Nintendo Settles Patent Case That Could Have Banned U.S. Wii Sales

Nintendo Settles Patent Case That Could Have Banned U.S. Wii Sales

August 25, 2009

Nintendo has settled a patent infringement case that could have blocked sales of the Wii in the United States, reports Bloomberg.

As GamePolitics noted last September, Hillcrest Labs not only sued Nintendo, but filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission, alleging that the Wii's motion control system infringed upon the Maryland-based company's patents.

Nearly a year (and lots of attorney fees) later, on August 21st, Nintendo and Hillcrest advised the USITC that they had reached an agreement. Financial details were not made public.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Re: Nintendo Settles Patent Case That Could Have Banned ...

Well im glad that the wii isn't gonna get banned in the USA.

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

Re: Nintendo Settles Patent Case That Could Have Banned ...

Well I can breathe a sigh of relief

Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights

Re: Nintendo Settles Patent Case That Could Have Banned ...

Now, if I could only find one.

Re: Nintendo Settles Patent Case That Could Have Banned ...

Have you not been to a store recently? Do you not shop at Amazon.com? These things are as common as any other game system now. If I were to walk into Target right now, I would find at least 10.

E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma

Re: Nintendo Settles Patent Case That Could Have Banned ...
My local best buy is always out, my local target is always out, my local shopko is always out, I do not have a credit card.
Re: Nintendo Settles Patent Case That Could Have Banned ...

I must say I am a little dissapointed that this was settled out of court. I really wanted to know what patents were being infringed on, if they were specific components they were compaining about or if they were laying claim to all motion controlled remotes.

In recent years, there have been several cases filed against the likes of Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft for elements in their systems, and the cases are coming out long after the systems have been on the market, which to me seems like it's just greed in action. Perhaps its about time for the patent system to get a good look over, no?

 

I hate broccoli/ and think it totally sucks/ Why isn't it meat?

Re: Nintendo Settles Patent Case That Could Have Banned ...

By visiting the USPTO's website you should be able to search for patents registered by Hillcrest. Reviewing the results of that search should enable you to identify patents that relate to motion-controlled remotes and the specific elements of that technology to which Hillcrest lays claim.

 

Re: Nintendo Settles Patent Case That Could Have Banned ...

I checked the PTO website and searched for Hillcrest.  I found a patent for a motion-controlled mouse based on a three-axis system that looked far more advanced than what's in the Wii remote.  I don't see Nintendo as actually having stolen said technology, but it looked close enough to me that I would probably have filed suit.

---

He was dead when I got here.

GamePolitics ShoutBox

Posted 02/09/10 at 03:51pm
DarkSaber: I think he just goes round the internet copy+pasting the same bollocks to get attention.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:41pm
Valdearg: @DS: I have to admit, I chuckled when I saw the 4 Feb 2010 on that post.. >.<
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:31pm
DarkSaber: Hm, Bioshock. Not that Zippy likes to beat the dead horse by ranting about it for TWO $&%£ING YEARS!
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:30pm
DarkSaber: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.173063-Bioshock-yet-another-zippy-rant
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:26pm
Valdearg: @DS: Link!! LINK!
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:20pm
DarkSaber: Although, unsurprisingly, he's just being called an idiot alot and criticised for being as illegible as always.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:18pm
DarkSaber: Oh good lord, I just found Zippy on The Escapist.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:14pm
Valdearg: IE: Male body/Female Mind or Female Body/Male Mind.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:13pm
Valdearg: @Zip: TG == Transgendered/Transsexual.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:09pm
DarkSaber: Forget it Zippy, it's an abbreviation of a big word and so would be wasted on you
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:07pm
ZippyDSMlee: Vlag:....TG?
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:02pm
Valdearg: @DS: Im sure that's what they'd do if it wasn't legal to just tell Gays/TG's to "Screw off," just because they're who they are.
Posted 02/09/10 at 02:50pm
DarkSaber: Whoever told him/her/it that is dumb. They should have done like most companies and made-up some bullshit, yet legal, reason for it not getting the job.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:18pm
Valdearg: I do agree that it shouldn't be legal. That's for sure.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:16pm
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:14pm
Valdearg: @AE: Doubtful. Again, it's perfectly legal.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:10pm
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:00pm
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:53pm
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Login or register to post shouts