'3D images on computer screens' patented in 1988. Lawyers hover.

[jp-30]

Todays stupid 'lets sue over an outdated patent' story courtesy of theinquirer.net

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19426

McKool Smith, a law firm based in Texas, has begun legal proceedings against a number of games companies. The actions are based on a patent it owns which the firm says is for a method of displaying 3D images on a computer monitor. According to McKool Smith, this makes every 3D game an infringement on the patent and would lead to billions of dollars of compensation from the major defendants, who include Electronic Arts, Activision, THQ and LucasArts.

A report on GameDaily quotes an anonymous employee of one of the publishers named as saying that "It's a very old and very general patent... [which is] ridiculously broad. It's purely McKool Smith trying to make money."

[Jayel]

Human stupidity knows no limits

[Fum]

We really need to start fining people for wasting court's time with frivolous (bullshit, I mean) lawsuits like this one.

[Lindset]

This is exactly why software patents should be removed. I hope to god they (read: the evil corporations, mua ha ha ha) don't manage to push it through in the EU

All they do is create a very broad definition of something, patent it, wait for someone to start using it (because the actual idea or technique isn't very advanced, it's just that they were the first to patent it, without actually using it), wait a bit longer until the technology is used everywhere, waaaait just a liiiittle bit longer and BAM! Come out from nowhere and sue, sue, sue! Yee-haw!!@£

[MrHoatzin]

I read somewhere about the British model, I am not sure if it is the propsed law or if it passed, but when you sue for something ridiculous and you lose, your lawyer is biller for the costs of the proceedings.

[Chris]

The guy gets a few points for being named McKool, but loses about a trillion and a half for being retarded.

[RLacey]

I read somewhere about the British model, I am not sure if it is the propsed law or if it passed, but when you sue for something ridiculous and you lose, your lawyer is biller for the costs of the proceedings.

There certainly wouldn't be a single no-win-no-claim company that would take this up, so I assume that the person who brings the case is responsible for the costs whether they win or lose (unless they also win the costs of the proceedings, which is unlikely).

Then again, as someone who's never been taken to court over anything like this, don't trust me on this one hundred per cent. Not even if I am British.

[Johanna]

It’s at times like these, that you realise just how beautifully selfless the human race really is.

[Twilo]

He'll lose his patent when someone pulls some prior art on him.

What about Tron (1982)?

And another thing, images on computer SCREENS aren't 3d, because SCREENS aren't 3d.

The patent is oxymoronic!

[Steve Ince]

What about Tron (1982)?

What about 2001: A Space Odyssey? That came out in 1968 (I think). Someone once told me that half the budget of the the film was spent in creating the simple 3D displays on the screens in the crafts' cockpits.

[ysbreker]

*imagines tough lawyer talk*

"I'm gonna go all prior art on yo ass! Sucka!"

"eat my court apeal , looser!"

"Objection my pink fleshy ass"

etc. etc.

would be rather funny in court I think?

[jp-30]

And here is the offending patent.

United States Patent 4,734,690

Waller March 29, 1988

---------------------------------------------------------

Method and apparatus for spherical panning

Abstract

A graphics display terminal performs a pan operation with respect to a view motion center to effectuate spherical panning, thereby providing perspective and non-perspective views. Three dimensional instructions stored in terminal memory are re-transformed in accordance with a panned direction. Also a zoom feature is provided so that displayed images may be magnified as desired. (etc...)

Star Wars Arcade. Mercenary. Elite. Battlezone... all prior to 1988, no?