Why wait until now to sue Ninty, MS, and Sony, who all "used their technology" last gen? Oh, I know, to wait for them to sell more controllers to sue for more money. That's all this is about, money. If they wanted to really "protect their technology", they would've done this suing stuff last gen.

Bullshit, just PURE Bullshit on Anascape's part...

Patent trolls. I'm surprised they haven't dug up a patent for the "power" button and sued every electronics company.

Hmm... Starts patent search

First I admit I know squat about this case here but I have worked on a ton of patent cases so I will respond to this post. I just got down working on a case which had a patent from 1995. The patent was owned by a very large company and it was invalidated because they decided to sue other companies that were making equipment based on older patents that did the same thing. the defense ended up being succesful.

A few years ago I worked on another patent case agaisnt another big company. The patent in issue was from 1993 and was owned by the defendents the plantiff won that case through priror art and it was IMO a legitimate win and yet it took 11 years for it to goto court.

Xerox sued apple in 1989 for 1981 tech they lost but won on appeal. I did not work on that case.Many patetn cases actually happen many years after the introduction of the infringed product. The things that hold them up are stuff like discovery(you can't sue if you don't know it is there). Investigation if you are going to sue you want to make sure the process used is similiar enough to the patent. In most cases there is a period of contact or conversation between the disputed parties in attempt to settle it before going to court, this does not always happen but it makes it look better. Then there is the phase where the case actually gets filed and both sides begin to go through legal discovery this process can take years depending on how many depositions there are and ho many docvuments have to be sorted collected and found. Then usually a Judge is assigned. Even once a Judge is assigned(court Call) it can take months for the case to go on trial sometimes years as is the case with 3 of the trials that we currently have lined up. Alot depends on the judges schedule, motions and otehr things. Most trials last only 2 weeks but some cases will go for up to six months. We had the immersion case for a long long time.

Now for some otehr tidbits. This case was filed in Marshal Texas. This court and judge are very freindly to patent holders. Even though it was a jury case the judge has a lot of input into what can and can not be shown to the jury and thus effecting the outcome of the case depending on how narrow he makes it. Now a lot of patent trolls like East texas, but so do legitimate patent holders after all you want to win and if you can sue there it is just one more advantage.

I don't know if they are patent trolls or not but I do think that people who jump to conclusion about legal verdicts like this are worse than patent trolls as they invalidate a system without thought.

It seems terribly ironic that any company would attempt to sue Nintendo for controller design when it was Nintendo that invented the style of controller that they're trying to sue over in the first place...

I do find it ironic and I also have a gut feeling that this trial is BS but I have also learned that the first or even second or third impression of a trial can and usually are completely wrong after having presented them for 5 years.

Here's a google search on that company, find something they do other than file lawsuits.  I dare ya!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=anascape&btnG=Google+Search

I believe in the system, I also believe that Texas is one of the most corrupted states in the union.

wow - they don't even have their own website... guess their planing on sueing over the old internet patent they had way back when.

Meh, some people do this kind of thing professionally, it's how they make a living. But if I were on the jury this case would of been hung until I convinced everyone that damages aren't indicitive of the usage by the defendant but by the plantiff.

Alleged damages can't be used as a factor - these guys had a patent infringed... I'd look at the parts that were infringed and the % of the infringment. Solidify that with the damages and they have a good estimate.

$21 million seems a bit much. Drop that by about $19 million at least.

Don't these patent squaters realize that by forcing government involvement on free industry they are forcing companies like Nintendo to move their business else where... It would of been fine if they had done something with that tech as innovative as the gaming Industry used that tech... This is like Atari all over again... Industry rises and random company tosses a monkey wrench into the cogs of innovation for the sake of money.

Like an above poster said, should the % be obcene then they may just be entitled to $21 million.

I just looked at the parties in the case the atorneys for Nintendo were Latham Watkins by no means a small firm and one that I have worked for on occasion they are very detailed. If they couldn't win either the judge made some very bad rulings that excluded essential evidence or prior art. In fact it doesn't matter if they do not make anything only that they tried to make something and were rejected. I still am leaning towards this being a patent troll company but having read the actual complaint and the patents no it looks like there was some infringement though from what I read I could also think of examples of prior art which would perplex me how L&W never got it in.

dib8rman if you were on the jury all you would ever see is what the judge allows you to see. If it was found you used prior knowledge to come to a conclusion for damages it woudl be a mistrial.