Looks like the patent infringement case isn't over just yet.
https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2018/er0501ll939.htm
Lock if loaded.
Last edited:
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
US International Trade Commission voted to investigate Nintendo based on Gamevice's Complaint
- Thread starter delete12345
- Start date
Looks like the patent infringement case isn't over just yet.
https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2018/er0501ll939.htm
Lock if loaded.
OP
OP
Regardless of poor implementation, in Gamevice's defense, it looks very similar to the Switch, from a mechanical standpoint.
To refresh people's memories
https://www.engadget.com/2017/08/11/nintendo-faces-lawsuit-over-switch-controllers/
Taken from the old place:
Cert.in.Death said:
I guess the lawsuit didn't pan out but I didn't see any updates on it.
https://www.engadget.com/2017/08/11/nintendo-faces-lawsuit-over-switch-controllers/
Taken from the old place:
Cert.in.Death said:
I guess the lawsuit didn't pan out but I didn't see any updates on it.
It looks similar but it doesn't work the same way.
The Gamevice connects via Micro-USB, USB-C or Lighting. The Joy-Cons connect wirelessly.
(How the hell can this thing have worse input lag than the Switch when it actually connects physically? Maybe that's not the device I'm thinking of)
https://patents.google.com/patent/US9126119B2/en
The Switch is fairly different in that both controllers connect to the "computing device" (corresponding to the smartphone from the Gamevice patent) with a physical connection, not wireless. There's really no infringement there. Also the Gamevice patent requires a bridging structure between the two controllers that's separate from the computing device.
I don't see infringement there. Is this complaint a "plan B" if the actual infringement suit was dropped?
The Switch is fairly different in that both controllers connect to the "computing device" (corresponding to the smartphone from the Gamevice patent) with a physical connection, not wireless. There's really no infringement there. Also the Gamevice patent requires a bridging structure between the two controllers that's separate from the computing device.
I don't see infringement there. Is this complaint a "plan B" if the actual infringement suit was dropped?
They claimed in the court case that the Switch body was the bridging structure back in the thread on the old forum.
As mentioned, this court case probably didn't succeed if they now went to this commission about their patent again. They really want money for their failed product.
I agree, but like the Wii patent and Philips the court might not.
Seems to be the case.
OP
OP
I'm just doing my best to try to interpret what exactly Gamevice is thinking, from their perspective.
I guess it didn't pan out right.
The problem is looking alike is not grounds for patent infringement. In fact it has basically nothing to do with the concept of infringement. Gamevice filed a patent for their product, and that patent has "claims" which form the legal basis of what exactly that patent covers.
In this case all of their claims require a "structural bridge" connecting the controllers that is separate from the smartphone/tablet between them. The Switch has no such element, so it does not infringe.
Not sure if this matters. But the wiki pad seems to a device designed to have a smart phone/tablet inserted (a peripheral), while the switch is a handheld console with input mechanisms that can be detached and used as separate controllers (part of the main unit and not a peripheral)
Nah I think the distinguishing feature (AKA the reason it is not infringement) is the fact that the joycons are physically separated from each other and attach to the device on both sides. That's fundamentally different from the claimed structure of the Wikipad which relies on the structural bridge connecting the two control portions.
Gamevice seemed to argue that the Switch tablet itself served as the bridge, but if I was a patent judge (and I'm not that far off actually) I would not find that persuasive, since the bridge fundamentally changes how the control portions connect to the device. The Switch is designed such that two separate control pieces connect physically and electronically at two separate connectors, the Wikipad uses only a single connector and therefore needs the bridge to connect the control on the side of the connector to the other control portion, otherwise it would not be able to connect to the actual device.
And? A lot of products look similar but it doesn't mean they are working the same way.
is those little details that make or break patent cases most of the time.
>Nintendo is printing money from Switch
>Switch has a feature that looks like resemble something we have a patent for
>lets sue em, so when we win (lol) we can demand a fee on every product sold and future sales or force em to stop selling
TL;DR: Patent Trolling money
...im sure is the same..unless you are talking about hte one from last year..
to be fair, I dont think Gamevice know what they are doing. if, IF going straight to the FTC works and switch gets Banned, Nintendo can use other legals matters to prove they are not infringing patents. and when they do, they can slap gamevice the bill of all the lawyers and stuff + reparation for lost of business.
My mistake, the article made it sound like the lawsuit was separate to this investigation.
_______
The only other information from here was
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/artic...tch-targeted-by-gamevice-patent-lawsuit-again
Their previous lawsuit was dropped in October. Hence why this new one popped up.
And for the current one:
