Nintendo Owes Ex-Sony Man $15 Million Patent Infringement Damages

Nintendo Owes Ex-Sony Man $15 Million Patent Infringement Damages

$15 million is only half the amount the engineer sought.

Back in March, Seijiro Tomita - a former Sony engineer - won his case against Nintendo, alleging it had infringed his patent for 3D imaging technology and used it in its 3DS device. He was awarded $30.2 million in damages. However the judge reduced the award from $30.2 million to $15 million. The higher figure was "intrinsically excessive and unsupported by the evidence presented at trial," according to federal judge Jed Rakoff.

According to the suit, Tomita demonstrated his prototype - which allowed the user to see 3D images without the need for special glasses - to a meeting of Nintendo engineers in 2003, some of whom went on to make the 3DS. Nintendo tried to argue that this meeting was only one of several it had with all kinds of 3D tech vendors, and that it didn't use Tomita's invention. The judge didn't agree.

Is this the last of the Tomita patent feud? Not at all. Nintendo is confident that it didn't really infringe his patent, and has already said that it "will appeal the jury's verdict and reduced damages award to the court of appeals."

Source: CVG

Permalink

I'd laugh if the next judge not only returns the payout to the original 30 mill but also fines Nintendo for wasting everyones time (weather he calls it a find or just adds more to the suit doesn't matter).

The higher figure was "intrinsically excessive and unsupported by the evidence presented at trial"

That hasn't stopped Ninty from suing people, who aren't massive global corporations, for excessive amounts for putting a picture of Mario on their website. I'm fairly sure Nintendo have made more than $30 million from all iterations of the 3DS, so it seems reasonable to give the guy his chunk of change if the judge has said there was patent infringment.

Why is a Japanese company (Tomita Technologies) suing a Japanese company (Nintendo) in US court and not in Japan anyways?

Baldr:
Why is a Japanese company (Tomita Technologies) suing a Japanese company (Nintendo) in US court and not in Japan anyways?

Because copyright laws in the US are a little more malleable in the US than they are in Japan...

If he can patent Stereopis, I'm officially patenting occlusion for the depth perception aspect of it. There, now everyone owes me millions of dollars! Next, I'll patent the Kinetic Depth Effect and get millions of more dollars! Then, I'll be put all of that money to making a digital device that uses Convergence to determine depth. It'll be useless but I'll end up a super rich 3D gaming tycoon. But I'll dye alone and unhappy, and some corporation will get my inventions and use them to build giant robots to take over the world... somehow. Yeah, that is how that story goes... you're all fucked, I'll be dead long before the robots come!

Baldr:
Why is a Japanese company (Tomita Technologies) suing a Japanese company (Nintendo) in US court and not in Japan anyways?

The patent in question is a US Patent and not a Japanese Patent
U.S. Patent No. 7,417,664 the court referred to it as Patent '664 to simplify it.

Since your next question would be why is it a US Patent and not a Japanese Patent. It is a US Patent because our Patent laws are so screwed up that Patent Trolls can take advantage of them, and Legit Companies take advantage of them. Legitimate business use them to blackmail each other into Licencing agreements in a form of Mutually Assured Destruction. Patent Trolls use them to just litigate to get money. Nintendo, MS, and Sony where here last time over squishy triggers. Which happens to be why N's last control design doesn't have them at all. But Nintendo ultimately won that case not too long ago, and the Troll patent was tossed out. I'm interested in which Patent Nintendo used to make the 3DS screen since who ever gave them a license to that is who Tomita should be sewing if there really was some infringement. I highly doubt Nintendo holds the patent since they held meetings to see which patent they were going to licence.

But that's why Tomita is a Patent Troll. He got his patent, and has sat on it waiting for similar patents to sell, and get established. Then litigate for money. If his troll company had sent a letter to N before warning them that the 3DS appears to be his patent, and that N hadn't licensed it from him I may change my mind. But if he had Nintendo would have probably changed the production line before launch to ensure it didn't infringe on his patent.

This kind of reminds me of the "Keyboard and Nyancat creators suing Warner Bros" thing

"Yay, the little guy is fighting the big powerful corporation" vs "A litigious asshole fighting a litigious corporation"

Two wrongs don't make a right, but there's clearly a problem.

CriticalMiss:

The higher figure was "intrinsically excessive and unsupported by the evidence presented at trial"

That hasn't stopped Ninty from suing people, who aren't massive global corporations, for excessive amounts for putting a picture of Mario on their website. I'm fairly sure Nintendo have made more than $30 million from all iterations of the 3DS, so it seems reasonable to give the guy his chunk of change if the judge has said there was patent infringment.

I guess there's a difference between a big corporation suing a person (Nintendo vs the hacker chick) and a single person suing a big corporation (sony dude vs Nintendo)??
But these are two different cases so not really sure why you're bringing this up here...

If Nintendo have done something wrong here they should pay the thing, pretty simple. If they're proven not guilty then the Sony guy shoud be ashamed (and he'll lose loads of money on court payments etc).

Guffe:

CriticalMiss:

The higher figure was "intrinsically excessive and unsupported by the evidence presented at trial"

That hasn't stopped Ninty from suing people, who aren't massive global corporations, for excessive amounts for putting a picture of Mario on their website. I'm fairly sure Nintendo have made more than $30 million from all iterations of the 3DS, so it seems reasonable to give the guy his chunk of change if the judge has said there was patent infringment.

I guess there's a difference between a big corporation suing a person (Nintendo vs the hacker chick) and a single person suing a big corporation (sony dude vs Nintendo)??
But these are two different cases so not really sure why you're bringing this up here...

If Nintendo have done something wrong here they should pay the thing, pretty simple. If they're proven not guilty then the Sony guy shoud be ashamed (and he'll lose loads of money on court payments etc).

I think CriticalMiss is referring to the reasons why Nintendo sues a single person for millions. Nintendo has sued multiple people for millions when they simply put a picture of one of their characters up on a website. That's ludicrous. This guy sues because Nintendo made and sold something with technology he already filed as his and didn't credit him. That's reasonable.

AzrealMaximillion:

Guffe:

CriticalMiss:

That hasn't stopped Ninty from suing people, who aren't massive global corporations, for excessive amounts for putting a picture of Mario on their website. I'm fairly sure Nintendo have made more than $30 million from all iterations of the 3DS, so it seems reasonable to give the guy his chunk of change if the judge has said there was patent infringment.

I guess there's a difference between a big corporation suing a person (Nintendo vs the hacker chick) and a single person suing a big corporation (sony dude vs Nintendo)??
But these are two different cases so not really sure why you're bringing this up here...

If Nintendo have done something wrong here they should pay the thing, pretty simple. If they're proven not guilty then the Sony guy shoud be ashamed (and he'll lose loads of money on court payments etc).

I think CriticalMiss is referring to the reasons why Nintendo sues a single person for millions. Nintendo has sued multiple people for millions when they simply put a picture of one of their characters up on a website. That's ludicrous. This guy sues because Nintendo made and sold something with technology he already filed as his and didn't credit him. That's reasonable.

Yeah well I guess if you read a bit more on the other story, which tells about Nintendo suing the girls "with the Mario picture on her website". Then you'd notice what they actually are suing her for, is the fact that she is hacking Nintendo games, making them into playable ports to the Wii console and PC, and then selling them to people in bundles between 20 and 100 games.
She makes huge profit while Nintendo goes on a huge minus due to people bying Nintendos own games in an illegal way via a third person who has accuired them in an illegal way.
So as I said, two different cases!
Both should be looked at in their own light, not compared!

Guffe:
snippage

Actually they were sueing her for both but they are demanding $2 million just for her use of Mario in her logo. Is the Nintendo brand really devalued by $2 million because one hacker puts Mario on her website?

"The logo for Defendant's online business prominently includes within it a copy of the famous 'Mario' character, in which Nintendo holds both federally-registered trademarks and copyrights,"

Nintendo is seeking statutory damages of up to $150,000 for each copyright infringement and up to $2 million for each trademark infringement, plus other statutory damages, profits, legal fees and interes

Original article:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/126677-Nintendo-Sues-HackYourConsole-com

And I found it relevant because Nintendo have, if this case is to be believed, effectively ripped off someone else's technology and massively profited from it. But the judge apparently thinks that making huge amounts of money from a patent infringement only justifies half the amount demanded. Whereas Ninty sue people who, whilst breaking the law, haven't made the millions of dollars that Nintendo demand in their lawsuits.

While I do like rooting for the little guy this is a patent troll case, the guy simply has a patent vague enough to cover anything similar to what he once did... sadly that shit still holds water in court it seems.

CriticalMiss:

Guffe:
snippage

Actually they were sueing her for both but they are demanding $2 million just for her use of Mario in her logo. Is the Nintendo brand really devalued by $2 million because one hacker puts Mario on her website?

"The logo for Defendant's online business prominently includes within it a copy of the famous 'Mario' character, in which Nintendo holds both federally-registered trademarks and copyrights,"

Nintendo is seeking statutory damages of up to $150,000 for each copyright infringement and up to $2 million for each trademark infringement, plus other statutory damages, profits, legal fees and interes

Original article:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/126677-Nintendo-Sues-HackYourConsole-com

And I found it relevant because Nintendo have, if this case is to be believed, effectively ripped off someone else's technology and massively profited from it. But the judge apparently thinks that making huge amounts of money from a patent infringement only justifies half the amount demanded. Whereas Ninty sue people who, whilst breaking the law, haven't made the millions of dollars that Nintendo demand in their lawsuits.

I see your point but Nintendo have still not been found guilty.
And I think his patent of "seeing in 3D without glasses" is pretty vague to start with. (I know that's not the full thing)
And we'll see how it ends, if Nintendo knew they were breaking patent laws or not is in my thoughts the biggest thing they should be looking at when considering the penalty, if they're guilty.

And in the other case with the hacker girl, I personally think the sums were ridiculouse but the court could've altered them, no idea why they didn't. She will never be able to pay those sums.

According to the story, Nintendo had discussions with multiple 3D inventor types. I would find it hard to believe that he could prove it was his specific idea, and not someone else's who had very similar technology. I don't know the truth, so I won't make too many speculations, but it's hard to believe a big legal savvy company like Nintendo would not realize how dumb and dangerous it is to try to use someone's idea without proper compensation and permission.

Either Nintendo did use it without this man being credited, or this case will just be more firewood on the huge list of "boy who cried patent infringement" cases.

CriticalMiss:

The higher figure was "intrinsically excessive and unsupported by the evidence presented at trial"

That hasn't stopped Ninty from suing people, who aren't massive global corporations, for excessive amounts for putting a picture of Mario on their website. I'm fairly sure Nintendo have made more than $30 million from all iterations of the 3DS, so it seems reasonable to give the guy his chunk of change if the judge has said there was patent infringment.

It's different when you're a big corporation.

medv4380:

But that's why Tomita is a Patent Troll. He got his patent, and has sat on it waiting for similar patents to sell, and get established. Then litigate for money. If his troll company had sent a letter to N before warning them that the 3DS appears to be his patent, and that N hadn't licensed it from him I may change my mind. But if he had Nintendo would have probably changed the production line before launch to ensure it didn't infringe on his patent.

I'm pretty sure he had contacted them over this, but it doesn't matter. There's enough demonstrable prior art that this shouldn't be a thing. While nto an exact analogue, it's like me suing Samsung because I patented the iPhone a couple years ago, ignoring the numerous (and sometimes ridiculous) patents Apple had for it, claiming the Galaxy S series infringed on my rights as a content holder for those reasons.

Mr.K.:
While I do like rooting for the little guy this is a patent troll case, the guy simply has a patent vague enough to cover anything similar to what he once did... sadly that shit still holds water in court it seems.

What I said above aside, there's this tendency towards inconsistency in rulings and a "feat or famine" style payout method to boot. Even if you're justified, it's a gamble once yuo actually get into court. And appeals can drag this sort of thing out for aaaages and change the outcomes radically.

Guffe:
If they're proven not guilty then the Sony guy shoud be ashamed (and he'll lose loads of money on court payments etc).

This isn't a criminal court.

Guffe:

Both should be looked at in their own light, not compared!

the point being it's ridiculous that there's such protection for a large corporation but almost nil when it comes to smaller businesses or individual people. It's fairly common for suits like this to ruin people (though as I mentioned before, it's still a gamble) through disproportionate measures but it's unfair to poor Nintendo to do something that's not even remotely equivalent.

This would be better argued if this wasn't a legit case of "patent trolling" (a term that's misused around here as much as innovation and feminism), but still, the point is a court ruling found against them and still protects them.

Guffe:

CriticalMiss:

Guffe:
snippage

Actually they were sueing her for both but they are demanding $2 million just for her use of Mario in her logo. Is the Nintendo brand really devalued by $2 million because one hacker puts Mario on her website?

"The logo for Defendant's online business prominently includes within it a copy of the famous 'Mario' character, in which Nintendo holds both federally-registered trademarks and copyrights,"

Nintendo is seeking statutory damages of up to $150,000 for each copyright infringement and up to $2 million for each trademark infringement, plus other statutory damages, profits, legal fees and interes

Original article:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/126677-Nintendo-Sues-HackYourConsole-com

And I found it relevant because Nintendo have, if this case is to be believed, effectively ripped off someone else's technology and massively profited from it. But the judge apparently thinks that making huge amounts of money from a patent infringement only justifies half the amount demanded. Whereas Ninty sue people who, whilst breaking the law, haven't made the millions of dollars that Nintendo demand in their lawsuits.

I see your point but Nintendo have still not been found guilty.
And I think his patent of "seeing in 3D without glasses" is pretty vague to start with. (I know that's not the full thing)
And we'll see how it ends, if Nintendo knew they were breaking patent laws or not is in my thoughts the biggest thing they should be looking at when considering the penalty, if they're guilty.

And in the other case with the hacker girl, I personally think the sums were ridiculouse but the court could've altered them, no idea why they didn't. She will never be able to pay those sums.

*stops, goes and re-reads article*

Where the heck do you see that they were not found guilty? According to the article I read, they were found guilty and made to pay a fine of 15 million dollars, that sounds pretty guilty to me. Unless you think the fact that they can appeal to mean that they aren't guilty.

OT: If Nintendo drags this out, then either A: they will end up actually getting the sum reduced further, or B: they will end up incurring more charges (and rightfully so). That is all contingent on how strong this guy's patent is, and if it is actually used in the way prescribed.

As an attorney that has followed this case, lets correct some errors that are both in the article and in some of the above comments:

1) "$15 million is only half the amount the engineer sought." - A more correct statement is $15 million is only half the amount the patentee was awarded ($30.2M). The patentee in this case sought ~$230M, he was only awarded ~$30M.

2) Nintendo was "found guilty." - Ok, this one is a bit nit-picky. But, one is not "guilty" of patent infringement. One is "liable" for patent infringement. The important differences are that you are not committing a crime, the standard of proof is MUCH lower, and the damages are (generally speaking) only meant to make the Plaintiff whole, not to punish.

3) This case is anything like the other case referenced (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/126677-Nintendo-Sues-HackYourConsole-com). - This one is complicated.

First, copyrights, trademarks, and patents are vastly different from one another even though they are all intellectual property. To give an analogy, a Kangaroo, a Mouse, and a Human are all vertebrate mammals, but they aren't all that similar. While there is spirited debate over the statutory damages available in copyright and patent trolling generally (a debate worth having in my opinion), I think trademark deserves a special discussion.

Under US law, if you do not defend your trademark you lose it. Let me repeat that for emphasis. If you do NOT sue people for misusing your trademark you will LOSE all rights in your trademark. Nintendo (and all other companies) aggressively sue over trademark infringement because they are required to under US law.

Remember also that trademark is intended to prevent consumer confusion. While we might argue that one website like HackYourConsole.com could not be confused for an official Nintendo website, what would happen if there were hundereds or thousands of websites all using Nintendo's logo and images of Mario and Luigi? How would you know if you were looking at an official website for the new Mario and Luigi game or some fan-site? Or even worse, a Chinese counterfeit product website? What if many of these sites sold games that may or may not be legitimate, or counter-feit, or loaded with malware, or just a flat scam where they take your money and you get nothing? Trademarks serve a legitimate purpose in preventing this situation.

That said, I think the concept of Trademark dilution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_dilution) is a totally different question and is probably doing damage to legitimate free-speech interests in the United States.

Baldr:
Why is a Japanese company (Tomita Technologies) suing a Japanese company (Nintendo) in US court and not in Japan anyways?

Because US copyright and patent law is a gigantic pile of shit that lets people get away with basically anything as long as they can prove a tangential relation to a patent or IP.

This whole thing is bullshit.

Nintendo doesn't manufacture the screens for the 3DS themselves. Nor, as far as I'm aware, did they design them. From what I gather, they're based on a Parralax Barrier design created by the electronics company Sharp. Nintendo simply licensed that design for their handheld.

What that means is that if this guy was serious, he shouldn't have sued Nintendo, who simply leased a design, and instead sued Sharp. They would have been the company infringing on his design if what he claims is true. When you're charging someone, charge the person responsible for the counterfeit goods, not the person who simply bought them.

The fact he didn't go after Sharp, or any other electronics company actually invested in screen R&D, suggests to me that he's just patent trolling, or trying to go for an easy victory. Ultimately, if Tomata claims Nintendo ripped him off, he should have his own designs dated to 2003 which show the sort of parallax barrier design now seen today. Designs which can be shown as evidence in court. If Nintendo ripped him off, and the 3DS currently uses a parallax barrier, then that would indicate that Tomata himself designed a parallax barrier prototype. He should then be forwarded to take this up with Sharp, given that they were the first major electronics company to look into parallax barrier tech in a big way, and they would have been the ones infringeing on his design.

I get the feeling he got lucky, and landed a judge who doesn't know technology, and assumes that glasses-free 3D screen is the same technology across the board. Which should mean that if Nintendo's appeal is refused, then that same judge should then bring other companies to court over the issue as well.

Agayek:

Baldr:
Why is a Japanese company (Tomita Technologies) suing a Japanese company (Nintendo) in US court and not in Japan anyways?

Because US copyright and patent law is a gigantic pile of shit that lets people get away with basically anything as long as they can prove a tangential relation to a patent or IP.

This has nothing to do with copyright. I'm a copyright law expert, it is not a mess, although there should be some provisions on copyright(mostly due to length of time/corporation stuff) that need to be change. Most of it is there for very good reasons.

Patent law on the other hand is a mess.

Guffe:

AzrealMaximillion:

Guffe:

I guess there's a difference between a big corporation suing a person (Nintendo vs the hacker chick) and a single person suing a big corporation (sony dude vs Nintendo)??
But these are two different cases so not really sure why you're bringing this up here...

If Nintendo have done something wrong here they should pay the thing, pretty simple. If they're proven not guilty then the Sony guy shoud be ashamed (and he'll lose loads of money on court payments etc).

I think CriticalMiss is referring to the reasons why Nintendo sues a single person for millions. Nintendo has sued multiple people for millions when they simply put a picture of one of their characters up on a website. That's ludicrous. This guy sues because Nintendo made and sold something with technology he already filed as his and didn't credit him. That's reasonable.

Yeah well I guess if you read a bit more on the other story, which tells about Nintendo suing the girls "with the Mario picture on her website". Then you'd notice what they actually are suing her for, is the fact that she is hacking Nintendo games, making them into playable ports to the Wii console and PC, and then selling them to people in bundles between 20 and 100 games.
She makes huge profit while Nintendo goes on a huge minus due to people bying Nintendos own games in an illegal way via a third person who has accuired them in an illegal way.
So as I said, two different cases!
Both should be looked at in their own light, not compared!

Like I and @CriticalMiss said, multiple people have been sued by Nintendo for simply posting pic of their characters on the web. You bringing up one hacker doesn't deflect the fact that people have been sued for massive amounts of money by Nintendo for petty things. And let's not forget Nintendo threatening to sue multiple YouTube channels for doing let's plays of their games.

Please respond to what was said, not to yourself. I am aware of the girl who was sued for hacking, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm pointing out the fact that Nintendo got sued for making money off of something that wasn't their's. And the fact that they've been suing people for the same thing in a sense.

Ironic, eh?

barbzilla:

Guffe:

CriticalMiss:

Actually they were sueing her for both but they are demanding $2 million just for her use of Mario in her logo. Is the Nintendo brand really devalued by $2 million because one hacker puts Mario on her website?

Original article:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/126677-Nintendo-Sues-HackYourConsole-com

And I found it relevant because Nintendo have, if this case is to be believed, effectively ripped off someone else's technology and massively profited from it. But the judge apparently thinks that making huge amounts of money from a patent infringement only justifies half the amount demanded. Whereas Ninty sue people who, whilst breaking the law, haven't made the millions of dollars that Nintendo demand in their lawsuits.

I see your point but Nintendo have still not been found guilty.
And I think his patent of "seeing in 3D without glasses" is pretty vague to start with. (I know that's not the full thing)
And we'll see how it ends, if Nintendo knew they were breaking patent laws or not is in my thoughts the biggest thing they should be looking at when considering the penalty, if they're guilty.

And in the other case with the hacker girl, I personally think the sums were ridiculouse but the court could've altered them, no idea why they didn't. She will never be able to pay those sums.

*stops, goes and re-reads article*

Where the heck do you see that they were not found guilty?

I'm not sure how the justice system / civil court system works in the Stated but where I come from if you appeal a court decision, then a new judge and a new jury will have to look at the case, from scratch, which means they still are considered "not guilty". And Nintendo is appealing this case to the Court of Appeal (or whatever it's called).

AzrealMaximillion:

Guffe:

AzrealMaximillion:

I think CriticalMiss is referring to the reasons why Nintendo sues a single person for millions. Nintendo has sued multiple people for millions when they simply put a picture of one of their characters up on a website. That's ludicrous. This guy sues because Nintendo made and sold something with technology he already filed as his and didn't credit him. That's reasonable.

Yeah well I guess if you read a bit more on the other story, which tells about Nintendo suing the girls "with the Mario picture on her website". Then you'd notice what they actually are suing her for, is the fact that she is hacking Nintendo games, making them into playable ports to the Wii console and PC, and then selling them to people in bundles between 20 and 100 games.
She makes huge profit while Nintendo goes on a huge minus due to people bying Nintendos own games in an illegal way via a third person who has accuired them in an illegal way.
So as I said, two different cases!
Both should be looked at in their own light, not compared!

Like I and @CriticalMiss said, multiple people have been sued by Nintendo for simply posting pic of their characters on the web. You bringing up one hacker doesn't deflect the fact that people have been sued for massive amounts of money by Nintendo for petty things. And let's not forget Nintendo threatening to sue multiple YouTube channels for doing let's plays of their games.

Please respond to what was said, not to yourself. I am aware of the girl who was sued for hacking, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm pointing out the fact that Nintendo got sued for making money off of something that wasn't their's. And the fact that they've been suing people for the same thing in a sense.

Ironic, eh?

Nintendo are still claiming that they haven't used his technology, that's why they took this case to the court of appeal
We'll have to wait until their decision to see what the final verdict on the case is, I mean 15 mil isn't that much for a company like Nintendo (I'd guess) so why not just pay it if they know they're guilty?

Then again Nintendo have their right to sue people who use their material in ways that break the law and their means of agreement (the wall fo text you have to click "accept" on in everything you register to these days) or copyright infrigments. I won't say I think it's a good marketing strategy to do it (for a simple picture or a let's play video), but they have the right to do it. I'd rather just contact the person and ask them to take it away if it such a bad thing for them, but I don't work there.

If Nintendo are using his tech in the 3DS then I hope they pay the fine and give the Sony dude the sum he deserves, ordered by the court. If they are just using something similar, not enough to break the copyright / patent thing, well then they shouldn't need to pay anything to him. But that's not for me to decide, it's for the court.

Guffe:

barbzilla:

Guffe:

I see your point but Nintendo have still not been found guilty.
And I think his patent of "seeing in 3D without glasses" is pretty vague to start with. (I know that's not the full thing)
And we'll see how it ends, if Nintendo knew they were breaking patent laws or not is in my thoughts the biggest thing they should be looking at when considering the penalty, if they're guilty.

And in the other case with the hacker girl, I personally think the sums were ridiculouse but the court could've altered them, no idea why they didn't. She will never be able to pay those sums.

*stops, goes and re-reads article*

Where the heck do you see that they were not found guilty?

I'm not sure how the justice system / civil court system works in the Stated but where I come from if you appeal a court decision, then a new judge and a new jury will have to look at the case, from scratch, which means they still are considered "not guilty". And Nintendo is appealing this case to the Court of Appeal (or whatever it's called).

I live in the US, and no it doesn't change the verdict here. If you are convicted in a criminal court, and you appeal it, you still have to serve your sentence while you are in the appeals process. So, you are still guilty, unless the appeals court changes the verdict. And, seeing as how this is in a US court and all...

Baldr:
Why is a Japanese company (Tomita Technologies) suing a Japanese company (Nintendo) in US court and not in Japan anyways?

You sue where infringement takes place. They could sue in every market that device is sold in if they want to.

barbzilla:

Guffe:

barbzilla:

*stops, goes and re-reads article*

Where the heck do you see that they were not found guilty?

I'm not sure how the justice system / civil court system works in the Stated but where I come from if you appeal a court decision, then a new judge and a new jury will have to look at the case, from scratch, which means they still are considered "not guilty". And Nintendo is appealing this case to the Court of Appeal (or whatever it's called).

I live in the US, and no it doesn't change the verdict here. If you are convicted in a criminal court, and you appeal it, you still have to serve your sentence while you are in the appeals process. So, you are still guilty, unless the appeals court changes the verdict. And, seeing as how this is in a US court and all...

Ah ok,
It's the same here only if you're being convicted with prison, then you might have to sit in prison while waiting for a court hearing in a higher court (but you're still not guilty in the full meaning of the sentence, it's a bit weird...), but not when it comes to paying. Then the payment will be put to a stop until the next court has made their verdict.
But yeah, this is in the States. It's always a bit difficult here (the Escapist), this being and international forum, to first know what country anything is happening in and then trying to know their juridical system in cases like this.

Guffe:
snip
Ah ok,
It's the same here only if you're being convicted with prison, then you might have to sit in prison while waiting for a court hearing in a higher court (but you're still not guilty in the full meaning of the sentence, it's a bit weird...), but not when it comes to paying. Then the payment will be put to a stop until the next court has made their verdict.
But yeah, this is in the States. It's always a bit difficult here (the Escapist), this being and international forum, to first know what country anything is happening in and then trying to know their juridical system in cases like this.

Gotcha, no worries m8. I have issues wading through the politics and religion section for that very reason. Many people complain about laws being made in countries not their own, without a sound understanding of the lifestyle in said country. Anyhow, I wasn't trying to be a prick about it or anything, I was just trying to grasp where you were coming from.

barbzilla:

Guffe:
snip
Ah ok,
It's the same here only if you're being convicted with prison, then you might have to sit in prison while waiting for a court hearing in a higher court (but you're still not guilty in the full meaning of the sentence, it's a bit weird...), but not when it comes to paying. Then the payment will be put to a stop until the next court has made their verdict.
But yeah, this is in the States. It's always a bit difficult here (the Escapist), this being and international forum, to first know what country anything is happening in and then trying to know their juridical system in cases like this.

Gotcha, no worries m8. I have issues wading through the politics and religion section for that very reason. Many people complain about laws being made in countries not their own, without a sound understanding of the lifestyle in said country. Anyhow, I wasn't trying to be a prick about it or anything, I was just trying to grasp where you were coming from.

No prob, there are always two sides to an argument, I don't mind if they get a bit heated soemtimes as long as it doesn't go to stupid name callings, it's always(usually) nice to argue here on the escapist because I get good arguments from other points of view and I often learn a thing or two also in the process :)

CriticalMiss:

The higher figure was "intrinsically excessive and unsupported by the evidence presented at trial"

That hasn't stopped Ninty from suing people, who aren't massive global corporations, for excessive amounts for putting a picture of Mario on their website. I'm fairly sure Nintendo have made more than $30 million from all iterations of the 3DS, so it seems reasonable to give the guy his chunk of change if the judge has said there was patent infringment.

Are you also going to leave out the part where said person was also advertising for being able to crack hundreds of titles on jailbroken Wii's?

Dragonbums:

CriticalMiss:

The higher figure was "intrinsically excessive and unsupported by the evidence presented at trial"

That hasn't stopped Ninty from suing people, who aren't massive global corporations, for excessive amounts for putting a picture of Mario on their website. I'm fairly sure Nintendo have made more than $30 million from all iterations of the 3DS, so it seems reasonable to give the guy his chunk of change if the judge has said there was patent infringment.

Are you also going to leave out the part where said person was also advertising for being able to crack hundreds of titles on jailbroken Wii's?

You mean the part where Nintendo want $150,000 for every instance of copyright infringement? Unless Wii games cost $1000 each that's excessive too.

I think what raises this above patent troll in my mind is the base fact that it is on record that he specifically pitched his prototype to them. It isn't just a vauge patent (though it is), but he had a product and the brought him in to see it. Then they made a product that used that technology, without actually paying him for it. It isn't the same as when a random company sues Microsoft because they patented X and O buttons on controllers, he was clearly firm enough in his patent and technology to be meeting with Nintendo. The judge apparently felt the same, or he wouldn't have awarded him the case. As much as we like to think we know better than the judges because obviously Nintendo would never think they could just take a companies tech and not pay them (Because they'd be sued! And lose! ... Which they were, and did.), he clearly had enough case to convince him.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here