Forum

Patent cases are weird. Like the Apple v. Samsung cases: in one country, court rules for Apple; in another country, court rules for Samsung..............

flawed wrote:

Patent litigations are bizarre. The only way L5 can win is if the games do not infringe upon Sega's patent [impossible to know if we don't examine the documents].

If, they are deemed to infringe on the patent, Sega wins either by the "fair use/pricing", as I already stated where L5 has to pay Sega an amount determined by the courts, or the courts can completely side with Sega in the lawsuit deeming that L5 could have developed a system that would not have infringed upon Sega's patent. Either of these two means technically Sega is legally in the right, though with the first one L5 is also partially correct deeming the "fair use/pricing".

In regards to the "Sega Saturn" question the concept of utilizing multiple processors is to general to grant a patent on. Think of it like trying to patent the controller [not referring to a specific controller, but the concept of one].

Also for a corporation to sue another you won't see "frivolous" or "wrong" lawsuits. Litigation like this costs tons of money, which means Sega has to believe it has a strong case.

Welcome to the wonderful world of commercialism.

You pwnd' on that "Sega Saturn multi processor" that was fantastic and logical.

I'm not trying to defend SEGA or state that Level 5 is guilty. I'm stating I believe SEGA has some sort of litigation loophole because of how vague and convoluted most of their non general patents are filed.

Level 5 could have VERY well unintentionally violated SEGA's patent concept based solely on its description and filing date. If the patents were filed back in 2005, it's fairly common for a loophole accidental litigation patent infringement to occur with a smaller company just because they filed or issue a patent similar in description to a larger company's non discrete approach to patent descriptions.

To those trying to defend Level 5, it honestly likely wasn't their fault. But because of the Patent laws if it was found that Level 5 unintentionally violated Sega's patent, Level 5 would have to share the licensing rights with the company claiming the un-official original concept. SEGA believes that if Level 5 can't comply, they can easily claim the property is their's and get publishing rights to the games.

Because it is very rare for Kabushiki Kaisha SEGA to be filing patent infringement allegations, I state and stand by my belief, they might have an argument for "co-licensing".

I'm still kinda wondering about the entire crux of this matter -- that SEGA got a patent on how certain touchscreen controls are applied. Just think of what that means.

What if some individual or company had a patent on "pushing left than up on a thumb-sized directional pad or similar rotation on a thumb stick device, in combination with a button press, to execute a powered uppercut punch"? Would Nintendo or CAPCOM even bat an eye to anyone who claimed to have a patent on that control scheme? For that matter, does CAPCOM have that patented in some way?

Also, why is Nintendo silent on this so far? Being a first-party developer, and with the current mega-success of the 3DS at least in their home country, lawsuits like this should be of grave concern to them. What about Apple or Samsung? They have touchscreen phones, so wouldn't that also make them prey for touchscreen control patents?

One thing's for sure, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out in the end.

. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-'". . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ":,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:". . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . ."~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . "~,_. . . .."~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . ."=,_. . . ."-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~"; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . ."=-._. . .";,,./`. . /" . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . .."~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-"
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _

Glory Questor wrote:

I'm still kinda wondering about the entire crux of this matter -- that SEGA got a patent on how certain touchscreen controls are applied. Just think of what that means.

What if some individual or company had a patent on "pushing left than up on a thumb-sized directional pad or similar rotation on a thumb stick device, in combination with a button press, to execute a powered uppercut punch"? Would Nintendo or CAPCOM even bat an eye to anyone who claimed to have a patent on that control scheme? For that matter, does CAPCOM have that patented in some way?

Also, why is Nintendo silent on this so far? Being a first-party developer, and with the current mega-success of the 3DS at least in their home country, lawsuits like this should be of grave concern to them. What about Apple or Samsung? They have touchscreen phones, so wouldn't that also make them prey for touchscreen control patents?

One thing's for sure, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out in the end.

It's very complicated.

First of all, Nintendo wouldn't have a specific patent claim because most of their patent design concepts in regards to basic general variations of touch screen gameplay but only in the shape or design of a peripheral and accessory(where Nintendo is more protective in.) Second, "Touch Screen Tech" is not something that belongs to Nintendo or is owned by then. Most of the basic LCD touch screen technology Nintendo uses is borrowed from "Tiger's Game.com handheld from way back in the latter 1990s".

Kabushiki Kaisha Sega has a very strict Military style method when it comes to patent designs and concepts. The vagueness and non discrete descriptions is so unique that it allows SEGA to force its name into being named co-licencor if so long as the description itself is similar to SEGA's own patent concept usually filed 4 years earlier. SEGA can also take a concept using a peripheral feature and claim it as theirs.

For instance this: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20120115609.pdf

SEGA filed this patent to assure that Nintendo wouldn't been allowed to or permitted to use the concept with their Wii or Wii balancing board if it is similar to Monkey Ball or the method, meaning if any attempts for Nintendo to try a game for Wii U using this method which is described, SEGA(who is currently disinterested in the system) will waste no time going after Nintendo for patent infringement.

As for Capcom, no. They have generic descriptive patent designs.

Most patents never see public model release. Many are filed for corporate warfare merely to block another company from using such a method without having to pay the patent holder a premium.

A company filing a patent often tries to make a patent as "broadly" descriptive as possible, but not so much that it will be denied based off of being to broad.

Now, the "Capcom Uppercut" question is basically what L5 is saying about Sega's patent here.

However there's more to it then saying "hit these buttons output visual uppercut". Sega is more likely claiming structure of programming and even specific/general programming arrays/algorithms as well as specific visual styling patents they hold not the "input/output".

Side Note:
This is one of the reasons you hear game makers for consoles talk about stagnation during this lengthy generation. They have become as refined as possible for patents they hold or free use patents possibly even cheap patents from other companies, but they are unable to bring alternate methods into use because other companies hold the patents on methods which could be used.