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.
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?
Prior-art is no longer an impediment to patenting anything, from what I know of the recent changes to the United States of America's patent scheme.
I believe the fact that Nintendo was the first to file a patent on this method of operation will yield them a patent concession, wrong as that might be in the spirit of the original patent system (protect innovators and encourage technological development.)
edit Comments below touch on the "first-to-file" changes and may provide more accurate analysis of the situation. I ignore corporate IP so I'm probably not the best person to rely upon.
First To File does not negate the doctrine of prior art. This was a point that came up repeatedly against First To File and was repeatedly debunked, yet the meme persists.
Perhaps the confusion comes from a particular set of facts that would seem to contradict what you are saying. Say company 1 is first to file for the patent. Company 2 has been working on the same product, but files late relative to company 1, so loses out in getting the patent. At the same time company 2 was, in fact, the first to invent.
Wouldn't the earlier work performed by company 2 be prior art, and be used to invalidate company 1's patent? In that event, what is the value of a first-to-file system, if a competing inventor can use their earlier invention as prior art? And if a competing inventor can't use their evidence of earlier invention as prior art, why not? Perhaps it's simplistic, but common sense would seem to dictate that for "first to file" to mean anything, prior art would have to be disregarded.
> In that event, what is the value of a first-to-file system, if a competing inventor can use their earlier invention as prior art?
If company 2 had published their work, then it would count as prior art. The benefit of first-to-file is that there's no more expensive discovery to go through inventors' lab notebooks or other things to try to establish the definitive date when someone "invented" something. Instead, this gets reduced to checking a publication date, which should be a matter of public record. That reduces litigation costs. It also encourages people to publish their research. Both of those are good things.
I feel as though this fact needs to be pointed out to everybody commenting on this link. That said, it's hard to blame any of the commenters as the title of this link and the article are totally click-bait. Even if you were diligent and read through the article it never once points out that this is an application and not an actual patent. I personally don't think this article belongs on HN in it's current state, at the very least the article should mention that it's currently an application and there is the definite possibility it could change if it is ever accepted.
It sounds like it's talking about the idea of having an emulator recognize that it's on a 3DS playing a copy of Pokemon Blue for the GB and then running special code that may be built into the emulator to enhance the presentation of Pokemon Blue, perhaps by overlaying 3D models of the attacks during battle.
Sort of like the auto-coloring that the SuperGB and GBC added to games but taken to a much further level.
Not a bad idea to have built in enhancement for popular/'important' games.
(I'm ignoring any 'should this be patentable' issues for the purposes of my post).
There's really no such thing as de-lawyering the wording because none of those words are guaranteed to follow their normal meaning and so the following guess may be wrong.
Anyhow, it sounds like they're saying picking which type of gameboy emulation to use based on which type of ROM you feed it. I'm pretty sure most gameboy emulators have done something like that for years, but maybe they're using the filename instead of examining the ROM itself, so I don't know offhand, but anyone who wants to look at the VBA source could figure it out if they care to.
No. Because there's really nothing novel there. It's as generic as it sounds, and absolutely unenforceable - but it got through anyway. No surprise there.
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.
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.
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....
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.
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).
That's right, now that the patent has been granted. But, in principle, if the patent office found prior art then it shouldn't have been granted in the first place.
This isn't quite what most people think. Prior art still invalidates patents. "First to file" is merely the method now used to deal with two or more parties claiming to have invented a thing in secret who show up at the patent office more or less at the same time. Before, there used to be a trial type thing where the inventors presented lab notebooks and evidence to try to prove who was first. It was lengthy and expensive for all involved.
First to file does not mean first to pluck some heretofore unpatented but well known already used technology from the field and run to the patent office.
That's not the way it works. First to file vs. invent has to do with two independent inventors creating something and trying to file. If something has already been invented and is publicly available (patented or not), that's prior art and can invalidate the patent.
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?
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... to get their subject matter ruled ineligible. I think the real question is when the Nintendo patent will see a court test.
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
So they just add a patent for emulating...
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)
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.
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?
