Immersion CEO: Begging Sony To Add Rumble

[Sis]

Unfortunately that doesn't matter in patent law.
Patent law does not allow for independant invention, you infringe whether you know about it or not. Hence the whole race to the patent office thing.

I don't have a particularly high view of the patent system, but it is the system in place.

That's the problem I have with the patent system; if two companies independantly develop a thing without any knowledge of the other's thing, that should be de facto proof of the "obvious" nature of the thing.

 

[Powderkeg]

That's the problem I have with the patent system; if two companies independantly develop a thing without any knowledge of the other's thing, that should be de facto proof of the "obvious" nature of the thing.

So are you saying if something is deemed "obvious" then no one can patent it? If that's the case then how would you define "obvious" and where would you draw the line between what is and what isn't considerd "obvious" in a fashion that is consistent for all patent applications?

 

[arjan de lumens]

So are you saying if something is deemed "obvious" then no one can patent it? If that's the case then how would you define "obvious" and where would you draw the line between what is and what isn't considerd "obvious" in a fashion that is consistent for all patent applications?

Just about every patent system in the world has rules against patenting of "obvious" ideas; one example would be:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html#novelty

It's mainly a mechanism for introducing some common sense into the patent process (although as we know, common sense is anything but common these days ...)

 

[ERP]

Just about every patent system in the world has rules against patenting of "obvious" ideas; one example would be:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html#novelty

It's mainly a mechanism for introducing some common sense into the patent process (although as we know, common sense is anything but common these days ...)

The unfortunate problem with this is, once a patent is granted it's extremly hard to proove it was obvious.
Even prooving prior art isn't as simple as it would seem.

The burden of proof in a patent case is extremly high and it is entirely the responsibility of the infringer. This is why a lot of people just pay rather than fighting a case they may loose.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's the problem I have with the patent system; if two companies independantly develop a thing without any knowledge of the other's thing, that should be de facto proof of the "obvious" nature of the thing.

I don't think that's fair. Often a solution isn't obvious, but as companies are working towards the same tech, they find the same solution. But it still takes a lot of work and research. In these cases the patent should be shared, but how on earth can that be proven and enforced? Perhaps all the research should be presented that shows they developed the idea instead of copied it, and the patent clerk has to follow the development to see each inventor independently developed it? But then you'd need an advanced patent office capable of understanding...um...anything, which they don't really seem capable of. I mean, they're not even capable of understanding their own rules!

 

[CEO]

I am glad Sony is standing up on this one. All these patents on obvious technology create cost barriers for new companies looking to enter the marketplace. I'm not against software or hardware patents if they are specific. It seems a precedent has been set that the only way to fight a patent is with prior art. This precedent ignores all the language in patent law regarding patents being too obvious or ambiguous. Perhaps Judges feel as though they are not qualified to determine what is considered non-simple in a technological context. Someone who is qualified needs to make these kinds of distinctions.

Allowing Immersion to patent "vibration" in a controller, is like Edison patenting any and all light producing objects

WTF? man, what do you think would sony do if they had the working Rumble technology first?

 

[Guden Oden]

WTF? man, what do you think would sony do if they had the working Rumble technology first?

Then we'd deal with that then. You're making up a hypothetical scenario that has no basis in reality; discussing it is therefore pointless.

 

[Powderkeg]

Just about every patent system in the world has rules against patenting of "obvious" ideas; one example would be:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html#novelty

It's mainly a mechanism for introducing some common sense into the patent process (although as we know, common sense is anything but common these days ...)

"Obvious" as defined by the current patent laws simply means it's not based directly on existing prior art or copies another patented idea in this country or others.

In otherwords, if I were to patent the perpetual motion machine in France you wouldn't be able to patent the same idea in the US, as that would be obvious.


But that's not the context which is being used in this discussion.

 

[ninzel]

GS: OK. Obviously, one of the big points is it can work with motion-sensing controllers, which is kind of a, you know, dangling carrot for Sony and Nintendo. What have you heard from them, specifically?

VV: Well, Nintendo, I believe, they've launched, or they've introduced, and they've shown motion-sensing along with rumble technology. I personally haven't felt it, but from what I understand, it feels good, and it adds to the game experience. So they've already solved the problem.

GS: But that's not an Immersion product, right?

VV: It is not Immersion technology. We did not help them develop. They're not a licensee. But we're anxious to see the product when it launches later this year. So, they've been able to solve the problem. There's a small company called eDimensional that we've recently licensed. They, too, provide motion sensing or tilt control along with vibration. So, you know, there's two implementations, and our engineers have taken a look at the issues and are very comfortable that the two types of technologies operate at substantially different frequencies, and there are a number of ways to balance those and allow them to operate on the same platform.


http://www.gamespot.com/news/6153305.html

So it seems other companies have gotten rumble and motion sensing working.

 

[London Geezer]

Allowing Immersion to patent "vibration" in a controller, is like Edison patenting any and all light producing objects

WTF? man, what do you think would sony do if they had the working Rumble technology first?

Immersion didn't patent "vibration in a controller". You can't patent ideas, you can only patent technology. Sony used a certain technology without paying for it and they got sued.

They patented a certain particular way of doing vibration in a controller, which just happens to be the same Sony subsequently used in the Dual Shock, breaking the rules.

Therefore, if Sony had patented a certain particular way of doing vibration which then was used by another company, they would sue the company too.

Surely the whole system is a mess but in this case it's actually quite simple to see the Sony were in the wrong.

Nintendo had "vibration" in their controllers, they didn't get sued because their technology was different.
MS had "vibration" in their controllers, they paid out cause it turned out that it was the same Sony had used.

Let's get the facts straight.

 

[Sis]

I don't think that's fair. Often a solution isn't obvious, but as companies are working towards the same tech, they find the same solution. But it still takes a lot of work and research. In these cases the patent should be shared, but how on earth can that be proven and enforced? Perhaps all the research should be presented that shows they developed the idea instead of copied it, and the patent clerk has to follow the development to see each inventor independently developed it? But then you'd need an advanced patent office capable of understanding...um...anything, which they don't really seem capable of. I mean, they're not even capable of understanding their own rules!

"Obvious" here would be defined as "given two sets of technically minded people approaching a similar problem, they would arrive at similar solutions." What this implies is that the solution is something that would, generally speaking, always get derived from a typically development effort.

Of course, "obvious" does not mean "it wouldn't require any effort."

 

[Shifty Geezer]

"Obvious" here would be defined as "given two sets of technically minded people approaching a similar problem, they would arrive at similar solutions." What this implies is that the solution is something that would, generally speaking, always get derived from a typically development effort.

But in that case, almost all inventions are obvious and shouldn't be patentable. eg. In creating Blue Laser diodes, Sony and Nichia apparently came upon the same techniques to create the crystals. By your reasoning, the techniques must be obvious to that industry and unpatentable as all people undertaking development of the blue laser diodes with come to the same solution.

With 6 billion people in the world, the possibility of one person alone being able to come up with an idea is surely impossible. Human ingenuity revolves around using available resources to solve problems, and given the same problem and set of resources, multiple parties will surely come to similar solutions.

 

[SPM]

But in that case, almost all inventions are obvious and shouldn't be patentable. eg. In creating Blue Laser diodes, Sony and Nichia apparently came upon the same techniques to create the crystals. By your reasoning, the techniques must be obvious to that industry and unpatentable as all people undertaking development of the blue laser diodes with come to the same solution.

There is how "obvious" in patent law should be applied and how "obvious" in patent law is being applied in it's current overzealous scope. To decide on how "obvious" patent law should be applied, you must look at why patent law is there in the first place. The concept that someone can own an idea is unnatural and artificial creation of the state, and contrary to other ideas such as free thought. The only reason for having patent law at all is to foster innovation by allowing inventors recover R&D costs before competitors can come into the market. How "obvious" is defined should be based on this. If someone is given a 20 year monopoly on something which several others will come up with independently come up with within say 5 years anyway, then the state granted monopoly is not fostering innovation - it is stifling it and stifling competition.

As I said, the problem is patent law and the patent office which grant patents that are excessively wide in scope, don't do a proper check on obviousness and novelty, and grant an excessively long monopoly period in some fields given that some fields change faster than others. For example a 16 year patent on TV technology in the 1930's when technological innovation evolved more slowly was reasonable. Now, 20 years on a chip fabrication patent covers not so much the time required to recover R&D costs before competitors, but 4 times the useful life of that innovation because chip fabrication technology is evolving so rapidly. A monopoly grant for 4 times the useful life of the technology is not what patents are supposed to do.

 

[Powderkeg]

If someone is given a 20 year monopoly on something which several others will come up with independently come up with within say 5 years anyway, then the state granted monopoly is not fostering innovation - it is stifling it and stifling competition.

If only 1 person has invented it today then how do you know how many would come up with it independently within 5 years?

What are you going to do? Hire a panel of experts in every possible field of R&D to ensure you can accurately predict who will invent what in the future based on current patent applications, and then approve or deny patents based on their predictions?

Wouldn't that stifle innovation even more as virtually anyone who is researching in a competative field would be assured of never being granted a patent for their work?

 

[SPM]

If only 1 person has invented it today then how do you know how many would come up with it independently within 5 years?

What are you going to do? Hire a panel of experts in every possible field of R&D to ensure you can accurately predict who will invent what in the future based on current patent applications, and then approve or deny patents based on their predictions?

Wouldn't that stifle innovation even more as virtually anyone who is researching in a competative field would be assured of never being granted a patent for their work?

LOL - are you actually claiming that nobody else would have independently thought of it if Immersion hadn't patented it?

One person patented it - that is the thing about patents. Many invented it independently before and after Immersion.

Didn't both Sony and Nintendo use rumble on their controllers? Hawker Siddley Aviation (the original builder of the Harrier Jump Jet) used rumble feedback on the foot controllers as a form of tactile feedback more than 30 years ago. Plus many pager and mobile phone manufacturers used vibration as a form of tactile communication to alert the user. If Immersion's patent was for use of vibrations as a form of tactile feedback on controllers, then it shouldn't have been granted because it is an obvious extension (if you have an IQ greater than a single digit) of it's use in phone handsets and even more so the Harrier foot pedal controls.

 

[ERP]

Clearlt the courts diagree.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Then we'd deal with that then. You're making up a hypothetical scenario that has no basis in reality; discussing it is therefore pointless.

No the point is Sony would patent it just like immersion patented it, and they would demand their own royalties, like Sony has patented dozen's of other things in order to collect royalties.

Painting Sony as some white knight, standing up to the evil patent system is just......ridiculous.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Then we'd deal with that then. You're making up a hypothetical scenario that has no basis in reality; discussing it is therefore pointless.

WTF?!?

This forum is ripe with hypotheticals and analogies, which usually serve a good purpose; they help us to separate the important from non-important details, and then thoroughly examine the important ones along with all their implications.

So you'd bitch at Einstein for his endless thought-experiments? Geez. Stop trying to look intelligent when you want to pounce on someone... just do it in the old "flaming" style and get on with things.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

No the point is Sony would patent it just like immersion patented it, and they would demand their own royalties, like Sony has patented dozen's of other things in order to collect royalties.

Painting Sony as some white knight, standing up to the evil patent system is just......ridiculous.

I think there's a difference between quality of patents though. There's a difference between patenting a new machine capable of producing such-and-such a component, and patenting a particular application of a particular feature in a particular. IIRC the patent infringement of Sony was on a select few games, and not the use of rumble in PS2's library. If it were a case of Immersion patenting eccentric weights for rumble and Sony violating that patent, fair cop. If it's a case of eccentric weights being public domain technology, but wobbling them in a certain way is an infringement of Immersions patent, then it's bunk.

I don't think anyone's neccessarily against companies inventing and patenting things. This particular gripe is about the stupidity of the patent though (which I can't remember the details of, and can't say whether it is stupid or not IMO), and all companies get their fair share of stick when we hear they've patented something ridiculous. If Sony have patented something mind-numbingly obvious, I'm sure Guden and others would be just as critical of Sony. Although these days I'd be surprised if they haven't. You have to match what your competition are doing. *sigh*

 

[Powderkeg]

LOL - are you actually claiming that nobody else would have independently thought of it if Immersion hadn't patented it?

One person patented it - that is the thing about patents. Many invented it independently before and after Immersion.

Didn't both Sony and Nintendo use rumble on their controllers? Hawker Siddley Aviation (the original builder of the Harrier Jump Jet) used rumble feedback on the foot controllers as a form of tactile feedback more than 30 years ago. Plus many pager and mobile phone manufacturers used vibration as a form of tactile communication to alert the user. If Immersion's patent was for use of vibrations as a form of tactile feedback on controllers, then it shouldn't have been granted because it is an obvious extension (if you have an IQ greater than a single digit) of it's use in phone handsets and even more so the Harrier foot pedal controls.

Do both the Hawker Harrier and Cell Phones use the hardware architecture described in Immersion's patent?

No?

Then how do they compare? The patent wasn't granted for an idea, it was granted for a method in hardware to achieve that idea.

Other companies are free to develop alternative methods to achieve the same result, and that would not infringe on the patents. This is why Logitech, Immersion, and Microsoft all have seperate patents for tactile feedback in force feedback wheel controllers. They all use different methods to achieve the same end result.

Sony's problem is they didn't develop a different method, they used the one Immersion holds the patent on.