Ahead of the game
We take a look at some of the gaming IP that made the industry what it is today.
17th October 2020
With the restrictions we’ve all experienced in 2020, we’ve spent a lot more time at home than usual and have rekindled our love of video games. It is such a shame then that one of the few occasions when gaming encourages travel that, as with most events this year, the annual Liverpool Anime & Gaming Convention at the Adelphi Hotel, that should be happening this weekend, has been cancelled.
Being based near London, Liverpool isn’t our usual choice of venue for these sort of events, but we had planned several meetings in the area last year and had a weekend to fill so booked tickets — looks like we’ll have to wait another year before our first real con experience.
So, as we can’t go the the convention, we’re dedicating this weeks’ blog to gaming by listing some of the most important patents in the history of the industry:
1. The One that pressed the START button on it all— (The Pong Patent)
USRE28507 — “Television gaming apparatus” (As if any other patent could hold the number one spot on this list!)
Back in 1969 William Rusch filed a patent application for a “Television Gaming Apparatus” that used a paddle-type control to move onscreen objects that collided with other onscreen objects.
The resulting patent was eventually licensed to Magnavox, who then used that technology to release the first video game console: the Magnavox Odyssey.
When a rival upstart company, Atari, released their Atari 2600™ home console that also sported paddle controls, Magnavox took notice and Atari took a license for its “PONG” game. In the decade after that, Magnavox successfully asserted its patent in multiple lawsuits against Seeburg, Bally-Midway, Mattel, Activision and Nintendo, demonstrating without a doubt that a strong patent is the perfect way to protect your intellectual territory. The Odyssey system and PONG game launched what has since become a multi-billion dollar industry, and the ‘507 patent rightfully deserves the title of the Number One Video Game Patent.
2. One that prevented copy and pasting
In the early 1990’s, Nintendo was riding a wave of popularity with its NES™ console (a.k.a. the “Famicom,” shorthand for ‘Family Computer’, the name used when it was originally released in Japan). To keep control over its business, they built a security program into its console, the 10NES software. It was a combination of “lock” software embedded into a chip in the NES gaming console, and “key” software in each Nintendo game cartridge.
The lock and key send synchronized encoded data streams back and forth which unlock the console when an authorized game is inserted. When an unauthorized game is inserted, the console remains locked, thus preventing game manufacturers for designing NES-compatible games without receiving keys from Nintendo.
Developers were upset that Nintendo was forcing them to pay money for a license to develop games for the NES console. Atari was so upset that it refused. Instead of paying, Atari simply copied the 10NES software from records in the US Copyright Office… yes — litigation followed shortly after.
Irrespective of the fact that Atari lied in order to get the US Copyright Office to release the records, Atari won the copyright infringement portion of the lawsuit. Nintendo, however, had the foresight to also get patent protection on its 10NES software : US4799635 — “System for determining authenticity of an external memory used in an information processing apparatus” The patent was determined to be valid, and a jury determined that Atari infringed.
So, rather than having to sit by and watch an unlicensed competitor make and sell unauthorized games because its copyright claims fell, Nintendo was able to rely on its patent to preserve control over the NES. The parties eventually settled the case, and Nintendo has since become a dominant player in the U.S. console market. Who knows if Nintendo could have pulled this off if it lost control over the NES?
3. The One that did get copied and pasted — (The Crazy Taxi patent)
US6200138 —” Game display method, moving direction indicating method, game apparatus and drive simulating apparatus” describes a video game concept in which the player drives a car around a map, and where a target destination is highlighted for the user. The following figure from the patent shows how an arrow can be used to point the way:
Sega’s patent covered concepts it used in its hit game, Crazy Taxi:
When Fox Entertainment and Electronic Arts released a game having a similar concept, Sega weren’t happy. Fox/EA’s The Simpsons: Road Rage game seemed to use the same concept:
Sega sued EA/Fox in 2003, and the case was settled not long after.
4. The one we didn’t know we needed, but now can’t live without
When a technology comes along that consumers instantly respond to, everyone begins to take that technology for granted. If someone has a patent on that technology, or just a patent on some aspect of it, that someone is going to have an important patent.
As an example, consider the wireless game controller. All modern consoles (XBOX, Play Station and Switch etc) offer wireless handheld controls, and from personal experience, we swear by the convenience and flexibility that the wireless control offers. US6280327 — “Wireless Game Control Units” was subject to a suit between its owner, Freedom Wave LLC, and Mad Catz Inc.
The patent deals with two features:
A sleep function to turn off a game controller after going unused for an amount of time, and an “auto” function that sends game input signals at a continuous pace.
According to the patent, prior art game controls would have their sleep function interrupted by the automatic signals from the “auto” mode, so if users stopped playing while the “auto” function was turned on, the controller’s sleep function would never kick in (it kept sending the signals, so it thought it was constantly in use). The patent claims a system that separates the sleep function from the “auto” function, so that the controller can go to sleep even if the “auto” function was turned on.
Another Freedom Wave patent, US6878066 — “Wireless game control units” (a ‘grandchild’ of ‘327) relates to an adapter that can plug into a console’s controller port to allow that port to work with a wireless controller.
Freedom Wave asserted both of these patents against controller maker Mad Catz Inc. in 2005. That case was dismissed in early 2006 by agreement of both parties, but they continued their dispute in a new suit filed in late 2006.
5. The one that took us to the next level
Every so often, there is a sea change in an industry — a new feature or development that takes the industry by storm, creates media buzz, and gets the consuming public excited again.
Nintendo managed to do just that during the 2006 holiday season with the introduction of the Nintendo Wii™ and its motion sensing controller technology. Nintendo sold almost 2 million units of the Wii™ by the end of 2006. Given the hype, and the sales, it was only a matter of time before patent owners started looking for their due, which is why, given the proclivity of patent trolls to follow the money, software patents often get bad press. However, at the end of the day someone is commercialising innovative technology that may be covered by one or more patents belonging to others. And patent litigation is often the only way to sort it out.
Interlink Electronics has fired the first shot by suing Nintendo for infringement of US6850221 — “Trigger operated electronic device” , which covers the motion sensing technology in Nintendo’s Wii remote. Early commentary on the lawsuit questions its merits, but given the result in an Immersion v. Sony lawsuit, and the fact that litigation is inherently speculative, Nintendo is certainly taking it seriously. In addition, Interlink is not the only company that is trying to stake its claim in this new technology; Sony has patents pending on motion sensing controller technology, and it’s a safe bet that Nintendo does as well.
Given that multiple parties are all trying to stake claims to different aspects of the same technology, it will take some time to see where the chips fall. If the same company doesn’t end up with both the dominant technology as well as the patent that covers that technology, this could be a long and expensive chip-falling process. Regardless, whoever ends up with the dominant patent stands to make lots of licensing revenue, given the widespread excitement over this new technology, and that patent deserves to be on this list.
So video games have been around for about 40 years (i.e. approximately two patent lifetimes). In that time, we’ve gone from this:
(Photo courtesy of David Winter, Pong Story)
To this:
We can wait to see what the next 40 years bring (or even the next 10!) What new developments to you think we’ll see in gaming in that time, let us know your thoughts via social media.
