Online console gaming pwnd?

According to this news piece in The Register, U.S. patent 6,769,989 has just been granted to Nintendo. The patent seems to cover all generic aspects of online gaming via a “home video game system”.

While this is an interesting corporate move, I’m not sure that it actually means anything. Though the idea of Microsoft and Sony having to pay Nintendo a fee for each system that they hook up online is momentarily amusing.

The summary from the patent reads as follows:

“The invention generally relates to special purpose, home video game systems. More particularly, the invention relates to a modem and hard disk drive-based enhancement for a home video game system to allow a video game player to dial-up a network service provider and communicate over the service provider's network to access the World Wide Web, send e-mail, play games and/or download executable programs, video and audio data to the system's hard disk drive.”

So gaming over broadband is not covered then?

Comments

[Alan]

1.

Gaming over broadband looks like it's covered since none of the independent claims (nos. 1, 8, 16, 19, 27, 28) only claim dial-up. E.g. Claims 27 and 28 explicitly state "said communications circuitry including a modem, ethernet Port, or wireless Connection circuitry."

Btw, here's a link to the patent.

From the specification:

The present invention advantageously converts a heretofore stand alone, special purpose video game system into a network communicating device with bulk storage capacity having numerous enhanced capabilities such as simultaneous game play video and Internet display.

At first thought, the Xbox seems problematic. However, at a cursory glance, it looks like this patent's filing date can be traced back to Sep. 8, 1998 (and Dec. 2, 1998 and Feb. 22, 1999). Anyone know when the Xbox went on sale? Or when news about its features was first released (i.e. the hard drive and internet connection)? The answers to those questions will help determine the Xbox's role, if any, in this patent.

Also, some of the separate claimed features of this patent are very old. Those elements Nintendo cannot claim individual coverage for. Remember, in order to infringe on a patent, the infringing device must embody all of the different elements claimed in (at least one claim of) the patent. It can get a little fuzzy there, doctrine of equivalents etc., but that statement is substantially true. [Mmmm.. lawyer-speak...]

The patent's TV channel guide portion smacks of preexisting guides that have been around for easily over 5 years, possibly over 10 years.

In addition, the presence in the independent claims of so many disparate elements may be a saving grace for Sony et al. If even one of those elements is missing or not present, very little chance of a finding of infringement.

Also, without wading through the patent's prosecution history, it's impossible to tell if Nintendo has doctrine of equivalents protection for this patent. If so, the patent should be construed much, MUCH broader. If not, significantly less worries. My guess (and it's purely a guess) is that there's no DOE here, especially since there are 64 claims in this thing. It seems like they were trying for as much literal coverage as possible.

Without additional information, it's difficult to tell whether this patent has teeth or not. Will Nintendo aggressively pursue a licensing scheme against Sony and Microsoft and others?

Anyways, just a few thoughts on it. Cheers!

[weasel]

2.

The XBox went on sale Nov 15 2001.
This patent, IIRC, relates to Nintendo's ill-fated 64DD expansion device.

As I understand the claim, it relates to a combined hard-disk/modem console add-on specifically; and may well only hold for such devices that also enhance TV viewing as described in their patent.

If Sony's Harddrive and modem expansion devices were a single device, they might infringe (depending on the interpretation) - but the XBox seems quite free and clear.

There is certainly a lot of language that seems to suggest a broad domain of coverage, but that's pretty typical in patent claims. They start as broad as possible, and narrow down only when they have to. Since the USPTO only really cares about the specifics, the abstracts and plaintext descriptions tend to remain maddeningly vague.

(IANAL)

[Tom Hunter]

3.

Online console gaming pwnd?

At first look? No. This looks more like an effort to prevent others from building cheap copies of thier system. Its got to be pretty simple to reverse engineer a console but this means the Chinese who do it will not be able to sell them in the US.

[Tom Hunter]

4.

Online console gaming pwnd?

At first look? No. This looks more like an effort to prevent others from building cheap copies of thier system. Its got to be pretty simple to reverse engineer a console but this means the Chinese who do it will not be able to sell them in the US.

[Matt Mihaly]

5.

Regarding the Xbox questions, don't forget that the beloved Dreamcast was online long before the Xbox was released.

--matt