Arcade cabinets and patents

[Truecade]

So I was browsing through the uspto web site today looking for some work-related material and I decided to a few arcade cabinet related searches on a whim.  I found a few interesting ones, including this. 

I didn't really have time to data mine the pending patents, but the above example got me thinking.  What if someone tried to patent the whole concept of arcade emulation based cabinets?  As phracked up as the US patent system is, it wouldn't suprise me if this actually happened.  What would be the recourse to stop a patent if some jerk tried to do this? 

Can anyone else find pending patents that might be detrimental to the home based arcade market?

Just thinking out loud.....

[DannyH]

I cant believe someone is trying to patent that. I guess if it was a unique design maybe. But in the end the patent shouldnt be able to stop you from making your own cabinet. Thats like IKEA patenting TV Units.

[elvis]

If someone did patent it in the US, it would only affect the US.

One of the few advantages we non-Americans have, being outside your completely rediculous patent/IP/litigation-mad country.   Although to be honest, Australia is starting to slide lately, with more and more people choosing wealth over common sense.

Outside of all that, a patent covers a particular implementation of something.  Not only that, but there must be no doubt that there was ever a pre-existing thing that did the same job.  For instance: Microsoft can patent a particular feature of the XBox, but they can't patent the idea of video game consoles in general.  Someone could patent a particular TYPE of arcade cabinet (assuming they invented it, and it had unique function and wasn't a clone of something else) but they couldn't patent ALL arcade cabinet building everywhere.

[RayB]

Just think about this... If "patents" existed in the stone age, we never would have moved beyond the discovery of fire, let alone "the wheel".

[xonix_digital]

It says the assignee name is Quasimoto.

http://www.quasimoto.com/

They better not patent that expensive behemoth.

-=XD=-

[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]

It says the assignee name is Quasimoto.

http://www.quasimoto.com/

They better not patent that expensive behemoth.

-=XD=-

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]

It says the assignee name is Quasimoto.

http://www.quasimoto.com/

They better not patent that expensive behemoth.

-=XD=-

This thing will be patented unless members and vendors of this board take action.

[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.

It says the assignee name is Quasimoto.

http://www.quasimoto.com/

They better not patent that expensive behemoth.

-=XD=-

This thing will be patented unless members and vendors of this board take action.

[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

[Patent Doc]

OK, I just checked and sure enough 37 CFR 1.99 provides that once a patent application is published (the case here) any memeber of the public may submit references for consideration provided they pay the fee and meet the submission requirements (just form kind of things).  No explanation of the art is allowed.

[RayB]

Slightly off topic, but Nintendo was just awarded a patent for a "Sanity system in a video game".

If you've played Eternal Darkness, you know what this is about.

Ridiculous patent though.

[elvis]

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.

The difference here is attitude.  Thankfully, thus far the Australia public has proven themselves far less greedy and money hungry on the whole than some other nations.  There is still a strong work ethic here, and less of a "get rich quick" mentality amoungst most.

Although that is slowly changing for the worse.  I just cross my fingers and hope to avoid it all in my lifetime.  I pity my children, however.

[xonix_digital]

So what do we do? Where do we go from here?
I can't be letting a money-hungry company take over OUR industry.

Lets start writing emails to the president!!! 

-=XD=-

[Avery]

Just think about this... If "patents" existed in the stone age, we never would have moved beyond the discovery of fire, let alone "the wheel".

Compare and contrast: Patents expire after a scant 15 years.  Copyrights are rapidly becomming eternal.

[RandyT]

Just think about this... If "patents" existed in the stone age, we never would have moved beyond the discovery of fire, let alone "the wheel".

Compare and contrast: Patents expire after a scant 15 years.  Copyrights are rapidly becomming eternal.

Actually, I think it's 17 years in the U.S.

But I agree.  You can develop the cure for cancer and you can only protect it for 17 years.  Record yourself farting into a kazoo to the tune of "mary had a little lamb", and your great grandchildren can sue for royalties.

Anyone else see a problem with this?

RandyT

[Patent Doc]

Utility Patents last 20 years from the ealiest filing date with additional time awarded for delays on the part of the patent office.  Design patents are 15 years.  This was a utility patent.\

Patent Doc

[RandyT]

Utility Patents last 20 years from the ealiest filing date with additional time awarded for delays on the part of the patent office.  Design patents are 15 years.  This was a utility patent.\

Thanks for the clarification.  I guess the "!7 years" that I keep hearing comes from the fact that it often takes 2-3 years from the date of filing before a patent is granted. 

I also just read here that design patents last for 14 years from the time they are granted.  Is this taking into account the shorter approval times for design patents (I.e. perhaps 15 years from the filing date - 1 year approval time = 14 year validity?)

Just trying to figure out why all the discrepancies in the numbers I keep hearing.

Thanks,
RandyT

[elvis]

So what do we do? Where do we go from here?
I can't be letting a money-hungry company take over OUR industry.

Lets start writing emails to the president!!! 

-=XD=-

I assume that post was made in total sarcasm.  At least I hope it was.

Your president (and most of his family) are board members of a dozen of the world's most money hungry bastard corporations, all of which are extremely pro US-style IP/patents/copyright (even trying to enforce that rubbish on other countries that they do business in, despite having no political presence).  I seriously doubt they give a flying turd about any of us and our concerns.

[xonix_digital]

I assume that post was made in total sarcasm. At least I hope it was.

Your president (and most of his family) are board members of a dozen of the world's most money hungry bastard corporations, all of which are extremely pro US-style IP/patents/copyright (even trying to enforce that rubbish on other countries that they do business in, despite having no political presence). I seriously doubt they give a flying turd about any of us and our concerns.

Ehhhh... I'd say it was about half and half.

<breakdown>
<not sarcasm>
"So what do we do? Where do we go from here?
I can't be letting a money-hungry company take over OUR industry."
</not sarcasm>
<sarcasm>
"Lets start writing emails to the president!!!"
</sarcsasm>
</breakdown>

...

I hope this helps.

-=XD=-

[JB]

So what do we do? Where do we go from here?
I can't be letting a money-hungry company take over OUR industry.

Lets start writing emails to the president!!! 

-=XD=-

I assume that post was made in total sarcasm.  At least I hope it was.

Your president (and most of his family) are board members of a dozen of the world's most money hungry bastard corporations, all of which are extremely pro US-style IP/patents/copyright (even trying to enforce that rubbish on other countries that they do business in, despite having no political presence).  I seriously doubt they give a flying turd about any of us and our concerns.

I would've made a less politically-charged argument. The president isn't involved in the day-to-day workings of the patent office. He has no say in whether patents are granted or dismissed.

E-mails should be directed to someone in the patent&trademarks office.

[elvis]

Heh, yes it does.

On topic: as already mentioned, the Quasimoto above could only apply a patent if it did something different to every other arcade system out there.  And then it would only be able to use that patent to demand royalties on anyone else who did that one particular thing.

From this page:
http://www.quasimoto.com/direct.html
"Patented control electronics".

I can't see anything new on their CP:
http://www.quasimoto.com/images/qcon_f.jpg

The patent application (linked from above) seems to claim that they are the first people to put a game console in a cabinet.  All of us here know that's absolute shite.  As far as I'm aware, US cabinet builders should all start writing letters stating exactly what they do, and what products they sell, and how long they've been doing it for.  You would *HOPE* that the patent office is competant enough to be able ot search the market for pre-existing examples of this sort of thing, but I don't doubt that an ancient paper-based system probably wouldn't even know what google was if it bit them on the arse.

Patent Doc: what are the steps one needs to take from here to get in contact with the USPTO and make their counter-claims heard?