Nintendo patents online gaming...

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » August 20, 2004, 12:35 pm

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/19 ... ne_gaming/

Nintendo patents key console online gaming features
By Tony Smith
Published Thursday 19th August 2004 10:06 GMT
Nintendo has been granted a US patent that yields it the ownership of key online multi-player gaming facilities, including player league tables, voice communications and online gaming host services.

The patent, number 6,769,989, was granted on 3 August this year, but is essentially a continuation of another Nintendo patent, 6,599,194, which was filed in April 1999.

The two patents detail a "home video game system with hard disk drive and Internet access capability", but the second filing adds provision for "substantially real-time" online multi-player gaming, connection via an online gaming service, support for online "player performance data", using the connection to download information and do so securely through an authentication process, and the communication across the Net of "audio input signals".

All of these components are well-established elements of modern online gaming, and have been available for PCs for some time. Nintendo's patents focus on "home game video systems", so it's more of an issue for rival console vendors than PC gamers. The PC world might provide the basis for a prior art claim, but it would arguably be negated by Nintendo's specific console-oriented implementation of the broader concepts.

Patents can be modified to add new elements, and technology companies frequently amend existing intellectual property with new, related ideas - which then apply from the first filing date, in this case April 1999, long before last year's introduction by Microsoft of Xbox Live, its console-oriented online gaming and information service, and which also offers voice chat facilities.

How Nintendo will make use of its new intellectual property remains to be seen, but it does appear at first sight to give it some weight over rival console vendor Microsoft and, indeed, any moves Sony or other console vendors offer in that direction. It certainly strikes us that Nokia's online N-Gage Arena service may fall within the terms of Nintendo's patent, as might the upcoming Internet-enabled (via GPRS) Gizmondo handheld console. ®

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » August 20, 2004, 12:37 pm

I read about this earlier today. It will be interesting to see how Nintendo plans to use their patent, and what it might mean for Xbox and PS. If someone was going to patent online gaming for consoles, I guess I prefer Nintendo to Microsoft or Sony.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 20, 2004, 12:58 pm

I see Nintendo is trying to Rambus Microsloth and $ony. When you don't have a competitive product, try to backdoor some patents and then litigate for profits! Fucking weak.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » August 20, 2004, 1:07 pm

That's kind of odd, because the only thing we've heard from Nintendo about online gaming is 'We don't think the markit is quite ready.' Could this mean they are going to be changing their minds about that?

Oh, and yeah it is kind of fucking weak, but who would do it if Nintendo didn't?

[Show]: Microsoft

-=Lohrno

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 20, 2004, 1:14 pm

Lohrno wrote:
[Show]
Microsoft

WRONG!

[Show]: Al Gore, since without the Intarweb there is no online gaming!

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » August 20, 2004, 4:39 pm

how does one go about patenting something?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 20, 2004, 7:23 pm

you file a patent at the patent office. US patent law is so fucking hilarious that you can quite literally patent anything and enforce it. patenting a home video game system with online capabilities is only slightly less broad than just patenting "a thing that does stuff"

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » August 20, 2004, 8:37 pm

just got my patent sent off for a thing that does stuff, u better watch out!

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 20, 2004, 11:45 pm

kyoukan wrote:you file a patent at the patent office. US patent law is so fucking hilarious that you can quite literally patent anything and enforce it. patenting a home video game system with online capabilities is only slightly less broad than just patenting "a thing that does stuff"

Prove that Canada has a better patent system

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 21, 2004, 1:28 am

what the fucking fuck does that have to do with anything? are you an idiot?

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » August 21, 2004, 3:40 am

I have a patent on being far more devastating than these pussy northwesterners that I live around.

Sylvos has a patent pending, but will lose this round due to him being a ranger.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 21, 2004, 1:12 pm

Bubba Grizz wrote:how does one go about patenting something?

http://www.uspto.gov/main/patents.htm is a good place to start!

The patent law specifies the general field of subject matter that can be patented and the conditions under which a patent may be obtained.

In the language of the statute, any person who “invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent,” subject to the conditions and requirements of the law. The word “process” is defined by law as a process, act or method, and primarily includes industrial or technical processes. The term “machine” used in the statute needs no explanation. The term “manufacture” refers to articles that are made, and includes all manufactured articles. The term “composition of matter” relates to chemical compositions and may include mixtures of ingredients as well as new chemical compounds. These classes of subject matter taken together include practically everything that is made by man and the processes for making the products.

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 excludes the patenting of inventions useful solely in the utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy for atomic weapons.

The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be “useful.” The term “useful” in this connection refers to the condition that the subject matter has a useful purpose and also includes operativeness, that is, a machine which will not operate to perform the intended purpose would not be called useful, and therefore would not be granted a patent.

Interpretations of the statute by the courts have defined the limits of the field of subject matter that can be patented, thus it has been held that the laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter.

A patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion. The patent is granted upon the new machine, manufacture, etc., as has been said, and not upon the idea or suggestion of the new machine. A complete description of the actual machine or other subject matter for which a patent is sought is required.

Here if you want to read the complete patent text. The images link wasn't working for me though at the time.

Karae · Post by **Karae** » August 21, 2004, 6:04 pm

Oh great - pointless litigation and eventual repeal of this patent inc! Why does the patent office keep giving bogus patents?

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » August 21, 2004, 9:16 pm

Well, the US patent ARE known to make enormous judgement errors when accepting patents. Just look at some of Amazons patents, the great 1-click patent was a blast

.

Oh, and if anyone claim that the patent office are manned by competent individuals, check this one out:
http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US05443036__

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » August 21, 2004, 9:34 pm

Hesten wrote:Well, the US patent ARE known to make enormous judgement errors when accepting patents. Just look at some of Amazons patents, the great 1-click patent was a blast .

Oh, and if anyone claim that the patent office are manned by competent individuals, check this one out:
http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US05443036__

LOL, so basically, that guy owns the patent to waving a light against a wall for cats to play with? LOL.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » August 22, 2004, 2:23 pm

Yep. So if youre planning to do that at home, you better pull the curtains first, or you might get sued.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » August 22, 2004, 7:41 pm

Someone should patent "A method for providing street entertainment by over acting in a non-verbal manner" and we can get rid of mimes for good!