Topic: Nintendo Found Guilty of Patent Infringement for 3DS Technology?

yes i agree we all want nintendo to succeed but if sadly nintendo has to pay the price

Maybe he's one of those newfangled "thrifty" Millionaires, who go around looking like they're poor so they can surprise people with their massive amounts of money?

well thats unprofessionally cool, personally the way patent is done should be change someone so that its only effective if you actually built the tech itself otherwise thats just a slight case of hoarding for profit because you know you dont have the money to build it yourself.

i found out that nintendo lawyers argues that nintendo didn't in fact use the technology, that the former sony inventer made but the fact is that former sony inventer sadly had a good case against nintendo and that it won't effect anything at this moment but lets hope it stays like that and that the sony guy is happy with the money that he got.

Wait a minute, a japanese guy sues a japanese company in the US because of a screen that Sharp - or was it Hitachi? - (with their technology) made?

Exactly. I doubt the judge plays 3DS or has any idea how the tech works. This Sony guy should be taking the manufacturer of the screens to court, not Nintendo. The company that makes 3DS screens is under license by Nintendo to make their screens that they have rights to make presumably. I've read how the screens work, and it is a different technique to get glasses free 3D than what this guy made a patent out of.
Glasses free 3D was probably the main argument, but not how it's done.

EDIT: The only argument for this guy, is if Nintendo and the manufacturer of the screens were able to explain his form of glasses free 3D better than he.

Nintendo used different technology. The judge is clearly uneducated on this matter.

Nintendo's the one that put it out as a commercial product though. Nintendo IS responsible if there is patents violated.

And none of us here are lawyers to make that determination.

I'm not making any determination, I'm just trying to understand, and Sharp has a free glass 3D technology, the one Nintendo uses and made available as a commercial product with the 3DS, the technology was called parallax barrier 3D, or something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax_barrier

"Nearly a century later, Sharp developed the electronic flat-panel application of this old technology to commercialization, briefly selling two laptops with the world's only 3D LCD screens.[7] These displays are no longer available from Sharp but still being manufactured and further developed from other companies like Tridelity and SpatialView. Similarly, Hitachi has released the first 3D mobile phone for the Japanese market under distribution by KDDI.[8][9] In 2009, Fujifilm released the Fujifilm FinePix Real 3D W1 digital camera, which features a built-in autostereoscopic LCD display measuring 2.8" diagonal. Nintendo has also implemented this technology on its latest portable gaming console, the Nintendo 3DS."

So, this guy will sue all these companies?

You need to stop making ridiculous comments like this, as they simply betray the fact that you honestly have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not trying to be harsh or insulting, it's just true.

As i said earlier, patent law is tremendously intricate — there's an entirely seperate Bar that must be passed to be a patent lawyer, so that should give you some idea of the highly intricate and specialized nature of the law.

And for the record, part of any patent infringement suit is going to involve in insane amount of techical detail and expert testimony. It is 100% irrelevent whether the judge plays 3DS or knows how the tech works. His job is to rule on the law. The specifics are all laid out during trial, including outlining the different forms of tech and explaining how (and in how many ways) the offending tech has infringed on the existing patent.

I understand that most people here are younger folk who are upset at Nintendo taking a hit, but just accept it. Nintendo is not perfect. They are a tech company, and just about every major tech company has been found to infringe a patent or two here and there.

Just accept what is, save your rage for something else (like when that guy in front of you in line drains the last drop of the Chocolate Wonderfall), and move on.

Wow. I hope none of you end up in court. The results will not be pretty

You should have read my whole post, or the ones before, including the EDIT at the bottom. I understand that it's possible Nintendo may have used his idea, but any lawyer will look at ever factor in a case, and determine whether the pieces fit. I've already stated that it may be an enhanced or alternative version of this guys original idea. If Nintendo was able to improve his form of 3D, even building their own from scratch and thinking it was their idea is just as plausible. That would result in accidental use, but they thought the idea was theirs. I completely agree that they should pay up if the screens are even connected by one of those factors.
If some one in their basement built a killer product from scratch without ever doing research of whether it already exists or using current ideas, they may think they thought of it first.
I understand when and where credit is due, but us as bystanders don't have all the comparisons and evidence right in front of us like they do. We can speculate and discuss all we want, but in the end all we can do is trust they're making the right accusations and rulings.

@SCAR392: What are you talking about? Just because that guy who built the exact same thing in his basement on accident did it without having ever seen another patent, that doesn't mean he can release it to the public without expecting to be sued. Nintendo's patent-checking people likely made a mistake in interpreting this guy's patent and thought their tech was different enough to not fall under this guy's patent is all, and the court has (at this time) determined they were wrong. It happens. Again, this is what the appeals process is for.

If they did it on purpose then shame on them, if they did it by mistake (their employees are only human afterall and could have made an error regarding this guy's patent) then so be it. i imagine they'll appeal and this will either be thrown out or the sum may come down (like many of the 'Apple vs Everyone' cases).

I agree it's utterly irrelevant what gaming experience the judge/jury has. It's also largely irrelevent that this guy USED to work at Sony.

Well One Thing Other Products Use 3D To WITH OUT Glasses

i don't know why you're all making such a big deal out of it
patent infringement happens ALL THE TIME, every stupid day

this whole patent-thing is broken anyway and everybody knows it
30million is a lot of cash, but is it for nintendo? not really
for them it's just a fly - small, annoying, but easy to get rid of

soon this will all be over and forgotten, does anyone actually care about this?
"shame on them" - i laughed, thanks..lol

I didn't say they would be right to do that. I just said that's probably why they lost. It's already a known fact Nintendo lost the case. Either by misinterpretation on either side causing Nintendo to be falsely accused, or Nintendo to actually have made a mistake.
Maybe a better way to explain is that I personally am not completey trusting of the legal system. I've seen massive ammounts of screw ups, false accusations, police brutality, etc. stupid actions that make me doubt it more than trust it.

Something tells me this conversation wouldn't be discussed if Nintendo were the ones suing this guy... lolz

@scar: an honest question here: if this were a case against sony by a former nintendo employee...would you be using words such as 'misinterpretation', 'falsely accused', 'mistake'? i am not being snarky, i am really curious about it.

also: we've all seen what you say in your last paragraph, some of us more as we're older. unfortunately, it is the only legal system in place at the moment. i also doubt there is much police brutality in patent infringement cases.

pretty much this. patent infringement is pretty cut-and-dry, no one's getting thrown into the clink or anything, nor were the police likely involved for any of the process. civil court isn't the same as criminal.