Glass Rebel
Member
I want 30.2 million...
Better come up with some technology barely anybody wants fast then!
I want 30.2 million...
LOL at people calling troll/patent abuse. This is the exact situation patents were made to protect. The little guy goes patents his work and goes to the big guy "buy/license my work", the big guy just steals his idea and doesn't pay him for it.
Except Nintendo did not invent or create the 3D screen used in the 3DS. SHARP did. So why isn't he going after sharp who is manufacturing this 3D screen for numerous devices.
Except Nintendo did not invent or create the 3D screen used in the 3DS. SHARP did. So why isn't he going after sharp who is manufacturing this 3D screen for numerous devices.
That's not what the court ruled. They ruled Nintendo specifically violated his patent, not Sharp's.
It's mentioned in the article that a defense of Nintendo's was that many people have 3d patents, but that wasn't good enough for the court.
So, this guy did not violate any one's patent. Nintendo violated his.
Err one of the inventors of the technology doesn't count as a patent troll.
Curious, wouldn't nintendo say that in the court too? Why did they even go to court in the first place?
Hell reading the patent all I can see is a typical crackpot jury who was standing up against evil corporation for the little guy.
Patent talks about auto calibration of the 3D screen via camera etc. None of that technology is used on the 3DS
That's assuming the US legal system wasn't a complete joke - which it is. He couldn't even have sued Nintendo in most countries because they neither designed nor manufacture the screens.That's not what the court ruled. They ruled Nintendo specifically violated his patent, not Sharp's.
It's mentioned in the article that a defense of Nintendo's was that many people have 3d patents, but that wasn't good enough for the court.
So, this guy did not violate any one's patent. Nintendo violated his.
http://www.google.com/patents/US7417664?printsec=drawing#v=onepage&q&f=false
^ The patent in question. Cursory reading makes this sound like a bad jury decision, rather than Nintendo infringing, but I guess that's why I'm not a lawyer.
It still seems kinda bullshit that they're infringing on a patent that relies on a means of automatically detecting the viewer's position to set the screen for the stereoscopic image, though. Hell, Nintendo probably wouldn't have been found to infringe at all if they'd left the camera off.
For Nintendo $30 mil is nothing. They just need to make new pikachu 3DS XL.
but for nintendo fanboys who always claim nintendo is forerunner of everything videogame, this might be a little shock for them.
Curious, wouldn't nintendo say that in the court too? Why did they even go to court in the first place?
Isn't that more in line with how some TV's do it? Why wouldn't he go after glasses free 3D displays in general?
Curious, wouldn't nintendo say that in the court too? Why did they even go to court in the first place?
Wonder what the inventor would do with all that cash.
Wonder what the inventor would do with all that cash.
Wonder what the inventor would do with all that cash.
Judging by the reactions in this thread, he should go ahead and sue Sharp now.
Wonder what the inventor would do with all that cash.
nothing, considering nintendo will pretty certainly win on appeal and he'll be left with a big legal bill
nothing, considering nintendo will pretty certainly win on appeal and he'll be left with a big legal bill
A jury awarded $30.2 million in damages to Tomita Technologies in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Tomita against Nintendo. The Tomita patent did not relate to the 3D games playable on the Nintendo 3DS. The trial was held in U.S. District Court in New York before Judge Jed Rakoff.
Nintendo is confident that the result will be set aside. The jury's verdict will not impact Nintendo's continued sales in the United States of its highly acclaimed line of video game hardware, software and accessories, including the Nintendo 3DS. Nintendo has a long history of developing innovative products while respecting the intellectual property rights of others.
Are people actually upset this guy got his just rewards or just salty at the revelation that the idea for glassless 3D wasn't Nintendo's?
Why didn't he go after HTC for the EVO 3d phone?
The fact it was a jury decision at all makes it suspect to me: were they REALLY the most qualified to do a vote on something more technical like this, not unless they were specifically rounded up with that background in mind? Nevermind the fact it's Sharp's technology, though I guess it's possible Sharp has a specific patent in Japan but not in the US?http://www.google.com/patents/US7417664?printsec=drawing#v=onepage&q&f=false
^ The patent in question. Cursory reading makes this sound like a bad jury decision, rather than Nintendo infringing, but I guess that's why I'm not a lawyer.
It still seems kinda bullshit that they're infringing on a patent that relies on a means of automatically detecting the viewer's position to set the screen for the stereoscopic image, though. Hell, Nintendo probably wouldn't have been found to infringe at all if they'd left the camera off.
Are people actually upset this guy got his just rewards or just salty at the revelation that the idea for glassless 3D wasn't Nintendo's?
Why didn't he go after HTC for the EVO 3d phone?
Are people actually upset this guy got his just rewards or just salty at the revelation that the idea for glassless 3D wasn't Nintendo's?
http://www.polygon.com/2013/3/13/4101054/jury-nintendo-liable-for-patent-infringement-3ds-technology
A spokesperson for Nintendo of America offered the followed statement to Polygon.
Why is it always the US courts that make decisions like this? The patent clearly reads differently to how the 3DS works.
Nintendo is bound to appeal, I just hope the courts see some sense.
We've known for a while that it wasn't Nintendo's, you know, when they said that the technology is from Sharp...
I thought it was Sharp technology
Just read the patent myself. I agree with this assessment. Activist jury sticking it to big business. Isn't the guy wheelchair bound too? Just saying.The dude doesn't have a case. If this bullshit decision stands through the appeals process then the system has failed.Hell reading the patent all I can see is a typical crackpot jury who was standing up against evil corporation for the little guy.
Patent talks about auto calibration of the 3D screen via camera etc. None of that technology is used on the 3DS
So why was Sharp not in the courtroom with Nintendo?