Nintendo ordered to pay $10,000,000 for Patent Infringement

[SpaceGhostC2C]

7 hours ago, Commodus said:

 (really, SIDS detection for babies from a company in China?)

Regardless the merits of the rest of your past, is that particular line supposed to be an argument? Don't let bigotry interfere with an otherwise well-presented argumentation. 

 

4 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

But at the same time do the jury know this?

I thought juries were a criminal law thing only. 

 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

3 minutes ago, linkboy said:

 

 

I fully disagree with Nintendo's approach in regards to Youtube, that doesn't mean I don't have to hate their products.

It also doesn't mean they should win, or lose, this lawsuit. It's only a matter of whether copyright infringement exists or not. 

 

3 minutes ago, linkboy said:

 

It's perfectly OK to call a company out when they're full of shit (like Nintendo is with Youtube), yet still enjoy the product they make.

But enjoying the products they make had nothing to do with the lawsuit. Unless you are trying to say "I like their products, therefore the correct ruling is for Nintendo to win", which is fanboy logic... 

[linkboy]

3 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

It also doesn't mean they should win, or lose, this lawsuit. It's only a matter of whether copyright infringement exists or not. 

 

But enjoying the products they make had nothing to do with the lawsuit. Unless you are trying to say "I like their products, therefore the correct ruling is for Nintendo to win", which is fanboy logic... 

True, Nintendo's approach with Youtube has nothing to do with the bearing of this case. I posted in this thread to show that this isn't anything new (with my link to the Nintendo vs Anascape link).

 

The reason why I posted the post that you quoted is in response to this post, which also has nothing to do with the lawsuit in question. 

Quote

 

14 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

But you're totally fine supporting a copyright troll?

 

[mr moose]

I find cases of IP law where the jury decides in such a short time to be very concerning.  Remember the Apple v Samsung case (2012), the jury was done in 3 days on a topic that IP specialists from all over the globe couldn't agree on.

 

 

[Commodus]

4 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Regardless the merits of the rest of your past, is that particular line supposed to be an argument? Don't let bigotry interfere with an otherwise well-presented argumentation. 

 

I thought juries were a criminal law thing only. 

 

I think you might have misconstrued that.  I'm not saying anything bad about the Chinese!  It's that the dispute is from a company making an unrelated product in another country.  I'd have the same complaint if it was a company making ping pong ball launchers in Canada; the connection is just too tenuous for it to be a sincere concern about idea theft.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

3 minutes ago, Commodus said:

I think you might have misconstrued that.  I'm not saying anything bad about the Chinese!  It's that the dispute is from a company making an unrelated product in another country.  I'd have the same complaint if it was a company making ping pong ball launchers in Canada; the connection is just too tenuous for it to be a sincere concern about idea theft.

Yes, I did misunderstand that. 

It makes sense. However, it could still happen, provided what is patented is a mechanism with multiple applications (taking to the extreme, if I could patent "fire", I could sue half the woeld, regardless of what I originally used fire for ). 

In any case, you had some other good points raising suspicions about this lawsuit. 

[wanderingfool2]

For those wondering, the patent that iLife won this was with is this https://www.google.com/patents/US6864796

 

To be honest, I hate the American style of patents (and the way Texas rules on them).  It really stiffles innovation when you have a patent, and are able to sue other companies for infringing on only portions of the patent.

 

The concept of patents is it is suppose to be novel, and the fact is using accelerators to detect motion of a particular body part to me doesn't seem novel (yes, they added a filter on it, to eliminate unnecessary input, but that is in no way novel).  What bugs me, is it is essentially patenting old ideas on new technology which shouldn't be allowed but the US patent system seems to allow.

 

With that said, it really appears as if they are taking a small portion of the patent and trying to claim it is in it's own right a patent.  My question would be, if just the portion they are suing for was to be patented, would it survive as a valid patent.

 

Anyways, just my 2 cents.

[Commodus]

35 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

For those wondering, the patent that iLife won this was with is this https://www.google.com/patents/US6864796

 

To be honest, I hate the American style of patents (and the way Texas rules on them).  It really stiffles innovation when you have a patent, and are able to sue other companies for infringing on only portions of the patent.

 

The concept of patents is it is suppose to be novel, and the fact is using accelerators to detect motion of a particular body part to me doesn't seem novel (yes, they added a filter on it, to eliminate unnecessary input, but that is in no way novel).  What bugs me, is it is essentially patenting old ideas on new technology which shouldn't be allowed but the US patent system seems to allow.

 

With that said, it really appears as if they are taking a small portion of the patent and trying to claim it is in it's own right a patent.  My question would be, if just the portion they are suing for was to be patented, would it survive as a valid patent.

 

Anyways, just my 2 cents.

That's what irks me about the people cheering this on like some kind of karmic justice... they clearly haven't studied this case, or patent trolling in general, very closely.

 

Nintendo likely didn't even know iLife's products existed when it developed the Wii, let alone base its hardware on a subset of iLife's features.  The lawsuit came about because iLife wants to use trace similarities to profit off of someone else's success -- it clearly wasn't losing money to a product in a completely different category.  We should hope iLife loses, because a victory would likely embolden more companies big and small to sue over trivial similarities.

[Mooshi]

If you search patent troll and Texas, there is a suspicious skewed bias for patent trolls winning.  Makes me ashamed of my home state for being ran by idiots. I know Ninty will fight this and I hope this ironic poser  "I wanna be Apple so bad muh i" company get kicked to the curb where they belong.

[Trik'Stari]

17 hours ago, linkboy said:

Unlike a patent troll, Nintendo actually puts out good products (and in the case of some patent trolls, an actual product).

 

I fully disagree with Nintendo's approach in regards to Youtube, that doesn't mean I don't have to like or dislike their products. There's a lot of things about companies that I dislike (see Sony and their total lackadaisical approach to account security in regards to PSN, yet I still have a PS4, as a prime example).

 

It's perfectly OK to call a company out when they're full of shit (like Nintendo is with Youtube), yet still enjoy the product they make.

This company is a patent troll, Nintendo is a copyright troll. And no, they do not make good products anymore.

 

Let them sue one another into Bankruptcy.

[Eaglerino]

On 9/1/2017 at 4:56 PM, SpaceGhostC2C said:

I thought juries were a criminal law thing only. 

 

It's illegal to infringe on a patent which would make this a criminal law thing

[FratStar]

On 9/1/2017 at 8:49 AM, James7176 said:

Completely unrelated, Why does OP run RAID 0 on a NAS? 

I mean his name is Master Disaster. Looks like he's just waiting for one.

 

Actually know what although I don't like Nintendo I'm not sure how they infringed on their product in any way. And Texas the land of the patent trolls doesn't make it any better.

[TetraSky]

22 hours ago, Commodus said:

 

Nintendo likely didn't even know iLife's products existed when it developed the Wii, let alone base its hardware on a subset of iLife's features.  The lawsuit came about because iLife wants to use trace similarities to profit off of someone else's success -- it clearly wasn't losing money to a product in a completely different category.  We should hope iLife loses, because a victory would likely embolden more companies big and small to sue over trivial similarities.

Pretty much this ↑

 

I see quite a few people here hating on Nintendo for a completely different subject, derailing from the main point.

You should be hoping for Nintendo to win this, regardless of your feelings about them.

If Nintendo loses this fight against a patent troll who wasn't even in the same business as Nintendo, hence not losing a single sale, it sets yet another dangerous precedent that will encourage this sort of BS even more than before. For which the legal fee of those fights will then trickle down to the consumers who will have to pay more for their devices in the future or simply bankrupt your favorite companies.

 

Hopefully, the patent will be thrown out the window for being too abstract or something, like what happened with another case of patent troll vs big company.

[You_are_a_cunt]

I came here to post this:

 

read the article and I still wanted to post it.

 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

16 hours ago, Eaglerino said:

It's illegal to infringe on a patent which would make this a criminal law thing

No, that's not how it works. "Criminal law" is when you commit a crime against society, in which case the procedure can be started by a public prosecutor, and results in jail penalties or worse.

Civil or commercial law is when you may infringe someone's economic rights, the case must be started by the interested party and the interested party only, and it doesn't seek a jil punishment but an economic reparation instead.

Patent litigation falls under the second group.

[Eaglerino]

1 hour ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

No, that's not how it works. "Criminal law" is when you commit a crime against society, in which case the procedure can be started by a public prosecutor, and results in jail penalties or worse.

Civil or commercial law is when you may infringe someone's economic rights, the case must be started by the interested party and the interested party only, and it doesn't seek a jil punishment but an economic reparation instead.

Patent litigation falls under the second group.

Not sure what to say, crime is defined as an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law. Infringing a patent is punishable by law. The punishment doesn't have to be jail. You sound like you're watching too much law and order, I have no idea why you would think only 'bad crimes' get juries

[SpaceGhostC2C]

3 hours ago, Eaglerino said:

Not sure what to say, crime is defined as an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law. Infringing a patent is punishable by law. The punishment doesn't have to be jail. You sound like you're watching too much law and order, I have no idea why you would think only 'bad crimes' get juries

No, really, you have the chance to learn something

The differences between types of lawsuits and their respective procedures is there. I mean, it's not a matter of opinion or what it sounds like, it's just a fact. Whether you like "criminal" as a name or you would have chosen a different is irrelevant, that's the name it was given.

For more information, you can start from:

Criminal law

Civil law

Now, the only thing I wasn't sure of, and still aren't, is if trial by jury is restricted to criminal law or applies to other lawsuits as well (I also know that several types of lawsuits are nto settled by juries, resting on the hands of the judge and the judge only).

[Master Disaster]

8 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

No, really, you have the chance to learn something

The differences between types of lawsuits and their respective procedures is there. I mean, it's not a matter of opinion or what it sounds like, it's just a fact. Whether you like "criminal" as a name or you would have chosen a different is irrelevant, that's the name it was given.

For more information, you can start from:

Criminal law

Civil law

Now, the only thing I wasn't sure of, and still aren't, is if trial by jury is restricted to criminal law or applies to other lawsuits as well (I also know that several types of lawsuits are nto settled by juries, resting on the hands of the judge and the judge only).

Yeah, Juries can be used in civil cases too, the rules are slightly different though.

 

In a civil case a majority verdict can be reached if 9 of the 12 agree.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial#Civil_trial_procedure

[Jito463]

On 9/1/2017 at 7:49 AM, Froody129 said:

'Murica... America

I fixed that typo for you.

10 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

No, really, you have the chance to learn something

The differences between types of lawsuits and their respective procedures is there. I mean, it's not a matter of opinion or what it sounds like, it's just a fact. Whether you like "criminal" as a name or you would have chosen a different is irrelevant, that's the name it was given.

For more information, you can start from:

Criminal law

Civil law

Now, the only thing I wasn't sure of, and still aren't, is if trial by jury is restricted to criminal law or applies to other lawsuits as well (I also know that several types of lawsuits are nto settled by juries, resting on the hands of the judge and the judge only).

I was going to post something similar, but fortunately you beat me to it.  @Eaglerino, one can even win a criminal court case, then be sued in a civil case over the same incident and lose.  They are very distinct forms of law.

[Megah3rtz]

If this is violating a patent whats their Roomba ripoff then?