In an amusing bit of irony...

[cthellis42]

...the company that least resembles an online service gets a patent for it.

(Apologies if this has been posted elsewhere, but it didn't look like it.)



Patent granting needs one serious damn overhaul... :?

 

[cybamerc]

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15293

> Patent granting needs one serious damn overhaul...

And patent interpretation should be left to the pros. And reporting should be left to those with some common sense.

 

[cthellis42]

Granted, but that wouldn't get one nearly enough hits, would it?

The patent, though, does seem to just cover the nebulous "online capabilities" though:

An existing video game system is modified to include additional communication and storage capability via a modem and hard disk drive. The modification may involve the use of an expansion device coupled to a video game system port. A cable TV tuner is also included in the expansion device to assist in providing a unique picture-in-picture video capability. TV signals are coupled to the expansion device via the RF input from either cable TV or off-air signals. These RF signals are blended with the output signals from the video game system. A user may, for example, watch TV while viewing overlay information from the video game console. A user may receive a TV channel guide downloaded via the Internet, spot a program which the user desires to view and immediately access, via an IR input, the desired channel through the expansion device TV tuner. A user may also watch TV while simultaneously logging onto the Internet. A hard drive permits downloading from the Internet of entire games.

If a unique patent exists detailing just these points, is it actually connected to anything else? Or is any "continuation" rolled into any other points established by the parent patent? Would it have to resemble whatever huge amalgam is set forth in total before being able to be enforced at all? ...in which case, what's the purpose at all? Does it simply cover the extent of the Nintendo console and let them instantly smack down on direct clones?

(Actually, the parent patent seems to be mentioning the same thing. How does this connect with your own link? I thought that WAS the "continued" one... Heh.)

Frankly, I guess it's just that unless one is making all of the listed adjustments with expansion devices (the way Nintendo perhaps planned on with the GameCube and didn't follow through with) it wouldn't conflict, hm?

 

[Tysan]

Thats a 64DD patente, it was confirmed by Ign and Gamespot.

 

[TheMightyPuck]

How utter f-ing ridiculous. No one should be able to patent general ideas, just specific processes. This is, of course, my humble opinion (and I'm a huge Nintendo fan. If Nintendo had Winning Eleven I wouldn't need any other console ;-))

 

[cthellis42]

Thats a 64DD patente, it was confirmed by Ign and Gamespot.

Correct, but it's still an Abstract, yes? So far as I know, patents aren't specifically assigned to any one product (even if there's only ever one--or heck, none--that a patent was aimed at or fit the measures), so there still may be concepts and ideas that can carry over to new products (and of course to potentially counter competition). Question is: are there aspects of the patent they can push, or is it too specific for that? (Not that I think Nintendo would unless their back were against the wall.)

 

[Teasy]

If Nintendo had Winning Eleven I wouldn't need any other console

I used to have Winning Eleven 6: Final Evolution on my GC and was almost considering a PS2 if the next version wasn't going to be on GC. But then they started coming out on the PC. So now I just get all the Pro Evo/WE games on the PC, so that saved me from having to buy a PS2