there was also a cart type of sled in that patent where the handheld  ie even they used a cell phone at the time, fit into the sled with a cam attached to the sled, the game boy camera was a cart made to fit into the Handheld, thus like i said that the concepts were made to fix or tackle the same problem they both designed the fix the issue.

for instance the Jupiter company was the one's who made the Game boy camera but Nintendo along with
Jupiter made the software to work with the use of the designed Camera.

"
That's a very significant difference. To me at least. If you want, we can agree to disagree. But it would be like you talking about the propeller, and me talking about helicopters"

but that is not the case at all, both were camera's what you do with that camera is just as important as the camera's creation correct?

the very point of innovation is to expand the use of said  created invented methods of something in the first place.without said invention there is no innovation! because the method of such created invention is not there. like what you just described, the propeller and the heliocopter is tied to one another without said propeller there would be no Helicopter. Just as there would be no Helicopter  because there would be no  main rotor.

Take the belt example, it was made to hold up mens pant's than someone used the same belt to hold school books together from falling out of you arms while you carried them. or to keep the book cover closed on a big heavy book. Innovation is the creative use of an invention that does not mean the creative use of said invention is one companies or one person's idea in the first place. if that was indeed true when Nintendo got its pitch to do the Motion control in 2001 by a 3rd party company, Sony was already showing off a concept of motion control a year early, does that mean that sony copied the company that showed off their concept to nintendo in 2001? when Sony was already showing off their method in 2000?

No it just means both Company's were working on a method to motion control's for entertainment purpose, or other motion control applied uses's. one will make it out first, that does not mean the other one is a copy of the one that makes it out first.

Nintendo had the GBA-GCN link cable (remote play) before PSP Remote Play.

Kinect is a 3D Camera, EyeToy is 2D.

So Sony did copy Nintendo and MS here, but you could argue that PS4's EyeToy is an evolution of the one which existed on PS2.

However, you ignored everything else Sony copied, which most people won't debate (like analog sticks and the home button)



Does it matter though? No. That's like saying everyone copied Mercedes Benz because we put engines in cars instead of horses. People are too protective of copyrights, if it makes games better, then everyone should be able to use it.

I agree with the last part (in bold) because that was two people working on the idea in parallel. With the GB camera versus the eyetoy, we know which one came out first. The same is true about handheld to console cross connectivity. In that sense we can't blur the lines in those cases as we can in the case of Wii vs move.

However, in the HandSpring vs GB Cam, I'm going to have to disagree with you. The man who used his belt to tie books together came up with an innovative application of an existing creation. In the case of handspring, the patent doesn't mention cameras, it mentions a rotating extension to a handheld. But the heart of the topic isn't an extension to a handheld, it's not even handhelds. It's cameras attached to consoles. In terms of the creation, webcams existed since 1994. So neither HS nor Ninty invented the webcam. The first use of it on a handheld is Ninty's, as it is the first use of it on a gaming console. HS didn't have a patent for cams, they had a patent for extensions to handhelds. We don't know when the cam was made a part of it, and there is little indication it was meant in a gaming application or context. So all in all it had little bearing in the context of the topic at hand (Eyetoy vs kinect vs GB camera).

happydolphin you cannot have it both way's, the point of a invention is to fill a area where something was created for a use, the point of innovation is creative use's of such invention's.

"the patent doesn't mention cameras"

in the patent it shows a camera attaching to a cellphone! there is a picture right in the patent! as a method for expansion to handheld device such as PDA's; even adding to a desktop PC 's and adding portable Camera's to Cellphone's! two year's before JUPITOR AND nINTENDO MADE THE GAME BOY CAMERAfor the Game boy does that mean the concept of adding it to a game console was Nintendo's alone? or does it mean that Nintendo released it first?

AGAIN Concept and innovation are not the same thing!.

"
The first use of it on a handheld is Ninty's, as it is the first use of it on a gaming console"

and did PDA's like palm pilot's play Game's? Look im not saying that Nintendo is not innovative, they had the world's smallest camera on a handheld  @ one time but on the same token you cannot give a blanket Innovative "carte blanche" Label to Nintendo That everyone else just copy's and just giving the blank statement that other's are just copying Nintendo, when its not true at all. A dedicated Game handheld and a PDA both play games. both as you can see had concepts to add a camera to them, that does not mean other's copied Nintendo on the concept.

the concept of doing it for Game console's is like did an application or concept oR method OF USE for the Game console mean that it was done on the game console first before it was done on the PC ?

when they designed this camera did it start on the gameboy or did it start on a PC? in its design?

thus HP has a patent to add camera's to a handheld device predate the Gameboy Camera by 2 year's does that mean that HP was the first one to think of said concept? it does not mean out right No. But on the same token just because Jupiter Corporation developed a camera for a handheld that Nintendo was making called the Gameboy does not mean outright Nintendo created the very concept of putting out a Camera on a game console and that they were the only one's to come up with the idea.. It just means they may have beat someone else to the market first!

In that case, the webcam itself predates HS's application of it on a handheld.

Do we actually have information on Nintendo's GB Cam patents prior to release?

Assuming the impossible, that Nintendo patented this at the same time as release of the GB Camera, I'm willing to concede that the use of a webcam on a multi-purpose device (whether handheld or PC) predates the GB Camera. How much that has bearing in the GB Cam vs Eyetoy vs Kinect is really questionable.

Sure the multi-purpose device can play games, but did it, was that a primary use of the device? Remember, HS's were used in a business application first and foremost. A much better argument is PC-based webcam games that began quite early (something like 1996).

I'm not sure how honest this argument is in the context of video game consoles, be they handheld or not.

Also, the idea of copying is much more comprehensible in the context of direct competition (like the big 3 for example).

Regarding remote play. (Early Form)

1994 Super Game Boy. Play your Game boy games on the SNES. Then continue on your game boy.

1995 Sega Nomad. Play your Genisis games on the go.

2004 Nintendo DS Download Play. Let's you play DS multiplayer DS games with one copy of the game. Streaming from one DS to another.

2006 Remote play using PSP and PS3. First game was Lair

I am a PS Fanboy and have stated that fact more than once. But I don't deny the facts. I state the facts and when I am on the wrong side of them.

Nintendo doesn't copy anyone imo. They do their own thing. Always had a lot of respect for Nintendo for that. They could have made a bunch of shooters like other companies have been, but they do what they want instead.

The Wii U Gamepad IS NOT a copy of anything Sony or anybody else is doing. Just not true

The Xbox Kinect... yeah it kind of is. It is more advanced then the EyeToy, but it should be given it is almost 10 years older lol. The concept and purpose of the Kinect is still the same thing as the EyeToy

That's not to say Microsoft always copies other companies shit. Just that the Kinect is what it is. A newer verison of the EyeToy

That depends on what was being done with the technology at the time:

Example:

Wii-mote Prototype Designer Speaks Out, Shares Sketchbook

Yesterday you saw the first prototype pre-Wii motion-sensitive controller that Gyration pitched to Nintendo in 2001. Today, we received a note from Matt Presta at Bridge Design, who drafted the original concept. Here he explains his mission, shares a peek at the actual drawing board, and gives a shout-out to left-handed people everywhere.

http://gizmodo.com/295276/wii+mote-prototype-designer-speaks-out-shares-sketchbook

Now if you want to look at concept's of use for a method with camera's:

in July 31, 2000

The Medieval Chamber by Richard Marks uses real-time video processing used to track multiple stick-like objects that can be held by the viewer. By moving these objects, the viewer can move a sword, ball-and-chain, and torch that are real-time rendered in a medieval chamber with shadows and transparency on Playstation2 hardware.

http://silicon-valley.siggraph.org/MeetingNotes/sig2000.html

The thing is Nintendo did not even get a pitch for the WiiMote until Nintendo in 2001.

Sony was already with the same Idea with protypes just like Gyration pitched to Nintendo in 2001. the problem is if you look at each the way they are set up Nintendo's Option was far cheaper to get to market than Kinect or Move. for instance in  DR. Marks showed off the zcam @ siggraph  before MICROSOFT EVEN BOUGHT INTO THE TECH, SONY DID NOT CREATE THE ZCAM also but they were looking into it. well before Microsoft was check out this in nov 1999

http://www.siggraph.org/publications/newsletter/v33n4/columns/editor.html

DR. Marks joined Sony in 1999

that's why DR. Marks demo of this function in 2000 was listed as

E m e r g i ng Te c h no l o g ie s

http://lukasz.dk/mirror/research-scea/research/pdfs/SIGGRAPHetech2000.pdf

That  does not mean that it was just Sony working on such Innovation.

Nintendo's method from Gyration was cheaper and much cunsumer friendly price than what Sony was using with their Method, but Sony method was more accurate! cost of components were also much more costly, Sony had no other choice but to wait.

LOL at comparing Kinect to the EyeToy.

Did the EyeToy have a resolution of 640x480 Pixels? No! It had 320x240! Did the EyeToy have a USB 2.0 interface?!?! No, it had USB 1.1!!! Was the EyeToy released in 2010? No, in 2003!

So as you can see, it's just ridiculous to even compare them. That's like comparing jet engine powered-airplanes to airplanes with propellers - It's absolutely ridiculous, you cannot compare them, it's a completely different technology!

Seriously. If one doesn't want to admit that Kinect is basically an advanced EyeToy (the biggest difference was never the hardware btw., but the powerful software libraries that Microsoft spent incredible amounts of work on - as even Microsoft stated in their own advertisements) - fine. But if one seriously thinks that it's impossible to compare a RGB camera/microphone combination to a RGBZ camera/microphone combination because the additional "Z" makes it something completely different with a completely different technology, then with the same reasoning it is of course impossible to compare the PS4 camera to Kinect as well.

I don't think so. Even though I've said for years that the PS4 will ship with a stereoscopic camera (simply because it makes perfect sense - it offers a whole range of new possibilities at very low additional costs), I think it's clear that Kinect had an influence on the decision. Just like Kinect was of course inspired by the EyeToy, which itself was probably inspired by other earlier technologies as well.

And the Move technology was based on Gyroscope(first introduced to games on Kirby GBC) and pointer controls(NES Power Glove). What's the point? It really doesn't matter.