
Nintendo files Patent Application for Hand-Held Video Game Emulation - bane
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=940813
======
LukeShu
The patent specifically is 20140349751[a]. Notably, all but one of the claims
have been cancelled. I've bullet-ized it:

    
    
        17. A method of adapting an emulator, the method comprising:
        
         - executing, on a processor, an emulator capable of running a
           plurality different binary applications;
         - recognizing, by the processor, an identity of a binary application
           based on an inspection of the binary application;
         - automatically adapting, by the processor, a behavior of the
           emulator to the binary application based on the recognized identity
           of the binary application;
         - and generating, by the processor, an audio visual presentation
           using the adapted behavior of the emulator.
    

[a]: [http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=H...](http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-
bool.html&r=2&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=Nintendo.AS.&OS=AN/Nintendo&RS=AN/Nintendo)

~~~
BrandonY
So, if I'm understanding this right, this is a patent on an emulator having
special behavior based on recognizing a specific ROM? Surely there must be
several emulators that do just that already?

~~~
rasz_pl
pretty much every console emu there is does it

but you see, this one is "on a mobile device"!

~~~
mikkom
There are so many mobile emulators that I would be surprised if they wouldn't
do this too.

------
kabdib
Nintendo has a history of getting absolutely unoriginal stuff patented. Many
of the patents for the Wii controller algorithms made claims already covered
by well established and published techniques. "Someone at the patent office
got a Wii for their birthday," one of my fellows quipped.

I guess you could argue that Nintendo's patents are really no worse (or
better) than the existing practice of filing for software patents, namely
"claim the sun and the moon" to get trading cards for the sword-rattling
contest [sorry about mixing metaphors...]

Software patents are a circular firing squad that we should just stop. The
patent office has proved itself utterly incompetent to judge their merit, and
these patents -- far from protecting innovation -- can only do harm in the
hands of trolls, lawyers with prosthetic morals and large corporations.

~~~
Joeri
The problem with getting rid of software patents is that you have to do it
retroactively, invalidating the existing patents. The patent holders would sue
the government for destroying their property, and would likely win it even if
those patents collectively destroy more value than they represent (something
which I strongly believe). So, even if you had a government willing to get rid
of software patents, they're not likely to get away with it. The only
practical way to do it would be to reduce the life of a new patent by one year
every year, so that all software patents, current and future end up exiring at
the same time. But that still takes 20 years before it actually takes effect.

~~~
mikeash
Why couldn't they simply stop issuing new ones entirely, and let existing
patents expire normally?

~~~
PythonicAlpha
That would be a solution. But political pressure is high, that the system
stays as it is. And they that want it that it stays are the biggest players on
place, since they think they can win most of this ridiculous system.

It is like dinosaurs, which make a law, that children must come from an
egg....

------
gmuslera
It can't be invalidated by the existence for years of prior art, even as open
source?

~~~
JohnHaugeland
Sure it can.

That happens when they try to leverage the patent, not when it's granted.

~~~
amirmc
That just underlines how broken the system is.

As a sibling comment points out, patents can still go uncontested. Even worse
is when small players end paying fees (because they can't affird lengthy
litigation), which ends up supporting the patent.

~~~
PythonicAlpha
Yes. And I am also upset, that a patent like this (when that what an other
poster posted is complete) can go threw the patent process, because what the
claims say is nothing more as an generic emulator that can emulate binary
software of a different computer --- something that exists in hundreds or
thousands of versions ... there exist at least three only for the C64 computer
and this software is around for 20 years or so (Vice, one of those is ~21
years old).

------
Karunamon
_Okay, so what 's a normal person to do?_

This is obviously a BS patent, given the utter scads of prior art out there.
Is there a way to file a complaint/challenge or otherwise point this out to
someone at USPTO?

------
spacemanmatt
Alrighty.

This ought to be quick work for a good patent attorney now that they can cite
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Interna...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International)
to get their subject matter ruled ineligible. I think the real question is
when the Nintendo patent will see a court test.

~~~
spacemanmatt
'quick work' being, of course, entirely relative. Not to be flip, Alice should
help the situation a lot.

------
chromanoid
I flew with Singapore Airlines in 2000 and they had already Nintendo systems
for each seat. Similar to this:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIkx6E0Mwsk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIkx6E0Mwsk)
So they just add a patent for emulating...

------
Roboprog
Sooooo.... The US Patent office doesn't have an internet connection???

The irony is that I did a Google search _last night_ for emulators for my
tablet, and found, shall we say, just a bit of prior art.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_game_emulators#Ni...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_game_emulators#Nintendo)

How can the Patent Office be immune to their seemingly utter incompetence? (or
am I pulling a "reverse Hanlon's Razor" here - ascribing to stupidity what is
really evil)

~~~
RedLeg
1\. This is merely a published patent application, and not an issued patent.
An inventor may file a patent application that claims whatever he/she wants.
An application has no legal effect until it has been examined and issued by
the USPTO.

2\. This particular patent application claims priority to a patent application
filed on November 28, 2000. This means that any prior art must have been
published before that date. It does not appear that your links contains any
such prior art.

I know it is quite popular on the Internet to criticize the USPTO for its
perceived "incompetence", but please make sure that you have the "competence"
of understanding the basics of the US patent application process before making
disparaging remarks.

~~~
Roboprog
Yeah, I get the distinction between "applied" and "granted". The old link had
less information, without further searching around for the casual reader. The
fact that 16 out of 17 claims had been mentioned as invalidated, but still
leaving one remaining, was suggestive of part of the patent being granted.

Are you claiming the USPO _doesn 't_ grant overreaching patents, by the dozen?

The "prior to 2000" part is interesting, though. I wonder who filed what
patent in 2000 about emulating old bitty boxes?

------
acd
Software patents are stupid and hinders innovation!

