Sony
March 29, 2005 12:36 PM Subscribe
Sony Ordered to pay 90.1 million in damages, and immediately stop selling Playstation 2's that come with a dual shock controller. Why has this not been in the news?
I don't think they have to stop selling it until after the appeal. And it has been all over the news.
posted by blahblahblah at 12:40 PM on March 29, 2005
posted by blahblahblah at 12:40 PM on March 29, 2005
Why has this not been in the news?
Buncha crap in the Middle East. Pay no mind.
posted by hackly_fracture at 12:43 PM on March 29, 2005
Buncha crap in the Middle East. Pay no mind.
posted by hackly_fracture at 12:43 PM on March 29, 2005
Why has this not been in the news?
On preview a bunch of people have already told you what I was going to say. Now stop reading blog after blog about tubeless girls in beach-front hospices and start paying attention again.
posted by nkyad at 12:48 PM on March 29, 2005
On preview a bunch of people have already told you what I was going to say. Now stop reading blog after blog about tubeless girls in beach-front hospices and start paying attention again.
posted by nkyad at 12:48 PM on March 29, 2005
Does this mean they're going to replace my PS2 that makes a noise like a dying cat whenever I start it up? No? Then screw it, I'm buying an XBox, they are blowing it up!
posted by fenriq at 12:53 PM on March 29, 2005
posted by fenriq at 12:53 PM on March 29, 2005
My only question is this: I'm under the impression that EVERYONE else (Nintendo, Microsoft, etc.) has licensed the technology from them. Why didn't Sony?
posted by graventy at 12:53 PM on March 29, 2005
posted by graventy at 12:53 PM on March 29, 2005
From what I've read, Microsoft didn't license the technology from them - they merely settled out of court before the trial.
posted by Remy at 12:57 PM on March 29, 2005
posted by Remy at 12:57 PM on March 29, 2005
Also, it should be noted that the injunction against selling PS2s, Dual Shocks, and the long list of games is not currently being enforced - the judge is letting Sony appeal first.
posted by Remy at 12:59 PM on March 29, 2005
posted by Remy at 12:59 PM on March 29, 2005
The suit was filed over three years ago. Microsoft settled in 2003 (and bought a stake in Immersion); they nevertheless claimed they had developed their own technology. Sony probably had a basically similar defense, but the jury ruled against them last fall.
(Lawsuits -- especially IP lawsuits -- take a long time.)
Sony is under an injunction to halt sales, but they aren't complying while they appeal. It remains to be seen how that will play out.
posted by dhartung at 1:10 PM on March 29, 2005
(Lawsuits -- especially IP lawsuits -- take a long time.)
Sony is under an injunction to halt sales, but they aren't complying while they appeal. It remains to be seen how that will play out.
posted by dhartung at 1:10 PM on March 29, 2005
Why has this not been in the news?
Well, aside from the various posts already pointing out that it has been, if you mean why hasn't it been bigger news, note that $90.7M is only 0.4% of Sony's annual profit.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:11 PM on March 29, 2005
Well, aside from the various posts already pointing out that it has been, if you mean why hasn't it been bigger news, note that $90.7M is only 0.4% of Sony's annual profit.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:11 PM on March 29, 2005
I think it has been mentioned.
CNN, Yahoo, and USAToday are about as mainstream as you can get, slick.
posted by Ynoxas at 1:30 PM on March 29, 2005
CNN, Yahoo, and USAToday are about as mainstream as you can get, slick.
posted by Ynoxas at 1:30 PM on March 29, 2005
Why, oh why, do so many denounce the middle east while a conspiracy of silence remains on Sony? Am I the sole voice
crying out in the wilderness?
posted by kenko at 2:12 PM on March 29, 2005
crying out in the wilderness?
posted by kenko at 2:12 PM on March 29, 2005
An injunction was granted against sony, but, the judge modified the injunction and forced them to pay royalties instead, while the case is in court. Fucking lame, obvious patent anyway.
And how much would it suck to be on the jurry for this? They ought to pay IP jurors a shitload of money like the lawyers, judges, plantifs, etc, etc, on a trial like this. God who could stand to sit thorugh it?
posted by delmoi at 3:03 PM on March 29, 2005
And how much would it suck to be on the jurry for this? They ought to pay IP jurors a shitload of money like the lawyers, judges, plantifs, etc, etc, on a trial like this. God who could stand to sit thorugh it?
posted by delmoi at 3:03 PM on March 29, 2005
I expect Jesse Jackson to weigh in on this latest outrage in due course.
/Jackson covers all *real* news personally
posted by wah at 3:44 PM on March 29, 2005
/Jackson covers all *real* news personally
posted by wah at 3:44 PM on March 29, 2005
Sony had controllers with the rumble feature out in stores in 1997, several years before this patent was filed. Tons of other prior art exists as well. Creating a vibration via an off-balance rotation is not a unique idea by any stretch of the imagination. My first instinct upon hearing about this was to call shenanigans on Immersion.
A more careful reading of Immersion's patent reveals that the patent in question may in fact be about the computer receiving physical input from the person via their patented mechanism, and not the other way around (i.e. a playstation controller giving feedback to the player). This distinction was apparently lost on the jury somehow.
Point: other companies paying Immersion for licensing in no way validates Immersion's claim to patent rights.
My take on this is Immersion needed another quick cash infusion, and got lucky with a confused jury. I'd bet a good amount of cash that Sony wins the appeal.
This story is all over the gaming news networks.
posted by Aquaman at 5:28 PM on March 29, 2005
A more careful reading of Immersion's patent reveals that the patent in question may in fact be about the computer receiving physical input from the person via their patented mechanism, and not the other way around (i.e. a playstation controller giving feedback to the player). This distinction was apparently lost on the jury somehow.
Point: other companies paying Immersion for licensing in no way validates Immersion's claim to patent rights.
My take on this is Immersion needed another quick cash infusion, and got lucky with a confused jury. I'd bet a good amount of cash that Sony wins the appeal.
This story is all over the gaming news networks.
posted by Aquaman at 5:28 PM on March 29, 2005
It made the financial press. As for the popular press, The Playstation is sort of a kid's toy. Most adults really won't be interested in the lawsuit aside from its possible effect on Sony's stock.
posted by caddis at 6:28 PM on March 29, 2005
posted by caddis at 6:28 PM on March 29, 2005
"The Playstation is sort of a kid's toy"
Not so, this isn't the best source, but gamers today are by and large adults. Everyone who played NES as a kid or teen has grown up and mostly held on to the habit.
Video game demographics
posted by BackwardsHatClub at 8:17 PM on March 29, 2005
Not so, this isn't the best source, but gamers today are by and large adults. Everyone who played NES as a kid or teen has grown up and mostly held on to the habit.
Video game demographics
posted by BackwardsHatClub at 8:17 PM on March 29, 2005
Aquaman: I've checked the patent and the original priority was from 1995. Still, it looks not only obvious but even not new: I am pretty certain that there were flight simulators with vibrating controls way before that.
But, hell, I guess that's what you get when you leave a patent case in the hands of a jury. And this wasn't even a case of particular technical complexity. But it is also a fact that foreign companies tend to lose patent cases in the US if they are brought before a jury...
And you may be surprised to learn that the ability of Immersion to get royalties for their patents from other companies is actually of great relevance in determining whether the patent is valid, since "commercial success" is a very important indicator of non-obviousness, according to US patent case law...
posted by Skeptic at 10:46 PM on March 29, 2005
But, hell, I guess that's what you get when you leave a patent case in the hands of a jury. And this wasn't even a case of particular technical complexity. But it is also a fact that foreign companies tend to lose patent cases in the US if they are brought before a jury...
And you may be surprised to learn that the ability of Immersion to get royalties for their patents from other companies is actually of great relevance in determining whether the patent is valid, since "commercial success" is a very important indicator of non-obviousness, according to US patent case law...
posted by Skeptic at 10:46 PM on March 29, 2005
I'm 29 and I play video games, but only ones that incorporate listening to opera and harrumphing as I rattle the pages of the Wall Street Journal. I was playing Fuddy Duddy: Splinter Cell last night.
posted by Divine_Wino at 6:41 AM on March 30, 2005
posted by Divine_Wino at 6:41 AM on March 30, 2005
« Older Suppressing Free Speech | Dropping science like when Galileo dropped the... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by TonyRobots at 12:39 PM on March 29, 2005