New Nintendo Graphics Patent

[fearsomepirate]

I don't know shit from shoeshine, but I think some of you guys might be able to make something of this patent Nintendo filed 3 days ago:

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph...s1=nintendo.AS.&OS=AN/nintendo&RS=AN/nintendo

It sounds like TEV stuff (the only system referenced in the summary is the N64), but could it have any relevance to the Revolution graphics chip? Or did they just patent part of the GameCube? That would seem strange, since the Cube's been out for 4 years already.

Thanks to Hawk on PVC.

 

[ector]

That is with 100% certainty the Gamecube TEV.

The thread has hereby reached its endpoint and should be locked.

 

[fearsomepirate]

You realize it was filed 3 days ago, right? A lot of times, people will bury new ideas in updates of old patents. Is there anything at all new in this patent, or did they just wait until the end of the current console cycle to patent technology they've been using for the past 4 years already? I was kind of hoping someone who knows enough to understand all the jargon might be able to pick something out rather than a fellow n00b going "OMG ITS TEH TEV LOCK TEH THREAD LOLZ."

 

[Li Mu Bai]

You realize it was filed 3 days ago, right? A lot of times, people will bury new ideas in updates of old patents. Is there anything at all new in this patent, or did they just wait until the end of the current console cycle to patent technology they've been using for the past 4 years already? I was kind of hoping someone who knows enough to understand all the jargon might be able to pick something out rather than a fellow n00b going "OMG ITS TEH TEV LOCK TEH THREAD LOLZ."

Indeed it's odd, I would assume there's some TEV architectural aspect that Nintendo wants to keep secure. For the Rev though? GBA2? With a dedicated GPU what need would there be for this?

 

[ector]

I wrote the graphics code for Dolphin, the Gamecube emulator. I know what I'm talking about. This is the Gamecube TEV and nothing else. It contains no new exciting technology. It's very common for patents to be awarded many years after the application.

End of discussion, please.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It's very common for patents to be awarded many years after the application.

Dunno about that. Officially you can't get a patent for something that's known to the public. If Nintendo released the GC and afterwards filed the patent, it wouldn't (shouldn't) be granted.

In support of ector further in we read...

This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/226,891, filed Aug. 23, 2000, the entire content of which is hereby incorporated by reference.

This is some related, extended patent thing. As Claims 1 and 2 were dropped, it could be the patent was filed back then but spent so long going around the system being revised that it hasn't been released until now.

 

[fearsomepirate]

End of discussion, please.

Why are you so anxious to end the discussion? Does your bank deduct ten dollars from your account every time someone mentions this patent on a forum? I've got an idea: if you don't like a discussion, don't take part in it. By a simple non-click of your mouse upon a thread title, you can avoid reading it! It's crazy, I know.

Anyway, ERP had said a while back that there are some pretty strict NDA's around the Cube hardware. Maybe with the next gen coming up, the NDA's are running out, but they still want to manufacture Gamecubes. I think the idea of it being used in a future GBA iteration sounds plausible as well.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

What's NDA's got to do with patents? I'm pretty sure ector's right. It's a GC patent filed in 2000 which hasn't surfaced until now. Of course it might be used elsewhere which answers your wuestion entirely. There's nothing new...hence why keep the thread open

 

[fearsomepirate]

With a patent, the information in the patent is made available to the public, with the caveat that it's illegal to mimic the technology in the patent until it runs out. With an NDA, the information is kept secret, but there are no legal barriers (outside of industrial espionage laws) to reproducing the technology protected by the NDA. So if you file a patent on something covered by an NDA, you're basically undermining the whole point of the NDA. Hence in inventions that are easy to reverse-engineer, it makes sense to try get a patent ASAP instead of hoping that no one figures out how you made your widget. But in other cases, it makes sense to try to hide the technology.

BTW, this patent is nearly identical to one Nintendo filed in Europe quite some time ago.

 

[ector]

No, I just like this forum, and polluting it with useless threads about old patents of old technologies, instead of new patents of new exciting technologies, annoys me

Here at the company I work, we get patents granted up to 5 years after the initial application. The process is lengthy.