- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
For Those Who Want to Play With GT FORCE PRO
- Thread starter gt3killer
- 44 comments
- 7,388 views
- 1,391
- GTP_GTXLR
- gtxlr
This is probably the immersion patent that is preventing U.S users experiencing force feedback in their Logitech wheels.
This patent mostly applies to wheels themselves, yet I guess some of the finer points on the control could well have consequences, in much the same way the original patent case against rumble tech in the dualshock also cited Sony Software that made use of the tech.
But hell, Im not a patent lawyer!
Here you go!
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...y=PN/6104158
Edit, Immersion also have sveral patents for controller chips built into Logitech wheels and other devices and the methodology behind such controller chips, i believe that Immersion must also have some restriction on the use of code to make use of these controller chips that applies the feedback and would assume that thas is done through licensing.i guess that would be dealt with in IP law but may also be affected in some way buy one of Immersions many Patents in this field.
Edit2: this could well be the offending patent!!
http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...S=AN/immersion
It seems immersion have pretty much tied down this whole area, so alternatives for Sony and PD are very limited!
Anyone no if there are any feedback wheels manufactured that dont use immersion tech and dont infringe immersion patents??
Unless Sony win Over this case, i cant see them eating humble pie and going to Immersion for the rights to use its FF tech!!
Start making noise now GT'rs You need Sony to listen to your needs.
Or will Kaz demand Sony sell off PD and GT franchise so he can get licensing with a third party (maybe not so crazy, Sony really could do with the money!),or he walks! or maybe he could buy pd out himself! is he that rich and devoted.
I have everything crossed that this scenario isnt going to be the same here in the U.K!!!!
This patent mostly applies to wheels themselves, yet I guess some of the finer points on the control could well have consequences, in much the same way the original patent case against rumble tech in the dualshock also cited Sony Software that made use of the tech.
But hell, Im not a patent lawyer!
Here you go!
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...y=PN/6104158
Edit, Immersion also have sveral patents for controller chips built into Logitech wheels and other devices and the methodology behind such controller chips, i believe that Immersion must also have some restriction on the use of code to make use of these controller chips that applies the feedback and would assume that thas is done through licensing.i guess that would be dealt with in IP law but may also be affected in some way buy one of Immersions many Patents in this field.
Edit2: this could well be the offending patent!!
http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...S=AN/immersion
It seems immersion have pretty much tied down this whole area, so alternatives for Sony and PD are very limited!
Anyone no if there are any feedback wheels manufactured that dont use immersion tech and dont infringe immersion patents??
Unless Sony win Over this case, i cant see them eating humble pie and going to Immersion for the rights to use its FF tech!!
Start making noise now GT'rs You need Sony to listen to your needs.
Or will Kaz demand Sony sell off PD and GT franchise so he can get licensing with a third party (maybe not so crazy, Sony really could do with the money!),or he walks! or maybe he could buy pd out himself! is he that rich and devoted.
I have everything crossed that this scenario isnt going to be the same here in the U.K!!!!
- 1,579
No, not in the least. That doesn't make it any easier to accept. Patents were supposed to protect consumers, ideally preventing other manufacturers from making inferior copycat products. Instead, lawyers have moved on from ambulance chasing "punitive damages" in the 80's & 90's to IP paper-slinging.
I think we need a corporally-enforceable legal version of the hippocratic oath.
- 2,976
- Sweden
IIRC PD was offered a buyout some time ago, but they declined. I can´t currently confirm this, I didn´t find anything on it. Matters little, since they declined, but a declination indicates that PD wants to stay with Sony.
But I hope they get their act together! KY must be out of his mind over this! Sadly, I don´t think he can afford buying out PD from Sony himself, as most of PD´s licensing is licensed through Sony. Imagine the cost just to buy all the carlicenses!
I too hope for all this to stay overseas! We have more than two months to wait and see though.
opelgt1969
Premium
- 2,189
- Bristol,Va USA
- opelgt1969
- 587
Patents were supposed to protect consumers, ideally preventing other manufacturers from making inferior copycat products. Instead, lawyers have moved on from ambulance chasing "punitive damages" in the 80's & 90's to IP paper-slinging.
WRONG!
Patents are designed to protect a person's novel ideas from theft, not prevent copycats. Copycat products are encouraged under the patent system (read: design around) so long as they don't steal the person's core idea because they deliver competition to the marketplace. Competition means lower prices and superior products for the consumer.
Lawyers also have a legal version of the hippocratic oath - they are called the rules of professional conduct, and every state has more or less the same rule regarding the merits of a claim - I will cite to model rule 3.1 rather than any individual state:
Rule 3.1 Meritorious Claims And Contentions
A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. M.R.P.C. 3.1 (2006).
So, as you see, a lawyer must have a good faith basis to bring a claim or else they can have an ethics complaint filed against them. Just ask District Attorney Nifong of the infamous Duke rape case. The fact that a court found in favor of Immersion leads me to believe their case had some merit
- 629
- South Texas
- RRoD#9799827.3
Some 'folk' on here are under the impression that this lawsuit has nothing to do with force feedback on the DFP, but the fact is that Sony lost the case, owes about $90+ million to Immersion Corp., and there is neither rumble, nor force feedback at this point in time on my PS3. The opinion of these 'folk' is insignificant to me, as they fail to provide any reason whatsoever for the actual lack of force feedback the U.S. version of GTHD. Anyway, back on topic, Sony has appealed the decision, and I believe that the proceedings began on Monday, January 8, 2007.WRONG!
*snip*
The fact that a court found in favor of Immersion leads me to believe their case had some merit
http://fedcir.gov/calendar.html
**Panel J+: Monday, January 8, 2007, 3:00 P.M., Courtroom 203
Judges: NEWMAN, SCHALL, BRYSON
2006-1354 IMMERSION CORP V SONY COMPUTER [argued]
**Panel J+: Monday, January 8, 2007, 3:00 P.M., Courtroom 203
Judges: NEWMAN, SCHALL, BRYSON
2006-1354 IMMERSION CORP V SONY COMPUTER [argued]
Apparently, the proceedings continued throughout the past week:
http://fedcir.gov/dailylog.html
http://fedcir.gov/daily.txt
http://fedcir.gov/dailylog.html
http://fedcir.gov/daily.txt
There is a notice that Judgments without opinion, entered under Rule 36, will not be listed in the Daily Log. These type of rulings apparently are entered in the second link that I provided, the daily.txt. Based on the rulings rendered during the past week, I must come to the conclusion that the hearings regarding Immersion Corp v Sony Computer are still underway. In your opinion as an unofficial student lawyer, how long do you think it will take this judicial panel to come to a final conclusion in a complicated case of this nature?
Is it a number of weeks, months, years???? I do not believe that we will see official force feedback from the PS3 on the U.S. version of GTHD, for example, unless Sony wins the appeal, or if the original District Court ruling is affirmed, until they pay what they are deemed to owe. Your thoughts on this matter would be appreciated.
- 2,822
- Espoo
- GTP_Raitzi
In my opinion Immersion did right thing ,but why so late(Argued software is mostly ps2 stuff). So i can not think one reason why sony could use Immersion patented technology for free.(what were sonys lawers thinking)
Funny thing is, if they get fined 90M, they probably wont get FF for that money now
Funny thing is, if they get fined 90M, they probably wont get FF for that money now
- 518
- Draith
OK, still nothing on the fedcir.gov website, is it a possibility that Sony and Immersion settled out of court, or would that be posted on the website?
I was thinking that since NFS Carbon has FFB and this is licensed through Immersion, perhaps it is as simple as Polyphony not licensing the FFB from Immersion in order to make the GTHD Concept download free...if they were to pay royalties to Immersion surely we would have to pay to download it.
Just a thought.
Is anyone brave enough to ask the court what is happening with the case?
I was thinking that since NFS Carbon has FFB and this is licensed through Immersion, perhaps it is as simple as Polyphony not licensing the FFB from Immersion in order to make the GTHD Concept download free...if they were to pay royalties to Immersion surely we would have to pay to download it.
Just a thought.
Is anyone brave enough to ask the court what is happening with the case?
- 1,579
And the difference is...? The trouble with patents these days (and the reason so many are asking for patent reform) is that there are companies whose existense is soley to hold patents. They don't do any R&D, they don't produce any products, they just sit on vaguely-worded patents and wait for someone to produce something that sort of matches their patent. The other problem is the timing of patent filing & fair notice; if someone copies your product so openly, why wait years before filing a lawsuit?
Believe me, if patents were treated the same way 25 years ago as they are today, AMD & Compaq would be less than footnotes in computer history, and we'd still be using IBM mainframes, possibly running Microsoft Unix.
Minnesota01R6So, as you see, a lawyer must have a good faith basis to bring a claim or else they can have an ethics complaint filed against them. Just ask District Attorney Nifong of the infamous Duke rape case. The fact that a court found in favor of Immersion leads me to believe their case had some merit
It's got to be one of the least-enforced rules. The very fact that we are in this patent disaster to begin with is proof of that.
