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

[Baldr]

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

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

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

Patent law on the other hand is a mess.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ironic, eh?

 

[Guffe]

snippage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*stops, goes and re-reads article*

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

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

 

[Guffe]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ironic, eh?

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

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

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

 

[barbzilla]

snippage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*stops, goes and re-reads article*

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

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

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

 

[Amir Kondori]

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

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

 

[Guffe]

snippage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*stops, goes and re-reads article*

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

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

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

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

 

[barbzilla]

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

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

 

[Guffe]

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

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

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

 

[Dragonbums]

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

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

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

 

[CriticalMiss]

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

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

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

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

 

[mistwolf]

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