Main > Main Forum
Arcade cabinets and patents
elvis:
It's a cabinet with a console in it. Something that's already been done commercially for some time now. We even build these for some of our customers (link in sig). Nothing new there.
Patenting *used* to be about protecting your intellectual investment to forward the advancement of technology. Today it's about stopping your competitors dead in their tracks with fear of the legal system.
Again I say, thank christ I'm outside of the US and don't have to worry about 99% of the patents filed in this world. :)
Truecade:
--- Quote from: xonix_digital on August 31, 2005, 01:39:38 am ---It says the assignee name is Quasimoto.
http://www.quasimoto.com/
They better not patent that expensive behemoth.
-=XD=-
--- End quote ---
This thing will be patented unless members and vendors of this board take action. Anyone in the US who currently sells a PC or console based home arcade machine could end up paying royalites to this company. It doesn't matter if this concept has been done for years by other people. Once the patent is granted it will become infinitely more difficult to fight cease and desist letters if they are sent out by this company.
Arcade cabinet vendors take note.
Bursar:
--- Quote from: Truecade on August 31, 2005, 10:55:48 am ---
--- Quote from: xonix_digital on August 31, 2005, 01:39:38 am ---It says the assignee name is Quasimoto.
http://www.quasimoto.com/
They better not patent that expensive behemoth.
-=XD=-
--- End quote ---
This thing will be patented unless members and vendors of this board take action.
--- End quote ---
Truecade:
IANAL, but I don't think its that simple. Once a patent is granted, it would be a long and expensive legal process to show the patent was invalid. The litigation could cost tens of thousands of dollars, and even IF the patent was ruled invalid a company would be unable to recover legal expenses. As someone mentioned earlier, a patent like this can be used to force a company who can't afford a lengthly legal battle into paying royalties or going out of business.
The time to challenge a patent and show prior art is before it is approved.
--- Quote from: Bursar on August 31, 2005, 11:40:53 am ---
--- Quote from: Truecade on August 31, 2005, 10:55:48 am ---
--- Quote from: xonix_digital on August 31, 2005, 01:39:38 am ---It says the assignee name is Quasimoto.
http://www.quasimoto.com/
They better not patent that expensive behemoth.
-=XD=-
--- End quote ---
This thing will be patented unless members and vendors of this board take action.
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
Patent Doc:
Yes, prior art will have to be looked at and overcome both as it anticipates the claims or renders them obvious. I have not read the claim, but this is the key...if they found a limitation that makes the quasimodo patentably different than whatever the Examiner finds, they are good to go. Of course the converse is you won't be infringing if you add an extra limitation or don't have theirs (presumably because they needed that limitation to get the patent). If this does make it through, a third party can petition for a re-exam citing the known prior art that was not previously considered. I also seem to recall there being a way for a thrid party to submit art for the Examiner's consideration before allowance of a patent...but I can't quite recall how this works.
Anyway, read the first claim...is everything necessary? No, then don't use all the limitations. If the limitations are in there now, you can be assurred Quasimoto has to have it.
OH by the way for all you Aussies out there. Just because litigation has hit yet doesn't mean it won't. In my experience, Australia is the easiest of the industialized countries as far as getting a patent goes.
Patent Doc