Microsoft patent shows off Xbox-inspired touch input

Microsoft patent shows off Xbox-inspired touch input | Windows Phone Central Skip to main content Android BlackBerry iPhone / iPad Windows Phone webOS SIGN UP|LOG IN Windows Phone Central Windows Phone CentralForumsNewsReviewsHelp & How ToDevicesAppsGamesContestsDevelopersEditorials Search Shop online Cases Chargers Batteries Bluetooth & More New accessories FREE Shipping on orders over $50 44 Microsoft patent shows off Xbox-inspired touch input GamesNews By Sam Sabri, Wednesday, Apr 10, 2013 at 3:11 pm

Let’s not beat around the bush. When the touch-centric iPhone came out in 2007 it changed mobile gaming – for the better. It helped to push mobile gaming to the masses and cement touch as a viable input option for games. Since then Android and Windows Phone have had their share of awesome games – beautiful and fun games stuff like Tentacles and Contre Jour are examples of games that couldn’t exist without touch. One thing that’s lacked in the tablet and smartphone space is a unified input system. A recent patent filing shows that Microsoft is positioning to change that.

The first and coolest patent is Fig. 1 showing off a potential graphical user interface for input that can be displayed on a touch based device. If you’ve ever played an Xbox you’ll notice where this patent was inspired from. Take an Xbox 360 controller, split it in half, digitize it for a touch display and you have the patent below.

One thing that jumps out for everyone playing armchair analysis at home is that this could give insight into future plans with the next Xbox and gaming on Windows 8. We’ll be learning more over the coming months: Xbox unveil in late May, E3 and Build in June. But it’s hard not to imagine a scenario where you have the potential to develop a game for both the next Xbox and Windows 8 simultaneously. The Xbox has the advantage of having an established input method (the controller) and this patent shows how developers can target a unified touch input for their game that already works on Xbox.

While you could probably just use a USB Xbox controller to control the game on your tablet / laptop / desktop, this provides a touch based input for when you don’t have that available.

This patent was filed back in the fourth quarter of 2011, but it’s not hard to picture Microsoft having a long term vision with the Xbox story on Windows 8. There’s also rumors of more Surface devices coming out, even one with an emphasis the Xbox brand and media consumption – gaming, reading, music, video, etc.

What do you guys think?

Source: Patent Bolt Via: Reddit

P.S. This comment below was so awesome, I wanted to point it out here so you don't miss it. 

Sam Sabri Editor

"Windows Phone. Windows 8. Photography. Halo. "

188 196 Filed in: Games, News
Tags: xbox, surface, Touch, input, controller 2 17 42 0 Email this page Previous Story

The next Xbox and your cable box are about to become best friends

Next Story

Nokia Lumia 620 firmware rolling out globally, gets detailed in changelog

Comments There are 44 comments. Sign in to comment purevibz says:

I like where this is going.

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 3:12 pm - 22 hours ago Reply Vb2012 says:

Me too but I just want a by Xbox 360 official Microsoft controller :D

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 3:14 pm - 22 hours ago Reply expectafight says:

so, just buy one, lol.

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 4:33 pm - 21 hours ago Reply Fndlumia says:

Can we use Xbox controller in L920? Is there any bt option? Be good for modern combat game I just loaded

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 3:19 pm - 22 hours ago Reply aschettler says:

Unfortunately, the Xbox 360 does not use Bluetooth for its controllers. It uses the 2.4 GHz frequency with its own protocols.

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 3:23 pm - 22 hours ago Reply Sam Sabri says:

Currently no, but maybe the next Xbox will include BT or similiar. 

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 3:50 pm - 22 hours ago Reply TheNet Avenger says:

As said, not an XBox 360 controller, they use a variation of WiFi instead of bluetooth for speed and bandwidth.  (Bluetooth of the XBox 360/PS3 era had much more latency than the technology Microsoft uses in the XBox 360 controllers. Hardcore gamers that are tech minded can see the latency of the PS3 controllers compared to the XBox 360 controllers, as it does impact gaming. The XBox 360 technology also can carry more data for the headset and keypad, etc.)
The next generation XBox will use an even newer variation of the XBox 360 controller technology that further reduces latency that is hitting at and even below many direct cable technologies for even better response.
 
As for your phone, there are a few 3rd party MFRs that have WiFi and Bluetooth controllers designed for WP8 with some that also craddle/hold the phone.  Most are cross platform controllers that are designed to work with Android and iOS as well and have recently been updated to support WP8.  More are also coming out early this summer.
 
I wish Microsoft would have enabled the XBox 360 controller for WP8, and they may yet, as the phone hardware supports the technology, although it may be a WP8 Blue timeline release, and at that point they may just target the Next XBox controller instead.
 

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 9:25 pm - 16 hours ago Reply ralexand56 says:

Excellent info. Thanks!

Posted on Apr 11, 2013 at 5:25 am - 8 hours ago Reply chucky78 says:

Touch made gaming better? That's BS! Instead decent AAA releases suffered and turned everyone into casual gamer. Kinect also played a part in the killing of AAA games. Where are all the titles on the original Xbox that never made it to the 360. Microsoft hardly has any first part studios making hardcore games. Touch and motion destroyed gaming.

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 3:24 pm - 22 hours ago Reply Keith Wallace says:

You're blaming the 2010 Kinect and 2007 iPhone for games not coming over to the 2005 Xbox? I think you're messing up the timeline here or something, because those things didn't kill any original Xbox franchises.

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 3:41 pm - 22 hours ago Reply chucky78 says:

Yes I'm blaming this casual shift on those and really it started with that dame Wii. Worst system I ever bought. So where is Killer Instinct, crimson skys and many more. I haven't thought about this in a long time so the titles slip my mind and I'm not home to look through my old library. All Microsoft does is recycle Halo, Gears, and Fable.

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 5:45 pm - 20 hours ago Reply poiman says:

Time to switch  to PlayStation? They brought more than 20 new AAA IPs to this generation. If you are tired of Halo and Gears of War, I'm sure that you will find many great hardcore titles there!

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 6:01 pm - 19 hours ago Reply chucky78 says:

I'm way ahead of you Bro. It's a shame that the best mobile gaming system right now which is the PS Vita is suffering because of this casual shift. Smartphones have become the new mobile gaming and smartphones are not even close to being superior to the Vita. Physical controls are just better for gaming. This touch screen virtual controls suck compared to the real thing.

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 10:25 pm - 15 hours ago Reply lubbalots says:

I love KILLER INSTINCT! There was hope for it but MS ran into dispute over the name with some movie studio. Its a well loved game and there is high demand for it. A couple of days ago I read news from techno buffalo, i think, that the dispute has been resolved. If you think about it, resolved would mean MS was actually fighting for it. SO maybe in the near term future will see something again.

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 7:19 pm - 18 hours ago Reply K_lando says:

Your rant is like saying SMART cars are destroying Monster Truck Rallies.

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 4:06 pm - 21 hours ago Reply SAYSteez says:

That made me laugh so fucking hard!

Posted on Apr 11, 2013 at 5:55 am - 8 hours ago Reply ladydias says:

You know, I was there too and no such thing happened. Yes, there are casual players who prefer touch controls. But think of the oodles of good things that came out. Companies like Nintendo also included touch controls in their system and the DS had some kick butt titles that were certainly not casual (looking at you Etrian Odyssey). And while a number of casual players enjoy the Kinect I think it's pretty awesome to have voice commands on my console because it makes me feel all Star Trekky. "Xbox do this and that!". C'mon, that's awesome. XD

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 4:15 pm - 21 hours ago Reply x Im tc says:

I'd have to agree.  In fact, I will go so far as to assert that there is not one single truly great iOS game available.  Indeed, any game where you have to touch (and therefor obscure) the screen you're playing on is basically a loser.

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 4:16 pm - 21 hours ago Reply sholokov says:

I don't know what everyone else says but I somewhat agree with you. E.g., I'd love to play some old as well as new phone games using a D-pad or for example on the MS Surface, I prefer my Bluetooth Logitec F710 Controller over virtual on-screen controller when playing SNES games or Reckless Racing.

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 4:17 pm - 21 hours ago Reply ladydias says:

But that's the thing. You still get to choose. I will always prefer dedicated buttons too but I can't say the advent of touch controls was the end of gaming either. This is really just about an extra option added.

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 4:26 pm - 21 hours ago Reply chucky78 says:

It really has been because Microsoft is no longer doing it for passion like the Xbox whose original creators had a passion for gaming. Because Xbox is successful off the back of hardcore games it is now chasing the money to satisfy shareholders just because Nintendo sold the world a gimmick. Microsoft has shut down most of their first party studios, they turned Rare in avatar making Kinect only developers. Chasing part time gamers has turned gaming into a casual affair.

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 10:16 pm - 15 hours ago Reply Sam Sabri says:

**Touch made mobile gaming better. 

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 4:22 pm - 21 hours ago Reply SlayerSpecial says:

That's more like it, Sam. Anyways I'm old enough not to blame touch or Kinect or the dead Move for the lack of core games, let alone for using expressions like "destroyed", , because there are plenty of core games to play, in fact much more than the time I have to play them all.

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 5:22 pm - 20 hours ago Reply funkyGeneral says:

Why is the screen shown the start screen from the original Xbox... That takes me back

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 3:27 pm - 22 hours ago Reply MiloSaurus says:

It's just an impression of how it 'could' look like. Nothing realistic.

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 9:17 pm - 16 hours ago Reply thirdday2002 says:

Am I reading too much into this to draw attention to the mentioning of a surface tablet & PHONE in the diagram?

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 3:28 pm - 22 hours ago Reply thebardsrc says:

considering they said this was filed in 2011? probably

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 5:00 pm - 20 hours ago Reply Sam Sabri says:

Or not. It's not like Microsoft woke up today one morning last June and decided to make the Surface. Those things are being planned and designed months/years in advance. It's totally possible If this was filed in late 2011 and the Surface was unveiled in June 2012 that it was always the plan. 

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 7:03 pm - 18 hours ago Reply Skunkwurx says:

All windows 8 and WP 8 hardware should be able to pair with wireless Xbox controllers... Massive advantage right there... Tho I like the unified plan alot... It would be amazing if pcs with a certain spec could run "Xbox" as well as windows 8... Tho its kinda same thin

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 3:32 pm - 22 hours ago Reply blackprince says:

That would awesome.

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 4:13 pm - 21 hours ago Reply link68759 says:

I'm confused, is this all just virtual buttons on the screen or is there hardware here? Because if they're just virtual, this has been done before and it's absolutely terrible. Especially the triggers.

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 3:50 pm - 22 hours ago Reply TheNet Avenger says:

Controls on a touch screen have been done before, and by Microsoft in the 1990s, as well as the 2002 computing era for both the touch screen enabled XP systems and TabletPC systems.

The reason what you have experienced 'sucks' is that all current designs try to replicate the physical characteristics of a controller and do very little on the software side to gather the user's intent to make the controls feel real.

If you go to Microsoft Research you can find several sets of technologies about this and related to this patent. The most notable is the non-screen touch interface, that uses a touch surface on the underside of the device/phone so that most of the 'buttons' are not obscuring the user's view of the screen. There is also the implied 'pressure' sensitive touch interface technologies, which were partially implemented in the ZuneHD, but not carried over to WP7. The ZuneHD used the 'size' of the touch point and other data to obtain pressure readings, which in the games that support it on the zuneHD are a MUCH MUCH better experience, as it can sense the user pressing the button harder and slides instead of presses based on this information for moving a Dpad/thumbstick for example. I am not sure if WP8 added back in all the touch API information, but the hardware is capable and it is a matter of Microsoft exposing it to developers. (The ZuneHD was a bit more advanced than people remember or gave it credit, not only being the first Gorilla Glass device, but also having a Tegra processor capable of HD output, and a high end multi-touch screen. This was at a time when the iPod touch and iPhone were still using one and two point 'cheap' touch screens and yet ZuneHD users were drawing with several 'pressure' aware points on the screen at the same time. (Outside of the Surface Pro Windows 8 tablet, there is still very little use of pressure in tablets and phones, yet it is an ideal environment due to the increased information and accuracy provided.)

The other information at Microsoft Research if it is still available is based on how software sees the multi-touch points and tries to understand them in the context of a interface pad aka gaming controller. This alone makes a HUGE difference, and can be an even better touch based controller than actual older gaming pads; however, again this is not something you find in games on Android or iOS sadly and this is why people hate the concept of a touch screen controller.

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 9:41 pm - 16 hours ago Reply MediaCastleX says:

Your reply was so awesome it destroyed the message box...thank you for the insightful analysis and honorable mention for the ZuneHD reference. It was such a great product that unfortunately was never given the due it deserved =[

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 10:46 pm - 15 hours ago Reply Sam Sabri says:

If we gave out awards for "Comment of the Day" you'd get my vote. Thanks for sharing!

Posted on Apr 11, 2013 at 2:36 am - 11 hours ago Reply jfVigor says:

I mean, its hard not to imagine

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 3:52 pm - 22 hours ago Reply missionsparta says:

I'd like it better if they got their crap in gear with media already. This Xbox Music and Video is still a train wreck after this long. Don't add anything else Xbox, till you fix the crap you broke already.

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 3:59 pm - 21 hours ago Reply pbroy says:

I'm guesing with the way the triggers are set up, you'll be playing this flat on a surface or your lap. While you have your hands hovering over the touchscreen. Thumbs down on the controll sticks and middle fingers to hit the triggers/bumpers. There is no way you can hit the triggers with the way Figs. 2-4 are drawn.

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 4:24 pm - 21 hours ago Reply MiloSaurus says:

I was thinking the exact same thing. Figs. 2-4 show the fingers exept for the thumb under the device. Which is like holding a controller. Having the triggers/bumpers on the front would make it look like you're playing the piano. A combination of software sticks and buttons with hardware triggers/bumpers on the back or top would make it feel more like a real controller. You wouldn't be able to hold the tablet in the first figure.

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 9:24 pm - 16 hours ago Reply SlayerSpecial says:

I still remembered people whinig because one couldn't use SmartGlass has a Xbox controller... I mean, wtf ?! Why would someone want to use a phone to play a game on your 360 ?! The love to whine.

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 5:34 pm - 20 hours ago Reply pizzalovinhulk says:

Wow the first Xbox interface lol so much cooler then anything PlayStation lol

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 5:43 pm - 20 hours ago Reply MiloSaurus says:

LOL

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 9:25 pm - 16 hours ago Reply Derek De Souza says:

This just looks like the plans for SmartGlass their XBox Companion app :/ But if it is something more than that then go ahead Microsoft, show us what you got

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 11:04 pm - 14 hours ago Reply PGWP says:

The next xbox controllers should support bluetooth, or there should be a much smaller usb dongle for the pc so you can connect your xbox controller to your tablet/pc.  Something the size of a small bluetooth dongle, the current xbox 360 wireless controller dongle for pc's is quite large and has a long usb cable on it.  It should be a small dongle to plug in or preferably the next xbox controllers use bluetooth - that way you can play on your windows phone or surface tablet without using any dongles.

Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 11:13 pm - 14 hours ago Reply tomwarren says:

Interesting. A lot of patents are for old tech though and don't necessarily point to future plans.

Posted on Apr 11, 2013 at 7:40 am - 6 hours ago Reply */Tip Us On News!

Shop accessories Browse All Accessories Cases and Skins Chargers Cradles Bluetooth Headsets Batteries See all accessories Browse Accessories For Your Phone HTC 8X Cases Chargers Batteries & more HTC 8S Cases Chargers Batteries & more Lumia 920 Cases Chargers Batteries & more Lumia 820 Cases Chargers Batteries & more Lumia 822 Cases Chargers Batteries & more Lumia 900 Cases Chargers Batteries & more Shop For Other Phones & Tablets T-Mobile Lumia 710 Arrive Titan II Trophy Shop accessories View All Phones STORE AD CONTENT Latest Discussions Windows Phone Twitter App List about 1 min ago by TheWeeBear 110 replies (Official) WhatsApp Questions and Answers thread about 2 min ago by Dave Blake 68 replies 1308 Firmware- Europe about 3 min ago by Corvodin 2 replies Samsung to unveil Galaxy S4 | Ativ S2? about 3 min ago by andrelamont 12 replies Online chat about 3 min ago by migueli2 0 replies Skype Update! 3/19/13 about 5 min ago by AskaLangly 97 replies See today's posts Latest Articles Lumia 920 ‘1314’ firmware gets announced, fixes AT&T phones with connection problems [Updated] 1 hour 5 min ago by Daniel Rubino Exclusive first look at Nokia’s double tap to awake and on-screen clock coming to the Lumia 920 2 hours 35 sec ago by Daniel Rubino Next wave of Surface products will include a 7-inch tablet 7 hours 34 min ago by Sam Sabri Quotr, insprirational quotes for Windows Phone 8 18 hours 8 min ago by George Ponder IDC report shows 13.9% decline in PC shipments, but doesn’t show an accurate outlook 18 hours 10 min ago by Sam Sabri Tag Cloud at&T developers featured games htc lumia lumia 900 lumia 920 mango marketplace microsoft nokia samsung sprint T-mobile update updates verizon windows 8 windows phone Windows phone 7 Windows Phone 8 Windows Phone 8 apps wp7 Xbox Live More Top AccessoriesNew In the Store Latest Reviews Ciel for Windows Phone 8, add weather and location to your photos 4 hours 44 min ago by George Ponder Art in your hand with Camera360 for Windows Phone 8 19 hours 25 min ago by Sam Sabri Vampire Rush Review: High stakes tower defense action on Windows Phone 1 day 3 hours ago by Paul Acevedo Sparkle for Windows Phone 8, an orb smashing game 2 days 5 hours ago by George Ponder Endless Robot Street, a smash 'em up kinda game 3 days 5 hours ago by George Ponder Latest Comments Whoever was saying that going outside their screen washes...about 0 sec agoby Mad MilkMan Done in Middle Tennessee.about 33 sec agoby troylytle http://forums.wpcentral.com/nokia-lumia-920/203979-fix-...about 40 sec agoby jayruguitar Yes. This is the AT&T firmware.about 1 min 16 sec agoby illegaloperation ...about 2 min 2 sec agoby x Im tc See all recent comments Download wpcentral official appListen to Our Podcast Follow WPCentral RSS facebook twitter you tube google plus

Have a tip or site suggestion? Please contact us!

Mobile Nations YouTube Channel Follow Us on Twitter Join us on Facebook Mobile Nations RSS Feed 13,102,764 Readers Per Month Mobile Nations brings you the very best of Android Central,
CrackBerry, iMore, webOS Nation, and WPCentral   Lumia 920 ‘1314’ firmware gets announced, fixes AT&T phones with connection problems [Updated]Exclusive first look at Nokia’s double tap to awake and on-screen clock coming to the Lumia 920Ciel for Windows Phone 8, add weather and location to your photosNext wave of Surface products will include a 7-inch tabletQuotr, insprirational quotes for Windows Phone 8   Samsung Galaxy Pocket Neo now coming to the UKThe Greatest Android Podcast in the World returns tonight, live, with video!LG Optimus F7 reportedly headed to Boost MobileCyanogenMod 10.1 'M3' builds now available for some devicesLloyd FX cases now available at ShopAndroid.com!AT&T confirms Samsung Galaxy S2 Skyrocket getting Android 4.1.2 Jelly Bean AT&T OS 10.0.10.822 (10.0.10.116) for the BlackBerry Z10 now availableCustomize your BlackBerry 10 UI with Theme from S4BBThe BlackBerry Z10 gets its official launch in Hong KongHow to 'Mark Prior Read' on BlackBerry 10Deal of the Day: Save 37% on the iGrip PerfektFit Traveler Kit for Bold 9930 and 9900 How to set a default call answer mode on iPhoneFoursquare 6.0 gets more interesting and brings better searchDocuments by Readdle now available for iPhoneDeal of the Day: 46% off Marware FlipVue for iPhone 5Real Racing 3 gets hot new Chevrolet cars, vicious new Hunter mode!Mail Pilot for iPhone and iPad review: turn your inbox into a productivity powerhouse The Great webOS Nation Giveaway: webOS haiku, four HP Pre3s to win, for AT&TScan a QR code with QR offline DecoderLG turning to Firefox OS for developing markets, whither webOS?Monday Brief: Facebook Home, iOS 7, and a major webOS contestComing soon: The Great webOS Nation Giveaway   Windows Phone ForumsAndroid ForumsBlackBerry ForumsiPhone / iPad ForumswebOS Forums Copyright 2013 Mobile Nations ? Terms and Conditions ? Privacy Policy (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) {return;} js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1&appId=161262480631740"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

View the original article here

CyanogenMod 10.1 'M3' builds now available for some devices

The third batch of 'M snapshot' builds for CyanogenMod 10.1 are starting to roll off the servers today. The 'M' builds of the Android 4.2-based custom firmware are designed to be more stable than the regular nightly builds, while still allowing users to keep on top of the latest features and improvements.

Right now CM 10.1 M3 builds are available for devices including the U.S. Galaxy S3, international HTC One X, various Galaxy Notes and Galaxy S2s and the current crop of Nexus devices. More are sure to follow in the hours and days ahead, so even if your phone or tablet isn't listed above, it's worth checking the CM download page for more info (or heading to the CM updater if you're using an earlier build).

Source: CyanogenMod Downloads

"AC's resident Brit, cooking up steaming bowls of European Android coverage every day."

View the original article here

UNITED STATES v. MANZO

UNITED STATES of America v. Louis MANZO, Appellant.

No. 12–2294.

-- March 25, 2013

Before SCIRICA, JORDAN, and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

Louis Manzo, Belmar, NJ, Appellant, Pro Se.Mark E. Coyne, Esq., Mark J. McCarren, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Newark, NJ, Glenn J. Moramarco, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Camden, NJ, for Appellee.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Under a statutory provision known as the “Hyde Amendment,” a district court in criminal cases “may award to a prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation expenses, where the court finds that the position of the United States was vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith, unless the court finds that special circumstances make such an award unjust.” Pub.L. No. 105–119, § 617, 111 Stat. 2440, 2519 (1997), reprinted in 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, Statutory Note. Louis Manzo appeals a decision of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denying him such relief. For the following reasons, we will affirm.

I. Background

In October 2009, a grand jury returned a six-count indictment against Manzo, charging him with four counts of conspiring and attempting to commit extortion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a) & 2 (the “Hobbs Act”), and two counts of traveling in interstate commerce to promote and facilitate bribery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952(a)(3) & 2 (the “Travel Act”). In pertinent part, the Hobbs Act defines “extortion” as “the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced · under color of official right.” Id. § 1951(b)(2). The relevant portions of the Travel Act criminalize “travel[ ] in interstate · commerce · with intent to · promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of any unlawful activity.” Id. § 1952(a)(3). An “unlawful activity” includes “bribery” as established by “the laws of the State in which [the bribery is] committed.” Id. § 1952(b).

The government alleged that Manzo, while he was a candidate for mayor of Jersey City, New Jersey, sought cash payments and campaign contributions from Solomon Dwek, who was posing as a real estate developer, and that, in exchange, Manzo indicated he would help Dwek in the future with matters involving Jersey City's government. According to the indictment, Manzo and his brother, Ronald Manzo, accepted as bribes three cash payments prior to the election, totaling $27,500. The indictment also alleged that Dwek had agreed to pay additional money after the election, assuming Manzo won (which he did not). Unbeknownst to the Manzo brothers, Dwek was a government informant.

On May 18, 2010, following a motion to dismiss filed by Manzo, the District Court dismissed each count alleging that Manzo had violated the Hobbs Act. The Court held that the alleged extortion did not constitute a violation of the Act because Manzo was not a public official at the time of the conduct and therefore could not have acted “ ‘under color of official right.’ “ (Order on Motion in Limine at 24 (D.N.J. May 18, 2010), ECF No. 33 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)).) The Court did not dismiss the remaining Travel Act charges, however, reasoning that “the plain reading of” New Jersey's bribery statute (Supplemental App. at 166)—which provides that “[i]t is no defense to prosecution · that a person whom the actor sought to influence was not qualified to act in the desired way whether because he had not yet assumed office · or for any other reason,” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:27–2—“is that it encompasses prosecutions where the person whom the action was sought to influence was not yet qualified or [able] to act” (Supplemental App. at 166).

The government filed an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731 challenging the dismissal of the Hobbs Act charges, and we affirmed. See United States v. Manzo, 636 F.3d 56 (3d Cir.2011). Although we acknowledged that whether the Hobbs Act applies to a candidate for public office (as opposed to someone who is already in office) is “a significant and novel question” that was “creatively framed and well-presented by the government,” id. at 61, we ultimately affirmed the holding of the District Court, reasoning that, “[i]n accordance with the legislative history, the congressional purpose underlying the Hobbs Act and centuries of interpretation of the phrase ‘under color of official right,’ “ Manzo and his brother “were not acting ‘under color of official right,’ as defined in the Hobbs Act,” id. at 65.

With the dismissal of the Hobbs Act charges, the case was remanded to the District Court. In the meantime, the grand jury returned a second superseding indictment charging Manzo with two counts of Travel Act violations, and one count of misprision of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4.1 On February 17, 2012, however, the District Court reversed its earlier position and held that the receipt of something of value by an unsuccessful candidate for public office in exchange for a promise of future official conduct does not constitute bribery under the New Jersey bribery statute and therefore does not qualify as an “unlawful activity” under the Travel Act. The Court accordingly dismissed all remaining charges against Manzo.2

After all of the charges against him had been dismissed, Manzo filed a pro se petition on March 14, 2012, seeking attorney fees pursuant to the Hyde Amendment, which, as earlier quoted, permits an award of fees and expenses to a party subjected to vexatious, frivolous, or bad faith prosecution. Pub.L. No. 105–119, § 617, 111 Stat. 2440, 2519 (1997), reprinted in 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, Statutory Note. The District Court denied that petition, holding that Manzo had not borne his burden of demonstrating that the prosecution in this case fits the criteria of the Hyde Amendment. Manzo then filed this timely appeal of that order.

II. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We have not considered what standard of review applies to a district court's denial of a defendant's request for attorney fees under the Hyde Amendment, but all of the Courts of Appeals that have considered the issue have concluded that review is for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Lain, 640 F.3d 1134, 1137 (10th Cir.2011); United States v. Beeks, 266 F.3d 880, 883 (8th Cir.2001); United States v. Wade, 255 F.3d 833, 839 (D.C.Cir.2001); United States v. True, 250 F.3d 410, 421–22 (6th Cir.2001); United States v. Lindberg, 220 F.3d 1120, 1124 (9th Cir.2000); In re 1997 Grand Jury, 215 F.3d 430, 436 (4th Cir.2000); United States v. Truesdale, 211 F.3d 898, 905–06 (5th Cir.2000); United States v. Gilbert, 198 F.3d 1293, 1297–98 (11th Cir.1999). We agree and will review the District Court's order under that standard.

III. Discussion

Manzo contends that the District Court abused its discretion in denying him “a reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation expenses” for what he claims was a “vexatious, frivolous, or · bad faith” prosecution by the government. Pub.L. No. 105–119, § 617, 111 Stat. 2440, 2519 (1997). Although we have not interpreted the Hyde Amendment, many of our sister circuits have. According to those courts, the Hyde Amendment “places a daunting obstacle before defendants who seek to obtain attorney fees and costs from the government following a successful defense of criminal charges.” United v. Isaiah, 434 F.3d 513, 519 (6th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). In particular, a “defendant must show that the government's position underlying the prosecution amounts to prosecutorial misconduct-a prosecution brought vexatiously, in bad faith, or so utterly without foundation in law or fact as to be frivolous.” United States v. Gilbert, 198 F.3d 1293, 1299 (11th Cir.1999). “The defendant bears the burden of meeting any one of the three grounds under the statute, and acquittal by itself does not suffice.” Isaiah, 434 F.3d at 519; see also United States v. Shaygan, 652 F.3d 1297, 1311–12 (11th Cir.2011) (“[T]he Hyde Amendment place[s] the burden” of showing that a prosecution is “vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith” on “the defendant, not on the government” (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Capener, 608 F.3d 392, 401 (9th Cir.2010) (noting that “the burden is on the defendant” (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Knott, 256 F.3d 20, 28 (1st Cir.2001) (“[T]he Hyde Amendment places the burden of proof on the defendant to demonstrate that the government's position was vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

That burden is made more difficult by the approach courts take in assessing the government's litigation position. In determining whether a position is vexatious, frivolous or in bad faith, courts “make only one finding, which should be based on the case as an inclusive whole. A count-by-count analysis is inconsistent with this approach.” United States v. Heavrin, 330 F.3d 723, 730 (6th Cir.2003) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In addition, when the legal issue is one of first impression, a court should be wary of awarding fees and costs so as not to “chill the ardor of prosecutors and prevent them from prosecuting with earnestness and vigor. The Hyde Amendment was not intended to do that.” Gilbert, 198 F.3d at 1303.

With respect to the three grounds for relief under the statute, courts have held that a “vexatious” position is one that is “without reasonable or probable cause or excuse.” Id. 1298–99 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Lain, 640 F.3d 1134, 1137 (10th Cir.2011) (same); United States v. Monson, 636 F.3d 435, 439 (8th Cir.2011) (same). To establish that the government's prosecution was “vexatious,” a petitioner must show “both · that the criminal case was objectively deficient, in that it lacked either legal merit or factual foundation, and · that the government's conduct, when viewed objectively, manifests maliciousness or an intent to harass or annoy.” Knott, 256 F.3d at 29.

Courts have interpreted a “frivolous” action as one that is “groundless[,] with little prospect of success.” Gilbert, 198 F.3d at 1299 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Heavrin, 330 F.3d at 728 (adopting the Gilbert court's definition of “frivolous”); United States v. Braunstein, 281 F.3d 982, 995 (9th Cir.2002) (same); In re 1997 Grand Jury, 215 F.3d 430, 436 (4th Cir.2000) (same). “[A] case is frivolous when the government's position was foreclosed by binding precedent or [is] obviously wrong·” Capener, 608 F.3d at 401 (first alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Just because the government lacks ‘precedent’ does not automatically mean that its position is frivolous.” Heavrin, 330 F.3d at 729. “The government should be allowed to base a prosecution on a novel argument, so long as it is a reasonable one, without fear that it might be setting itself up for liability under the Hyde Amendment.” Id. Thus, “[a] frivolous position is one lacking a reasonable legal basis or where the government lacks a reasonable expectation of attaining sufficient material evidence by the time of trial.” Id. A “frivolous” position can be distinguished from a “vexatious” one in that “the term ‘vexatious' embraces the distinct concept of being brought for the purpose of irritating, annoying, or tormenting the opposing party.” Id.

Finally, “bad faith” means “not simply bad judgment or negligence, but rather it implies the conscious doing of a wrong because of dishonest purpose or moral obliquity; · it contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill will.” Gilbert, 198 F.3d at 1299 (omission in original) (internal quotation marks omitted); cf. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978) (defining bad faith in the law enforcement context to include “reckless disregard for the truth”). Courts engage in an objective inquiry when determining whether a prosecution was pursued in “bad faith.” See Shaygan, 652 F.3d at 1313–14.

Against that legal background, we examine each of Manzo's arguments.

A. Continued Prosecution After Dismissal of Hobbs Act Charges

Manzo contends that his prosecution was either vexatious or frivolous because, even after we affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the Hobbs Act charges, the government continued to pursue him on the remaining Travel Act and misprision of a felony charges. Manzo insists that, by nonetheless proceeding with its prosecution, the government “was nothing less th[a]n defiant, and the second superseding indictment no longer supported a position of first impression.” (Manzo's Opening Br. at 19.)

That charge fails to establish an abuse of discretion. The District Court dismissed the Hobbs Act charges because, during the time of the alleged conduct, Manzo was only a candidate for public office and therefore did not act “ ‘under color of official right.’ “ (Order on Motion in Limine at 24 (D.N.J. May 18, 2010), ECF No. 33 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)).) At the same time, however, the Court declined to dismiss the Travel Act charges and expressly rejected Manzo's argument that, because he was “merely a candidate and not one that was at least elected,” his conduct did not fall within New Jersey's bribery statute. (Supplemental App. at 166.) The Court opined that, under a “plain reading,” the bribery statute “encompasses prosecutions where the person whom the action was sought to influence was not yet qualified or [able] to act in a desired way for any reason.” (Supplemental App. at 166.) As noted earlier, we affirmed on interlocutory appeal the dismissal of the Hobbs Act charges. It was only then that, upon reconsideration, the District Court dismissed the Travel Act charges because it concluded that New Jersey's bribery statute does not criminalize bribes to candidates for public office (as opposed to officeholders).

Given the District Court's original ruling on the applicability of the New Jersey bribery statute, the government's continued prosecution of Manzo under the remaining Travel Act charges was clearly not vexatious, since it was not “objectively deficient.” Knott, 256 F.3d at 29. Nor was it frivolous. “Once a district court judge accepts the government's legal position it will be extremely difficult to persuade us that the issue was not debatable among reasonable lawyers and jurists, i.e., that it was frivolous.” Gilbert, 198 F.3d at 1304. In fact, the District Court's original ruling on the applicability of the New Jersey bribery statute left the government with an objectively reasonable belief that its legal position would prevail. We accordingly reject Manzo's argument that the government's continued prosecution was vexatious or frivolous.

B. Manzo's Claim that the Government Knew that Its Factual Allegations Were False

Manzo also argues that the allegations in the indictment were “blatantly false,” that the government knew they were false, and that the government's prosecution was therefore in bad faith, as well as being vexatious and frivolous. (Manzo's Opening Br. at 6.) Those assertions rely primarily on the fact that, when he testified in a separate corruption trial, Ronald Manzo said he never physically gave his brother $10,000 in cash that he had received from Dwek.

That testimony does not conclusively prove that the government's accusations were false, much less that they were knowingly false. Nor does the testimony prove that the District Court abused its discretion. As the Court noted, despite Ronald's testimony, the government was prepared to present recordings “during which both Ronald Manzo and [Louis Manzo] acknowledged that [Louis Manzo] had received money from Mr. Dwek.” (Supplemental App. at 14.) In addition, even if Ronald's testimony were true, the charges against Manzo did not require the government to prove that he physically received a cash bribe, only that he traveled in interstate commerce with the intent to “promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on of” a bribe, 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3), which, under New Jersey law, encompasses the “indirect[ ]” acceptance of “[a]ny benefit as consideration for a decision, opinion, recommendation, vote or exercise of discretion of a public servant,” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:27–2. The recordings would have allowed the government to plausibly argue that Manzo was aware of the cash payment to his brother and played a role in facilitating it. Thus, Ronald's testimony that Manzo never received the cash payments, even if we assume it to be true, is insufficient to show that the government's prosecution in light of that testimony was vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith.

C. Conflicts of Interest

Manzo avers that the prosecutors in his case operated under “overbearing conflicts of interest” and should have recused themselves under “numerous” Department of Justice guidelines. (Manzo's Opening Br. at 14.) Specifically, he asserts that, while running for governor of New Jersey, then-United States Attorney Chris Christie lauded his office's anti-corruption prosecutions and publicly proclaimed that, as Governor, he would hire several Assistant United States Attorneys who had played a role in prosecuting over 40 individuals for corruption in Hudson County, New Jersey, including Manzo. According to Manzo, shortly after candidate Christie made that statement, a number of prosecutors donated to Christie's campaign. Despite those donations and Christie's public statement that he would hire them, the prosecutors, according to Manzo, “failed to recuse themselves from an investigation and prosecution that ultimately benefitted Christie's election, and by so doing, enhanced their employment prospects for the jobs that they were promised.” (Manzo's Opening Br. at 14.) Manzo insists that the prosecutors' supposed failure to adhere to recusal guidelines constitutes “bad faith.”

The government vigorously denies that any of the prosecutors violated recusal guidelines, which may well be correct, but we need not address the issue. As already noted, “Congress created an objective standard of bad faith to govern an award of attorney's fees and costs under the Hyde Amendment.” Shaygan, 652 F.3d at 1313. We accordingly should not “read the Hyde Amendment to license judicial second-guessing of prosecutions that are objectively reasonable.” Id. at 1314. Thus, rather than attempting to delve into the minds and motivations of individual prosecutors when making political contributions or career moves, the proper inquiry into a challenged prosecution is an objective one. Here, in a wide-ranging undercover investigation, the FBI obtained recorded conversations in which Manzo, a candidate for political office, agreed to accept money in exchange for a promise of future official action if elected. Under those circumstances, it was not objectively unreasonable for the government to attempt to prosecute him under the Hobbs Act and the Travel Act. At the time of the indictment, there was no binding case law holding that such prosecutions were improper, and it was entirely legitimate for the government to initiate a federal prosecution based on the underlying facts. The District Court therefore did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Manzo's conflict-of-interest argument.

D. Manzo's Remaining Allegations of Prosecutorial Misconduct

Manzo's remaining miscellaneous allegations of bad faith are also unavailing. He claims that the government failed to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury and failed to preserve the instructions given to Dwek by the FBI prior to his covert meetings with the Manzos. The District Court rejected those claims, holding that Manzo had not borne his burden of proof on them. But even if he had, those failures would at most constitute prosecutorial errors, rather than a basis to conclude that the prosecution was undertaken and pursued in bad faith. “Sloppy work alone does not support a claim of vexatiousness, frivolousness, or bad faith” sufficient to justify attorney fees under the Hyde Amendment. Lain, 640 F.3d at 1139. Moreover, as the District Court noted, the second superseding indictment against Manzo was dismissed prior to trial, and the Jencks Act requires production of documents relied on by a government witness only “[a]fter [the] witness called by the United States has testified on direct examination” at trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3500(b).

Manzo also argues that Dwek was not authorized under Department of Justice guidelines to engage in undercover activities with Manzo because Manzo was not yet a public official. Whether that is correct is irrelevant, for, even assuming that the government mishandled Dwek in some respects, the alleged errors would not demonstrate that the government's prosecution of Manzo was vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith, which is the standard that Manzo must meet for an award of attorney fees. We find no abuse of discretion in the District Court's decision.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the order of the District Court.

FOOTNOTES

1.  That statute provides:Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.18 U.S.C. § 4.

2.  The Court dismissed the misprision of a felony charge because, given its dismissal of the Hobbs Act and Travel Act charges, neither Manzo nor his brother had committed any “felony” that was “cognizable by a court of the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 4.

JORDAN, Circuit Judge.

View the original article here