k8sMum wrote:

... 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.

k8sMum wrote:

@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.

DaveGX wrote:

Iknow this has nothing to do with Nintendo or Sony, but this whole thing kinda reminds me of another example infringement case or whatever it was, i believe it was Motorla and Microsoft that couldn've gotten XBox 360 banned in the US possibly, but the dicision was ruled as a "suggestion" holding back sales. No fofense, but I honestly I believe Scar392 to be in his/her own right here to not trust the judge's decision. Legal or not if you don't have the experience in such fields than how can people expect an accurate ruling? Back to the original topic, though, I don't really nkow much about who did what, but just saying.

Bankai wrote:

DaveGX wrote:

Iknow this has nothing to do with Nintendo or Sony, but this whole thing kinda reminds me of another example infringement case or whatever it was, i believe it was Motorla and Microsoft that couldn've gotten XBox 360 banned in the US possibly, but the dicision was ruled as a "suggestion" holding back sales. No fofense, but I honestly I believe Scar392 to be in his/her own right here to not trust the judge's decision. Legal or not if you don't have the experience in such fields than how can people expect an accurate ruling? Back to the original topic, though, I don't really nkow much about who did what, but just saying.

While it's fine to question a judgement in court, if you're going to do so you need more evidence than "I don't agree with it and police brutality means that this patent ruling is clearly incorrect."

And if you understood how patents worked then you would also understand why it's not actually important to have used a technology to judge if it has breached a patent.

If it really was that "easy" then we would all be lawyers with great sports cars.

SCAR392 wrote:

Bankai wrote:

DaveGX wrote:

Iknow this has nothing to do with Nintendo or Sony, but this whole thing kinda reminds me of another example infringement case or whatever it was, i believe it was Motorla and Microsoft that couldn've gotten XBox 360 banned in the US possibly, but the dicision was ruled as a "suggestion" holding back sales. No fofense, but I honestly I believe Scar392 to be in his/her own right here to not trust the judge's decision. Legal or not if you don't have the experience in such fields than how can people expect an accurate ruling? Back to the original topic, though, I don't really nkow much about who did what, but just saying.

While it's fine to question a judgement in court, if you're going to do so you need more evidence than "I don't agree with it and police brutality means that this patent ruling is clearly incorrect."

And if you understood how patents worked then you would also understand why it's not actually important to have used a technology to judge if it has breached a patent.

If it really was that "easy" then we would all be lawyers with great sports cars.

I was just stating questionable actions that are clearly wrong being the main factor here. I've seen wrong and/or unfair trials, so I have a right to question the whole system if it fails even one person. This judge and jury probably have no clue how the technology being argued actually works. This whole case is completely heresy if they didn't compare the 2 devices side by side and differentiate the exact components of each device(or blueprints).
Nintendo should pay up if they used even one of his ideas that makes up the final product. I just find it hard to believe that out of all the glasses free 3D devices from LG, Evo, etc, that can all playback the same content in 3D, Nintendo's was way more supposedly reliant on his components and specific structure of the device.
I find it hard to believe, but that doesn't mean I am completey dismissing the possibility.

Bankai wrote:

SCAR392 wrote:

Bankai wrote:

DaveGX wrote:

Iknow this has nothing to do with Nintendo or Sony, but this whole thing kinda reminds me of another example infringement case or whatever it was, i believe it was Motorla and Microsoft that couldn've gotten XBox 360 banned in the US possibly, but the dicision was ruled as a "suggestion" holding back sales. No fofense, but I honestly I believe Scar392 to be in his/her own right here to not trust the judge's decision. Legal or not if you don't have the experience in such fields than how can people expect an accurate ruling? Back to the original topic, though, I don't really nkow much about who did what, but just saying.

While it's fine to question a judgement in court, if you're going to do so you need more evidence than "I don't agree with it and police brutality means that this patent ruling is clearly incorrect."

And if you understood how patents worked then you would also understand why it's not actually important to have used a technology to judge if it has breached a patent.

If it really was that "easy" then we would all be lawyers with great sports cars.

I was just stating questionable actions that are clearly wrong being the main factor here. I've seen wrong and/or unfair trials, so I have a right to question the whole system if it fails even one person. This judge and jury probably have no clue how the technology being argued actually works. This whole case is completely heresy if they didn't compare the 2 devices side by side and differentiate the exact components of each device(or blueprints).
Nintendo should pay up if they used even one of his ideas that makes up the final product. I just find it hard to believe that out of all the glasses free 3D devices from LG, Evo, etc, that can all playback the same content in 3D, Nintendo's was way more supposedly reliant on his components and specific structure of the device.
I find it hard to believe, but that doesn't mean I am completey dismissing the possibility.

You weren't in the room for the proceedings, you have no legal background, you don't seem to understand how patent law works. You have no evidence to support your point of view, beyond the most anecdotal and least legitimate evidence that is imaginable.

You're not in a position to criticise the verdict. You are welcome to only once you've got something legitimate to support your point of view. End of story.

the_shpydar wrote:

@Dragon
Yes, Patent law falls within the realm of "civil" law. Nothing to do with criminal proceedings at all. Completely different realms of law with different standards, burdens of proof, etc.

@DaveGX
It's not 1 "itty bitty" similarlity. That's not how patent infringement works — if it was 1 itty bitty similarity, then there would not be a finding of infringement . It is a very complicated and intricate system that requires a significant showing that the offending tech has a certain level (usually determined by specific points of similarlity) of commonality with the patented tech.

@SCAR
You need to stop with your completely ridiculous analogies, as they do not in anyway apply to what's going on. From a logical debating standpoint, your arguments are
coming across as something like "I am allergic to apples, therefore tomatoes tried to eat my dog." I find it very interesting in your post where you speculate on what might have happened here (Ninendo made a mistake, etc), you didn't once posit that Nintendo might have actually knowingly ripped off this guy's idea. They might have. Corporations do things like this all the time, and Nintendo is not some sainted company that can do no wrong. It is also ironic that you are so distrusitng of the legal system for what amount to statistically insignificant miscarriages, yet seem to absolutely trust a worldwide corporation, entities which are well-known for playing fast and lose with the rules.

the_shpydar wrote:

"I am allergic to apples, therefore tomatoes tried to eat my dog."