Jump to content
N-Europe

3DS Console Discussion

Dante

By Dante
in Nintendo Gaming

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 7.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Hero-of-Time
Hero-of-Time

Absolutely baffling that this wasn't an official thing by Nintendo.

Hero-of-Time
Hero-of-Time

Well, I ended up buying more than I anticipated.  I picked up the Fire Emblem games because I only have the special edition with everything on the one cart. I figured I would snap up the sep

Hero-of-Time
Hero-of-Time

13th October this beauty arrives.

Phube Newbie

Phube

Posted
Posted
Preowned console btw!

 

They retail for around £125 NEW.

 

LOL

 

Was in town today and had a look in... noticed that! Wasn't very obvious on the advert!

 

Snnnneeaky!

RedShell Enthusiast

RedShell

Posted
Posted

It seems there was a Nintendo Direct in Japan today (well a mini-ND) for Tomodachi Collection:

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/3ds/ec6j/direct20130312/index.html

 

2 new 3DSLL colours were announced, Mint White:

Mc5cITj.jpg

 

and another with speech bubbles:

YD4Ii7v.jpg

 

If it was a general ND then I'd be slightly more confident about a potential European ND this week, but it wasn't... so I'm not. :blank:

I also doubt we'll ever see Tomodachi Collection or those 3DS models released in Europe. :(

Serebii Newbie

Serebii

Posted
Posted (edited)

Nintendo lost the 3DS screen case, in a thing that baffles the hell out of me

 

In developing its 3DS portable console, Nintendo infringed on a glasses-free 3D patent owned by a former Sony employee. That's according to a New York federal jury, which earlier today hit Nintendo with $30.2 million in damages. The patent in question — granted in 2008 — pertains to viewing 3D content without a need for specialized glasses, which is a major selling point of the 3DS. Seijiro Tomita (who spent 30 years at Sony according to the court complaint) sued Nintendo in 2011 for infringing on his invention, claiming that he'd met with the gaming manufacturer in 2003 to discuss the technology. In its defense, Nintendo's attorney argued that Tomita was just one of several 3D purveyors it was in contact with at the time and that the 3D implementation in the portable device avoided key aspects of his patent.

 

Ultimately the jury sided with Tomita and awarded him the compensatory damages. $30.2 million isn't exactly going to bankrupt Nintendo, and the case is unlikely to have any long-term consequences, but it's still an embarrassing legal defeat for the gaming industry giant.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/13/4100924/nintendo-guilty-of-patent-infringement-3ds-technology

 

Three things

 

1. I read the patent and overall it doesn't really match the 3DS's screen. The patent seems to be based upon using cameras

2. Sharp are the developers and manufacturers of the screen, so why go for Nintendo?

3. Why the hell did a jury decide? It's incredibly unlikely that they'd have the technical knowledge to assess whether or not it is infringing

 

It really seems like this is the jury siding with the man against the big corporation, as often happens. Doesn't help that the man unfortunately had a stroke.

 

I hope Nintendo get through the appeal

Edited by Serebii
Daft Newbie

Daft

Posted
Posted
It really seems like this is the jury siding with the man against the big corporation, as often happens.

 

When has this happened before?

Cube Community Regular

Cube

Posted
Posted
When has this happened before?

 

Stuff like this is usually settled out of court. People make lots of money from patenting vague stuff, putting no work into an actual product, waiting for a product to be successful (they would never sue during development) then launching a lawsuit.

Captain Falcon Newbie

Captain Falcon

Posted
Posted

Nintendo seem to have a pretty good track record when it comes to defending themselves against alleged patent infringement so there has to be something in it.

 

I also find it curious @Serebii how you can read the patent and say it doesn't hold water and then accuse the jury of not being clued up enough to make a decision - surely they know more about what has gone on than you do, no, so why are you better positioned than them to pass judgement?

 

Also, this isn't something recent as the case was first filed back in mid 2011 which was just after the the 3DS launched and was in full on fail mode. The guy wasn't waiting until the end of 2012, and the 3DS to be successful, before putting in his claim, he was there from day one pretty much and I suspect it might have been sooner but perhaps he needed to get his hands on one before he felt ready to launch his case.

Debug Mode Newbie

Debug Mode

Posted
Posted

There seems to be a lack of information here. If it was the screen technology, he would have gone for the manufacturer, and Nintendo mentioned in a reply to Kotaku that "The Tomita patent did not relate to the 3D games playable on the Nintendo 3DS.", so it would seem there is some feature in the 3DS operating system that's the infringing factor.

 

I find it very amusing that people are crying fowl of the ruling, despite the fact it's usually corporations that get off pretty much scot free. Although I do find the inventors of vague ideas to be an annoyance and something that the call for patent reform aims to combat, inventors primarily do what they do to make money. You can't argue that "oh they do nothing with it and make no product of it", they patented the idea and that idea, as we all know from fishing around ourselves, is open for every one to see. Most people do not have the money to make a product utilising their ideas and the usual way this is handled is that companies will buy patent rights from them.

Serebii Newbie

Serebii

Posted
Posted
Nintendo seem to have a pretty good track record when it comes to defending themselves against alleged patent infringement so there has to be something in it.

 

I also find it curious @Serebii how you can read the patent and say it doesn't hold water and then accuse the jury of not being clued up enough to make a decision - surely they know more about what has gone on than you do, no, so why are you better positioned than them to pass judgement?

 

Also, this isn't something recent as the case was first filed back in mid 2011 which was just after the the 3DS launched and was in full on fail mode. The guy wasn't waiting until the end of 2012, and the 3DS to be successful, before putting in his claim, he was there from day one pretty much and I suspect it might have been sooner but perhaps he needed to get his hands on one before he felt ready to launch his case.

It's mostly that I have a technological background and the jury are less likely too, as seen with the Apple VS Samsung case where half of them didn't even know what patents were.

Captain Falcon Newbie

Captain Falcon

Posted
Posted
It's mostly that I have a technological background and the jury are less likely too, as seen with the Apple VS Samsung case where half of them didn't even know what patents were.

 

The thing that struck me about the Apple/Samsung case was that it just highlighted the stupidity of the system's design, not the failure of the system to live up to its design.

 

And like that case, I would have thought the jury, whilst most not totally familiar with this area of expertise, would have have received enough information from the more technically minded people to guage one way or the other. Sure it doesn't make them right as they will have been listening to two highly subjective takes on the matter but their lack of knowledge, and lack of emotional interest, makes them blank slates to form independent opinions.

 

Maybe it's not infringement in the truest sense as joe public sees it but it is infringement in how the law views it - even if it is the law that is the one that doesn't seem right to us.

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...