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.

ECA IconA PUBLICATION OF THE ECA RSS IconSUBSCRIBE User LoginLOGIN / REGISTER

Crispy Gamer




       

GamePolitics ShoutBox

Posted 03/18/10 at 09:41pm
ZippyDSMlee: And not taxing the 30-500K bracket so much, sure you make 500K at the end of the year add in life thats minus 200K add in the company you made there's another 200K.
Posted 03/18/10 at 09:39pm
ZippyDSMlee: Flamespeak: we should be taxing the ultra rich alot more(those that have more than 10 million in wealth),.
Posted 03/18/10 at 08:04pm
Flamespeak: I never understood why someone should work hard to get a lot of money, just to be punished with more taxes for doing so.
Posted 03/18/10 at 06:44pm
hayabusa75: Isn't the upper class supposed to be footing most of this bill?
Posted 03/18/10 at 06:05pm
Austin_Lewis: Of course, that ignores the fact that for the next 4 years, the people will be taxed without 'benefit' from the bill.
Posted 03/18/10 at 06:04pm
Austin_Lewis: If we go by the CBO's past estimation failures, they're about 300% short on the actual cost.
Posted 03/18/10 at 05:21pm
ZippyDSMlee: *punt*Roll call, whos on and how are you doing?
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:07pm
JDKJ: No, I did you the favor and said it for you.
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:06pm
Valdearg: What I said was while I may have implied long term accuraccy, and that might have been incorrect, my greater point that the CBO report calculated reduced deficits, expanded coverage, and lower costs is still 100% accurate. :D
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:06pm
Valdearg: Like any good politician, I don't believe I said "I was incorrect." :P
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:02pm
JDKJ: If you'd said "I was incorrect" 10 shouts ago, I'd have quit twisting your arm to get you see the obvious 10 shouts ago.
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:00pm
JDKJ: You were they one assuming 100% accuracy. In all caps, no less.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:59am
Valdearg: Yes, my implication that the long term estimates were facts was incorrect, but the short term calculations are absolutely facts, and even the long term estimates are still useful in attempting to determine exactly what will happen with the bill.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:58am
Valdearg: I do. The Short term costs are actually calculated facts. The long term estimates aren't necessarily 100% accurate, but to assume that they can't possibly be accurate because someone said they might not be 100% accurate is also wrong.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:57am
JDKJ: When someone says, "I could be wrong but, as best as I can tell, X," X ain't a fact.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:53am
JDKJ: It's too early in the morning for you to be deaf, blind, and dumb drunk. A "my best guestimate" can't be a fact. Don't you understand the difference between the two?
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:41am
Valdearg: By how much depends on variables that can't necessarily be predicted at this point in time. And yes, those Facts are accurate only so far into the future, but those estimates can certainly be used to support this measure.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:40am
Valdearg: And I'm saying, as far as the CBO report goes, the facts that it does put forward are deficit reduction, reducing costs, and expanding costs. Those ARE facts.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:30am
JDKJ: You were the one championing a qualified estimate as an indisputable fact. I'm merely pointing out that it's far from indisputable. So says the estimator.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:27am
Valdearg: Or are you only breaking that argument out because the CBO says that this bill is a good thing for our deficit?
Login or register to post shouts