Main > Main Forum

Quasimotos reply

Pages: << < (5/5)

RandyT:


--- Quote from: u_rebelscum on March 09, 2005, 05:52:05 pm ---
--- Quote from: Lilwolf on March 09, 2005, 12:59:56 pm ---I'm still a little annoyed that they have patented the analog button technology... so if I wanted 4 analog buttons, it will cost me 600 bucks.

--- End quote ---

I don't know what's patented about it: ps2 controllers have "analog" buttons (4 levels IIRC), and xbox have 256 levels analog buttons.  Could be the interface, application of some (old) tech to something new, or whatever.

--- End quote ---

A quick search at the USPTO doesn't bring up much.  Only a couple of fairly narrow (IMHO, IANAL) patent applications that don't seem to have anything to do with analog buttons.  But I may have missed one somewhere.

Where is it mentioned that there is a patent on these?  It might help me find it if I can see the context of the statement.


--- Quote ---BTW, anybody know how many console games actually use the analog part of the buttons?

--- End quote ---

A lot of the racing type games seem to.  More pressure on the brake/accelerator button causes more intense braking/acceleration.  I've also seen a couple of platformer style games where pressing harder yields higher jumps.  But sometimes the differences are so subtle, it's hard to know if the feature is supported or not when in the midst of the action.


RandyT


Patent Doc:

Randy T


--- Code: ---Where is it mentioned that there is a patent on these?  It might help me find it if I can see the context of the statement.

--- End code ---


--- Code: ---At the heart of the Quasicade2 is the patented QuasiCON 2P Control System. 
--- End code ---
This was found on their website under the description of any of the controller...I'm quoting the description of Quasicade 2.  My bet is they confused patented with patent applied for (it happens..it shouldn't, but it does).

I also looked on the USPTO sight and only turned up
US Application Serial No. 09/781,069 and 10/719,033. I searched for Quasimoto as the assignee and Gerding as the inventor.

I don't agree that the claims are narrow, at least claim 1 isn't, but my bet is they will have to limit claim 1 to include other limitations (ex. claim 8).

RandyT:


--- Quote from: Patent Doc on March 10, 2005, 11:42:19 am ---Randy T


--- Code: ---Where is it mentioned that there is a patent on these?  It might help me find it if I can see the context of the statement.

--- End code ---


--- Code: ---At the heart of the Quasicade2 is the patented QuasiCON 2P Control System. 
--- End code ---
This was found on their website under the description of any of the controller...I'm quoting the description of Quasicade 2.  My bet is they confused patented with patent applied for (it happens..it shouldn't, but it does).


--- End quote ---

While I have your ear :) ....

Are there not legal ramifications to stating something is "patented" when in fact it isn't?  My understanding that using the term "patent pending" without having at least filed for a provisional is a punishable act.

Does this not also hold true when stating that something is "patented"? 


--- Quote ---I don't agree that the claims are narrow, at least claim 1 isn't, but my bet is they will have to limit claim 1 to include other limitations (ex. claim 8).  The end result will be very narrow, and judging by the priority date, in 2001, things aren't going so well in examination land.

--- End quote ---

You are right.  In fact, that first claim is so broad I got confused on the meaning of "wherein", thinking to myself that the rest of the claims had to be part of the first.  That's why I'm not a lawyer :)

Given the amount of prior art, however, I agree that anything resulting from it would have to be pretty narrow in scope, and still no mention of analog buttons anywhere.

RandyT


Patent Doc:


--- Code: ---Are there not legal ramifications to stating something is "patented" when in fact it isn't?  My understanding that using the term "patent pending" without having at least filed for a provisional is a punishable act.

Does this not also hold true when stating that something is "patented"? 

--- End code ---

Yeah, it is a punishable act, but punishable by a $500 fine for each offense according to 35 USC 292.  Also, the statute reads that the false mark must be "for the purpose of deceiving the public."  I imagine its difficult to prove this intent.  Maybe I'm wrong and the intent aspect of the statute is waived so its a strict liability offense.  However, since the penalty is low it's generally not worth the effort.  Neverthe less, for those who are interested, 35 USC 292 says the fine for a successful prosecution is split with 50% going to the individual bringing suit.

Patent Doc

Pages: << < (5/5)

Go to full version