Nintendo Forced To Pay Royalties to Tomita on Every 3DS Sold
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
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.Zachary Amaranth said:
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.
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?WeepingAngels said:
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.
And how can it not be done now?Lunar Templar said:
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.
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.amaranth_dru said:
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.
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:AuronFtw said:
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.
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 said:
Yikes... :/ I was wrong then. That's incredibly disappointing, I'm sorry you have to deal with that.Neronium said:
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.
Captcha just wants to make sure you're getting your daily supply of...iron? XDAllspice 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
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).
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.
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.RT 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.AuronFtw 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."DiscoRhombus said:
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.
That's my question.008Zulu said:
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.
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.
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.
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.RT said:
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.