wel the n64 rumble pack wasnt built into the controller, and I assume they signed an agreement now if they havent been named. It's not that hard to do and it's not like this company will be asking for huge royalties from using their technology.
Yes. Now they are going to pay 5 times more, plus the costs of going to court. It's a nice punishment for they foolish attitude :smt030
Way to go Microsoft! Settle out of court for $26 million, buy 10% of the company (for peanuts as its revenues last year were $23.8 million), then smile knowing you had a hand in sueing Sony for $90 million (and I suppose technically having a 10% share of that money). I think Nintendo were playing by the book and actually licensed the technology all along, weren't they?
The thing is, they wont be able to just pay the money and then go merrily on their way. Sony is going to have to pay the money, and then strike a licensing deal so that they can use the technology from this point on. The lawsuit is over Sony's illegal use of the technology thus far; if the ruling is held up, and Sony pays up, they will either have to strike up a licensing deal for the technology, or just do without.
So, they'll do it. They won't let the console and 47 games to be off the shelves. And they won't develop a new controllers at this exact moment. They went to court, instead of doing what Micro$oft did. So now they'll have to pay the price for the attitude.
I smell another PS3 delay. If sony doesn't like the idea of licensing a controller, then they might design one that is, this time around, entirely their own design and property for the upcoming PS3.
Can people really patent a generic-as-hell DC motor with a big unbalanced chunk of metal stuck on the end? It's not exactly hard for any engineer to come up with something that rudimentary... Or is it other stuff too?
what if this company wont agree to license Sony the technology after this? It's kinda sad how MS is gonna profit from this, and they would benefit from any suffering that sony gets from this.
well it would have been easier to slightly modify their patent to make it still different than just use the ideas..regardless of how easy it sounds.
yeah, i think this too. the nintendo rumble feature is basicly a uncentralized weight that turns when the signal is on, creating a quick circular movement into the controller that create the rumbling. Sony and microsoft, on the other hand, seems to really be a pulsion or something. However, i can be wrong, since i don't know how the dual shock and.... the microsoft pad (is there a fancy name or something?) is working, i'm just guessing by how it does.
I was under the impression all rumble pads essentially used used a motor and a cam (off-balance weight... I'm pretty sure that's the name). I don't know what you mean by "pulsion" but if it's anything different to what I've described I'd be interested to know more.
lol, you can see right through the clear or transparent controllers. They use weights that spins to create vibrations. It's funny to think that a company patented that as it seems so basic, but only because it's used so much. It's a fair patent and would bet even changing it slightly would have got them in trouble since the concept is still basically the same regardless how you assign the weights to react or whatever.
oh well, i thought it wasn't the same. it doesn't feel the same though(well, imo). just go into MGS-VR missions options and check the controller vibrations type, and you'll know what i mean.. one of these types feels more like a razor or something. anyway, i guess you're right if you can see it on transparent controllers.
Misleading, they have a license for the current controller, it's the previous products and the profits that are at dispute right now.
The controller hardware is most likely not the only patent at issue though. To be able to include games in the descision means that there probably is software that sony has been using as well, or something similar. The way in which the vibration is able to interact with the game may also be a central aspect of the patents in question.