| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Wolfman Jake
Trick Member
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
|
720.  Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 7:38 am Post subject: Re: Hardware vs. Software |
 |
|
| sandm000 wrote: | | I'm done hurting myself thank you. |
No pain, no gain 
| sandm000 wrote: | OK my point about the BoXor is this: The rest of the machine is to easily reproduced for the patent on circular neon tube around speaker in wooden box to be enforced. Very similar to the patent story on the Kaleidoscope. I get that the computer hardware inside the box is enforcable but ITG doesn't run on that, using the BoXor instead. Thank you.
The second issue deals with the fact that Konami says they are going to lose money in the FUTURE from ITG's continued use of the cabinet meaning (2+2=4) Konami will have to release a new mix, because they aren't collecting coins from the cabs themselves they would be making that FUTURE money from the sales of the upgrades and new cabs.
And if you think my cab is insulting: I can't control what you think, I can only explain it to you slowly. I think you are a responsible adult. I think you can handle your business by yourself. I think you and I can have an adult discussion about any topic. If you think this is insulting, I cannot help you. |
Konami's argument is that infringing ITG Boxors are depriciating their advertisements, i.e. the DDR arcade machines, which decreases their sales of their HOME MARKET DDR mixes. If somebody is going around, essentially pulling down your promotional posters and whatnot for your product, you're not going to sell as many of your product. And if someone insinuates their product into your advertisement, some people will be confused and buy the alternate product instead of your product. You have to think a little outside the Boxor, people.
See my point, today007?
_________________
Wolfman Jake |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
project_mercy
Basic Member
Joined: 16 May 2005
|
| 721. Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wolfman Jake wrote: | | For the record, Andamiro does NOT own exclusive dance game distribution rights in the US. They pay Konami royalties to produce their titles. Konami has NO ARCADE division in the US, hence no US arcade DDR since DDR USA. |
Then they're stupid. You can't patent a concept, you can only patent a process (which DDR is clearly not), or a non-trival and novel (by US standards) item or machine (which the arcade clearly is).
And someone is welcome to look at your machine or process, change one small part of it, and repatent it and sell it all the want. In fact, it even cites this case on the US Patent website.
If you read the Abstract of the posted patent, you'll see such things such as:
<SNIP>
"When the fact that a player steps on a step-on base section in accordance with the display contents of the monitor is detected by a cable switch and this input from a stepping operation monitor section"
</SNIP>
Means, If the BoXoR doesn't produce this, in full, they're not infringing on the patent. Heck, if you go through section 3, with the full patent, there's tons of stuff you could easily say they're different with.
If nothing else, the visuals for the arrow location place the arrows scrolling from top to bottom. Which is not the normal mode of DDR, and would suggest to me that the machines that we play on, aren't even patented, because they don't correspond to the patent claim.
In fact, you could make your own DDR machine, as an EXACT copy, and change from a 'cable switch' to some other switch you've defined, or change the design of their "step-on base" (which the attachments don't include).. and you're not infringing.
If that was not the case, I would be a lot richer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wolfman Jake
Trick Member
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
|
| 722. Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, that made absolutely no sense, project_mercy. Do you think you can build your own PS2 using Sony's blueprints from their patent and just change, lets say, the power supply into a rechargable battery? Then it's not exactly the same and perfectly legal, huh? Try selling it as your own custom brand or something and see how long it takes Sony to sue your butt back into the stonage  Tengen got NAILED for stealing Nintendo's patented spces for its lockout chip to produce their own version.
Or maybe you'd like to try Roxor's approach and encourage people to buy your custom chip and bios that must be installed in a PS2. Then give them some stickers to hide everywhere it says Playstation 2, Sony, or Dualshock on the console or controlers so that they can SELL them as a different brand. In this case, Roxor didn't even design a "facsimile" DRR cabinet for their Boxor, they just in effect tell people to actually USE a real DDR cabinet. Does the problem become any clearer to you?
Furthermore, you CAN patent a concept, and it happens all the time. It's called intellectual property.
Adamiro settled with Konami because they were smart. They knew the odds of beating the Konami lawsuit would be slim, so they opted to just pay Konami some nominal royalties in order to keep making money themselves. Roxor will hopefully come to the same conclusion, especially since their position seems to be weaker than Andamiro's.
_________________
Wolfman Jake |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
project_mercy
Basic Member
Joined: 16 May 2005
|
| 723. Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wolfman Jake wrote: |
Or maybe you'd like to try Roxor's approach and encourage people to buy your custom chip and bios that must be installed in a PS2. Then give them some stickers to hide everywhere it says Playstation 2, Sony, or Dualshock on the console or controlers so that they can SELL them as a different brand. In this case, Roxor didn't even design a "facsimile" DRR cabinet for their Boxor, they just in effect tell people to actually USE a real DDR cabinet. Does the problem become any clearer to you?
|
You're still making things up to suit your own sense of right and wrong. The fact that the end user decides to modify a cabinet is of their own volition. Konami can then sue the end user to cease usage of the cabinet, but the sale of the boxor kit is not illegal.
I can sell Mod chips all day for a PS2, totally on the up and up, assuming that I didn't steal the initial chip design, but reverse engineered it. You keep looking at your 'historical justification', but you're comparing apples to oranges. The fact that Tengen made an exact copy of a nintendo chip, a chip designed for the sole purpose of requiring people to license their cartridges for the NES (and of which was documented as such) is distinctly different from someone who sells a kit to 'repair or update' a piece of hardware that someone may have purchased.
Konami cabinets don't require a hardware dongle to function. And even if they did, it wouldn't matter, as the main board is replaced.
If I then mod the PS2 to be.. say a toaster, and then resell said toaster as my own brand, then I'm liable.
The ONLY thing that keeps people from manufacturing clones of the PS2 is the fact that you can't execute the software without breaking another patent as well as a copyright/licensing issue with the software itstelf. If it wasn't for the discs themselves, you could make a PS2 clone, as long as you reverse engineered it. For more information on this, read up on the Bleem case, and why they actually lost.
| Quote: |
Furthermore, you CAN patent a concept, and it happens all the time. It's called intellectual property. |
Uh no you can't. A patent is a specific term. It is also not a 'concept'. In this case it's a utility patent, which is also a more specific term.
I refer you to http://www.uspto.gov/
You can patent a process.. you can patent a machine. You can't patent "side scrolling games". Well technically you CAN patent it, it'll just get thrown out. You can patent a specific side scrolling game though, but if you're not specific about it, it'll get thrown out. And if you're TOO specific about it, then it'll be easy as pie to find a loophole to bring in competition.
That's the beauty/balance of patents. That's why people pay lawyers to write them, as there's a very fine line between being not descriptive enough, and being overly verbose and closing your market in.
Last edited by project_mercy on Thu May 19, 2005 10:13 am, edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sandm000
Basic Member
Joined: 23 Jul 2003
Location: Valhalla, NY |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Edible Bondage Tape
Trick Member
Joined: 26 Jan 2002
Location: Kerri |
| 725. Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| project_mercy wrote: | | Wolfman Jake wrote: |
Or maybe you'd like to try Roxor's approach and encourage people to buy your custom chip and bios that must be installed in a PS2. Then give them some stickers to hide everywhere it says Playstation 2, Sony, or Dualshock on the console or controlers so that they can SELL them as a different brand. In this case, Roxor didn't even design a "facsimile" DRR cabinet for their Boxor, they just in effect tell people to actually USE a real DDR cabinet. Does the problem become any clearer to you?
|
You're still making things up to suit your own sense of right and wrong. The fact that the end user decides to modify a cabinet is of their own volition. Konami can then sue the end user to cease usage of the cabinet, but the sale of the boxor kit is not illegal.
|
dependong ont he case and judge selling someing that lets someone else doingthing illegla is illegla (generally the rubrik is does this device have a legitimate non legal use)
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
toady007
Trick Member
Joined: 22 Nov 2002
Location: Mountain View, CA |
| 726. Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wolfman Jake wrote: | | today007: What I become invested in is people diseminating false information, especially when they use such to confuse themselves and others about the reality of the situation. When people post blatantly incorrect statements like, "This doesn't make any sense. Andamiro owns the arcade dance game rights in the United States, hence why we haven't gotten a mix since DDR USA. " (borrowed from your own live journal), it just irritates me. |
Hahahaha, wow.
So basically you act condescending to people who are quote "emotionally invested in dance games" yet you snoop around people's live journals trying to find flaws in their understanding in the legality of dance games. Talk about a double standard there. Take a step back for a second, ok?
| Quote: | | For the record, Andamiro does NOT own exclusive dance game distribution rights in the US. They pay Konami royalties to produce their titles. |
Also, if you could show me your source on that I'm sure it would clear up any misunderstanding I have on the Andamiro/Konami settlement.
| Wolfman Jake wrote: | | Psychological mumbo-jumbo is more my cup of tea |
That's great and everything, but before you comment back with a bunch of symbolic logic and other bullshit I would just like to point out you keep spelling my name wrong. Thanks.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
project_mercy
Basic Member
Joined: 16 May 2005
|
| 727. Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EnglishBastardizingTerror wrote: |
dependong ont he case and judge selling someing that lets someone else doingthing illegla is illegla (generally the rubrik is does this device have a legitimate non legal use) |
True, but modifying your personal cabinet is not illegal. While Konami maintains the ability to stop a person from using their patented device, it's still not illegal to modify it, even if it's a non-trivial modification. If the display breaks, it is not illegal to replace it with one that functions, even if the technician working on it decides to convert the signal to something else.
The important factor here is, a patent guarantees a manufactuer's ability to produce an item. The BoXoR doesn't infringe on Konami's ability to produce the patented device (a DDR Cabinet). As wolfman attempted to use incorrectly, a patent provides a legal document providing a written explanation of how to protect their intellectual property, which is, the design for the EXACT WRITTEN DDR CABINET. If a person makes a non-trivial change to that design, depending on the wording of the patent, it is not protected. Also, anyone out there is welcome, at any time, to attempt to prove the patent as invalid, through various reasons.
So a DDR Cabinet is a physical representation of the IP represented in the patent. The point is, THAT physical representation, is owned by a person. While the actual cabinet's design, and the ability to manufacture it, is owned by Konami.
The fact that RoXoR sells a product which may modify that cabinet, in any way, at the discretion of the property's owner, is of no consequence to Konami, assuming that the product in question is unique in its own way, and didn't steal any parts of it from the original cabinet, nor execute copyrighted code. If they reverse engineered it, or made it by public documents and open architecture designs, then it's not illegal.
Like I said, Konami can then attempt to ask the owner to cease use of the product at thier discretion, and if the owner refuses to honor this request, then they can be sued, but that's not so much RoXoR's issue (beyond the fact that nobody would buy their product anymore). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wolfman Jake
Trick Member
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
|
| 728. Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| project_mercy wrote: | | You're still making things up to suit your own sense of right and wrong. The fact that the end user decides to modify a cabinet is of their own volition. Konami can then sue the end user to cease usage of the cabinet, but the sale of the boxor kit is not illegal. |
It is ver potentially a matter of indirect infringement to sell a device that's express purpose does violate a patent. Sorry. Try reading this again.
| project_mercy wrote: | | I can sell Mod chips all day for a PS2, totally on the up and up, assuming that I didn't steal the initial chip design, but reverse engineered it. You keep looking at your 'historical justification', but you're comparing apples to oranges. The fact that Tengen made an exact copy of a nintendo chip, a chip designed for the sole purpose of requiring people to license their cartridges for the NES (and of which was documented as such) is distinctly different from someone who sells a kit to 'repair or update' a piece of hardware that someone may have purchased. |
Legal rulings are routinely built upon historical preceedent. There is more history inf the making very relevant to this point, in fact. Did you forget already the lawsuit of Immersian Corporatino vs. Sony (and Microsoft?). Sony and Microsoft developed their own force feedback controler tech (the Dualshock and the Xbox Controller, respectively) without copying Immersian's specs. They all independently developed the technology, but Immersian had the pattent first. They sued. Microsoft settled and Sony LOST its case already and is currently attempting an appeal. Patents are not these frivalous littling things that you can so easily dance around.
Also, you cannot capitalize on someone else's trademarked technology for profit. That's what arcade onwers are donig via the intsallation of Boxors, and Roxor is legally culpable for the results of the sales of their products via indirect infringement (see the link above).
| project_mercy wrote: | | Konami cabinets don't require a hardware dongle to function. |
So, what is the function of a Konami cabinet without its main board? To look pretty? It's designed to let the player experience playing Dance Dance Revolution.
| project_mercy wrote: | | And even if they did, it wouldn't matter, as the main board is replaced. |
It certainly does matter because the matter is not Roxor reverse engineering a system 573 (it obviously didn't. A system 573 is basically a Playstation while the Boxor is a PC), but rather the fact that Konami holds a patent on its dancing stage and it's cabinet design and specs, all of which Boxor encourages arcade owners to use without Konami's approval or concent.
By the way, have you ever read an End User Agreement? Believe it or not, you CANNOT do ANYTHING you want with many products you buy. By buying the product, you agree to the stipulations set forth on its proper use by the manufacturer. Seriously, read one of those novels that Microsofts makes you "agree to" before you can install any of their software. See how much wiggle room you get out of that. In most instances like this, "buying" a product is more like a lease from the parent company for use of their product under their stipulations.
| project_mercy wrote: | | If I then mod the PS2 to be.. say a toaster, and then resell said toaster as my own brand, then I'm liable. |
How is that not precisely what is happening with the ITG Boxor kit? It not only instructs you to remove all of the "other company's" logos and identification, it insturcts you to put Roxor's on, creating the illusion that the entirety of the product is Roxor's, which it is NOT. Now arcade owners, thanks to Roxor, are leasing time on "their" machines to patrons of their arcades which are supposed to be erroneously identified as a Roxor product. That isn't right.
Please don't try to confuse the issue of other arcade cabinets, like for fighting games, which ARE available generically with Konami's cabinet which is a completely patented unit. If Konami sold DDR as a kit that you could install in some generically available "dancing game" cabinet, the matter would be entirely different, but that's not the case in the slightest.
| project_mercy wrote: | | The ONLY thing that keeps people from manufacturing clones of the PS2 is the fact that you can't execute the software without breaking another patent as well as a copyright/licensing issue with the software itstelf. If it wasn't for the discs themselves, you could make a PS2 clone, as long as you reverse engineered it. For more information on this, read up on the Bleem case, and why they actually lost. |
Roxor is not reverse engineering squat. They are selling people Boxors that can ONLY be used by appropriating Konami's patented cabinet. Period. If they had built their own cabinet initially for ITG1, this might have been a relevant argument, but they didn't build their own cabinet at all, so it's pointless to bring up reverse engineering here.
| Quote: |
Furthermore, you CAN patent a concept, and it happens all the time. It's called intellectual property.
[quote="project_mercy"]Uh no you can't. A patent is a specific term. It is also not a 'concept'. In this case it's a utility patent, which is also a more specific term.
I refer you to http://www.uspto.gov/
You can patent a process.. you can patent a machine. You can't patent "side scrolling games". Well technically you CAN patent it, it'll just get thrown out. You can patent a specific side scrolling game though, but if you're not specific about it, it'll get thrown out. And if you're TOO specific about it, then it'll be easy as pie to find a loophole to bring in competition.
That's the beauty/balance of patents. That's why people pay lawyers to write them, as there's a very fine line between being not descriptive enough, and being overly verbose and closing your market in. |
What precisely do you think that intellectual property is? And no matter what you think it is, is Konami suing Roxor over use of "The Dance Game (tm)"? NO! It's suing over the wrongful infringement on its CABINET. This whole situation has absolutely nothing to do with Roxor's right to make the game ITG and everything to do with Konami's right to say you can't steal our stuff, Roxor, our physical stuff, we're not talking about copying our stuff, but taking our actual, physical, stuff we produced, and patented, to make a faster, easier profit for yourself.
_________________
Wolfman Jake
Last edited by Wolfman Jake on Thu May 19, 2005 11:43 am, edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Edible Bondage Tape
Trick Member
Joined: 26 Jan 2002
Location: Kerri |
| 729. Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| project_mercy wrote: | | EnglishBastardizingTerror wrote: |
dependong ont he case and judge selling someing that lets someone else doingthing illegla is illegla (generally the rubrik is does this device have a legitimate non legal use) |
True, but modifying your personal cabinet is not illegal. While Konami maintains the ability to stop a person from using their patented device, it's still not illegal to modify it, even if it's a non-trivial modification. If the display breaks, it is not illegal to replace it with one that functions, even if the technician working on it decides to convert the signal to something else.
. |
correct
modifying it and then useing it to make money or on public display is though
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wolfman Jake
Trick Member
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
|
| 730. Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| toady007 wrote: | | So basically you act condescending to people who are quote "emotionally invested in dance games" yet you snoop around people's live journals trying to find flaws in their understanding in the legality of dance games. Talk about a double standard there. Take a step back for a second, ok? |
I snoop in your live journal? Wow, I hope you realize that your live journal is publically published on the internet for anyone to freely browse. If you didn't want people looking in it, you shouldn't have put the link in your DDRFreak profile, the one I can access on every post you make just by clicking the associated icon. The whole idea of a live journal is to post your thoughts to the internet for people to respond to. What exactly was so odd about what I did?
| toady007 wrote: | | Also, if you could show me your source on that I'm sure it would clear up any misunderstanding I have on the Andamiro/Konami settlement. |
| Quote: | "Konami, Andamiro Settle on Music Video Dispute--- posted on August 20, 2002
Konami Corp., Tokyo, and Andamiro Co., Ltd., Korea, announced on August 19 that the two parties have reached an agreement to settle out of court both in Korea and the U.S. According to the announcement, Konami has received some mount of money from Andamiro, however the amount of money is not shown due to the terms of settlement. Andamiro withdrew its appeal to the Seoul High Court and its file to the U.S. District Court.
Konami said that Andamiro had proposed to resolve a series of legal proceedings with Konami since February this year, and have eventually reached an agreement. Andamiro's comment has not obtained.
Konami filed a lawsuit in the Seoul District Court in March 2000, alleging that Andamiro infringed the Konami's registered design right of the "Dance Dance Revolution" by the Andamiro's "Pump It Up". In the case, the court's Judge ruled favor to Konami in June 2001, and Andamiro appealed immediately. By the way, Andamiro announced in September 2001 that the Patent Court decided Andamiro did not infringe Konami's design right.
"
|
Granted, that's not as explicit as I would like, but my point still stands. If Andamiro has "sole distribution rights for dance games" in the US as a reward for losing its initial court case with Konami and then agreeing to settle and pay Konami money of an undisclosed amount, as absurd as that hopefully sounds to you now, then why on earth would Andamiro not sue 1) Roxor for distributing ITG without paying them royalties for the right to put their game on the market and 2) Konami for having their arcade machines, US or Japanese, still widely distributed in the US?
| toady007 wrote: | | That's great and everything, but before you comment back with a bunch of symbolic logic and other bullshit I would just like to point out you keep spelling my name wrong. Thanks. |
My appologies then, toady.
_________________
Wolfman Jake
Last edited by Wolfman Jake on Thu May 19, 2005 12:13 pm, edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Funkstar Polaris
Trick Member
Joined: 31 Aug 2003
|
| 731. Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wolfman Jake wrote: |
And no matter what you think it is, is Konami suing Roxor over use of "The Dance Game (tm)"? NO! It's suing over the wrongful infringement on its CABINET. |
| Konami's Filing, Count 1, paragraph 14 wrote: |
On information and belief, Defendant's ITG Game infringes, either directly or indirectly, the claims of the '835' Patent. |
Just want to point out that Konami is suing over both the game (paragraph 14) and the hardware (paragraph 15) in the Patent Infringment count. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wolfman Jake
Trick Member
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
|
| 732. Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Funkstar Polaris wrote: | | Wolfman Jake wrote: |
And no matter what you think it is, is Konami suing Roxor over use of "The Dance Game (tm)"? NO! It's suing over the wrongful infringement on its CABINET. |
| Konami's Filing, Count 1, paragraph 14 wrote: |
On information and belief, Defendant's ITG Game infringes, either directly or indirectly, the claims of the '835' Patent. |
Just want to point out that Konami is suing over both the game (paragraph 14) and the hardware (paragraph 15) in the Patent Infringment count. |
Interesting. Looks like just about every headline and first post on the major Bemani boards boasting that the lawsuit is over wrongful cabinet use and not infringement on the "dance game" idea is erroneous. Rejoice, fanboys, it IS now apparantly about ITG copying DDR!
_________________
Wolfman Jake |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
toady007
Trick Member
Joined: 22 Nov 2002
Location: Mountain View, CA |
| 733. Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wolfman Jake wrote: | | I snoop in your live journal? Wow, I hope you realize that your live journal is publically published on the internet for anyone to freely browse. If you didn't want people looking in it, you shouldn't have put the link in your DDRFreak profile, the one I can access on every post you make just by clicking the associated icon. The whole idea of a live journal is to post your thoughts to the internet for people to respond to. What exactly was so odd about what I did? |
Really? I had no idea it was public and in my profile. *rolls eyes*
I don't really care who looks at it, it is -there- for people to look at, but the fact you went to it from this topic, found my topic about the lawsuit, and then used it here in an argument suggests that you are quite emotionally invested in this topic, which is of course what I was referring to in the first place. To seriously spend a considerable amount of time here and going to people's blogs in an attempt to contradict them, while at the same time talking down to people who are "emotionally invested" in a dance game seems rather ridiculous to me.
However, thank you for the statement on the lawsuit. I was under the impression that several lawsuits were filed in the case from each side, however I haven't found any type of document detailing what happened in those cases. EDIT: Found one, nevermind.
| Wolfman Jake wrote: | | The username next to all of your posts on DDRFreak says "today007," so that is how I chose to address you here on...DDR Freak. |
EDIT: Corrected.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wolfman Jake
Trick Member
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
|
| 734. Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 12:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, sorry, I now realize it's toady. My appologies. It's apparantly dyslexia day for me. And finding that quote on your live journal was just a happenstance. I was actually trying to figure out if I knew you from AIJ.
_________________
Wolfman Jake |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
toady007
Trick Member
Joined: 22 Nov 2002
Location: Mountain View, CA |
| 735. Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, no problem. I'm on AIJ, I don't post over there too often though. A lot of the people there just rub me the wrong way with the whole "I played X song 40 times in a row until I AAA'd it, therefore I am good" philosophy.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
project_mercy
Basic Member
Joined: 16 May 2005
|
| 736. Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wolfman Jake wrote: | Legal rulings are routinely built upon historical preceedent. There is more history inf the making very relevant to this point, in fact. Did you forget already the lawsuit of Immersian Corporatino vs. Sony (and Microsoft?). Sony and Microsoft developed their own force feedback controler tech (the Dualshock and the Xbox Controller, respectively) without copying Immersian's specs. They all independently developed the technology, but Immersian had the pattent first. They sued. Microsoft settled and Sony LOST its case already and is currently attempting an appeal. Patents are not these frivalous littling things that you can so easily dance around.
|
One, it depends on the wording of the patent. Two, they were selling stand alone products which infringed on the other's ability to sell the patented object (and the BoXoR would actually increase consumption, not decrease it). Three, they use conceptially the same design to do it. Four, settling out of court doesn't prove anything, it just proves that it was cheaper to settle than it is to continue litigation.
| Quote: |
Also, you cannot capitalize on someone else's trademarked technology for profit.
|
You can't trademark technology.
| Quote: | but rather the fact that Konami holds a patent on its dancing stage and it's cabinet design and specs, all of which Boxor encourages arcade owners to use without Konami's approval or concent.
|
The BoXoR does not infringe on Konami's ability to produce, or sell any part or parcel of the cabinet. I could set up a campaign to encourage arcade owners to turn them into planters if I wanted, and while I may be liable for slander, it's not a patent infrigement.
| Quote: |
By the way, have you ever read an End User Agreement? Believe it or not, you CANNOT do ANYTHING you want with many products you buy. By buying the product, you agree to the stipulations set forth on its proper use by the manufacturer. Seriously, read one of those novels that Microsofts makes you "agree to" before you can install any of their software. See how much wiggle room you get out of that. In most instances like this, "buying" a product is more like a lease from the parent company for use of their product under their stipulations.
|
Failure. Microsoft is Software. Software itself is not patented, it's copyrighted. While you can patent a procedure or a technology, Microsoft is LICENSING software to you. That's what the agreement is.
Not to mention that EULAs are as often NOT upheld in court as they are, and precident has shown them to not be binding.
And technically speaking, I OWN the floppy or CD that I purchased. I just don't own the software that's on it. If I want to turn that CD into a hat, and parade around San Fran nakid in it, it's my volition to do so (beyond the criminial ramifications of parading around nakid).
| Quote: |
How is that not precisely what is happening with the ITG Boxor kit? It not only instructs you to remove all of the "other company's" logos and identification, it insturcts you to put Roxor's on, creating the illusion that the entirety of the product is Roxor's, which it is NOT. Now arcade owners, thanks to Roxor, are leasing time on "their" machines to patrons of their arcades which are supposed to be erroneously identified as a Roxor product. That isn't right.
|
There you go again with your "that isn't right". It doesn't have anything to do with right or wrong. Irrelivently of how 'wrong' it is to use someone else's hardware, it's not illegal. They're NOT reselling the DDR box. They're selling someone a kit to modify it, just like your local kid riceing up his Civic.
| Quote: |
Roxor is not reverse engineering squat. They are selling people Boxors that can ONLY be used by appropriating Konami's patented cabinet. Period. If they had built their own cabinet initially for ITG1, this might have been a relevant argument, but they didn't build their own cabinet at all, so it's pointless to bring up reverse engineering here.
|
?
Konami has to prove that RoXoR has infringed on their patent, by producing their product. If they reverse engineered or used seperate internals, then there's no claim whatso ever. So it's not pointless at all.
| Quote: |
This whole situation has absolutely nothing to do with Roxor's right to make the game ITG and everything to do with Konami's right to say you can't steal our stuff, Roxor, our physical stuff, we're not talking about copying our stuff, but taking our actual, physical, stuff we produced, and patented, to make a faster, easier profit for yourself. |
And they didn't.
RoXoR is not producing a DDR cabinet.
The patent is for a DDR cabinet.
You're bringing your own sense of right and wrong back into the picture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
project_mercy
Basic Member
Joined: 16 May 2005
|
| 737. Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EnglishBastardizingTerror wrote: |
correct
modifying it and then useing it to make money or on public display is though |
Incorrect, you're confusing copyright and licensing (aka, things like movies, and software) with patent.
The DDR Cabinet is not licensed. It's purchased by a private owner.
I do not have to purchase a 'taxi' car. I can turn any car I want into a taxi. I can then cut it up and turn it into a Limo if I want. In fact, I can even start my own service which converts cars into limos. None of which is illegal or infringment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
diddrstrait
Trick Member
Joined: 01 Jan 2004
|
| 738. Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
actually, whoever said Roxor is being sued over the game probably is just reading the legalese incorrectly. the "ITG Game" is how the boxor is referred to throughout the document (I believe the "factual background" at the beginning of the court papers says something along the lines of "In the Groove Game (hereafter referred to as 'ITG Game'). You'll also notice they refer to the refitting of the "DDR Game" throughout, but that doesn't mean they are talking about software.
this once again, is about hardware. not software or gameplay elements. nowhere in the legal documentation does it say anything about gameplay elements being plaigerized from the 'DDR Game' to the 'ITG Game'. If anyone had bothered to check the legal documents (exhibit 1 just so there's no confusion) they would've seen the US Patent document for US Patent number 6,410,835, which is a patent on a "Dance Game Apparatus and Step on Base". Not a patent on arrows scrolling up a screen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wolfman Jake
Trick Member
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
|
| 739. Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| project_mercy wrote: | | Wolfman Jake wrote: | Legal rulings are routinely built upon historical preceedent. There is more history inf the making very relevant to this point, in fact. Did you forget already the lawsuit of Immersian Corporatino vs. Sony (and Microsoft?). Sony and Microsoft developed their own force feedback controler tech (the Dualshock and the Xbox Controller, respectively) without copying Immersian's specs. They all independently developed the technology, but Immersian had the pattent first. They sued. Microsoft settled and Sony LOST its case already and is currently attempting an appeal. Patents are not these frivalous littling things that you can so easily dance around.
|
One, it depends on the wording of the patent. Two, they were selling stand alone products which infringed on the other's ability to sell the patented object (and the BoXoR would actually increase consumption, not decrease it). Three, they use conceptially the same design to do it. Four, settling out of court doesn't prove anything, it just proves that it was cheaper to settle than it is to continue litigation.
| Quote: |
Also, you cannot capitalize on someone else's trademarked technology for profit.
|
You can't trademark technology. |
Yes you can. Immersion Corporation did JUST THAT. They took Sony to court over it, and SONY LOST. They have been ordered to pay Immersion 90.7 million dollars for damages for infrigements on Immersion's technology patent on force feedback. Immersion doesn't even have a competing controler! Sony is trying to appeal the case, but most analysts agree they are going to lose and have to fork over the dough.
Here, this is a statement from Immersion Corp. themselves:
âImmersion is built on a strong foundation of innovative technology and intellectual property. We now hold more than 270 patents in our worldwide intellectual property portfolio and have more than 280 patent applications pending. Immersion has a long list of licensees in the automotive, gaming, medical, mobility, and other markets, and we will continue to license our technology under appropriate circumstances. We will also continue to vigorously defend our intellectual property for the benefit of our licensees and shareholders.â â Viegas
And by the way, the Boxor doesn't increase the consumption of Konami's cabinets. It's marketed as an upgrade to your existing cabinet. Almost no one is going out there buying a DDR cabinet just to throw away the 573 board and install a Boxor, not arcade owners almost definately.
_________________
Wolfman Jake |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
Forums FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
