By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Lawsuit filed against Nintendo over Switch’s detachable controllers

Alkibiádēs on 17 August 2017
Aeolus451 said:
Alkibiádēs said:

So just like those smartphone and tablet controllers then. 

No, it added actual game physical controllers to them. The control interface on tablets and smartphones is a touchscreen. The detachable controllers for the switch look just that company's controllers in appearance and they are very close in design. 

That's because Nintendo invented the XYAB button lay-out, the analogue stick, the D-pad and the shoulder buttons. 

Gameboy didn't have an analogue stick, but the Booster Boy did. 

I still don't see how this: 

 

Resembles this:



"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" - Thoukydides

Around the Network
fatslob-:O on 17 August 2017
SpokenTruth said:

But it's really not.  If the design has enough variation, it's not infringement.

 

"Direct Infringement: A patent is directly infringed if a product or process incorporates all of the elements of an independent claim of the patent. The independent claim in a patent may have the following format.

1. An apparatus comprising:

   Element A;

   Element B; and

   Element C.

Products that incorporate Elements A, B and C literally infringe Claim 1. Conversely, products that incorporate less than all of Elements A, B and C do not literally infringe Claim 1. For example, a product that incorporates Elements A and B but not C does not literally infringe Claim 1. As such, to avoid literal infringement of a patent, one must not literally practice (i.e., make, use, offer for sale or import) all of the limitations recited in the independent claims of the patent."

http://ocpatentlawyer.com/avoiding-patent-infringement/

 

That means for direct infringement, the Switch would have to violate all 22 sub-sections of Claim 1 in the Game Vice patent.

Gamevice need not prove that Nintendo directly infringed on their patent ... 

They only need to prove that contributory infringement of patents has occured ... 

Just because the defendant stepped on 1 of the 10 defined functions in a plaintiff's patent doesn't mean that the defendent didn't infringe on the patent ... 



Wyrdness on 17 August 2017
fatslob-:O said:

Gamevice need not prove that Nintendo directly infringed on their patent ... 

They only need to prove that contributory infringement of patents has occured ... 

Just because the defendant stepped on 1 of the 10 defined functions in a plaintiff's patent doesn't mean that the defendent didn't infringe on the patent ... 

???

Contributory infringement would require that Nintendo induced or made someone else directly infringe the patent what are you on about here exactly? That's even harder for Gamevice.



Aeolus451 on 17 August 2017
Alkibiádēs said:
Aeolus451 said:

No, it added actual game physical controllers to them. The control interface on tablets and smartphones is a touchscreen. The detachable controllers for the switch look just that company's controllers in appearance and they are very close in design. 

That's because Nintendo invented the XYAB button lay-out, the analogue stick, the D-pad and the shoulder buttons. 

Gameboy didn't have an analogue stick, but the Booster Boy did. 

I still don't see how this: 

 

Resembles this:

You should actually take at the products they offer because you'd know that they have other versions of the detachable controllers for different types of smartphones and tablets.



Wyrdness on 17 August 2017
Aeolus451 said:

You should actually take at the products they offer because you'd know that they have other versions of the detachable controllers for different types of smartphones and tablets.

He doesn't have to as that's the product they're suing over.



Around the Network
Green098 on 17 August 2017
Aeolus451 said:
Alkibiádēs said:

That's because Nintendo invented the XYAB button lay-out, the analogue stick, the D-pad and the shoulder buttons. 

Gameboy didn't have an analogue stick, but the Booster Boy did. 

I still don't see how this: 

 

Resembles this:

You should actually take at the products they offer because you'd know that they have other versions of the detachable controllers for different types of smartphones and tablets.

But those have nothing to with this? This is over the wikipad patent, which is for this:

 

The other products are evolutions of the idea the company ended up making, but they come from the original patent of this^ which is patent of product for the wikipad. The lawsuit is over the wikipad patent, the other products have little to do with the contents of lawsuit.



Aeolus451 on 17 August 2017
Wyrdness said:
Aeolus451 said:

You should actually take at the products they offer because you'd know that they have other versions of the detachable controllers for different types of smartphones and tablets.

He doesn't have to as that's the product they're suing over.

They're suing over patent infringenment. They share the same basic design an function. They use the same patent with the others. 



Wyrdness on 17 August 2017
Aeolus451 said:
Wyrdness said:

He doesn't have to as that's the product they're suing over.

They're suing over patent infringenment. They share the same basic design an function. They use the same patent with the others. 

No they don't if you read the claim the patent they're suing over is the pictured device's clip on mechanic which is different from the other devices so no it's not the same patent, it's one part of a patent of one particular device (the one pictured), this is why the other devices do not matter and can't be brought in because they use different mechanisms than both it and the Switch. They can't sue over the JCs being detachable because that's claiming to own an entire concept and would mean every detachable add on in history is infringing on them.



Illusion on 19 August 2017

These kind of cases are business as usual for Nintendo and I wouldn't panic. A big reason why many of these cases go to court is because Nintendo as a matter of principle refuses to settle outside of court (even for small sums of money) as it would be an invitation to many other patent holders to make claims against Nintendo. This could very well be a frivolous claim that Nintendo is forcing into the courts simply because they will not negotiate.

If Nintendo only had the Wii U in its history, I would be more worried about this claim but Nintendo is no stranger to success. They know exactly what happens when they are on top and they are probably one of the more battle-hardened tech companies out there when it comes to dealing with patent-claims such as these.



meOwMiXmUnCHiEZz on 19 August 2017

i hope nintendo wins