Nintendo Forced To Pay Royalties to Tomita on Every 3DS Sold

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
Nintendo Forced To Pay Royalties to Tomita on Every 3DS Sold


A court has found Nintendo guilty of infringing on Tomita Technology's 3D screen patent.

A United States federal judge has declared Nintendo guilty of infringing on Japanese corporation Tomita Technology's glasses-free 3D technology, and has been ordered to pay Tomita a royalty from every single 3DS sale. The royalty amounts to 1.82 percent of the wholesale price of each 3DS, 3DS XL, and any future revision that utilizes the 3D screen, throughout the handheld's entire life.

Nintendo was initially found guilty of infringement by a jury back in March [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/122679-Jury-Orders-Nintendo-to-Pay-30-Million-In-Infringement-Case], and was ordered to pay $30 million (which was later reduced to $15 million). $15 million is nothing to scoff at, but for Nintendo it wouldn't have make too big a dent in the savings.

1.82 percent from every unit sold, however, considering how incredibly successful the 3DS has been, and continues to be, should amount to quite a lot of money.

The judge rejected a flat rate payout as it would have represented an "unearthed windfall" for Tomita. The percentage-based award means that the royalty will scale with the price of the 3DS's various revisions, which will no doubt drop in the future.

So what do you guys think? Is Tomita just a patent troll, or does it have a legitimate case?

Source: Engadget [http://www.engadget.com/2014/01/06/nintendo-tomita-3ds-camera-patent-share/]

Permalink
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
Aaand that was the death of 3D handheld gaming right there. Ouch.

EDIT: Wait. Two Japanese corporations and a US federal judge rule. Don't...they have ways of handling this in Japan?
 

Daaaah Whoosh

New member
Jun 23, 2010
1,041
0
0
I'd like to know where they got that percentage, I'd imagine no one who actually worked on the 3DS gets that much.
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
Obvious patent troll is obvious.

Did Tomita develop, market or try to do anything with the patent? Since they haven't released anything, we can say No.
 

WeepingAngels

New member
May 18, 2013
1,722
0
0
When they announced the 2DS, my first thought was that they were making changes because of this lawsuit. I think that they may even stop production on all 3DS models and go strictly with the 2DS. Maybe we will see a clamshell 2DS or maybe they will go ahead and release a new handheld.

Nintendo doesn't like paying royalties, it's the reason you can't play CD/DVD/Blu Rays on your Nintendo consoles.
 

Covarr

PS Thanks
May 29, 2009
1,559
0
0
If you read the patent, it's about using 3D cameras to determine user location, and adjusting 3D display accordingly. Notably, the 3DS doesn't even do this. I can't believe Tomita won this.

P.S. Thanks
 

Reaper195

New member
Jul 5, 2009
2,055
0
0
I don't.....I don't understand this. A US judge decided this. A Japanese company that used unlicensed tech from another Japanese company....why is this not being dealt with in-country? I'm not being all "Oh, america needs to fuck off and stop oplicing the world and other such nonsense". I genuinely don't know and want to.
 

Weaver

Overcaffeinated
Apr 28, 2008
8,977
0
0
Reaper195 said:
I don't.....I don't understand this. A US judge decided this. A Japanese company that used unlicensed tech from another Japanese company....why is this not being dealt with in-country? I'm not being all "Oh, america needs to fuck off and stop oplicing the world and other such nonsense". I genuinely don't know and want to.
They probably set it up so it would be held in California, Texas, or Washington as they are notorious for favouring patent holders (and companies in General). You'll often find that EULAs stipulate you agree to do court in one of these three places as well, as the judges will almost always uphold the EULA.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Covarr said:
If you read the patent, it's about using 3D cameras to determine user location, and adjusting 3D display accordingly. Notably, the 3DS doesn't even do this. I can't believe Tomita won this.

P.S. Thanks
Well, if THIS is true, then yeah, this is a nasty patent troll, and I'm upset that they won. D:
 

Ed130 The Vanguard

(Insert witty quote here)
Sep 10, 2008
3,782
0
0
Covarr said:
If you read the patent, it's about using 3D cameras to determine user location, and adjusting 3D display accordingly. Notably, the 3DS doesn't even do this. I can't believe Tomita won this.

P.S. Thanks
Is that true?

What a fucking joke the patent system must be for something like that to count.
 

Imperioratorex Caprae

Henchgoat Emperor
May 15, 2010
5,499
0
0
I'd like to see patent law change slightly to be where in these cases the patent holder must prove his actual physical technology they produced and developed is found in whatever device or programming they're suing.
 

144_v1legacy

New member
Apr 25, 2008
648
0
0
How much is a good idea worth?
For someone who has the concept, the plan, without the means or the funds?

I suppose 1.82% is reasonable.

If someone came up to me after I made $3 making and selling my hairbrush/toothbrush hybrid invention and showed me a blueprint of his comb/toothbrush hybrid he'd designed, demanding royalties, I could give him $.06 (rounded up) to shut the hell up and leave me alone, if he was the only one asking. When I later make 3.5m on my invention, I could grudgingly give up $63,800 (rounding up) as a cost for not checking the patent system for an existing design, as I should have since I expected to make so much money with my product. After all, it's a lot of money given to someone who had nothing more than an idea, but I'm a multimillionaire by comparison.

I think there is more to patent trolling then meets the eye, though I also think that too many laughable patents exist at all (the Wii lawsuit days exemplify this).
 

Vaccine

New member
Feb 13, 2010
475
0
0
Covarr said:
If you read the patent, it's about using 3D cameras to determine user location, and adjusting 3D display accordingly. Notably, the 3DS doesn't even do this. I can't believe Tomita won this.

P.S. Thanks
My 3DSXL sure as hell doesn't do that, I wish it did, turning slightly to the side turns the screen into a mess of different layers.
 

144_v1legacy

New member
Apr 25, 2008
648
0
0
Still, it's unfortunate that people can make a living basically by saying, "I thought of it first! You can't do it now!"

I mean, I had this great idea of making a sequel to Pokemon 5, and then Nintendo went and made one, and never asked me if I hadn't thought of it before them.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,760
0
0
FalloutJack said:
EDIT: Wait. Two Japanese corporations and a US federal judge rule. Don't...they have ways of handling this in Japan?
Reaper195 said:
I don't.....I don't understand this. A US judge decided this. A Japanese company that used unlicensed tech from another Japanese company....why is this not being dealt with in-country? I'm not being all "Oh, america needs to fuck off and stop oplicing the world and other such nonsense". I genuinely don't know and want to.
This is a US patent and a device licensed and sold in the US. These claims then run into issues within the US.

Ed130 said:
Is that true?
No.

Well, sort of. The patent dispute is in part about the cameras and the way they pick up and display an image. The image shifting is part of the patent but not the issue in dispute here. Nor, strictly speaking, is the 3D display itself.

You can find the rulings on the proceedings thus far online if you really want. I'd recommend not taking someone's word for it, as the prior poster seems to have an incomplete understanding.

That being said, it's still an anal decision. But honestly, what does one expect from law in the first place?
 

ClanCrusher

Constructive Critic
Mar 11, 2010
116
0
0
Sadly, this is sort of the way most technology works. The best stuff is buried under patent trolls, and even those that do get through and get made might be buried beneath lawsuits. Cell phone companies in particular seem to exist solely off of one another by suing each other each time they push a new one out.

Despite that sad truth though, I am also of the opinion that this is complete crap.
 

-Dragmire-

King over my mind
Mar 29, 2011
2,821
0
0
Covarr said:
If you read the patent, it's about using 3D cameras to determine user location, and adjusting 3D display accordingly. Notably, the 3DS doesn't even do this. I can't believe Tomita won this.

P.S. Thanks
I might be off in this but in the Ocarina of Time remake, you can aim/look around using the cameras on the back of the display. Could the patent be interpreted to mean something like this?

Unless it's about looking at the user, and changing the angle of the screens to sustain the 3d illusion at different distances/angles. That, the 3DS definitely doesn't do.

...Or am I off on both accounts?
 

AzrealMaximillion

New member
Jan 20, 2010
3,216
0
0
I wonder how much of the overall profits this ruling eats off the 3DS. Nintendo only recently started making a profit per hardware unit sold.
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
hazydawn said:
This patent system is a disease.
And a tear is shed when every publisher has to pay for royalties. Them being a dog eating other dogs in a dog eat dog world, they got what they deserved. You reap what you sow.

There's no sympathy for Nintendo.
 

Roxas1359

Burn, Burn it All!
Aug 8, 2009
33,758
0
0
Well, this sucks. Sadly no company is free from patent trolls in the world, let's just hope that Apple doesn't one day decide to sue Nintendo for some "touch interface" or something. If company in the world are the most ruthless when it comes to patent trolling, it would be Apple, the lovely company that trademarked rectangles with rounded corners...>.>

144 said:
I think there is more to patent trolling then meets the eye, though I also think that too many laughable patents exist at all (the Wii lawsuit days exemplify this).
While the current system is an entire joke, patents are actually needed in some way because without them nothing would be stopping other companies from outright stealing the same exact technology that another company uses and call it their own.
 

deadish

New member
Dec 4, 2011
694
0
0
008Zulu said:
Obvious patent troll is obvious.

Did Tomita develop, market or try to do anything with the patent? Since they haven't released anything, we can say No.
Not for you to decide I'm afraid.

hazydawn said:
This patent system is a disease.
From the company that issue Youtube take down notices of videos with their games because it "violates their Intellectual Property", forgive me if I don't feel all the much sympathy.
 

WeepingAngels

New member
May 18, 2013
1,722
0
0
RT said:
Good. Anything that takes money away from Nintendo makes me happy.
Why?

Such a shame I can't just ask why. All I really want to ask is why but since I have to add more to avoid a warning....

You must really hate Nintendo, did they make your 360 red ring or something? Did they hack Mario into your Halo game?
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
WeepingAngels said:
RT said:
Good. Anything that takes money away from Nintendo makes me happy.
Why?

Such a shame I can't just ask why. All I really want to ask is why but since I have to add more to avoid a warning....

You must really hate Nintendo, did they make your 360 red ring or something? Did they hack Mario into your Halo game?
Well OF COURSE. Anyone who doesn't like Nintendo is a Halo-loving frat boy! While we're at it, you could ask if they made me spill Mtn Dew on a 360. And I don't even own a 360.

Yeah, I don't like Nintendo. They are hugely overrated.
 

heroicbob

New member
Aug 25, 2010
153
0
0
I googled nintendo patent lawsuit and it seems they have been sued over patents for every console launch since the nintendo 64
 

WeepingAngels

New member
May 18, 2013
1,722
0
0
RT said:
WeepingAngels said:
RT said:
Good. Anything that takes money away from Nintendo makes me happy.
Why?

Such a shame I can't just ask why. All I really want to ask is why but since I have to add more to avoid a warning....

You must really hate Nintendo, did they make your 360 red ring or something? Did they hack Mario into your Halo game?
Well OF COURSE. Anyone who doesn't like Nintendo is a Halo-loving frat boy! While we're at it, you could ask if they made me spill Mtn Dew on a 360. And I don't even own a 360.

Yeah, I don't like Nintendo. They are hugely overrated.
It was the best I could come up with. I didn't even want to type anything more than "Why" but we are on the Escapist.

I think Taco Bell is hugely overrated but I wouldn't want anyone to take money from them.
 

WeepingAngels

New member
May 18, 2013
1,722
0
0
heroicbob said:
I googled nintendo patent lawsuit and it seems they have been sued over patents for every console launch since the nintendo 64
Maybe it's getting to the point that next time they will be sued for packaging their console in *Cardboard.


* = Trademarked.
 

Covarr

PS Thanks
May 29, 2009
1,559
0
0
-Dragmire- said:
I might be off in this but in the Ocarina of Time remake, you can aim/look around using the cameras on the back of the display. Could the patent be interpreted to mean something like this?

Unless it's about looking at the user, and changing the angle of the screens to sustain the 3d illusion at different distances/angles. That, the 3DS definitely doesn't do.

...Or am I off on both accounts?
Bingo, you got it right the second time. I don't know how Tomita finagled their way to a victory here, unless the judge REALLY didn't understand the technology involved.

P.S. Thanks
 

Roxas1359

Burn, Burn it All!
Aug 8, 2009
33,758
0
0
Covarr said:
Bingo, you got it right the second time. I don't know how Tomita finagled their way to a victory here, unless the judge REALLY didn't understand the technology involved.

P.S. Thanks
Well the trial was held in the United States for a reason Covarr. XD
Let's just be glad that they didn't sue them in Texas, because the fines for it when suing there could actually put Nintendo down a few billions. (believe me it's bad)
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
WeepingAngels said:
RT said:
WeepingAngels said:
RT said:
Good. Anything that takes money away from Nintendo makes me happy.
Why?

Such a shame I can't just ask why. All I really want to ask is why but since I have to add more to avoid a warning....

You must really hate Nintendo, did they make your 360 red ring or something? Did they hack Mario into your Halo game?
Well OF COURSE. Anyone who doesn't like Nintendo is a Halo-loving frat boy! While we're at it, you could ask if they made me spill Mtn Dew on a 360. And I don't even own a 360.

Yeah, I don't like Nintendo. They are hugely overrated.
It was the best I could come up with. I didn't even want to type anything more than "Why" but we are on the Escapist.

I think Taco Bell is hugely overrated but I wouldn't want anyone to take money from them.
I have no idea. Never had a taco in my entire life. Nachos are definitely overrated, I'd take potato chips over them any day.
 

WeepingAngels

New member
May 18, 2013
1,722
0
0
RT said:
WeepingAngels said:
RT said:
WeepingAngels said:
RT said:
Good. Anything that takes money away from Nintendo makes me happy.
Why?

Such a shame I can't just ask why. All I really want to ask is why but since I have to add more to avoid a warning....

You must really hate Nintendo, did they make your 360 red ring or something? Did they hack Mario into your Halo game?
Well OF COURSE. Anyone who doesn't like Nintendo is a Halo-loving frat boy! While we're at it, you could ask if they made me spill Mtn Dew on a 360. And I don't even own a 360.

Yeah, I don't like Nintendo. They are hugely overrated.
It was the best I could come up with. I didn't even want to type anything more than "Why" but we are on the Escapist.

I think Taco Bell is hugely overrated but I wouldn't want anyone to take money from them.
I have no idea. Never had a taco in my entire life. Nachos are definitely overrated, I'd take potato chips over them any day.
Well, I am sure potato chips are patented. I wonder if everyone has to pay royalties to fry up some potatoes.
 

Roxas1359

Burn, Burn it All!
Aug 8, 2009
33,758
0
0
WeepingAngels said:
Well, I am sure potato chips are patented. I wonder if everyone has to pay royalties to fry up some potatoes.
Well no, because you can't patent anything like that really since cooking oils and frying oils, along with potatoes, are derived from natural resources. You can't patent a natural resource. God help us if you could.
Also, patents are used mainly for technology and not food. Names are often trademarked, but that's usually for brands so then no one can actually use it against the company that is named that. Patent and Trademark laws are necessary, but are a bit outdated and as a result have been abused by patent trolls like Samsung and Apple.

Anyway, he said he doesn't like Nintendo because he finds them overrated, isn't that a good enough answer?
 

Aiddon_v1legacy

New member
Nov 19, 2009
3,672
0
0
Probably just another patent troll. In all honesty I wish him no good fortune. I just don't get why this was done in America and not Japan.
 

Roxas1359

Burn, Burn it All!
Aug 8, 2009
33,758
0
0
Aiddon said:
Probably just another patent troll. In all honesty I wish him no good fortune. I just don't get why this was done in America and not Japan.
It was a US patent that was in the case with licensing in the US. If it were a Japanese patent then it would have been tried in Japan.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
This is why I think patents should have an expiry date, so if the technology is not utilized by the patent holder within a certain amount of time then the patent expires and has to be renewed.
 

Flutterguy

New member
Jun 26, 2011
970
0
0
Covarr said:
If you read the patent, it's about using 3D cameras to determine user location, and adjusting 3D display accordingly. Notably, the 3DS doesn't even do this. I can't believe Tomita won this.

P.S. Thanks
Although they should have done that. Would have made the 3D playable for me. Standing at close to 7' playing a console that requires me to hold my face as far away as a child would.. can't be good for my back.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
2,022
51
53
Country
USA
Neronium said:
While the current system is an entire joke, patents are actually needed in some way because without them nothing would be stopping other companies from outright stealing the same exact technology that another company uses and call it their own.
Patents are an excuse to make money off of other people's work and since patents are for all intents and purposes monopolies they keep the creator from having to work to make sure their product is anything more than barely acceptable since they are the only ones who can legally provide that product. What should be stopping companies from stealing the tech and calling it their own is not patents but the original owner providing a superior product to any upstarts who try to steal it from them and as a result putting those companies out of business. If they can't do this then they don't deserve to still have that product.
 

Chaos Marine

New member
Feb 6, 2008
571
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
FalloutJack said:
EDIT: Wait. Two Japanese corporations and a US federal judge rule. Don't...they have ways of handling this in Japan?
Reaper195 said:
I don't.....I don't understand this. A US judge decided this. A Japanese company that used unlicensed tech from another Japanese company....why is this not being dealt with in-country? I'm not being all "Oh, america needs to fuck off and stop oplicing the world and other such nonsense". I genuinely don't know and want to.
This is a US patent and a device licensed and sold in the US. These claims then run into issues within the US.

Ed130 said:
Is that true?
No.

Well, sort of. The patent dispute is in part about the cameras and the way they pick up and display an image. The image shifting is part of the patent but not the issue in dispute here. Nor, strictly speaking, is the 3D display itself.

You can find the rulings on the proceedings thus far online if you really want. I'd recommend not taking someone's word for it, as the prior poster seems to have an incomplete understanding.

That being said, it's still an anal decision. But honestly, what does one expect from law in the first place?
How would one enforce this at all?
 

OldNewNewOld

New member
Mar 2, 2011
1,494
0
0
FalloutJack said:
Aaand that was the death of 3D handheld gaming right there. Ouch.

EDIT: Wait. Two Japanese corporations and a US federal judge rule. Don't...they have ways of handling this in Japan?
They have, but bullshit accusation from patent trolls wouldn't pass anywhere besides the US court.
Remember, Samsung has to pay Apple because Apple has patented the rounded rectangle look of a smartphone in the US.

immortalfrieza said:
Neronium said:
While the current system is an entire joke, patents are actually needed in some way because without them nothing would be stopping other companies from outright stealing the same exact technology that another company uses and call it their own.
Patents are an excuse to make money off of other people's work and since patents are for all intents and purposes monopolies they keep the creator from having to work to make sure their product is anything more than barely acceptable since they are the only ones who can legally provide that product. What should be stopping companies from stealing the tech and calling it their own is not patents but the original owner providing a superior product to any upstarts who try to steal it from them and as a result putting those companies out of business. If they can't do this then they don't deserve to still have that product.
Actually patents are there to prevent big companies from monopolizing your idea.
A small inventor would stand no chance if he couldn't protect his inventions via patenting.

Big companies who have much more money, established advertisement, development and transportation routes could much faster, easier and cheaper develop the same item than the original inventor. The big companies would sell the items much easier than a small company or even a single person.

Patents are must in order to protect the market from monopolies and the original owner. Hell, patents even encourage literally everyone to try and come up with new ideas because everyone can profit from them, which leads to a faster and better development of the industry.
 

Hairless Mammoth

New member
Jan 23, 2013
1,595
0
0
I found a link describing the case and patent in a little more detail. They got a lot of similarities between the two designs but it's hard to tell if Nintendo copied it. They still could have seen this patent and said "well maybe we should drop the 3D cameras or design a it a bit more different than this." http://www.wassom.com/tomita-v-nintendo-the-first-augmented-reality-patent-infringement-case.html
canadamus_prime said:
This is why I think patents should have an expiry date, so if the technology is not utilized by the patent holder within a certain amount of time then the patent expires and has to be renewed.
US patents last for 20 years from the date of filing for the patent. So, unless they filed for an extension it would make this one last until 2023. It's great for small people and companies to get a start with their idea/invention, but it's also great for a patent troll to hold onto something they had no intention of making or licensing if they really do own the patent. It's also sometimes bad for the inventor that can't get the product on the market themselves and consumers who could have used that device.

Just look at Cracked.com's "6 Inventors Who Changed the World and Got Screwed in Return" or Mary Anderson, the inventor of the windshield wiper. She tried to get it out there and was refused by big corporations, then when the patent expired, it started showing up on a lot of cars in little time. So, maybe patents belonging to companies with legal muscle power should have short expiration dates so they don't use it as patent troll ammo and those that belong to individuals should have something else that doesn't let big business sit around like vultures waiting for something to expire.

Sorry, I went on a little too long. I just hate the abuse this system allows.
 

Olas

Hello!
Dec 24, 2011
3,226
0
0
Ya, because there's just no fucking way Nintendo could possibly have created the 3DS on their own without the vital and unsubstitutable help of Tomita Technologies. Autostereoscopy in a portable device truly is a bold and unforeseen concept that would never have seen the light of day otherwise.[/sarcasm]

I mean come on, is this a joke? Is every single device that uses 3D without glasses going to have to pay the same royalties now, or did Nintendo fall into some sort of specific technical crack? My smartphone has a 3D screen too, are these assholes going to hunt down HTC too?

008Zulu said:
Obvious patent troll is obvious.

Did Tomita develop, market or try to do anything with the patent? Since they haven't released anything, we can say No.
Pffff why go through all the trouble to do that when you can just let someone else do it for you and then start taking money from them.

amaranth_dru said:
I'd like to see patent law change slightly to be where in these cases the patent holder must prove his actual physical technology they produced and developed is found in whatever device or programming they're suing.
To me I think it's more important that the original patent holder prove that they had actually tried/intended to do something with the technology and not just sit on it. If they don't do anything with the technology they've patented all they've done is put red tape around an invention that was going to be created sooner or later anyway. Patents were designed to incentivize innovation, not prohibit it.

RT said:
Good. Anything that takes money away from Nintendo makes me happy.
Ya, fuck those guys who've brought joy to millions of children around the world for decades and have never harmed you in any way. What fucking nerve they must have right?

I mean it's one thing to just not like a company; it's another to actually express happiness when they have financial trouble.
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
canadamus_prime said:
This is why I think patents should have an expiry date, so if the technology is not utilized by the patent holder within a certain amount of time then the patent expires and has to be renewed.
Patents actually do expire and require regular renewal. Strangely enough in the old days when this was less the case people would invent something genuinely useful like in the case of Mary Anderson who invented the windshield wiper in 1903. The auto companies rejected it and essentially just waited a few years for the patent before putting them on everything they made. Mary never saw so much as a dime for that invention.

Basically nintendo brought this on themselves. they could have just paid the lumpsum that was owed even at 30 mil it would have been a drop in the bucket and then pay royalties but they got greedy and now will be paying out waaaaay more than that... plus the forward royalties. The prhase Nintendo is 'Pay the Piper what he's due'.


immortalfrieza said:
Neronium said:
While the current system is an entire joke, patents are actually needed in some way because without them nothing would be stopping other companies from outright stealing the same exact technology that another company uses and call it their own.
Patents are an excuse to make money off of other people's work and since patents are for all intents and purposes monopolies they keep the creator from having to work to make sure their product is anything more than barely acceptable since they are the only ones who can legally provide that product. What should be stopping companies from stealing the tech and calling it their own is not patents but the original owner providing a superior product to any upstarts who try to steal it from them and as a result putting those companies out of business. If they can't do this then they don't deserve to still have that product.
Said he who never created anything worth patenting. Do you have any idea the time, effort and considerable money that goes into developing anything, much less technology? It can take years of research, quite a few prototypes and then there's the legal matter of actually patenting it. Keep in mind during this entire time you're paying engineers and brutha those bastards ain't cheap. Yeah those inventors are just plain lazy bastards; Spending years of time, money and effort to develop useful technology , shame on them for wanting to be paid for it! Shame on them!
 

Sonic Doctor

Time Lord / Whack-A-Newbie!
Jan 9, 2010
3,042
0
0
WeepingAngels said:
When they announced the 2DS, my first thought was that they were making changes because of this lawsuit. I think that they may even stop production on all 3DS models and go strictly with the 2DS. Maybe we will see a clamshell 2DS or maybe they will go ahead and release a new handheld.

Nintendo doesn't like paying royalties, it's the reason you can't play CD/DVD/Blu Rays on your Nintendo consoles.
Considering that 1.82% is so small, I highly doubt this will stop Nintendo from making 3DS handhelds.

At least in the US, regular 3DS's sell for 169.99. Granted part of that is retail markup. Let's say Nintendo makes 100 dollars off every regular 3DS. That is 1.82 dollars that they have to pay out to this company every time. Really that is a drop in the bucket, considering anybody else in Nintendo that gets a cut from those sales, doesn't get near that percentage, so Nintendo is still making plenty of money off their 3DS. Then you got the higher priced 3DS XL.

They would have to be losing 30% or more of their profits to probably have the thought of stopping production to even enter their minds.
 

person427

New member
May 28, 2009
538
0
0
Neronium said:
Well, this sucks. Sadly no company is free from patent trolls in the world, let's just hope that Apple doesn't one day decide to sue Nintendo for some "touch interface" or something. If company in the world are the most ruthless when it comes to patent trolling, it would be Apple, the lovely company that trademarked rectangles with rounded corners...>.>
Well good thing Nintendo released their touch screen technology first, if Apple tried to sue for that Nintendo could easily just flip it around.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
Hairless Mammoth said:
canadamus_prime said:
This is why I think patents should have an expiry date, so if the technology is not utilized by the patent holder within a certain amount of time then the patent expires and has to be renewed.
US patents last for 20 years from the date of filing for the patent. So, unless they filed for an extension it would make this one last until 2023. It's great for small people and companies to get a start with their idea/invention, but it's also great for a patent troll to hold onto something they had no intention of making or licensing if they really do own the patent. It's also sometimes bad for the inventor that can't get the product on the market themselves and consumers who could have used that device.

Just look at Cracked.com's "6 Inventors Who Changed the World and Got Screwed in Return" or Mary Anderson, the inventor of the windshield wiper. She tried to get it out there and was refused by big corporations, then when the patent expired, it started showing up on a lot of cars in little time. So, maybe patents belonging to companies with legal muscle power should have short expiration dates so they don't use it as patent troll ammo and those that belong to individuals should have something else that doesn't let big business sit around like vultures waiting for something to expire.

Sorry, I went on a little too long. I just hate the abuse this system allows.
BigTuk said:
canadamus_prime said:
This is why I think patents should have an expiry date, so if the technology is not utilized by the patent holder within a certain amount of time then the patent expires and has to be renewed.
Patents actually do expire and require regular renewal. Strangely enough in the old days when this was less the case people would invent something genuinely useful like in the case of Mary Anderson who invented the windshield wiper in 1903. The auto companies rejected it and essentially just waited a few years for the patent before putting them on everything they made. Mary never saw so much as a dime for that invention.

Basically nintendo brought this on themselves. they could have just paid the lumpsum that was owed even at 30 mil it would have been a drop in the bucket and then pay royalties but they got greedy and now will be paying out waaaaay more than that... plus the forward royalties. The prhase Nintendo is 'Pay the Piper what he's due'.
Yes, I realize patients have a long term expiry date, but I think they need a short term one.
And while I do agree that Nintendo did bring this on itself by not paying the lump sum when it had the chance, I can't help but be annoyed at Tomita for not developing the technology themselves and that sueing Nintendo when they did.
 

WeepingAngels

New member
May 18, 2013
1,722
0
0
Sonic Doctor said:
WeepingAngels said:
When they announced the 2DS, my first thought was that they were making changes because of this lawsuit. I think that they may even stop production on all 3DS models and go strictly with the 2DS. Maybe we will see a clamshell 2DS or maybe they will go ahead and release a new handheld.

Nintendo doesn't like paying royalties, it's the reason you can't play CD/DVD/Blu Rays on your Nintendo consoles.
Considering that 1.82% is so small, I highly doubt this will stop Nintendo from making 3DS handhelds.

At least in the US, regular 3DS's sell for 169.99. Granted part of that is retail markup. Let's say Nintendo makes 100 dollars off every regular 3DS. That is 1.82 dollars that they have to pay out to this company every time. Really that is a drop in the bucket, considering anybody else in Nintendo that gets a cut from those sales, doesn't get near that percentage, so Nintendo is still making plenty of money off their 3DS. Then you got the higher priced 3DS XL.

They would have to be losing 30% or more of their profits to probably have the thought of stopping production to even enter their minds.

...and how much in royalties do you suppose Nintendo would have to pay for CD playback in the Wii or Wii U? I am betting much less and they won't even do that.
 

BrainWalker

New member
Aug 6, 2009
179
0
0
RT said:
WeepingAngels said:
RT said:
Good. Anything that takes money away from Nintendo makes me happy.
Why?

Such a shame I can't just ask why. All I really want to ask is why but since I have to add more to avoid a warning....

You must really hate Nintendo, did they make your 360 red ring or something? Did they hack Mario into your Halo game?
Well OF COURSE. Anyone who doesn't like Nintendo is a Halo-loving frat boy! While we're at it, you could ask if they made me spill Mtn Dew on a 360. And I don't even own a 360.

Yeah, I don't like Nintendo. They are hugely overrated.
No, you much more than "dislike" Nintendo. I don't like grapefruit, but I don't hope the harsh winter cuts into the grapefruit harvest and hurts the grapefruit farmers or whatever. No, when you wish harm on someone or something, you've crossed the line from dislike over into hate territory. Yeah, you can definitely argue that Nintendo is overrated, but how does that equate to you being happy that they got screwed in a frivolous lawsuit? That's just petty.

How does someone who identifies with a character from Sonic the Hedgehog hate Nintendo, anyway? Nintendo and Sega are pretty similar companies.
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
canadamus_prime said:
Yes, I realize patients have a long term expiry date, but I think they need a short term one.
And while I do agree that Nintendo did bring this on itself by not paying the lump sum when it had the chance, I can't help but be annoyed at Tomita for not developing the technology themselves and that sueing Nintendo when they did.
It would make no difference, companies have the funds to renew and have little trouble in hiring someone to file the patent renewal at 00:00:01am on the day that patent expires. Aslo you don't actually have to wait for the patent to expire to renew it.

Another scenario is that you'd eventually have something akin to IP Copyright law also known as as the 'Mickey Mouse Law' this is because around every time the limit is up to expire, Disney and the other big creative license holders (marvel, DC, Warner Bros, etc) Lobby to get another 10-20 years added onto the limit.

Remember a lot of US law making is defined by the groups that have the money to throw at politicians.
 

Shamanic Rhythm

New member
Dec 6, 2009
1,653
0
0
Weaver said:
Reaper195 said:
I don't.....I don't understand this. A US judge decided this. A Japanese company that used unlicensed tech from another Japanese company....why is this not being dealt with in-country? I'm not being all "Oh, america needs to fuck off and stop oplicing the world and other such nonsense". I genuinely don't know and want to.
They probably set it up so it would be held in California, Texas, or Washington as they are notorious for favouring patent holders (and companies in General). You'll often find that EULAs stipulate you agree to do court in one of these three places as well, as the judges will almost always uphold the EULA.
And if you think it's bad enough when corporations go 'court shopping' in their attempts to sabotage one another, wait until the US gets everyone to sign up to Investor-State Dispute Settlements. Because then they'll be dragging governments and consumer rights organisations towards whatever court supports their right to make a profit over any other concerns.

Seriously, corporations are well on their way towards having more rights than the average individual.
 

Church185

New member
Apr 15, 2009
609
0
0
Covarr said:
If you read the patent, it's about using 3D cameras to determine user location, and adjusting 3D display accordingly. Notably, the 3DS doesn't even do this. I can't believe Tomita won this.

P.S. Thanks
Considering the 3D cameras point away from the user while playing, I'm assuming they are talking about the technology that makes Faceraiders, the VR card minigames and Pokemon Dream Radar function. The cameras see what you are looking at with the 3DS, and it moves stuff around on screen based on your movements. This seems to fit perfectly with that description. Patent law still needs to be changed, but I think this might be the reason why Tomita won.

lacktheknack said:
quoting for clarity
Ed130 said:
quoting for clarity
Vaccine said:
quoting for clarity
Neronium said:
quoting for clarity
Sorry to everyone I quoted above, I thought you should see my response to Covarr for a different perspective.
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
Reaper195 said:
I don't.....I don't understand this. A US judge decided this. A Japanese company that used unlicensed tech from another Japanese company....why is this not being dealt with in-country? I'm not being all "Oh, america needs to fuck off and stop oplicing the world and other such nonsense". I genuinely don't know and want to.

that's how patent cases usually go. the reason it's in a US court probably has to deal with the 3DS being sold in the US.

Then also dealing with Nintendo of America, the US branch of Nintendo.

It's kind of the reason there are places inside the US where companies will file cases even though neither of the companies actually operate in the state.


so.. basically Tomita found a place that would possibly have some bias towards copyright holders.

Yes, there is a huge bias in the US judicial system. Thinking otherwise will net you with a laugh from most people.
 

Aiddon_v1legacy

New member
Nov 19, 2009
3,672
0
0
BrainWalker said:
No, you much more than "dislike" Nintendo. I don't like grapefruit, but I don't hope the harsh winter cuts into the grapefruit harvest and hurts the grapefruit farmers or whatever. No, when you wish harm on someone or something, you've crossed the line from dislike over into hate territory. Yeah, you can definitely argue that Nintendo is overrated, but how does that equate to you being happy that they got screwed in a frivolous lawsuit? That's just petty.

How does someone who identifies with a character from Sonic the Hedgehog hate Nintendo, anyway? Nintendo and Sega are pretty similar companies.
I never HAVE understood the sheer vindictive hatred some people have towards Nintendo. Anger towards some companies is understandable (like DRM schemes, exploitative DLC, manipulatively hyped titles, etc), but what exactly has Nintendo done to earn people's ire? Is it the Wii? Seriously, if people still haven't gotten over that in the past SEVEN YEARS, then the problem lies with THEM, not Nintendo. Catering to the casual crowd? Thing is, that label is a complete misnomer. The broader market has ALWAYS existed and to not cater to it in some way is financial suicide in any industry. Heck, Sony did the same thing back during the Playstation and PS2 and nobody calls them out on it. Can someone SERIOUSLY find any logical explanation for this contempt towards Nintendo? Because to me all I see is a bunch of hissy fits for Nintendo being SUCCESSFUL and not pandering towards an ever-shrinking demographic that other companies do all the time.
 

Eldritch Warlord

New member
Jun 6, 2008
2,901
0
0
-Dragmire- said:
Covarr said:
If you read the patent, it's about using 3D cameras to determine user location, and adjusting 3D display accordingly. Notably, the 3DS doesn't even do this. I can't believe Tomita won this.

P.S. Thanks
I might be off in this but in the Ocarina of Time remake, you can aim/look around using the cameras on the back of the display. Could the patent be interpreted to mean something like this?

Unless it's about looking at the user, and changing the angle of the screens to sustain the 3d illusion at different distances/angles. That, the 3DS definitely doesn't do.

...Or am I off on both accounts?
Ocarina of Time 3D uses a gyroscope for that, not the cameras. The actual patent in question is:
Patent US7417664 said:
A stereoscopic video image pick-up and display system having a stereoscopic video image pick-up device including two video image pick-ups for outputting video information from the pick-ups; a stereoscopic video image display device for displaying different video images; and a medium for transmitting the video image information from the stereoscopic video image pick-up device to the stereoscopic video image display device. The stereoscopic video image pick-up device includes a cross-point measuring device for measuring CP information on the cross-point (CP) of optical axes of pick-ups and outputs information including the CP information and video image information to the medium. The stereoscopic video image display device includes an offset presetting device for offsetting and displaying different video images based upon the video image information, the cross-point information and information on the size of the image which is displayed by the stereoscopic video image display device.
That's pretty hard to parse (by intent I'm sure) but basically it describes a device which can record and display stereoscopic video. The full patent is more specific than that though, describing various controls and capabilities which the device could have, one of which is using cameras (or SONAR, which I think is hilarious) to determine what to set the "cross-point" at. That's not the basis for the lawsuit however, it was allowed on the basis that the depth-slider on the 3DS constitutes a "physical control which adjusts the cross-point" in that it allows you to turn off the 3D entirely (which is mathematically equivalent to setting the cross-point at an infinite distance).
 

-Dragmire-

King over my mind
Mar 29, 2011
2,821
0
0
Eldritch Warlord said:
-Dragmire- said:
Covarr said:
If you read the patent, it's about using 3D cameras to determine user location, and adjusting 3D display accordingly. Notably, the 3DS doesn't even do this. I can't believe Tomita won this.

P.S. Thanks
I might be off in this but in the Ocarina of Time remake, you can aim/look around using the cameras on the back of the display. Could the patent be interpreted to mean something like this?

Unless it's about looking at the user, and changing the angle of the screens to sustain the 3d illusion at different distances/angles. That, the 3DS definitely doesn't do.

...Or am I off on both accounts?
Ocarina of Time 3D uses a gyroscope for that, not the cameras.
Ah, my mistake then. I just assumed it was the cameras at work when playing the game.


The actual patent in question is:
Patent US7417664 said:
A stereoscopic video image pick-up and display system having a stereoscopic video image pick-up device including two video image pick-ups for outputting video information from the pick-ups; a stereoscopic video image display device for displaying different video images; and a medium for transmitting the video image information from the stereoscopic video image pick-up device to the stereoscopic video image display device. The stereoscopic video image pick-up device includes a cross-point measuring device for measuring CP information on the cross-point (CP) of optical axes of pick-ups and outputs information including the CP information and video image information to the medium. The stereoscopic video image display device includes an offset presetting device for offsetting and displaying different video images based upon the video image information, the cross-point information and information on the size of the image which is displayed by the stereoscopic video image display device.
That's pretty hard to parse (by intent I'm sure) but basically it describes a device which can record and display stereoscopic video. The full patent is more specific than that though, describing various controls and capabilities which the device could have, one of which is using cameras (or SONAR, which I think is hilarious) to determine what to set the "cross-point" at. That's not the basis for the lawsuit however, it was allowed on the basis that the depth-slider on the 3DS constitutes a "physical control which adjusts the cross-point" in that it allows you to turn off the 3D entirely (which is mathematically equivalent to setting the cross-point at an infinite distance).
Holy crap, I agree that patent description is very hard to read!
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
The patent system was initially created to encourage innovation.

Unfortunately, when we removed the requirement to provide a physical implementation of the patent in question, we turned it into a way to encourage profiteering on other people's innovations. It's far too easy to say "I thought of this," without being able to actually create the fantasy in your head, but then being able to profit off of that when somebody else has put in the money, work, and engineering to create something which comes close to the functionality described.

Additionally, without that physical requirement, the number of patents filed has grown to such an extent that it is almost literally impossible to ensure that your own original idea does not infringe on someone else's.

Ideally, the patent system would have a short expiry period, but renewal would be extremely easy and cheap provided that you can demonstrate you have been taking active steps to market or promote the technology used in the patent. It we want it to be used to encourage innovation, then lets have the evidence that a patenter is encouraging its use. If you can't show at least a single refusal letter per year of the patent, it's obvious you're not promoting it and thus have no significant interest in maintaining the patent--at which point it should become public domain.
 

Roxas1359

Burn, Burn it All!
Aug 8, 2009
33,758
0
0
WeepingAngels said:
...and how much in royalties do you suppose Nintendo would have to pay for CD playback in the Wii or Wii U? I am betting much less and they won't even do that.
They don't have to, they developed the CD technology back with the GameCube and have been slightly modifying it since then. I know that this sucks, but it feels like you are grasping for straws with this one. The patent system is abused now, but it doesn't mean the patent system was always bad. Look at Church185's post and you can see why the patent was more than likely successful in the lawsuit. It is terrible that Nintendo lost this suit, and it makes me wish that the old way of how patents were done come back, but the examples you're using to try and show how broken the system is don't really hold up because in Nintendo's case they've only developed 1 disc drive ever, the Nintendo Optical Disc Drive, and have been slightly modifying it over the course of the last 3 consoles. That's why the Wii can read GameCube discs, and the Wii U can read Wii discs, hell the Wii U can actually read GameCube discs as well, but Nintendo blocked them because they're probably gonna do what Sony does with Playstation Classics.

Kwil said:
The patent system was initially created to encourage innovation.

Unfortunately, when we removed the requirement to provide a physical implementation of the patent in question, we turned it into a way to encourage profiteering on other people's innovations.
Yay, someone who knows what patents were originally designed for. :D
*hugs*
 

WeepingAngels

New member
May 18, 2013
1,722
0
0
Neronium said:
WeepingAngels said:
...and how much in royalties do you suppose Nintendo would have to pay for CD playback in the Wii or Wii U? I am betting much less and they won't even do that.
They don't have to, they developed the CD technology back with the GameCube and have been slightly modifying it since then.
When I said CD playback, I meant AUDIO CD playback. I thought everyone knew what CD playback meant.

BTW, Gamecube used mini DVD's.

Nintendo goes out of it's way to avoid paying royalties, it's why you can't play an AUDIO CD, DVD or BLU RAY in any Nintendo console.

ETA: oops, better clarify. I am referring to DVD Video and Blu Ray Video playback.
 

Roxas1359

Burn, Burn it All!
Aug 8, 2009
33,758
0
0
WeepingAngels said:
When I said CD playback, I meant AUDIO CD playback. I thought everyone knew what CD playback meant.

BTW, Gamecube used mini DVD's.

Nintendo goes out of it's way to avoid paying royalties, it's why you can't play an AUDIO CD, DVD or BLU RAY in any Nintendo console.
Actually the Panasonic Q can. As part of the licensing agreement with Nintendo, Panasonic was allowed to build their own version of the GameCube, and the result of it was the Panasonic Q.
The GameQ, as it was known, was capable of audio playback, DVD playablility, as well as still being a GameCube with it's own GameBoy Player. In the back of it it included a port for an optical audio cable to enable 5.1 surround sound, the regular GameCube composite port, and the digital port for the rare GameCube component cables. The system also included an LED display on the front to show what was playing. The only reason it failed was because the system was way too expensive, so it was discontinued in 2003 after being on the market for 2 years. There were two models, a region locked one, and a region free one. The region locked one was $439 and the region free one was $499. The GameQ also had a pretty cool design and chrome plating finsih on it. It's a really good collector's item, and I really want one. >.<

As for the Nintendo Optical Discs, they are modeled after mini-DVDs but they are in their own way an entirely different thing. The Nintendo optical discs are highly modified so that they will only work on Nintendo Optical Drives and since then Panasonic have been the ones who have made a modified Nintendo Optical Disc for each of Nintendo's systems, while the Drive has only been slightly updated. The Wii's is a modified DVD disc, and the Wii U's is a modified Bluray disc.
 

WeepingAngels

New member
May 18, 2013
1,722
0
0
Neronium said:
WeepingAngels said:
When I said CD playback, I meant AUDIO CD playback. I thought everyone knew what CD playback meant.

BTW, Gamecube used mini DVD's.

Nintendo goes out of it's way to avoid paying royalties, it's why you can't play an AUDIO CD, DVD or BLU RAY in any Nintendo console.
Actually the Panasonic Q can. As part of the licensing agreement with Nintendo, Panasonic was allowed to build their own version of the GameCube, and the result of it was the Panasonic Q.
The GameQ, as it was known, was capable of audio playback, DVD playablility, as well as still being a GameCube with it's own GameBoy Player. In the back of it it included a port for an optical audio cable to enable 5.1 surround sound, the regular GameCube composite port, and the digital port for the rare GameCube component cables. The system also included an LED display on the front to show what was playing. The only reason it failed was because the system was way too expensive, so it was discontinued in 2003 after being on the market for 2 years. There were two models, a region locked one, and a region free one. The region locked one was $439 and the region free one was $499. The GameQ also had a pretty cool design and chrome plating finsih on it. It's a really good collector's item, and I really want one. >.<

As for the Nintendo Optical Discs, they are modeled after mini-DVDs but they are in their own way an entirely different thing. The Nintendo optical discs are highly modified so that they will only work on Nintendo Optical Drives and since then Panasonic have been the ones who have made a modified Nintendo Optical Disc for each of Nintendo's systems, while the Drive has only been slightly updated. The Wii's is a modified DVD disc, and the Wii U's is a modified Bluray disc.
Now who is grasping at straws? The Panasonic Q is a....wait for it....it's a Panasonic product and guess who would have to pay the royalties for each one sold? Wait for it...Panasonic!

Shit man, this is getting stupid.
 

Roxas1359

Burn, Burn it All!
Aug 8, 2009
33,758
0
0
WeepingAngels said:
Now who is grasping at straws? The Panasonic Q is a....wait for it....it's a Panasonic product and guess who would have to pay the royalties for each one sold? Wait for it...Panasonic!

Shit man, this is getting stupid.
I'm sorry, I realized it after I typed it that I was grasping.
Can we just agree that while patent laws currently are being abused, there actually is a purpose for it and Nintendo can always just file an appeal.
And would Nintendo have to pay Panasonic royalties anyway since Panasonic are the ones who are making the drives and discs for Nintendo in the first place.
 

WeepingAngels

New member
May 18, 2013
1,722
0
0
Neronium said:
WeepingAngels said:
Now who is grasping at straws? The Panasonic Q is a....wait for it....it's a Panasonic product and guess who would have to pay the royalties for each one sold? Wait for it...Panasonic!

Shit man, this is getting stupid.
I'm sorry, I realized it after I typed it that I was grasping.
Can we just agree that while patent laws currently are being abused, there actually is a purpose for it and Nintendo can always just file an appeal.
And would Nintendo have to pay Panasonic royalties anyway since Panasonic are the ones who are making the drives and discs for Nintendo in the first place.
Nintendo is buying the drives from Panasonic, doubt there are royalties involved.

I am just saying that Nintendo goes out of their way to avoid paying royalties. No matter how much people ask for it, they refuse to implement Audio CD, DVD or Blu Ray playback. Now Nintendo is in a position to where it has to pay royalties, I think they will do what they can to put a stop to that, including stopping production on the 3DS.

Sure I agree that the patent laws are being abused. That was never my point though.
 

Roxas1359

Burn, Burn it All!
Aug 8, 2009
33,758
0
0
WeepingAngels said:
Now Nintendo is in a position to where it has to pay royalties, I think they will do what they can to put a stop to that, including stopping production on the 3DS.
2DS isn't covered by the lawsuit in this case though, so I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo focuses more on the 2DS instead of the 3DS. So we can see that one reason for the 2DS would be to cushion away from the possibilities if they were to lose the lawsuit. As for the 3DS XL I don't know what they'll do about that one since lately Nintendo's been going "special edition" crazy with the XLs.
 

WeepingAngels

New member
May 18, 2013
1,722
0
0
Neronium said:
WeepingAngels said:
Now Nintendo is in a position to where it has to pay royalties, I think they will do what they can to put a stop to that, including stopping production on the 3DS.
2DS isn't covered by the lawsuit in this case though, so I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo focuses more on the 2DS instead of the 3DS. So we can see that one reason for the 2DS would be to cushion away from the possibilities if they were to lose the lawsuit. As for the 3DS XL I don't know what they'll do about that one since lately Nintendo's been going "special edition" crazy with the XLs.
The funny thing is, I thought they lost this lawsuit in early 2013. Did they appeal and lose again?

Anyway, I think the 2DS is the answer to this lawsuit. I think people should brace themselves to lose the 3D in the future. Naturally 3D won't stop working on models already made but new games may drop the 3D altogether.

I officially request a clamshell 2DS that does NOT mutilate itself.
 

Roxas1359

Burn, Burn it All!
Aug 8, 2009
33,758
0
0
WeepingAngels said:
The funny thing is, I thought they lost this lawsuit in early 2013. Did they appeal and lose again?

Anyway, I think the 2DS is the answer to this lawsuit. I think people should brace themselves to lose the 3D in the future. Naturally 3D won't stop working on models already made but new games may drop the 3D altogether.

I officially request a clamshell 2DS that does NOT mutilate itself.
After doing more research I found that yes, they lost the appeal in the appeals court. One thing to note is that Nintendo gets these sorts of lawsuits every year, but this is the only one that won. So it can be inferred that this case had more evidence that we are just not seeing in this case because Nintendo rarely loses cases unless they are at fault (see the Mario Party lawsuit).
I like to think now that the 2DS' real purpose was to counteract paying royalties in case they were to lose the appeal, and people just inferred that it was for kids. I do see the possibility of a clampshell design for the 2DS now as well. Nintendo's still gonna have to pay a pretty penny though for this.
 

Weaver

Overcaffeinated
Apr 28, 2008
8,977
0
0
Shamanic Rhythm said:
Seriously, corporations are well on their way towards having more rights than the average individual.
I personally feel they already do! An individual can't lobby a bill through senate, a company can.
 

NearLifeExperience

New member
Oct 21, 2012
281
0
0
I'm very pleased with this, give Nintendo a taste of their own medicine!

FalloutJack said:
Aaand that was the death of 3D handheld gaming right there. Ouch.
Implying that the 3DS wasn't doomed already? I think the fact that they released a 2DS is pretty much a testament of that. It's basically Nintendo saying "Hey, remember when we had this 3d thing? Yeah, we know that was shit"
 

WeepingAngels

New member
May 18, 2013
1,722
0
0
Neronium said:
WeepingAngels said:
The funny thing is, I thought they lost this lawsuit in early 2013. Did they appeal and lose again?

Anyway, I think the 2DS is the answer to this lawsuit. I think people should brace themselves to lose the 3D in the future. Naturally 3D won't stop working on models already made but new games may drop the 3D altogether.

I officially request a clamshell 2DS that does NOT mutilate itself.
After doing more research I found that yes, they lost the appeal in the appeals court. One thing to note is that Nintendo gets these sorts of lawsuits every year, but this is the only one that won. So it can be inferred that this case had more evidence that we are just not seeing in this case because Nintendo rarely loses cases unless they are at fault (see the Mario Party lawsuit).
I like to think now that the 2DS' real purpose was to counteract paying royalties in case they were to lose the appeal, and people just inferred that it was for kids. I do see the possibility of a clampshell design for the 2DS now as well. Nintendo's still gonna have to pay a pretty penny though for this.
They will want to cut their losses though. I hope the clamshell 2DS doesn't scratch itself.

I never used the 3D anyway because I was always getting double vision but the 3D was the justification for the 3DS being as weak as it is, it had to render twice or something like that. On NeoGaf people seem to think the reason we don't have SNES Virtual Console games is because the 3DS is too weak. Without the 3D....well the gap between the Nintendo's handheld and the Vita or mobile devices will seem even bigger. I am just thinking outloud now.
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
008Zulu said:
Obvious patent troll is obvious.

Did Tomita develop, market or try to do anything with the patent? Since they haven't released anything, we can say No.
Ehhh... I don't think you understand how patent works.

I am no expert, but even I know you can have claims over patent infringement even if you never created a marketable product with it. In fact, in a perfect world, patent laws were created to protect people doing that...
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
BrainWalker said:
RT said:
WeepingAngels said:
RT said:
Good. Anything that takes money away from Nintendo makes me happy.
Why?

Such a shame I can't just ask why. All I really want to ask is why but since I have to add more to avoid a warning....

You must really hate Nintendo, did they make your 360 red ring or something? Did they hack Mario into your Halo game?
Well OF COURSE. Anyone who doesn't like Nintendo is a Halo-loving frat boy! While we're at it, you could ask if they made me spill Mtn Dew on a 360. And I don't even own a 360.

Yeah, I don't like Nintendo. They are hugely overrated.
No, you much more than "dislike" Nintendo. I don't like grapefruit, but I don't hope the harsh winter cuts into the grapefruit harvest and hurts the grapefruit farmers or whatever. No, when you wish harm on someone or something, you've crossed the line from dislike over into hate territory. Yeah, you can definitely argue that Nintendo is overrated, but how does that equate to you being happy that they got screwed in a frivolous lawsuit? That's just petty.

How does someone who identifies with a character from Sonic the Hedgehog hate Nintendo, anyway? Nintendo and Sega are pretty similar companies.
I had (and have) a Sega MegaDrive. Does that make everything clear?
OlasDAlmighty said:
RT said:
Good. Anything that takes money away from Nintendo makes me happy.
Ya, fuck those guys who've brought joy to millions of children around the world for decades and have never harmed you in any way. What fucking nerve they must have right?

I mean it's one thing to just not like a company; it's another to actually express happiness when they have financial trouble.
Financial trouble? Puh-leease, 1.82 percent is a drop in the sea. Yeah, it's a lot of money, but it's a lot of money taken from a GIGANTIC FUCKTON of money.
 

WeepingAngels

New member
May 18, 2013
1,722
0
0
RT said:
Financial trouble? Puh-leease, 1.82 percent is a drop in the sea. Yeah, it's a lot of money, but it's a lot of money taken from a GIGANTIC FUCKTON of money.
That's the attitude that would make a corporation go broke. If they don't care about where 2% of their profit goes 50 times then they have no profit.
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
WeepingAngels said:
RT said:
Financial trouble? Puh-leease, 1.82 percent is a drop in the sea. Yeah, it's a lot of money, but it's a lot of money taken from a GIGANTIC FUCKTON of money.
That's the attitude that would make a corporation go broke. If they don't care about where 2% of their profit goes 50 times then they have no profit.
Well, then they should work on it. I, on the other hand, will cherish their defeats.
 

WeepingAngels

New member
May 18, 2013
1,722
0
0
RT said:
WeepingAngels said:
RT said:
Financial trouble? Puh-leease, 1.82 percent is a drop in the sea. Yeah, it's a lot of money, but it's a lot of money taken from a GIGANTIC FUCKTON of money.
That's the attitude that would make a corporation go broke. If they don't care about where 2% of their profit goes 50 times then they have no profit.
Well, then they should work on it. I, on the other hand, will cherish their defeats.
Really, what did Nintendo do to make you hate them into bankruptcy?
 

Lunar Templar

New member
Sep 20, 2009
8,225
0
0
-.- Good going asshole. Way to set hand held gaming back a few years.

RT said:
Good. Anything that takes money away from Nintendo makes me happy.
$20 says they won't continue the 3DS and just go with the 2DS cause this blatant patient troll managed to win. Cause lets be honest, no one bought a 3DS for that 3D bullshit (which I never have on)
 

Mersadeon

New member
Jun 8, 2010
350
0
0
Ok, I'm not gonna stick my neck into this discussion, I am just going to ask: what does "unearthed windfall" mean? I have never heard this phrase before - it sounds like someone translated something literally that shouldn't have been.
 

Roxas1359

Burn, Burn it All!
Aug 8, 2009
33,758
0
0
Mersadeon said:
Ok, I'm not gonna stick my neck into this discussion, I am just going to ask: what does "unearthed windfall"? I have never heard this phrase before - it sounds like someone translated something literally that shouldn't have been.
Windfall in this case apparently means "good fortune or personal gain" so in this meaning it's basically that Tomita unearthed good fortune.
Hope that helps.
 
Jan 22, 2011
450
0
0
Neronium said:
WeepingAngels said:
Well, I am sure potato chips are patented. I wonder if everyone has to pay royalties to fry up some potatoes.
Well no, because you can't patent anything like that really since cooking oils and frying oils, along with potatoes, are derived from natural resources. You can't patent a natural resource. God help us if you could.
Also, patents are used mainly for technology and not food. Names are often trademarked, but that's usually for brands so then no one can actually use it against the company that is named that. Patent and Trademark laws are necessary, but are a bit outdated and as a result have been abused by patent trolls like Samsung and Apple.

Anyway, he said he doesn't like Nintendo because he finds them overrated, isn't that a good enough answer?
Actually you patent natural resources if you genetically engineer/change it to grow faster/better. So in short yes you can patent such stuff if you have enough money.
http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/product-patents.aspx

On the case at hand why wasn't this handled in japan?? I can not fathom why they would use our court system to settle something between 2 private companies from their country.
 

Roxas1359

Burn, Burn it All!
Aug 8, 2009
33,758
0
0
Cecilthedarkknight_234 said:
Actually you patent natural resources if you genetically engineer/change it to grow faster/better. So in short yes you can patent such stuff if you have enough money.
http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/product-patents.aspx

On the case at hand why wasn't this handled in japan?? I can not fathom why they would use our court system to settle something between 2 private companies from their country.
Ah, I was mistaken then. Thanks for the correction.
Anyway, the reason this one was handled in the US is because this is a patent that was filed in the United States and so it had to be tried there. Some patents you have to go into many different countries to patent it since trademark and patent laws might differ in different countries.
 

Zipa

batlh bIHeghjaj.
Dec 19, 2010
1,489
0
0
While it sucks that a patent troll won out it is also very hard to feel sorry for Nintendo after they made a big deal of people lets playing their games on youtube.
 

Lunar Templar

New member
Sep 20, 2009
8,225
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Lunar Templar said:
-.- Good going asshole. Way to set hand held gaming back a few years.
How, exactly, will this set handheld gaming back at all?
Sure, 3D tech blows hard now and is nothing more then a really bad gimmick, but who knows, it could have been further refined and made to not suck, if not by Nintendo then by some one else.

sure its a stretch but he's still a patent troll, and morons like him do more harm then good when it comes to getting things developed and moving things forward.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
BigTuk said:
canadamus_prime said:
Yes, I realize patients have a long term expiry date, but I think they need a short term one.
And while I do agree that Nintendo did bring this on itself by not paying the lump sum when it had the chance, I can't help but be annoyed at Tomita for not developing the technology themselves and that sueing Nintendo when they did.
It would make no difference, companies have the funds to renew and have little trouble in hiring someone to file the patent renewal at 00:00:01am on the day that patent expires. Aslo you don't actually have to wait for the patent to expire to renew it.

Another scenario is that you'd eventually have something akin to IP Copyright law also known as as the 'Mickey Mouse Law' this is because around every time the limit is up to expire, Disney and the other big creative license holders (marvel, DC, Warner Bros, etc) Lobby to get another 10-20 years added onto the limit.

Remember a lot of US law making is defined by the groups that have the money to throw at politicians.
Well something has to be put in place to prevent patent trolling.
 

AuronFtw

New member
Nov 29, 2010
514
0
0
WeepingAngels said:
Really, what did Nintendo do to make you hate them into bankruptcy?
Threaten the livelihoods of hundreds of lets-players and similar entertainers with any amount of gameplay footage in any of their videos on youtube by smacking them with universal, one-size-fits-all DMCA notices, leading to account closures and forfeitures of profit?

If a company as big as Nintendo is literally going out of their way to fuck consumers over, fuck them. Lets play and similar videos is getting them, in essence, free publicity. The people buy their games, play their games and show other people their games, and Nintendo wants to shit all over their work and effort and, in essence, steal their money.

So when a company comes and does the exact same thing back to them, I don't care at all. Call it karma. Maybe if they weren't bitches this wouldn't have happened. And if they weren't bitches and it happened anyway, I might have felt some sympathy. But as it stands, it's one multinational anti-consumer corporation getting fucked over by another. Yawn-o-rama.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,760
0
0
Lunar Templar said:
Sure, 3D tech blows hard now and is nothing more then a really bad gimmick, but who knows, it could have been further refined and made to not suck, if not by Nintendo then by some one else.
And how can it not be done now?

Do you understand that the crux of the case isn't so much about using a 3D screen but the way the augmented reality games are handled?

3D gaming can still go forward in multiple ways. It can go forward as Nintendo has done it with actual royalties paid, it can go forward in a modified, non-patent violating fashion, or it can stop altogether. But painting the last as the only option is ridiculous.

And while we're on the subject, patent troll or not, the duty is with Nintendo to make sure they're not violating a patent before they manufacture and sell their device.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
amaranth_dru said:
I'd like to see patent law change slightly to be where in these cases the patent holder must prove his actual physical technology they produced and developed is found in whatever device or programming they're suing.
Not really practical. The idea behind patents and copyrights is to protect someone's ideas or innovations. Basically so someone can't come up with something clever, and a very basic idea on how it could be achieved, bring it to a company looking for funding, be rejected, and then have the company turn around and use an idea that never would have occurred to them to make truckloads of money while cutting the creator out of the loop, pretending it was their idea all along.

See, it can take tons of money to even develop a prototype of something, so inventors are always running around looking for financing for their ideas.

Where things get tricky is when someone comes up with an idea, and then instead of developing it immediately, a company decides to buy the rights to the idea/patent specifically so nobody else can make it OR so they can use it at a later date (or more recently to jump on someone who might later have a similar idea). Gas and Oil companies for example have long been criticized for buying up plans for fuel efficient engines and such, specifically because they don't want anyone to make them so people will buy more gas and put it into their pockets.

As I understand it there are some limitations on patents already, an idea has to meet certain criteria before you can put a patent on it. You cannot say "I am patenting the idea of a ship that flies through space!", you have to get a bit more specific than that, but at the same time you don't need to actually have a model or proof of concept (or even the ability to make what your talking about).

For the most part the system works, and it tends to be pretty fair. Dilbert occasionally makes fun of the relationship between innovators and engineers (and conversely what can happen when someone with an idea and patent manages to achieve a relationship with a corporation or other backer which in turn puts it's people on making it actually happen).

As things seem here, your dealing with a legitimate corporation that apparently had this particular style of 3D patented, at least as a fairly specific concept. Given that for all of it's money and resources Nintendo hasn't apparently made any headway, it seems like the details are probably pretty damning, and chances are they stole the technology outright as opposed to this being a case where it's entirely a patent technicality. Tomita doesn't seem to
be chasing after everyone involved in the 3D fad or other 3d viewing devices, so again, it doesn't seem like they are a troll thrashing around, chasing everyone and anything for a payday... at least not from how this looks from what I've read here.

As far as some of the people wondering why the US is involved, the US is pretty much the global center of business, and with all of the different countries involved in business nowadays most generally contract themselves to settle disputes under US law. It's not unusual, and one of the things that both makes us powerful, and explains why we are so powerful globally. It's also why there are such tensions with China over their refusal to acknowledge IP rights (patents, copyrights, etc...) and why companies like Pfizers (French/US) have tried to appeal to the US to take stronger action against China for not following the laws the rest of the global business community has agreed with.

In short when it comes to a lot of disputes over business, US law is the closest thing there is to global law, as most people agree there has to be some rules. Both companies probably agreed at some point that disagreements involving them would be resolved in the US. If you take a look at a lot of EULAs you'll also notice that the region where legal disputes are handled are mentioned (and you agree to this if you agree to the EULA) typically California is mentioned as it tends to be very pro-business for this kind of thing, but for some things the US federal court system is specified. It's also noteworthy that a lot of large companies maintain offices in California, New York, and other popular venues specifically so they can fit a requirement of having a prescence there, it also means that by having a representative there in a dispute with a normal person outside of that region they can virtually guarantee a victory just by being there if the person can't travel. Apparently there have been cases where in dispute between two parties in a European country over business both have become obligated to travel to the US and resolve it under US law.
 

WeepingAngels

New member
May 18, 2013
1,722
0
0
AuronFtw said:
WeepingAngels said:
Really, what did Nintendo do to make you hate them into bankruptcy?
Threaten the livelihoods of hundreds of lets-players and similar entertainers with any amount of gameplay footage in any of their videos on youtube by smacking them with universal, one-size-fits-all DMCA notices, leading to account closures and forfeitures of profit?

If a company as big as Nintendo is literally going out of their way to fuck consumers over, fuck them. Lets play and similar videos is getting them, in essence, free publicity. The people buy their games, play their games and show other people their games, and Nintendo wants to shit all over their work and effort and, in essence, steal their money.

So when a company comes and does the exact same thing back to them, I don't care at all. Call it karma. Maybe if they weren't bitches this wouldn't have happened. And if they weren't bitches and it happened anyway, I might have felt some sympathy. But as it stands, it's one multinational anti-consumer corporation getting fucked over by another. Yawn-o-rama.
Ok, I can understand that. I completely forgot about that nonsense.
 

Allspice

New member
Mar 1, 2011
107
0
0
AuronFtw said:
WeepingAngels said:
Really, what did Nintendo do to make you hate them into bankruptcy?
Threaten the livelihoods of hundreds of lets-players and similar entertainers with any amount of gameplay footage in any of their videos on youtube by smacking them with universal, one-size-fits-all DMCA notices, leading to account closures and forfeitures of profit?
I don't think there is anything official about it from Nintendo, but I thought they stopped doing that. Or at least, it seemed that way:

http://kotaku.com/nintendos-lets-play-drama-might-have-a-happy-ending-513818999

That was months ago though, so IDK. That was just the last thing I remember hearing about it.

EDIT: I was wrong. How disappointing.
 

Roxas1359

Burn, Burn it All!
Aug 8, 2009
33,758
0
0
Allspice said:
I don't think there is anything official about it from Nintendo, but I thought they stopped doing that. Or at least, it seemed that way:

http://kotaku.com/nintendos-lets-play-drama-might-have-a-happy-ending-513818999

That was months ago though, so IDK. That was just the last thing I remember hearing about it.
You know that huge kerfuffle when YouTube was changing their policies? Nintendo became the number one gaming company to flag videos with even the remotest thing that might have their content. A Podcast that Jim did back when he was with Destructoid had a 10 second clip with Pokemon while they talked, and Nintendo flagged the video. I do LPs myself and can say that Nintendo flagged my Mario Party 2 videos a week ago, and I didn't even monetize them, nor do I ever monetize my videos. >.<
 

Allspice

New member
Mar 1, 2011
107
0
0
Neronium said:
Allspice said:
I don't think there is anything official about it from Nintendo, but I thought they stopped doing that. Or at least, it seemed that way:

http://kotaku.com/nintendos-lets-play-drama-might-have-a-happy-ending-513818999

That was months ago though, so IDK. That was just the last thing I remember hearing about it.
You know that huge kerfuffle when YouTube was changing their policies? Nintendo became the number one gaming company to flag videos with even the remotest thing that might have their content. A Podcast that Jim did back when he was with Destructoid had a 10 second clip with Pokemon while they talked, and Nintendo flagged the video. I do LPs myself and can say that Nintendo flagged my Mario Party 2 videos a week ago, and I didn't even monetize them, nor do I ever monetize my videos. >.<
Yikes... :/ I was wrong then. That's incredibly disappointing, I'm sorry you have to deal with that. :(

I hate it when companies I like do things like this...can't there just be one that doesn't? >:[ :sigh: It's getting to the point where I expect to be disappointed by all of them and if they don't disappoint I'm shocked.

Captcha: Stone soup. No thanks, captcha. Gonna admit, that made me feel a bit better. Stone soup...lol.
 

Roxas1359

Burn, Burn it All!
Aug 8, 2009
33,758
0
0
Allspice said:
Yikes...:/ I was wrong then. That's incredibly disappointing, I'm sorry you have to deal with that. :(

I hate it when companies I like do things like this...can't there just be one that doesn't? >:[ :sigh:

Captcha: Stone soup. No thanks, captcha. XD
Captcha just wants to make sure you're getting your daily supply of...iron? XD

Anyway, it's not like I wasn't aware of this being a possibility, which is why I made sure not to really do Nintendo games on YouTube because Nintendo has something against them. The only other one of mine on there is Luigi's Mansion, and if that one gets flagged I will be very disappointed.

Really the smaller channels have always had to deal with these problems, and the worst companies when it comes to flagging for the littlest of things are Nintendo and SEGA, although SEGA's been more lenient with me for some reason. The only companies that really allow it would be indie companies because they benefit from the exposure.

I've already stated on my channel that because of the whole Mario Party 2 thing, which was 12 episodes at the time before I had to remove it, I'm only doing Nintendo games on Game Anyone and videos from their can't be taken down by false flags as you must provide proof that you own the copyright or issue a DMCA takedown. According to the site owner, apparently Sony has been very kind to Game Anyone since it's founding back in 2006, with Microsoft being okay at times, and Nintendo not really bothering as much (although I don't think they know it exists).
 

alj

Master of Unlocking
Nov 20, 2009
335
0
0
Did they make a product with the screen in ? If they did not they should not get a penny and are a clear patent troll. Even if they did the idea is solution that anyone would come up with if tasked to design such a system. it would be like a building company painting walls to hold up a roof.
 

BrainWalker

New member
Aug 6, 2009
179
0
0
RT said:
BrainWalker said:
No, you much more than "dislike" Nintendo. I don't like grapefruit, but I don't hope the harsh winter cuts into the grapefruit harvest and hurts the grapefruit farmers or whatever. No, when you wish harm on someone or something, you've crossed the line from dislike over into hate territory. Yeah, you can definitely argue that Nintendo is overrated, but how does that equate to you being happy that they got screwed in a frivolous lawsuit? That's just petty.

How does someone who identifies with a character from Sonic the Hedgehog hate Nintendo, anyway? Nintendo and Sega are pretty similar companies.
I had (and have) a Sega MegaDrive. Does that make everything clear?
Well, I guess it would explain the animosity if this were 15 years ago. I was a Nintendo kid but I certainly don't hate Sega. Hell, I'm still sad about the Dreamcast.
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
BrainWalker said:
RT said:
BrainWalker said:
No, you much more than "dislike" Nintendo. I don't like grapefruit, but I don't hope the harsh winter cuts into the grapefruit harvest and hurts the grapefruit farmers or whatever. No, when you wish harm on someone or something, you've crossed the line from dislike over into hate territory. Yeah, you can definitely argue that Nintendo is overrated, but how does that equate to you being happy that they got screwed in a frivolous lawsuit? That's just petty.

How does someone who identifies with a character from Sonic the Hedgehog hate Nintendo, anyway? Nintendo and Sega are pretty similar companies.
I had (and have) a Sega MegaDrive. Does that make everything clear?
Well, I guess it would explain the animosity if this were 15 years ago. I was a Nintendo kid but I certainly don't hate Sega. Hell, I'm still sad about the Dreamcast.
And let me disagree about Nintendo and Sega being similar companies. Does Nintendo have anything similar to Ecco? Comix Zone? Streets of Rage? Total War? Shinobi? Crazy Taxi, Space Channel 5, Virtua Fighter, Eternal Champions? The only two remotely similar franchises are Sonic and Mario and that's about it.
 

DiscoRhombus

New member
Jan 6, 2014
31
0
0
AuronFtw said:
WeepingAngels said:
Really, what did Nintendo do to make you hate them into bankruptcy?
Threaten the livelihoods of hundreds of lets-players and similar entertainers with any amount of gameplay footage in any of their videos on youtube by smacking them with universal, one-size-fits-all DMCA notices, leading to account closures and forfeitures of profit?

If a company as big as Nintendo is literally going out of their way to fuck consumers over, fuck them. Lets play and similar videos is getting them, in essence, free publicity. The people buy their games, play their games and show other people their games, and Nintendo wants to shit all over their work and effort and, in essence, steal their money.

So when a company comes and does the exact same thing back to them, I don't care at all. Call it karma. Maybe if they weren't bitches this wouldn't have happened. And if they weren't bitches and it happened anyway, I might have felt some sympathy. But as it stands, it's one multinational anti-consumer corporation getting fucked over by another. Yawn-o-rama.
I really don't understand this train of thought. Why should an individual profit from the work of a game company? If most of these Let's Players didn't have a game to play then we wouldn't watch them. They owe their entire success to the games they play and the companies that develop them. I don't think they deserve to monetise their videos when all they are doing is providing asinine commentary over a copyrighted product.

Let them get a real job. Nintendo has every right to take the ad revenue from those videos.
 

Roxas1359

Burn, Burn it All!
Aug 8, 2009
33,758
0
0
DiscoRhombus said:
Let them get a real job. Nintendo has every right to take the ad revenue from those videos.
I always love it when people say to "get a real job" as if it isn't one. The definition of a job is "a paid position of regular employment" or "a task or piece of work, esp. one that is paid."
Well are LPers regularly employed, getting the money from Google? Yes? Well guess what, it's a job. Just because it's one that you find is easy for some to do, doesn't mean that it isn't a job. Google and the revenue from ads are what pay the LPers when they decide to monetize, so do game companies deserve the money that Google is paying them? No, no they don't because LPs are free advertising for the companies, and quite literally do not cost them a dime in the slightest.
The prevelant thought I see around though seems to be that if the job doesn't make you miserable, then it can't constitute begin a job, which is very sad.
 

ToastyMozart

New member
Mar 13, 2012
224
0
0
008Zulu said:
Obvious patent troll is obvious.

Did Tomita develop, market or try to do anything with the patent? Since they haven't released anything, we can say No.
That's my question.
If they made a functional prototype, or at least some detailed and feasible design documents, then they might have a case, but if one day they just decided "LOL, let's patent the idea of a 3D screen that doesn't require glasses" then they can go fuck themselves.
 
Apr 5, 2008
3,736
0
0
Considering both companies are Japanese, does a US court actually have the power to make such a ruling? I am wondering if the patent holder is trying what the RIAA practised for a time, trying to sue the same thing in various courts around the world till they got the ruling they wanted.

Though I know none of the details of this at all, taking the article at face value, while I am sad to see Nintendo potentially under fire, assuming Tomita really did invent and patent the technology Nintendo are using in their systems then the former have every right to collect a royalty. Making money from someone else's IP without permission or remuneration is pretty much the definition of copyright infringement.
 

BrainWalker

New member
Aug 6, 2009
179
0
0
RT said:
BrainWalker said:
No, you much more than "dislike" Nintendo. I don't like grapefruit, but I don't hope the harsh winter cuts into the grapefruit harvest and hurts the grapefruit farmers or whatever. No, when you wish harm on someone or something, you've crossed the line from dislike over into hate territory. Yeah, you can definitely argue that Nintendo is overrated, but how does that equate to you being happy that they got screwed in a frivolous lawsuit? That's just petty.

How does someone who identifies with a character from Sonic the Hedgehog hate Nintendo, anyway? Nintendo and Sega are pretty similar companies.
Let me disagree about Nintendo and Sega being similar companies. Does Nintendo have anything similar to Ecco? Comix Zone? Streets of Rage? Total War? Shinobi? Crazy Taxi, Space Channel 5, Virtua Fighter, Eternal Champions? The only two remotely similar franchises are Sonic and Mario and that's about it.
I think this is the first time I've ever heard anyone cite the existence of Eternal Champions as a good thing. No, to my knowledge, Nintendo does not have an amusingly terrible excessively 90's time-travel fighting game.

Nintendo and Sega are similar in that they both create imaginative, creative games rather than setting everything they make in the post-apocalypse or a brown and gray battlefield or in Serious Space Drama or whatever. They're also both known for making "cartoony" series and not giving a damn if teenagers all too concerned their budding maturity call such things "kiddy;" although I think Sega always cared a little bit more than Nintendo did. Anyway, they don't need to have franchises that are exactly paralell to make the argument that there are similarities between them.

I'm surprised your list didn't include Jet Set/Grind Radio.
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
BrainWalker said:
RT said:
BrainWalker said:
No, you much more than "dislike" Nintendo. I don't like grapefruit, but I don't hope the harsh winter cuts into the grapefruit harvest and hurts the grapefruit farmers or whatever. No, when you wish harm on someone or something, you've crossed the line from dislike over into hate territory. Yeah, you can definitely argue that Nintendo is overrated, but how does that equate to you being happy that they got screwed in a frivolous lawsuit? That's just petty.

How does someone who identifies with a character from Sonic the Hedgehog hate Nintendo, anyway? Nintendo and Sega are pretty similar companies.
Let me disagree about Nintendo and Sega being similar companies. Does Nintendo have anything similar to Ecco? Comix Zone? Streets of Rage? Total War? Shinobi? Crazy Taxi, Space Channel 5, Virtua Fighter, Eternal Champions? The only two remotely similar franchises are Sonic and Mario and that's about it.
I think this is the first time I've ever heard anyone cite the existence of Eternal Champions as a good thing. No, to my knowledge, Nintendo does not have an amusingly terrible excessively 90's time-travel fighting game.

Nintendo and Sega are similar in that they both create imaginative, creative games rather than setting everything they make in the post-apocalypse or a brown and gray battlefield or in Serious Space Drama or whatever. They're also both known for making "cartoony" series and not giving a damn if teenagers all too concerned their budding maturity call such things "kiddy;" although I think Sega always cared a little bit more than Nintendo did. Anyway, they don't need to have franchises that are exactly paralell to make the argument that there are similarities between them.

I'm surprised your list didn't include Jet Set/Grind Radio.
Well, then you weren't in the same circles as I, pally, the circles that value an innovative title with some good ideas behind it and just about right amount of balance between borrowing from predecessors (namely SF and MK) and having fresh stuff. Yeah, it's hard and sometimes unfair, but it requires you really learn your character and gives you all the stuff needed to do so. You leave it alone, pal, or I'll have a field day ripping on any N franchise I can remember.
You didn't see Sega in the late-2000s, did you? It did get rather greybrown and needlessly "machur" sometimes. And yes, different franchises do matter. Total freaking War, dude. The RTS of our time, serious as all hell.
Well, sorry, I can't keep everything on the top of my head.
 

VG_Addict

New member
Jul 16, 2013
651
0
0
Tell us how Eternal Champions was good, and not another fighting game trying to ride the coattails of MK and SF.

Does Nintendo have anything similar to Virtua Fighter? You mean other than Smash Bros?

Space Channel 5: Elite Beat Agents.

Now let me turn this question around on you: Did Sega have anything similar to Startropics? Advance Wars? Fire Emblem? Excitebike? Kid Icarus? Pushmo? Sin and Punishment? Star Fox?
 

VG_Addict

New member
Jul 16, 2013
651
0
0
NearLifeExperience said:
I'm very pleased with this, give Nintendo a taste of their own medicine!

FalloutJack said:
Aaand that was the death of 3D handheld gaming right there. Ouch.
Implying that the 3DS wasn't doomed already? I think the fact that they released a 2DS is pretty much a testament of that. It's basically Nintendo saying "Hey, remember when we had this 3d thing? Yeah, we know that was shit"
The 3DS is doomed? The same 3DS that surpassed the Wii in sales in Japan in half the time?
 

NearLifeExperience

New member
Oct 21, 2012
281
0
0
VG_Addict said:
NearLifeExperience said:
I'm very pleased with this, give Nintendo a taste of their own medicine!

FalloutJack said:
Aaand that was the death of 3D handheld gaming right there. Ouch.
Implying that the 3DS wasn't doomed already? I think the fact that they released a 2DS is pretty much a testament of that. It's basically Nintendo saying "Hey, remember when we had this 3d thing? Yeah, we know that was shit"
The 3DS is doomed? The same 3DS that surpassed the Wii in sales in Japan in half the time?
Not surprising, Japanese will buy anything with Mario's face on it. And who could blame them, it's their national pride in videogaming.

Maybe 'doomed' is a bit exaggerated, but it sure as hell wasn't a success in the rest of the world.
 

NSGrendel

New member
Jul 1, 2010
110
0
0
NearLifeExperience said:
NSGrendel said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_3DS
Thanks, that might come in handy the next time I forget what a 3DS is (next week, probably)
Never allow facts to get in the way in the "no spin zone", eh?
 

Aiddon_v1legacy

New member
Nov 19, 2009
3,672
0
0
DiscoRhombus said:
I really don't understand this train of thought. Why should an individual profit from the work of a game company? If most of these Let's Players didn't have a game to play then we wouldn't watch them. They owe their entire success to the games they play and the companies that develop them. I don't think they deserve to monetise their videos when all they are doing is providing asinine commentary over a copyrighted product.

Let them get a real job. Nintendo has every right to take the ad revenue from those videos.
Plus, from what I remember, the Youtube Partners EULA is supposed to forbid Let's Plays in the first place. Unless said videos were satirical or educational then those Let's Players weren't playing by the rules and thus they pretty much forfeited the right to monetization the second they did that. Furthermore, I think a lot of the problem laid with Youtube's screening process. There's just too much content to have to sift through; there aren't enough people at desks or hours in the day to go through all the channels and properly screen them. So it always came off as it being more Youtube's fault than anything, like with the latest fiasco.
 

Yopaz

Sarcastic overlord
Jun 3, 2009
6,092
0
0
NearLifeExperience said:
Maybe 'doomed' is a bit exaggerated, but it sure as hell wasn't a success in the rest of the world.
No, it wasn't an exaggeration. It was downright wrong. The 3DS was doing poorly after its launch, but it picked up It's been more than 2 full years since it was doing poorly. A price drop and getting games made it sell quite well. It holds 85% of the handheld market saying that it's doomed seems to be based more on your opinion and hopes rather than actual facts.
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
So, what does this mean exactly? Does this mean the 3DS is over and done with? 15 Million is nothing to sneeze at and I'd seriously hate to see that converted into Japanese Yen (Although, I do have an app for that)
 

Roxas1359

Burn, Burn it All!
Aug 8, 2009
33,758
0
0
CmRet said:
So, what does this mean exactly? Does this mean the 3DS is over and done with? 15 Million is nothing to sneeze at and I'd seriously hate to see that converted into Japanese Yen (Although, I do have an app for that)
It means Nintendo is probably gonna be pushing the 2DS more than the 3DS because they don't have to pay royalties for that device. 15 million is nothing to Nintendo, but the fact that they'd have to pay 1.82% for every 3DS sold adds up over time. Now we just wait for the inevitable 2DS with a clampshell design. XD
 

Dragonbums

Indulge in it's whiffy sensation
May 9, 2013
3,307
0
0
Neronium said:
CmRet said:
So, what does this mean exactly? Does this mean the 3DS is over and done with? 15 Million is nothing to sneeze at and I'd seriously hate to see that converted into Japanese Yen (Although, I do have an app for that)
It means Nintendo is probably gonna be pushing the 2DS more than the 3DS because they don't have to pay royalties for that device. 15 million is nothing to Nintendo, but the fact that they'd have to pay 1.82% for every 3DS sold adds up over time. Now we just wait for the inevitable 2DS with a clampshell design. XD
Or maybe they can coyly change the inner working designs of all future 3DS's so they avoid the patent they are forced to pay royalties for.
 

Roxas1359

Burn, Burn it All!
Aug 8, 2009
33,758
0
0
Dragonbums said:
Or maybe they can coyly change the inner working designs of all future 3DS's so they avoid the patent they are forced to pay royalties for.
In all honesty though, why continue producing 3DS' and XLs when no one uses the 3D at all, and it's way cheaper to produce 2DS' since all R&D for it along with all the productions are done. Mainly the patent infringement in this case wasn't the camera, so Nintendo would have to spend more money then they'd need to in order to modify the 3DS and the XL models so that they don't have to pay royalties. Honestly I don't see Nintendo wasting time on that as much really since unlike how the GameCube's later models were designed without the component jack, this case would require more money and hassle than just focusing on the 2DS which is already out, is way cheaper to produce, and is immune to paying royalties.
 

Someone Depressing

New member
Jan 16, 2011
2,417
0
0
This is a miscarriage of justice. An abortion of rights. A big shit taken on law. A steaming bucket of piss spilled onto creative right.

Tomita is a troll.

And why is it being settled in the US?

I smell a bribe.
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
DiscoRhombus said:
AuronFtw said:
WeepingAngels said:
Really, what did Nintendo do to make you hate them into bankruptcy?
Threaten the livelihoods of hundreds of lets-players and similar entertainers with any amount of gameplay footage in any of their videos on youtube by smacking them with universal, one-size-fits-all DMCA notices, leading to account closures and forfeitures of profit?

If a company as big as Nintendo is literally going out of their way to fuck consumers over, fuck them. Lets play and similar videos is getting them, in essence, free publicity. The people buy their games, play their games and show other people their games, and Nintendo wants to shit all over their work and effort and, in essence, steal their money.

So when a company comes and does the exact same thing back to them, I don't care at all. Call it karma. Maybe if they weren't bitches this wouldn't have happened. And if they weren't bitches and it happened anyway, I might have felt some sympathy. But as it stands, it's one multinational anti-consumer corporation getting fucked over by another. Yawn-o-rama.
I really don't understand this train of thought. Why should an individual profit from the work of a game company? If most of these Let's Players didn't have a game to play then we wouldn't watch them. They owe their entire success to the games they play and the companies that develop them. I don't think they deserve to monetise their videos when all they are doing is providing asinine commentary over a copyrighted product.

Let them get a real job. Nintendo has every right to take the ad revenue from those videos.
And what is a real job?Every time someone says that I always get this image of them being miserable as fuck at their jobs and hate it when someone has a job they actually enjoy.Maybe you should stop being bitter and realize there is no universal definition of a "real job" since anything can be a job if someone makes money off of it.
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
Aiddon said:
DiscoRhombus said:
I really don't understand this train of thought. Why should an individual profit from the work of a game company? If most of these Let's Players didn't have a game to play then we wouldn't watch them. They owe their entire success to the games they play and the companies that develop them. I don't think they deserve to monetise their videos when all they are doing is providing asinine commentary over a copyrighted product.

Let them get a real job. Nintendo has every right to take the ad revenue from those videos.
Plus, from what I remember, the Youtube Partners EULA is supposed to forbid Let's Plays in the first place. Unless said videos were satirical or educational then those Let's Players weren't playing by the rules and thus they pretty much forfeited the right to monetization the second they did that. Furthermore, I think a lot of the problem laid with Youtube's screening process. There's just too much content to have to sift through; there aren't enough people at desks or hours in the day to go through all the channels and properly screen them. So it always came off as it being more Youtube's fault than anything, like with the latest fiasco.
If Youtube wanted to prevent Let's Plays then they would've done years ago,this is only becoming a issue because of greed.But why should Let's Players be forbidden from making money?Because it's a game is the reason from what I've seen from those who gleefully support Youtube's decision to dick over thousands of people who make them money,the sad part is that this extends to people who make games and music as well so those people who support this with petty glee are just spiteful dickwads.
 

Dragonbums

Indulge in it's whiffy sensation
May 9, 2013
3,307
0
0
Neronium said:
Dragonbums said:
Or maybe they can coyly change the inner working designs of all future 3DS's so they avoid the patent they are forced to pay royalties for.
In all honesty though, why continue producing 3DS' and XLs when no one uses the 3D at all, and it's way cheaper to produce 2DS' since all R&D for it along with all the productions are done. Mainly the patent infringement in this case wasn't the camera, so Nintendo would have to spend more money then they'd need to in order to modify the 3DS and the XL models so that they don't have to pay royalties. Honestly I don't see Nintendo wasting time on that as much really since unlike how the GameCube's later models were designed without the component jack, this case would require more money and hassle than just focusing on the 2DS which is already out, is way cheaper to produce, and is immune to paying royalties.
Why would they stop? Just because nobody is using the 3D on the 3DS doesn't mean, nobody doesn't want the clampshell design of the 3DS.

Especially when the 3DS XL is selling like hotcakes.

I mean, look at how upset the Escapists got at the notion that they would phase out the 3D part of the 2DS models even we as a collective couldn't give a shit about it?
 

Roxas1359

Burn, Burn it All!
Aug 8, 2009
33,758
0
0
Dragonbums said:
Why would they stop? Just because nobody is using the 3D on the 3DS doesn't mean, nobody doesn't want the clampshell design of the 3DS.

Especially when the 3DS XL is selling like hotcakes.

I mean, look at how upset the Escapists got at the notion that they would phase out the 3D part of the 2DS models even we as a collective couldn't give a shit about it?
Thing is though, they've never had to pay royalties on any of their systems before. While 1.82% doesn't seem like much alone, that's about $3.60 or so per 3DS XL and given the millions of units that have sold then it will add up. Plus it's not that they have to pay it only one time, they have to continue paying that amount for as long as the regular 3DS and the XL models sell. If Nintendo were to bring back the clampshell for the 2DS then most people will have something they want back, you can never please everyone though. Really it all depends on how Nintendo handles it, but I don't think they'd like the fact that they have to pay a royalty for ever 3DS and XL sold, even if their stocks and worth are up so much it's still gonna be seen as a loss from what they would initially make. I mean really the regular 3DS' have been nearly phased out as it is when it comes to buying them in certain retailers, since retailers are carrying more and more XL units. It's similar to how you will rarely see the Basic editions of the Wii U in stores anymore as they've been replaced with the Deluxe edition of the Wii U.

Nintendo tends to do that when they develop a newer version of their system, especially in the handheld sector. When the SP came out, the amount of regular GBA's in stores being sold as new decreased until it was pretty much entirely replaced with the SP. The DS line had the same thing, with the titanium bricks phasing out the DS Lites, and the DS Lites being phased out by the DSis. Same thing is gonna happen with the 3DS more than likely with the 2DS possibly getting some sort of redesign to then phase out the 3DS XLs, many have been predicting a 2DS XL model since this story was out.

All in all one must remember that Nintendo is still a company that is out to make money, and being forced to pay royalties for the device that is selling like hotcakes will diminish the maximum profits that they were once making.

The 3DS has sold as of this point, 11.5 million in the United States alone. Let's assume that half of those are the regular 3DS, about 400k are the 2DS which doesn't have to pay royalties, and the rest are the 3DS XL. So that makes it so that they have to pay royalties on 11.1 million 3DS right now, and as long as the XL and regular version still sell then they have to continue paying royalties for as long as it's supported. The original 3DS currently sells at a price of $179.99, and the 3DS XL currently sells at a price of $199.99. For every 3DS that's sold Nintendo must pay 1.82% of the price of each one. So that means for every regular 3DS Nintendo sells, they must pay $3.28, and for every 3DS XL they sell they must pay $3.63, bundles they'll have to pay more but I'm just going off regular models and not limited edition ones. So that means that puts the total together at $6.91 for every 1 3DS and 3DS XL Nintendo sells. Multiply that by 11.1 million, and Nintendo now has to pay around $7,601,000 for 3DS' sold in the North American region and will not be able to keep that money at all. Meanwhile, if they were to just go to the 2DS then they get to keep that money and don't get a loss. Plus right now they still have to pay the $15.1 million as per court order. It could have been worse because the original percentage was 2.3% or something, but the jury threw that out and the judge cut the damages fine in half from $30 million to $15.1 million

Note that the figures I used were an estimate, but the fact still remains that Nintendo is losing money and not making as much as they used to with the 3DS and the 3DS XL. Now they can continue to sell the 3DS and the XL models as they are right now if they so want to, but they'd have to accept that they are no longer earning as much money on it as well as the fact that they actually have to pay royalties.
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
Neronium said:
If company in the world are the most ruthless when it comes to patent trolling, it would be Apple,
Not true.

Neronium said:
the lovely company that trademarked rectangles with rounded corners...>.>
Also not true.

Why do people just make stuff up like this, especially on the topic of patents? It's pretty crazy. It seems whenever this topic comes up, people just post stuff not based in fact, perhaps because the saw somebody else write it in a forum, and didn't bother to check if it was a valid claim.
 

Roxas1359

Burn, Burn it All!
Aug 8, 2009
33,758
0
0
Aardvaarkman said:
Neronium said:
If company in the world are the most ruthless when it comes to patent trolling, it would be Apple,
Not true.

Neronium said:
the lovely company that trademarked rectangles with rounded corners...>.>
Also not true.

Why do people just make stuff up like this, especially on the topic of patents? It's pretty crazy. It seems whenever this topic comes up, people just post stuff not based in fact, perhaps because the saw somebody else write it in a forum, and didn't bother to check if it was a valid claim.
Um, yeah they do have that patent, and they are notorious for suing based on patents. Have you not been paying attention to the multiple times Apple has sued someone over patents. Honestly how could you not have seen anything about these cases at all, because Apple is notorious for it.
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
Neronium said:
No, they don't. The patent linked in the article is not a patent on rounded rectangles, and the article you linked to erroneously describes the patent, and you are just repeating this misinformation.

Neronium said:
and they are notorious for suing based on patents.
Uh, "suing over patents" does not make a company a patent troll. A patent troll is a company that buys up patents in order to sue other companies, with no intention of using them for products. For Apple to be the biggest patent troll, it would have to be a patent troll in the first place. Whatever you think of the validity of patents, Apple uses them to protect its products. It's not a patent troll.

As for Apple somehow doing it more than other companies, do you have any statistics to show that Apple does it more than other large tech companies? Microsoft, Google, IBM, all of them are always involved in patent litigation. If you're going to claim that one company is more egregious than the others, then some actual evidence would be helpful.

A company that could actually be considered a patent troll and is far more notorious for patent lawsuits than Apple would be Intellectual Ventures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures
 

Asuka Soryu

New member
Jun 11, 2010
2,437
0
0
DiscoRhombus said:
AuronFtw said:
WeepingAngels said:
Really, what did Nintendo do to make you hate them into bankruptcy?
Threaten the livelihoods of hundreds of lets-players and similar entertainers with any amount of gameplay footage in any of their videos on youtube by smacking them with universal, one-size-fits-all DMCA notices, leading to account closures and forfeitures of profit?

If a company as big as Nintendo is literally going out of their way to fuck consumers over, fuck them. Lets play and similar videos is getting them, in essence, free publicity. The people buy their games, play their games and show other people their games, and Nintendo wants to shit all over their work and effort and, in essence, steal their money.

So when a company comes and does the exact same thing back to them, I don't care at all. Call it karma. Maybe if they weren't bitches this wouldn't have happened. And if they weren't bitches and it happened anyway, I might have felt some sympathy. But as it stands, it's one multinational anti-consumer corporation getting fucked over by another. Yawn-o-rama.
I really don't understand this train of thought. Why should an individual profit from the work of a game company? If most of these Let's Players didn't have a game to play then we wouldn't watch them. They owe their entire success to the games they play and the companies that develop them. I don't think they deserve to monetise their videos when all they are doing is providing asinine commentary over a copyrighted product.

Let them get a real job. Nintendo has every right to take the ad revenue from those videos.

I want you to get all the requirements, to buy the hardware, a computer for editing and storing, a card for each console that lets you record gameplay, then I want you to get a microphone(a good one) then do a Let's Play.

And I want you to get a decent size of subscribers that when you get paid by Google, it's actually something you could live on.

Then come back to me, tell me it's not a real job and to stand behind what you said.
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
Asuka Soryu said:
DiscoRhombus said:
AuronFtw said:
WeepingAngels said:
Really, what did Nintendo do to make you hate them into bankruptcy?
Threaten the livelihoods of hundreds of lets-players and similar entertainers with any amount of gameplay footage in any of their videos on youtube by smacking them with universal, one-size-fits-all DMCA notices, leading to account closures and forfeitures of profit?

If a company as big as Nintendo is literally going out of their way to fuck consumers over, fuck them. Lets play and similar videos is getting them, in essence, free publicity. The people buy their games, play their games and show other people their games, and Nintendo wants to shit all over their work and effort and, in essence, steal their money.

So when a company comes and does the exact same thing back to them, I don't care at all. Call it karma. Maybe if they weren't bitches this wouldn't have happened. And if they weren't bitches and it happened anyway, I might have felt some sympathy. But as it stands, it's one multinational anti-consumer corporation getting fucked over by another. Yawn-o-rama.
I really don't understand this train of thought. Why should an individual profit from the work of a game company? If most of these Let's Players didn't have a game to play then we wouldn't watch them. They owe their entire success to the games they play and the companies that develop them. I don't think they deserve to monetise their videos when all they are doing is providing asinine commentary over a copyrighted product.

Let them get a real job. Nintendo has every right to take the ad revenue from those videos.

I want you to get all the requirements, to buy the hardware, a computer for editing and storing, a card for each console that lets you record gameplay, then I want you to get a microphone(a good one) then do a Let's Play.

And I want you to get a decent size of subscribers that when you get paid by Google, it's actually something you could live on.

Then come back to me, tell me it's not a real job and to stand behind what you said.
The funny part is people were saying the same things about teachers a couple of years back."Oh those teachers should'nt get paid as much as they do","anyone can teach so why should they get paid more than me?" and so on.To me people like that are just bitter jerks who are probaly stuck at a dead end job and so they feel the need to resent anyone who has a job that does'nt suck and can actually enjoy it.

The funny thing is the people telling youtubers to get a real job probaly fit my description 80%.
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
Ugh, I gotta be the guy again. Here goes.

RT said:
Well OF COURSE. Anyone who doesn't like Nintendo is a Halo-loving frat boy! While we're at it, you could ask if they made me spill Mtn Dew on a 360. And I don't even own a 360.
Except that most people who "don't like" a company also don't actively wish it ill. Haters, on the other hand, do. And your hatred makes even less sense, considering that you self-identify with a Sonic character, and Sonic arguably only lives today because of Sega's strong ties to Nintendo. >_>

NearLifeExperience said:
Implying that the 3DS wasn't doomed already? I think the fact that they released a 2DS is pretty much a testament of that. It's basically Nintendo saying "Hey, remember when we had this 3d thing? Yeah, we know that was shit"
Er, the 3DS is smashing its direct competitor, and has a dominant share of the handheld market. It's also making money hand over fist. It was anything but "doomed". But then I wouldn't really expect you to know that. This is the Escapist, where people hated on Nintendo before it was cool.

The 2DS has certainly done decently since its release, but it's hardly eclipsing the sales of the 3DS to date. Not even close.

Maybe 'doomed' is a bit exaggerated, but it sure as hell wasn't a success in the rest of the world.
Obviously false statement is obviously false.

They're past 42 million worldwide sales now, also. So yeah, thanks for coming out. Let's see some facts next time.

AuronFtw said:
Threaten the livelihoods of hundreds of lets-players and similar entertainers with any amount of gameplay footage in any of their videos on youtube by smacking them with universal, one-size-fits-all DMCA notices, leading to account closures and forfeitures of profit?
Count me among those who really don't care. I'm still one of those guys who doesn't understand why people ever thought they could voice-over their playthrough of a game and monetize it without consequence when the only thing they "added" was their voice. From a legal standpoint, such things stand on pretty shaky ground whether you trumpet Fair Use or not, because of the sheer volume of content they're "duplicating" for the product they've sold.

That said, I don't think Nintendo made the right call in that regard and it's going to bite them in the ass. I just don't particularly sympathize with the other side, either, because there's a pretty decent case to be made that LPing is seriously stretching the limits of Fair Use.

Asuka Soryu said:
I want you to get all the requirements, to buy the hardware, a computer for editing and storing, a card for each console that lets you record gameplay, then I want you to get a microphone(a good one) then do a Let's Play.

And I want you to get a decent size of subscribers that when you get paid by Google, it's actually something you could live on.

Then come back to me, tell me it's not a real job and to stand behind what you said.
Why do we count "the hardware" as a cost of LPing, again? They couldn't play the games at all if they lacked the hardware, so why exactly does "buying the hardware" count at all? I've never, ever understood why people do this, but I imagine it's because it makes the job of LPing sound like it's much more costly than it actually is, because once you add on the fact that a number of recording software titles out there can be obtained for free....there's very little actual cost associated with making an LP, outside of time requirements. And I would know because I've actually done it before, out of curiosity. It's truly not that hard to make the LP. The "hard" part is obtaining a subscriber base. And even then, it's possible to circumvent that to some degree too, if you can obtain partnership with any number of gaming sites that offer them.

Again, I'm not saying Nintendo made the right call in what they did. I think it was a bad move. But Nintendo's move highlights the notion that there's an argument to be made about exactly how much of an LPer's content was actually "theirs" to sell to begin with. And yet, every time this is said, someone inevitably drags out the "it costs a lot of money to make LPs!" argument. No, from my own experience, it genuinely doesn't. It costs me the price of the game, and a few hours of my time each day (emphasis on "few").

There's a vast difference between someone who creates an LP and someone who does a formal review or creates their own video-based content, as a hell of a lot more editing is required in the latter cases (which means more time and money). People who put together reviews and such, they merit the sort of protection that Fair Use offers, IMO. But an LP can be done much more easily in much less time for much less cash....to such a degree where I'd argue that the kid working a 40-hour week in fast food does more to earn their paycheck. And (again) this is coming from someone who has done both of those jobs. I'm sorry, I will not accept this argument that LPers work absurd hours and spend absurd amounts of money. It's simply not factual, unless they're simply choosing to spend exorbitantly on expensive items to do their gaming (in which case, that's kinda on them).

I understand that you (and many others) have a very high opinion of LPers because you enjoy them and find them entertaining. And I respect that. I enjoy several LPers myself. But I don't agree with seeing them placed on some strange sort of moral high horse for what they do, and I don't think they put forth nearly the same level of work on their products as a reviewer or content creator does. And I think there's room to argue about whether or not Fair Use can be stretched to cover something which, by all rights, contains primarily someone else's work. There's nothing wrong with having that discussion. People need to stop treating the internet like some sort of "Holy Land" where you can duplicate whatever you want for whatever purposes you want without consequence because "Fair Use". At the very least, it should be considered that the internet is an international medium, and Fair Use is an American law, ergo there is no particular reason to expect the law to apply universally across the internet to begin with.

the hidden eagle said:
The funny part is people were saying the same things about teachers a couple of years back."Oh those teachers should'nt get paid as much as they do","anyone can teach so why should they get paid more than me?" and so on.
What are you on about? There are lots of groups out there which still do that to teachers. There are a great many people who genuinely think that all teachers make $50k + benefits in the US. They don't realize that oftentimes the only teachers making that kind of wage are those who have worked for 20 years, and that the average starting salary is marginally better than a job in fast food, and in some places, worse than factory job pay.

So here comes my question: how much do you think an LPer should make for their product per year? $20k? $30k? $50k? Because if you're going to make the argument that pay should equal the amount of work done, then you would have to make an honest assessment and comparison of an LPer's work hours and work load to those of people in jobs with similar pay. And I think you may surprise yourself just how much better LPers have it than some of those folks. Especially when you consider that LPers are getting to play video games for their "work". Not a lot of other jobs give you that sort of leisurely activity to do as your daily work load, outside of those in the video game industry.

To me people like that are just bitter jerks who are probaly stuck at a dead end job and so they feel the need to resent anyone who has a job that does'nt suck and can actually enjoy it.
Ad hominem does not strengthen your argument, you know.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
If this is a patent troll, then they're damn successful and quite evil in my book.

If not, if this is just a company trying to develop tech to sell to major companies and Nintendo really did infringe? Then good for them on getting a payout, but the payout is far too large unless Nintendo did something egregious (like blatantly rip them off and leaving a paper trail to prove it).
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
CriticKitten said:
Ugh, I gotta be the guy again. Here goes.

RT said:
Well OF COURSE. Anyone who doesn't like Nintendo is a Halo-loving frat boy! While we're at it, you could ask if they made me spill Mtn Dew on a 360. And I don't even own a 360.
Except that most people who "don't like" a company also don't actively wish it ill. Haters, on the other hand, do. And your hatred makes even less sense, considering that you self-identify with a Sonic character, and Sonic arguably only lives today because of Sega's strong ties to Nintendo. >_>

NearLifeExperience said:
Implying that the 3DS wasn't doomed already? I think the fact that they released a 2DS is pretty much a testament of that. It's basically Nintendo saying "Hey, remember when we had this 3d thing? Yeah, we know that was shit"
Er, the 3DS is smashing its direct competitor, and has a dominant share of the handheld market. It's also making money hand over fist. It was anything but "doomed". But then I wouldn't really expect you to know that. This is the Escapist, where people hated on Nintendo before it was cool.

The 2DS has certainly done decently since its release, but it's hardly eclipsing the sales of the 3DS to date. Not even close.

Maybe 'doomed' is a bit exaggerated, but it sure as hell wasn't a success in the rest of the world.
Obviously false statement is obviously false.

They're past 42 million worldwide sales now, also. So yeah, thanks for coming out. Let's see some facts next time.

AuronFtw said:
Threaten the livelihoods of hundreds of lets-players and similar entertainers with any amount of gameplay footage in any of their videos on youtube by smacking them with universal, one-size-fits-all DMCA notices, leading to account closures and forfeitures of profit?
Count me among those who really don't care. I'm still one of those guys who doesn't understand why people ever thought they could voice-over their playthrough of a game and monetize it without consequence when the only thing they "added" was their voice. From a legal standpoint, such things stand on pretty shaky ground whether you trumpet Fair Use or not, because of the sheer volume of content they're "duplicating" for the product they've sold.

That said, I don't think Nintendo made the right call in that regard and it's going to bite them in the ass. I just don't particularly sympathize with the other side, either, because there's a pretty decent case to be made that LPing is seriously stretching the limits of Fair Use.

Asuka Soryu said:
I want you to get all the requirements, to buy the hardware, a computer for editing and storing, a card for each console that lets you record gameplay, then I want you to get a microphone(a good one) then do a Let's Play.

And I want you to get a decent size of subscribers that when you get paid by Google, it's actually something you could live on.

Then come back to me, tell me it's not a real job and to stand behind what you said.
Why do we count "the hardware" as a cost of LPing, again? They couldn't play the games at all if they lacked the hardware, so why exactly does "buying the hardware" count at all? I've never, ever understood why people do this, but I imagine it's because it makes the job of LPing sound like it's much more costly than it actually is, because once you add on the fact that a number of recording software titles out there can be obtained for free....there's very little actual cost associated with making an LP, outside of time requirements. And I would know because I've actually done it before, out of curiosity. It's truly not that hard to make the LP. The "hard" part is obtaining a subscriber base. And even then, it's possible to circumvent that to some degree too, if you can obtain partnership with any number of gaming sites that offer them.

Again, I'm not saying Nintendo made the right call in what they did. I think it was a bad move. But Nintendo's move highlights the notion that there's an argument to be made about exactly how much of an LPer's content was actually "theirs" to sell to begin with. And yet, every time this is said, someone inevitably drags out the "it costs a lot of money to make LPs!" argument. No, from my own experience, it genuinely doesn't. It costs me the price of the game, and a few hours of my time each day (emphasis on "few").

There's a vast difference between someone who creates an LP and someone who does a formal review or creates their own video-based content, as a hell of a lot more editing is required in the latter cases (which means more time and money). People who put together reviews and such, they merit the sort of protection that Fair Use offers, IMO. But an LP can be done much more easily in much less time for much less cash....to such a degree where I'd argue that the kid working a 40-hour week in fast food does more to earn their paycheck. And (again) this is coming from someone who has done both of those jobs. I'm sorry, I will not accept this argument that LPers work absurd hours and spend absurd amounts of money. It's simply not factual, unless they're simply choosing to spend exorbitantly on expensive items to do their gaming (in which case, that's kinda on them).

I understand that you (and many others) have a very high opinion of LPers because you enjoy them and find them entertaining. And I respect that. I enjoy several LPers myself. But I don't agree with seeing them placed on some strange sort of moral high horse for what they do, and I don't think they put forth nearly the same level of work on their products as a reviewer or content creator does. And I think there's room to argue about whether or not Fair Use can be stretched to cover something which, by all rights, contains primarily someone else's work. There's nothing wrong with having that discussion. People need to stop treating the internet like some sort of "Holy Land" where you can duplicate whatever you want for whatever purposes you want without consequence because "Fair Use". At the very least, it should be considered that the internet is an international medium, and Fair Use is an American law, ergo there is no particular reason to expect the law to apply universally across the internet to begin with.

the hidden eagle said:
The funny part is people were saying the same things about teachers a couple of years back."Oh those teachers should'nt get paid as much as they do","anyone can teach so why should they get paid more than me?" and so on.
What are you on about? There are lots of groups out there which still do that to teachers. There are a great many people who genuinely think that all teachers make $50k + benefits in the US. They don't realize that oftentimes the only teachers making that kind of wage are those who have worked for 20 years, and that the average starting salary is marginally better than a job in fast food, and in some places, worse than factory job pay.

So here comes my question: how much do you think an LPer should make for their product per year? $20k? $30k? $50k? Because if you're going to make the argument that pay should equal the amount of work done, then you would have to make an honest assessment and comparison of an LPer's work hours and work load to those of people in jobs with similar pay. And I think you may surprise yourself just how much better LPers have it than some of those folks. Especially when you consider that LPers are getting to play video games for their "work". Not a lot of other jobs give you that sort of leisurely activity to do as your daily work load, outside of those in the video game industry.

To me people like that are just bitter jerks who are probaly stuck at a dead end job and so they feel the need to resent anyone who has a job that does'nt suck and can actually enjoy it.
Ad hominem does not strengthen your argument, you know.
IMO it should'nt matter how much you are ' permitted to make' as long as people want what you're providing.As for the profiting off of someone's work the Anti Let's Player crowd keeps spewing...I'm going to say this:

That computer you're using?Somebody else made it.
The clothes you wear?Likely made in some poor sweatshop where the workers don't even get paid.
The things you use in your everyday life like phones,cars,etc;?Somebody else made them too.

So the whole profiting from someone else's work arguement used to demonize Let's Players does'nt hold water because you are profiting from things people have made as well whether you want to admit it or not.And it does'nt even have to be money involved in order to profit from something since you and everyone else use those things in addition to benefitting from them.

And I find it extremely insulting how you would try to diminish the ammount of effort some of these youtubers put into their videos by claiming it's easy.If it was that easy then why aren't the people bitching about them doing it huh?

All I've been hearing since this whole Youtube fiasco is alot of petty jealousy over the fact some of these Youtubers are successful at what they do.Hell some of these haters(and they are haters) want to see thousands of people lose money just so one guy who isn't even going to be effected by this can suffer for some stupid reason.

So yeah I tend to side with the Youtubers who are going to be more hurt by this BS like the musician who had his own music video taken down thanks to Youtube's stupid system,HIS OWN MUSIC VIDEO which he made himself.

So go ahead and support this just because you think Let's Players don't deserve to make money,just know you are also supporting bullshit like the example above.
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
the hidden eagle said:
IMO it should'nt matter how much you are ' permitted to make' as long as people want what you're providing.
That's not an answer to my question. Everyone makes variable amounts of money to some degree depending on region, demand, and other specifics. This is true of all fields of work.

I'm asking you quite directly how much an LPer should make on average, in your opinion. I'm looking for a number. And I'm asking that question on purpose, because I quite seriously want to know just how much money an LPer should make in terms of general wages.

As for the profiting off of someone's work the Anti Let's Player crowd keeps spewing...I'm going to say this:

That computer you're using?Somebody else made it.
The clothes you wear?Likely made in some poor sweatshop where the workers don't even get paid.
The things you use in your everyday life like phones,cars,etc;?Somebody else made them too.

So the whole profiting from someone else's work arguement used to demonize Let's Players does'nt hold water because you are profiting from things people have made as well whether you want to admit it or not.And it does'nt even have to be money involved in order to profit from something since you and everyone else use those things in addition to benefitting from them.
Er, the initial sale of a unique product is not even remotely the same thing as what LPers do. This is a false comparison, and not a very good one at that.

LPers do not create a "unique product", they modify an existing one. They put their voice on top of an existing product and make money off of it.

A more apt comparison would be something like this: Someone copies the Mona Lisa (without paying for the use of the painting) and draws his own doodles on top of the picture, then proceeds to sell it on a pay-per-view basis. Certainly, they're putting forth some work of their own, but it's relatively minimal by comparison to the work put in on the product they used to make it, and it's rather arguable as to whether or not Fair Use can even be stretched that far. It's not been taken to court in the US so far as I know yet, so the jury's still out on whether or not such an argument would hold any water.

And, again, Fair Use is an American law, so it's arguable whether or not it holds any weight on the internet (which is a relatively unregulated international "territory") at all.

And I find it extremely insulting how you would try to diminish the ammount of effort some of these youtubers put into their videos by claiming it's easy.If it was that easy then why aren't the people bitching about them doing it huh?
Because many of them have jobs already? Was this meant to be a serious argument in favor of how "tough" it is to make LPs? Because, it doesn't really seem like you're taking this discussion seriously.

All I've been hearing since this whole Youtube fiasco is alot of petty jealousy over the fact some of these Youtubers are successful at what they do.Hell some of these haters(and they are haters) want to see thousands of people lose money just so one guy who isn't even going to be effected by this can suffer for some stupid reason.
Again, ad hominem is hardly a valid ground to stand on.

So yeah I tend to side with the Youtubers who are going to be more hurt by this BS like the musician who had his own music video taken down thanks to Youtube's stupid system,HIS OWN MUSIC VIDEO which he made himself.
Those are two totally different issues at play.

There's a big difference between what Nintendo did (placing claims against LP footage from their games, in which it can be legitimately argued that the bulk of the content does belong to them), and what happened to Gavin Dunne (his publishing company erroneously marked his songs with copyright claims, not knowing that it was his personal channel on YT).

So go ahead and support this just because you think Let's Players don't deserve to make money,just know you are also supporting bullshit like the example above.
The example above is a bad one and has nothing to do with the Nintendo issue. You'd do well to actually inform yourself about the issue at hand instead of resorting to ad hominem and other flimsy arguments like those you've demonstrated above.

YouTube is hardly doing these things because they're evil and got tired of kicking puppies one day. They're doing this to protect themselves from lawsuits filed against them by companies who don't want their content used inappropriately. And they, in turn, aren't just evil, they're filing these copyright claims because of the backwards way that copyright law is written (namely, if they don't file said claims, they would lose the right to file against more gross examples of abuse of their copyrights in the future). Their system is inherently flawed, certainly, and it needs to be fixed properly. So does the copyright system. But there's nothing wrong with the idea of them introducing some sort of standards for content regulation. The internet's been a free-for-all for so long that everyone thinks if it's on the internet, that no one can "own" it. Even though from a legal standpoint, that's totally not how it works. It's that Futurama argument in a nutshell:

"You can't OWN property, man."
"I can, but that's because I'm not a penniless hippy."

Except the "penniless hippies" are the general internet public.
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
CriticKitten said:
the hidden eagle said:
IMO it should'nt matter how much you are ' permitted to make' as long as people want what you're providing.
That's not an answer to my question. Everyone makes variable amounts of money to some degree depending on region, demand, and other specifics. This is true of all fields of work.

I'm asking you quite directly how much an LPer should make on average, in your opinion. I'm looking for a number. And I'm asking that question on purpose, because I quite seriously want to know just how much money an LPer should make in terms of general wages.

As for the profiting off of someone's work the Anti Let's Player crowd keeps spewing...I'm going to say this:

That computer you're using?Somebody else made it.
The clothes you wear?Likely made in some poor sweatshop where the workers don't even get paid.
The things you use in your everyday life like phones,cars,etc;?Somebody else made them too.

So the whole profiting from someone else's work arguement used to demonize Let's Players does'nt hold water because you are profiting from things people have made as well whether you want to admit it or not.And it does'nt even have to be money involved in order to profit from something since you and everyone else use those things in addition to benefitting from them.
Er, the initial sale of a unique product is not even remotely the same thing as what LPers do. This is a false comparison, and not a very good one at that.

LPers do not create a "unique product", they modify an existing one. They put their voice on top of an existing product and make money off of it.

A more apt comparison would be something like this: Someone copies the Mona Lisa (without paying for the use of the painting) and draws his own doodles on top of the picture, then proceeds to sell it on a pay-per-view basis. Certainly, they're putting forth some work of their own, but it's relatively minimal by comparison to the work put in on the product they used to make it, and it's rather arguable as to whether or not Fair Use can even be stretched that far. It's not been taken to court in the US so far as I know yet, so the jury's still out on whether or not such an argument would hold any water.

And I find it extremely insulting how you would try to diminish the ammount of effort some of these youtubers put into their videos by claiming it's easy.If it was that easy then why aren't the people bitching about them doing it huh?
Because many of them have jobs already? Was this meant to be a serious argument in favor of how "tough" it is to make LPs? Because, it doesn't really seem like you're taking this discussion seriously.

All I've been hearing since this whole Youtube fiasco is alot of petty jealousy over the fact some of these Youtubers are successful at what they do.Hell some of these haters(and they are haters) want to see thousands of people lose money just so one guy who isn't even going to be effected by this can suffer for some stupid reason.
Again, ad hominem is hardly a valid ground to stand on.

So yeah I tend to side with the Youtubers who are going to be more hurt by this BS like the musician who had his own music video taken down thanks to Youtube's stupid system,HIS OWN MUSIC VIDEO which he made himself.
Those are two totally different issues at play.

There's a big difference between what Nintendo did (placing claims against LP footage from their games, in which it can be legitimately argued that the bulk of the content does belong to them), and what happened to Gavin Dunne (his publishing company erroneously marked his songs with copyright claims, not knowing that it was his personal channel on YT).

So go ahead and support this just because you think Let's Players don't deserve to make money,just know you are also supporting bullshit like the example above.
The example above is a bad one and has nothing to do with the Nintendo issue. You'd do well to actually inform yourself about the issue at hand instead of resorting to ad hominem and other flimsy arguments like those you've demonstrated above.
Oh I'm very well informed...infact what Nintendo tried to do ties into what Youtube is currently doing so I believe my post is completely on point.And what ad hominen am I committing?Is it ad hominen to say that alot of people supporting Youtube's new policies are only doing so because of petty jealous or childish spite?As for your question...it's not my place to decide how much a Let's Player should earn because quite frankly I don't really care if they earn 10$ or a hundred per video.

There is a common misconception that all Let's Players are rolling in big fat piles of cash,newsflash:unless your name is TotalBiscuit,GhostRobo,Angry Joe,GameGrumps,ChuggaaConroy,Syndicate, and many other youtubers who have hundreds of thousands of subscribers then you will be lucky to even make minimal wage kind of money.

Also there is no law saying you can't post a video of a game unless you intend to make illegal copies and try to pass the game off as your own,most Let's Players don't do that....in fact they get permission to post walkthroughs from the game devs and ironically most game devs have come out against Youtube's decision so what does that tell you?Believe it or not but the sensible game devs with nothing to hide actually support Let's Players since they do something that would it would take millions of dollars for them to get the same result:provide free advertising for their games.Even EA and of all their greedy money grubby policies know it's stupid to kill a free marketing area.
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
the hidden eagle said:
Oh I'm very well informed...infact what Nintendo tried to do ties into what Youtube is currently doing so I believe my post is completely on point.
And yet you just tried to claim that Gavin Dunne's situation was identical to Nintendo's.

So clearly you're not informed about this subject, or at least not as much as you think you are.

And what ad hominen am I committing?Is it ad hominen to say that alot of people supporting Youtube's new policies are only doing so because of petty jealous or childish spite?
Yes, it totally is. Again, are you being serious?

As for your question...it's not my place to decide how much a Let's Player should earn because quite frankly I don't really care if they earn 10$ or a hundred per video.

There is a common misconception that all Let's Players are rolling in big fat piles of cash,newsflash:unless your name is TotalBiscuit,GhostRobo,Angry Joe,GameGrumps,ChuggaaConroy,Syndicate, and many other youtubers who have hundreds of thousands of subscribers then you will be lucky to even make minimal wage kind of money.
Again, that's not an answer. That's an attempt to cop-out of an answer. And it's not going to work.

I'm asking for a number. And I expect a number in reply.

Also there is no law saying you can't post a video of a game unless you intend to make illegal copies and try to pass the game off as your own,
False. It's clearly stated in YT's Terms that such videos aren't supposed to be posted in the first place.

Section 6B: "You shall be solely responsible for your own Content and the consequences of submitting and publishing your Content on the Service. You affirm, represent, and warrant that you own or have the necessary licenses, rights, consents, and permissions to publish Content you submit; and you license to YouTube all patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights in and to such Content for publication on the Service pursuant to these Terms of Service."

Section 6D: "You further agree that Content you submit to the Service will not contain third party copyrighted material, or material that is subject to other third party proprietary rights, unless you have permission from the rightful owner of the material or you are otherwise legally entitled to post the material and to grant YouTube all of the license rights granted herein."

Both of these statements are quite clear: YouTube was not meant to be a place for people to post "third-party content", only the content that they personally own or have the rights to distribute. That means that LPers are violating the site's Terms to begin with. So without even getting into the legal end of things, it's pretty clear that LPs are, at the very least, a violation of the rules of YouTube.

Now, to be clear, the fact that they allowed it for all this time and only just recently started cracking down? That's garbage. Absolutely garbage. And it sucks that they're doing this. But it's their site, and the rules are clear: you can't post videos of things you don't own. The only case that an LPer can claim is Fair Use, and (for the third time) that is an American law. The internet is not exclusively owned by the US, so it's arguable whether those laws apply much if at all.

most Let's Players don't do that....in fact they get permission to post walkthroughs from the game devs and ironically most game devs have come out against Youtube's decision so what does that tell you?
Do you have evidence behind this claim, or am I just meant to take your word for it? Because I know of several companies which obviously don't disagree with the policy, and have taken to YouTube to post copyright claims in the past. Nintendo is hardly the first company to ever do this.

Believe it or not but the sensible game devs with nothing to hide actually support Let's Players since they do something that would it would take millions of dollars for them to get the same result:provide free advertising for their games.Even EA and of all their greedy money grubby policies know it's stupid to kill a free marketing area.
You're joking, right? You don't actually think EA is doing this to play the hero, I trust? Because that's not how they do things.

Case in point: they recently tried to dismiss their second "Worst Company in America" award by blaming it on those evil gay-bashers. Yes, really.

I don't think you want to be pointing to EA as a shining bastion of intelligent thought, nor as the virtuous defenders of all good things. It's not a good stance to have.
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
CriticKitten said:
the hidden eagle said:
Oh I'm very well informed...infact what Nintendo tried to do ties into what Youtube is currently doing so I believe my post is completely on point.
And yet you just tried to claim that Gavin Dunne's situation was identical to Nintendo's.

So clearly you're not informed about this subject, or at least not as much as you think you are.

And what ad hominen am I committing?Is it ad hominen to say that alot of people supporting Youtube's new policies are only doing so because of petty jealous or childish spite?
Yes, it totally is. Again, are you being serious?

As for your question...it's not my place to decide how much a Let's Player should earn because quite frankly I don't really care if they earn 10$ or a hundred per video.

There is a common misconception that all Let's Players are rolling in big fat piles of cash,newsflash:unless your name is TotalBiscuit,GhostRobo,Angry Joe,GameGrumps,ChuggaaConroy,Syndicate, and many other youtubers who have hundreds of thousands of subscribers then you will be lucky to even make minimal wage kind of money.
Again, that's not an answer. That's an attempt to cop-out of an answer. And it's not going to work.

I'm asking for a number. And I expect a number in reply.

Also there is no law saying you can't post a video of a game unless you intend to make illegal copies and try to pass the game off as your own,
False. It's clearly stated in YT's Terms that such videos aren't supposed to be posted in the first place.

Section 6B: "You shall be solely responsible for your own Content and the consequences of submitting and publishing your Content on the Service. You affirm, represent, and warrant that you own or have the necessary licenses, rights, consents, and permissions to publish Content you submit; and you license to YouTube all patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights in and to such Content for publication on the Service pursuant to these Terms of Service."

Section 6D: "You further agree that Content you submit to the Service will not contain third party copyrighted material, or material that is subject to other third party proprietary rights, unless you have permission from the rightful owner of the material or you are otherwise legally entitled to post the material and to grant YouTube all of the license rights granted herein."

Both of these statements are quite clear: YouTube was not meant to be a place for people to post "third-party content", only the content that they personally own or have the rights to distribute. That means that LPers are violating the site's Terms to begin with. So without even getting into the legal end of things, it's pretty clear that LPs are, at the very least, a violation of the rules of YouTube.

Now, to be clear, the fact that they allowed it for all this time and only just recently started cracking down? That's garbage. Absolutely garbage. And it sucks that they're doing this. But it's their site, and the rules are clear: you can't post videos of things you don't own. The only case that an LPer can claim is Fair Use, and (for the third time) that is an American law. The internet is not exclusively owned by the US, so it's arguable whether those laws apply much if at all.

most Let's Players don't do that....in fact they get permission to post walkthroughs from the game devs and ironically most game devs have come out against Youtube's decision so what does that tell you?
Do you have evidence behind this claim, or am I just meant to take your word for it? Because I know of several companies which obviously don't disagree with the policy, and have taken to YouTube to post copyright claims in the past. Nintendo is hardly the first company to ever do this.

Believe it or not but the sensible game devs with nothing to hide actually support Let's Players since they do something that would it would take millions of dollars for them to get the same result:provide free advertising for their games.Even EA and of all their greedy money grubby policies know it's stupid to kill a free marketing area.
You're joking, right? You don't actually think EA is doing this to play the hero, I trust? Because that's not how they do things.

Case in point: they recently tried to dismiss their second "Worst Company in America" award by blaming it on those evil gay-bashers. Yes, really.

I don't think you want to be pointing to EA as a shining bastion of intelligent thought, nor as the virtuous defenders of all good things. It's not a good stance to have.
Here's some links:http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/12/11/youtube-blocks-game-videos-industry-offers-help/

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2013/12/11/game-companies-push-back-against-new-youtube-copyright-enforcement-system

Many of the copy right flags are being done without the consent of these companies and so they are trying to help the people effected by this.And since you keep bringing it up for some reason I will give a answer for your question:depending on the Let's Player I believe they should 100 dollars for every video that has over a few thousand views,that seems fair given that most probaly won't get that much unless their videos are interesting.
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
WeepingAngels said:
Well, I am sure potato chips are patented. I wonder if everyone has to pay royalties to fry up some potatoes.
Well, patents only last for a maximum of 20 years from the date of filing anyway.
 

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
the hidden eagle said:
Here's some links:http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/12/11/youtube-blocks-game-videos-industry-offers-help/

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2013/12/11/game-companies-push-back-against-new-youtube-copyright-enforcement-system

Many of the copy right flags are being done without the consent of these companies and so they are trying to help the people effected by this.
So....four companies?

You realize that there's been more than four companies in the past that have used the YouTube rules to their favor too, right? So, I'm not getting "most game devs" out of this. I'm getting "some".

And since you keep bringing it up for some reason I will give a answer for your question:depending on the Let's Player I believe they should 100 dollars for every video that has over a few thousand views,that seems fair given that most probaly won't get that much unless their videos are interesting.
So in other words, 10 cents per view? Or would it be a flat $100 per video, period? And how do you account for fraud (i.e. people repeatedly re-watching a vid to drive up the revenue) when YT doesn't necessarily have the mechanics built in to prevent it? What's the necessary length of the video in order to earn this wage? Who will LPers pay taxes to, since the internet is an international entity?

Starting to see why I'm asking these things? Because while standard job pay may seem "arbitrary" to you, it's all built on metrics. There are minimum acceptable standards, there are laws to regulate the wages and to decide how it should be taxed and managed. There are no such things in place for LPers. An LPer can make a video however long (or short) they want, with as much (or as little) effort as they want. LPers are, in essence, in roughly the same boat as professional comedians, except that the vast majority of their "gags" are situational, based on the footage of the game they're playing. Their contribution is directly affected by the product they choose to use in order to make the video. So what exactly is wrong about the game's creator saying "hey, you're just putting your voice over something I made and yet you're getting all the money for it, that doesn't seem fair"? Especially if the LPer in question never so much as asked for permission in posting the video to start with.

Like I said, I enjoy LPs (good ones, anyways), but I'm not about to try and claim that there aren't some very valid points being brought up by those who are calling this sort of thing an infringement of their copyrights. Fair Use has always been pretty flexible in terms of how the law has interpreted it, and LPs do seem like they'd be a pretty generous stretch of that law (if, indeed, one can argue that Fair Use is even valid at all). How does it make sense that someone can duplicate someone else's work, add a few things of their own, and get all the revenue from it? I find it rather unreasonable to proclaim that this sort of argument is based purely out of jealousy or greed, when in fact it makes rather good sense when reading the law as written and trying to stay within the spirit of that law.