&tid=155

PlayStation Sales Halted?

Narf Narf writes "According to Japan Today, the U.S. District Court in Oakland, California, has ordered Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. and its U.S. unit to pay $90.7 million in damages to Immersion Corp. for patent infringement over controllers used with PlayStation game consoles. In the ruling handed down Thursday, the federal court also ordered Sony Computer Entertainment and Sony Entertainment America Inc. to stop selling the PlayStation and PlayStation 2 game consoles using Dualshock controllers as well as more than 40 game software products." :eek:

 
is that true?!?!?!

is this for real? dual shock has been in use since 98... thats more than 7 years now... and they are just getting to this? hmmmm

http://www.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/03/27/japan.sonysuit.reut/index.html
edit:"SCE said it will continue U.S. sales as the suspension order, which covers PlayStation and PlayStation 2 consoles, two game controllers and 47 software titles, will not go into effect before the appeal and because Sony will be paying compulsory licence fees to Immersion, an SCE spokeswoman said."
 
bobsaget said:
Yeah... really, what about Xbox? Are those controllers different?
Click to expand...
M$ settles out of court, and then bought a large part of Immersion. Gotta love it.
 
Don't panic. It'll be immediately appealed and sales won't be affected. No need to worry.
 
b1m2x3 said:
is that true?!?!?!

is this for real? dual shock has been in use since 98... thats more than 7 years now... and they are just getting to this? hmmmm
Click to expand...

That's what i would do. If i made something neat and patented it. Then noticed people were starting to copy it. Rather than get pissed that they've stolen my idea and tell them to stop right away, i'd watch them carefully, building up my case, then when they've sufficiently created the market for me, i'd sic the lawyers at them for all the previous years, as well as make a profit on the market they've built for me.

See, not only did they hold Sony responsible for copying their controllers, they also benefited from it. :p
 
Sly said:
That's what i would do. If i made something neat and patented it. Then noticed people were starting to copy it. Rather than get pissed that they've stolen my idea and tell them to stop right away, i'd watch them carefully, building up my case, then when they've sufficiently created the market for me, i'd sic the lawyers at them for all the previous years, as well as make a profit on the market they've built for me.

See, not only did they hold Sony responsible for copying their controllers, they also benefited from it. :p
Click to expand...


However if you don't protect your copyrights, then precedent generally says that you can stake no claim on them later. It keeps opportunists from abusing patent law.
 
CatsGoMoo said:
However if you don't protect your copyrights, then precedent generally says that you can stake no claim on them later. It keeps opportunists from abusing patent law.
Click to expand...

That is not true at all. Opportunists cannot "abuse the patent law". Patents are not something you just get overnight. It takes significant money, and you have to do a patent search fist to make sure it is not already patented. Contrary to popular belief you cannot mail yourself the design specifications and have a copyright. You have to pay separate patent fees for every country you want something patented in, and patents last a maximum of five years. This isn't like you register a website name in a day.

It is the companies responsibility, when designing a product, to do a patent search first, to make sure you are not infringing copyrights. Its Sony's own fault for not doing enough product research first. No doubt they realized there was a copyright and tried to bulldoze over it with an army of lawyers. Its nice to see justice prevail rather then whoever can get the most lawyers.
 
bonkrowave said:
That is not true at all. Opportunists cannot "abuse the patent law". Patents are not something you just get overnight. It takes significant money, and you have to do a patent search fist to make sure it is not already patented. Contrary to popular belief you cannot mail yourself the design specifications and have a copyright. You have to pay separate patent fees for every country you want something patented in, and patents last a maximum of five years. This isn't like you register a website name in a day.

It is the companies responsibility, when designing a product, to do a patent search first, to make sure you are not infringing copyrights. Its Sony's own fault for not doing enough product research first. No doubt they realized there was a copyright and tried to bulldoze over it with an army of lawyers. Its nice to see justice prevail rather then whoever can get the most lawyers.
Click to expand...

however, it looks like the company waited to for sony to market and sell their product. if it looks like the original company waited for sony to do the heavy lifting and only now prosecuted because it means more profit, that's abuse of patent law. they should have filed suit as soon as they realized what's going on
 
Dome said:
however, it looks like the company waited to for sony to market and sell their product. if it looks like the original company waited for sony to do the heavy lifting and only now prosecuted because it means more profit, that's abuse of patent law. they should have filed suit as soon as they realized what's going on
Click to expand...

Its not abuse ... its opportunistic. Its not the company who has the patents fault ... its the companys fault, who fails to do the proper product research, and patent searches. Happens all the time in product design.
 
Dome said:
however, it looks like the company waited to for sony to market and sell their product. if it looks like the original company waited for sony to do the heavy lifting and only now prosecuted because it means more profit, that's abuse of patent law. they should have filed suit as soon as they realized what's going on
Click to expand...



Exactly. There's no way they couldn't have known about this long ago. The same thing happens in the guitar world all the time. Fender makes the Strat shape, thousands copy it, Fender doesn't do anything about it until 50 years later, and loses most of the battles in court, with defendants citing that it's industry standard now.
 
CatsGoMoo said:
Exactly. There's no way they couldn't have known about this long ago. The same thing happens in the guitar world all the time. Fender makes the Strat shape, thousands copy it, Fender doesn't do anything about it until 50 years later, and loses most of the battles in court, with defendants citing that it's industry standard now.
Click to expand...

Its called a patent search. Any responsible design firm always does these when designing a product. There is no statute of limitations on patents for a reason.
 
bonkrowave said:
Its called a patent search. Any responsible design firm always does these when designing a product.
Click to expand...


Bonko, I agree 100%.

It still doesn't change the fact that time and time again courts have ruled that you are responsible for protecting your IP.
 
CatsGoMoo said:
It still doesn't change the fact that time and time again courts have ruled that you are responsible for protecting your IP.
Click to expand...

They are being responsible .. they have filed charges and the courts ruled in their favour. For them to have won the case means they had a legitimate case ... I dont know how much more responsible you can be.

Same thing happened with a company where I live. Research in Motion RIM for short. They designed the Blackberry, which has been sold for years. Two months ago an American company claimed that RIM infringed on there copyrights, and now the legal battle is raging.

A lot of companies will just violate patents anyway. The court awarded amount from the products which have been sold, for RIM and Sony, are often just a drop in the bucket compared to the profits they have already recieved.
 
Cali3350 said:
M$ settles out of court, and then bought a large part of Immersion. Gotta love it.
Click to expand...

and with my tin-hat off:
With the Xbox stil no where nere as popular as teh PS branch, what do you think the chancers are that this was egged on by MS to aid their home sales
 
Latest: Sony appeals, pays compulsary license fees. Sales continue. Gee, didn't see that coming. :rolleyes:
 
Dang, that sucks. I may perfer the DS over the PSP, but the PS2 is a great console with plenty of good games. :(
 
Torgo said:
Latest: Sony appeals, pays compulsary license fees. Sales continue. Gee, didn't see that coming. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You mean that meteor the size of jupiter heading for earth? Sony was seeing if they could get lucky. In the business world, lawyers will keep fighting little battles in order to fend off big ones.

-tReP
 
This doesn't take affect immediately, but we'll have to see how the appeals go. If they lose in the appeals, then the sales WILL be halted until they pay $90 million.
 
eeyrjmr said:
and with my tin-hat off:
With the Xbox stil no where nere as popular as teh PS branch, what do you think the chancers are that this was egged on by MS to aid their home sales
Click to expand...
Wouldn't doubt it.

 
I thought I heard you can change something 15% and repatent it. Is that true? Also, if you have no money to back your patent, are you basically screwed when up against a large company?
 
TimothyB said:
I thought I heard you can change something 15% and repatent it. Is that true? Also, if you have no money to back your patent, are you basically screwed when up against a large company?
Click to expand...

yup ... which sucks. But most things in the world work this way.
 
Imagine the outrage that would have followed if this had been Microsoft instead of Sony...

I can see the "t3h m0n0pol3$" now.
 
WickedAngel said:
Imagine the outrage that would have followed if this had been Microsoft instead of Sony...

I can see the "t3h m0n0pol3$" now.
Click to expand...

BIll gates would have just hired a goon squard and all the sueing company members, would end up underneath yankee stadium, right next to Jimmy Hoffa.
 
bonkrowave said:
BIll gates would have just hired a goon squard and all the sueing company members, would end up underneath yankee stadium, right next to Jimmy Hoffa.
Click to expand...

That reminds me of the episode of The Simpsons where Homer started a computer company and Bill showed up with thugs.
 
WickedAngel said:
That reminds me of the episode of The Simpsons where Homer started a computer company and Bill showed up with thugs.
Click to expand...

Its funny ................... cause its true.

:D
 
WickedAngel said:
That reminds me of the episode of The Simpsons where Homer started a computer company and Bill showed up with thugs.
Click to expand...
Compu- Global-Hyper-Mega-Net
 
eeyrjmr said:
and with my tin-hat off:
With the Xbox stil no where nere as popular as teh PS branch, what do you think the chancers are that this was egged on by MS to aid their home sales
Click to expand...

To this and all of the other posts like it...

check out http://immr.client.shareholder.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=111788

They filed a suit against BOTH Microsoft AND Sony on February 11, 2002.

They fought Microsoft for over 2 years (which was settled by Microsoft paying $26M and in the end owning a 10% share of Immersion), and Sony for over 3 years now.

Keep in mind that Microsoft must be all for this now, but that's because for any money that Sony has to pay Immersion, some of it ends up in Microsoft's coffers due to their part ownership.

But don't make it sound like they let this go on for 5 years just to pad their wallets and let Sony rake in the dough that they'll retroactively collect, and don't make it sound like they're letting MS off easy.

As for Nintendo, they're one of the 20 or so companies that legally licenses the technology for their controllers... why did MS and Sony think they could get away with it?
 
Widge said:
To this and all of the other posts like it...

check out http://immr.client.shareholder.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=111788

They filed a suit against BOTH Microsoft AND Sony on February 11, 2002.

They fought Microsoft for over 2 years (which was settled by Microsoft paying $26M and in the end owning a 10% share of Immersion), and Sony for over 3 years now.

Keep in mind that Microsoft must be all for this now, but that's because for any money that Sony has to pay Immersion, some of it ends up in Microsoft's coffers due to their part ownership.

But don't make it sound like they let this go on for 5 years just to pad their wallets and let Sony rake in the dough that they'll retroactively collect, and don't make it sound like they're letting MS off easy.

As for Nintendo, they're one of the 20 or so companies that legally licenses the technology for their controllers... why did MS and Sony think they could get away with it?
Click to expand...

Although now that MS has 10% of the company I wouldn't be surprised if they had a hand in getting "Go get Sony" .

Anyway, good information, thanks. At least Nintendo's safe :(
 
This reminds me, i heard a long time ago that Nintendo licensed their controllers, so no other controller had the cross shaped D-Pad. Everyone else made a circle with a cross or an indented circle, and Sony had their split into four buttons. It's been years, and even now, i have yet to find a gamepad with a cross instead of a circle.

How come nobody copies that little detail? Is the patent still in effect? Five years seems a little short.
 
Sly said:
This reminds me, i heard a long time ago that Nintendo licensed their controllers, so no other controller had the cross shaped D-Pad. Everyone else made a circle with a cross or an indented circle, and Sony had their split into four buttons. It's been years, and even now, i have yet to find a gamepad with a cross instead of a circle.

How come nobody copies that little detail? Is the patent still in effect? Five years seems a little short.
Click to expand...

You have to renew a patent every 5 years. It doesn't last only 5 years. You can let it lapse ... but then companies can copy it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top