V.COPPER INNOVATIONS GROUP

ALPEX COMPUTER CORPORATION

Rachel Skifton & Tara Miles

v.

In 1986 Atari began efforts to replicate Nintendo’s 10NES program hoping to make it’s own games compatable with Nintendo’s console.

v.

In 1986 Atari began efforts to replicate Nintendo’s 10NES program hoping to make it’s own games compatable with Nintendo’s console.

When their initail efforts to reverse engineer the combination “lock” software that is embedded into a chip within the 10NES gaming console, they obtained source code from the United States Copyright Office.

v.

In 1986 Atari began efforts to replicate Nintendo’s 10NES program hoping to make it’s own games compatable with Nintendo’s console.

When their initail efforts to reverse engineer the combination “lock” software that is embedded into a chip within the 10NES gaming console, they obtained source code from the United States Copyright Office.

Using this source code, Atari was able to successfully create its own RABBIT program that mimics the reaction of Nintendo games with the Nintendo gaming console.

v.

The 10NES program, Nintendo’s gaming console program, is 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.

v.

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT:

The court first took on the issue of whether or not the data streams sent from game cartridges to the gaming console constituted copyrightable expression.

v.

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT:

The court first took on the issue of whether or not the data streams sent from game cartridges to the gaming console constituted copyrightable expression.

Nintendo argued that their data streams were actually “data songs” that are copyrightable, since Congress has held that copyright protection can be extended to computer software.

v.

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT:

HOWEVER: the court found that there was a distinction between a copyrightable computer program and mere computer data which was not eligible for copyright protection. Computer statements that manipulate data fall within the definition of computer program, but the data being manipulated does not.

v.

PATENT INFRINGEMENT:

Nintento obtained US Patent No. 4,799,635

v.

PATENT INFRINGEMENT:

Nintento obtained US Patent No. 4,799,635

Nintendo argued Atari’s RABBIT program directly infringed upon their patent.

v.

PATENT INFRINGEMENT:Nintento obtained US Patent No. 4,799,635

Nintendo argued Atari’s RABBIT program directly infringed upon their patent.

Claim 1 of the patent recited (in part)

“[R]esetting said main data processor unit unless the execution of said first authenticating program by said first processor device exhibits a predetermined relationship to the execution of said second authenticating program by said second processor device”

v.

PATENT INFRINGEMENT:

The court found that-

Atari does not manufacture both the game and the console, and therefore cannot literally infringe on the language of claim 1, which requires two devices.

v.

PATENT INFRINGEMENT:The court found that-

Atari does not manufacture both the game and the console, and therefore cannot literally infringe on the language of claim 1, which requires two devices.

HOWEVER, the RABBIT program has no other use besides direct interaction with the NES console- and therefore Atari’s liability is based on contributory infringement.

The Court granted Nintendo’s summary judgment motion for patent infringement on this claim.

v.

Before the adjudication of these issues ensued, the two sides settled in a private settlement for $2.5 million dollars.

V.

Alpex Computer Corporation

Alpex Computer Corporation v.

Alpex filed a suit claiming that Nintendo infringed on their US patent no. 4,026,555.

Alpex Computer Corporation v.

Alpex filed a suit claiming that Nintendo infringed on their US patent no. 4,026,555.

Their patent was a basic pioneering patent in which all modern gaming consoles are based today.

Alpex Computer Corporation v.

Alpex filed a suit claiming that Nintendo infringed on their US patent no. 4,026,555.

Their patent was a basic pioneering patent in which all modern gaming consoles are based today.

Its most amazing feature was having individual cartridges that are loaded with a specific game that can be interchanged on the gaming console so that a multitude of games can be played on one gaming console.

- prior to this, the technology was a single video

game or home system dedicated to playing only

one game.

Alpex Computer Corporation v.

ABSTRACT:Keyboard-controlled apparatus for producing video signals for standard television receivers includes a random access memory having a multiplicity of storage positions each of which corresponds to a preselected discrete portion of the TV raster. Data stored in the random access memory is sequentially read from memory in synchronism with the scanning of the television receiver so that a desired video signal is generated at each discrete position of the cathode ray beam. Data is read into the random access memory at preselected storage positions depending upon a particular image to be displayed. The data writing process is under the control of a micro-processor which is programmed to cause the stored image data to be varied in accordance with the condition of the user-controlled keyboard.

Alpex Computer Corporation v.

Nintendo argued that it did not violate Alpex’s patent as their patent relied upon a “bit mapping” memory system that could not support Nintendo’s video games.

Alpex Computer Corporation v.

Nintendo argued that it did not violate Alpex’s patent as their patent relied upon a “bit mapping” memory system that could not support Nintendo’s video games.

The court did not agree and found that Nintendo had committed “willful infringement” and was ordered to pay damages based upon revenues from the individual cartridge games that Nintendo sold through 1992.

Alpex Computer Corporation v.

Nintendo argued that it did not violate Alpex’s patent as their patent relied upon a “bit mapping” memory system that could not support Nintendo’s video games.

The court did not agree and found that Nintendo had committed “willful infringement” and was ordered to pay damages based upon revenues from the individual cartridge games that Nintendo sold through 1992.

The judge would have been well within his rights to double or triple the damages Nintendo is liable for…but found the jury award of $208 million dollars to be sufficient.

Copper Vs.

Copper Innovations Group sues Nintendo Copper Innovations Group is going after

Nintendo. They claim that Nintendo and Sony are infringing on their patent for a “Hand Held Computer Input Apparatus and Method”. This has to do with the method that these platforms use to assign controllers to the console. So far, no one at CIG, Nintendo, or Sony has made a comment on the situation.

Headlines

Copper Vs.

Infringement Definition Only one claim of the patent needs to be

infringed in order to have infringement of the entire patent. In analyzing each claim,

each element of the claim must be contained in the infringing device in order to show literal patent infringement. If even one element of the claim is missing from

the allegedly infringing device, there is no literal infringement.

Copper Vs.

Actual Claim from Court Document

Copper Vs.

Claim One

Copper Vs.

Claim Two

Copper Vs.

Claim Three

Copper Vs.

Claim Four

Copper Vs.

Claim Five

Copper Vs.

Claim Six

Copper Vs.

Did Nintendo infringe on Copper’s patent?

Should they receive an injunction?

What do you think?