http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/aug2006/id20060808_031831.htm?chan=tc&chan=technology_technology+index+page_consumer+ele ctronics

The last paragraph sums up my thoughts on this (and earlier similar things).

OMG!!! But who the hell are Anascape?! I've never heard of them.

Funnily enough, no one has. "They" are apparently a one-man, unknown company, only in possession of a dozen patents.

I guess it's some patent scam.

Sounds more like a porn site missing an L than a videogame company. :p
Still, I think anyone trying to pull of this type of crap should automatically get shot in the head when presenting the case.

Sounds more like a porn site missing an L than a videogame company. :p
Still, I think anyone trying to pull of this type of crap should automatically get shot in the head when presenting the case.seconded.

all in favor?

I'm in favour ;)

I'm in favour ;)I'm american, we don't use the u's...so sue me :p

I'm american, we don't use the u's...so sue me :p

If this anascape guy succeeds I might give it a try :)

If this anascape guy succeeds I might give it a try :)how'd I see that statement coming....:rolleyes:

Funnily enough, no one has. "They" are apparently a one-man, unknown company, only in possession of a dozen patents.

I guess it's some patent scam.

It occurs to me that he's made a schoolboy error. If you're suing, you sue Microsoft and Sony -- they're going to make more money, their products more clearly use the technology he's supposedly patented, and they're much, much better at losing court cases. Nintendo managed to successfully defend Donkey Kong from the makers of King Kong, for crying out loud. You do not sue Nintendo, because you lose.

To be frank, it's a classic patent scam. There are loads of ways to gain patents on existing technology, and usually the first time the patent is challenged it's overturned. I wouldn't be too worried unless by some lunacy he wins, and then I'd be far more worried about the future of technology in America than about a couple of videogame machines.

Nintendo managed to successfully defend Donkey Kong from the makers of King Kong, for crying out loud. You do not sue Nintendo, because you lose.:eek: you serious?! they have the same damn surname for christ's sake! how do you win that law suit?!

If Nintendo created two brands of cardboard boxes, called them "PlayStation" and "Xbox" and marketed them, I still think they'd win.

:eek: you serious?! they have the same damn surname for christ's sake! how do you win that law suit?!

Universals copyright wasn't valid :p

You do not sue Nintendo, because you lose.
Oh (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2375967.stm) snap !1 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/business/2375967.stm) D: (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=888)
Though I mostly agree with the above posts.

There's a difference between a fine and a suing you know :p

true, but still.

"Artifically high prices"?

That would explain why Super Mario 64 cost about $135 here.

true, but still.
But still, what, exactly?

That wasn't being sued, that was an investigation by the Competition Commission, and secondly, posting four links to the same news item doesn't make it four times as persuasive, it makes it look like you wanted me to think you'd found four seperate stories.

And it's academic anyway, as I could find a half a dozen on Sony or Microsoft in ten minutes, and we both know it.

True, sorry for being stupid.
Back on topic, I wonder if this'll affect the Wii and 360's release in any way.

If it does the guy will never, ever, be safe again.

If it does the guy will never, ever, be safe again.this is very true. my cousin owns a few swords, and I'm within hours of the guy who owns that retarded company's house.....anyone for sushi? :p

i say down with anascape screw them all! let the companys resume there rightful position btw if this anascape guy does win then he aint gonna make much money because he will release such crap stuff that no one will wanna buy it or screw up the graphs i hope they dont get sued before the release of the legend of zelda twilight princess and before they release the wii. i heard that this anascape on a nintendo site this company might take out the interactive part in the remote u know the motion sensors?::eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

i heard that this anascape on a nintendo site this company might take out the interactive part in the remote u know the motion sensors?::eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:you heard wrong. trust me, they're keeping the motion sensing. they'll find some way around it even if they have to, but I honestly doubt they'll have to bother. there are always deals to be made.

i heard that this anascape on a nintendo site this company might take out the interactive part in the remote u know the motion sensors?::eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
Don't worry. As Anascape is a very small company, then if they win then they're gonna sell their controller to Nintendo anyway; that way, they leave with more money.

After only skim-reading the news item, it sounds like a scam. Anascape is just trying to make money for nothing.

Although suing Sony would probably be better. Mabye he/she/they thought that the Wii Controller would do better.

And how can this company sue them over the patents on a controller? It seems unlikely it had rights to all of those.

And how can this company sue them over the patents on a controller? It seems unlikely it had rights to all of those.they have patents on certain aspects of the controllers. I believe the wii's movement control devices that let it work like it does is one of the patents in question.

they have patents on certain aspects of the controllers. I believe the wii's movement control devices that let it work like it does is one of the patents in question.

You mean, they claim to have patents on those aspects.

It does seem unlikely, especially as no-one has ever heard of this company before.

You mean, they claim to have patents on those aspects.

Nonono. If you claim to have the patent, you have the patent. You don't think anyone is stupid enough to lie about something like that, do you? Anyone could say they have patents and demand money, but all you have to do then is go to court and wait for him to produce the documents. When he can't you take a huge pile of money from him and kick him out.

No, what you do is you find some fast-track lightly checked patent office and patent things you didn't actually invent -- like tilt sensors and 3D sticks and so forth that have been around for years. One man actually patented the wheel in order to demonstrate how useless the system was. And then you sue for infringing those patents. And I'm willing to bet that what happens then is that a judge looks at your patent, notices that the things in it had been used for decades before it was filed, voids it and sends you on your merry way.

Frankly, I think it's a dangerous and pretty stupid game to play, because if you lose the court case, as you probably will, that sets a precedent and then you can very easily be done for extortion, particularly since you're so obviously guilty.

You don't think anyone is stupid enough to lie about something like that, do you?

I have a tendancy to over-estimate the supidity of other people.

And you're probably right with what the Judge would do.

When he can't you take a huge pile of money from him and kick him out.Why is it both legal and illegal activities always seem to involve "taking a huge pile of money"? :p

Why is it both legal and illegal activities always seem to involve "taking a huge pile of money"? :p

Because the 60's is over?