Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Gaming Discussion' started by WiiUBricker, Jan 10, 2018 at 4:26 PM.
I hope Nintendo wins
Wait... Are you really telling me that I have no right to criticize people because I can't backup my suggestions, yet the people I'm criticizing can criticize Nintendo without backing up their claims?...
yea nintendo filed many, it was later when the switch design came, ironic.
but you chose what you like, nintendo tried copying the tablet market with the wii u..... ohh wait your going to claim it was patented first before tablets came.
point being, did nintendo invent touch screen, did nintendo invent the button, did nintendo invent the analogue, did nintendo.... now nintendo want to sue a small dev for having a touch screen control, well fuck a duck.
unless its code is a direct mirror of ninteno's shitty DS code, then yea, but not because it is the same concept.
Did you read what I told you to look for or are you trolling on purpose?
I DID NOT CHOOSE ANYTHING and there is nothing ironic. You're wrong about Morphus PERIOD
I didn't mention the Wii U concept or anything, the rest of your post is a delirium in broken english to divert attention to the fact that you are wrong and a troll.
Moderation in this site does not work.
This doesn't seem to out of place for Nintendo, seeing as people are always ripping their stuff off any way.
We seem to be speculating now, though still fairly on topic which is impressive.
Given however the spotty nature of most Japanese translations in game world and the general lack of knowledge of IP law... everywhere I think it is time for primary sources. I tried my best and only found the Japanese mirrors of this story, and if they link anything it is just the statement from the defendants. No patent numbers I can look up and I am not going to spend a Friday evening trying to find a potentially relevant one. Likewise the defendants appear to be quite big in Japan and are seldom out of the news there for more than a couple of days.
I did however find https://gamebiz.jp/?p=167880 which makes me wonder if Japanese software/game patents are worse than the US ones (an impressive feat if so).
For the time being I am going to have to wonder if this is one of those "go hard at the start" things that lawyers are so fond of and can then be removed as part of negotiations later.
You can't bitch at other people if you're going to do the exact same thing. You're the one who started complaining about other people doing it, nobody was complaining at you, so you can't criticize other people while also saying things that can't be backed up. If you're going to say stuff that can't be backed up, don't bitch at other people for doing the same.
That could very well be, but they should be more reasonable because if this went to trial they're going to lose a lot of credibility for having such ridiculous demands.
Is it a ridiculous demand? I can see something like this existing in a US software patent (despite it being at least obvious, probably also a bit of prior art but I am still working on that) and that article I linked in the previous post has me believing Japan is no better*. To that end if they have a valid patent and reckon they can claim infringement then while intellectually a judge might want to tell them to grow up they still have to go through the motions..
If it turns out the patent gets destroyed then big whoop (have you seen the Mario 64 DS control scheme used by them much of late?). Also it was 2004 that SM64DS hit so assuming it was filed that year then as Japanese patent terms are 20 years then they are losing out on 6 whole years at worst if it is invalidated.
*if the example about the battle system is "ripped from the headlines" (it is one of Square Enix's legal team talking to devs in a proper Japanese game developer conference) then yeah.
this the stupid because the many games are using this type of controls... and in facts even other game f the nitendo boys are using this method of the controll, such as bayosnetta on wii u... so not suing the platinum game sir? and why not sue&desist mr sony and mr xbone because they have the dpads control on their controllers?
Cause it's not on a touch screen. Please reread the thread before commenting.
bayonetta uses touch screen controls like dpad; and nintendo actually owns the physical dpad patent if i recall properly
"The information is there, but it's in Japanese, so nobody will ever know."
Shouldn't be too much of a task to get a translation. That said I'll get back to my Kanji recognition training.
The dpad stuff expired in 2005 (though there may have some some other things that lingered).
Anyway we are still lacking patent numbers so we can pull them up to see what is being claimed, to that end I will have to go more general.
Most places in the world have patents. Originally they were designed for real world inventions that worked (so no perpetual motion machines), were novel (which is to say have not been done before) and were non obvious to someone versed in a field but more on that in a bit. Later in life the US and Japan gained the ability to patent software which most of the rest of the world finds horrific and opposes at a fundamental level (software is just maths and you can not patent maths, can copyright software though). They exist though so we get to consider them.
If what the speculation on the opening post/sources say then mobile company infringed upon something Nintendo has a patent for and was seen in Mario 64 DS. For those that have not seen it the touch screen is pressed, at the point of pressing a circle is displayed and that circle acts as something of an analogue stick representation (more further from the initial press point and it corresponds to more movement on the virtual analogue stick). Let go and press somewhere else and a new virtual stick is made.
Normally when I am trying to call a patent nonsense I look for prior art as I find it easiest. That is to say examples of it happening before the patent was filed. I am troubled here as the DS popularised the touch screen in games (I would say it was an inevitability but different discussion for another thread) so there are not too many examples of such things before 2004 when SM64DS hit. There were touch screen devices -- they used to be called palmtop computers, pocket electronic organisers and similar such things. HP had a range of palmtops, Sony had one called the clie and plenty of others existed.
If a computing device exists it probably has games on it (I have an old 2003 HP thing I got given and it has a wonderful version of solitaire on it) and thus we have something to look for. I don't however know much of what goes here. One of the earliest 3d games was Battlezone (if you have seen a game with a wireframe 3d tank then it was probably that) and for a while it got ported to/remade on everything under the sun. If any game used some kind of relative motion in that then it gets hard for Nintendo.
Alternatively my drawing tablet from a similar era has the ability to do something similar -- they tend to call it relative mode and absolute mode.
Alternatively anything like a mouse gesture would also be something I argue. http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=3908 for a 2003 thread on the matter and talking about earlier things still.
If I can't do prior art then I would look at obviousness. I fail to see how any UI designer would only have set analogue movement to the middle/some fixed point of the screen. Indeed looking at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iNSQIyNpVGHeak6isbP6AHdHD50gs8MNXF1GCf08efg/pub?embedded=true there are some very old games indeed that consider position of actor on the screen.
There are further things we could look at but I don't know the specifics of Japanese law here. For an example of UK law as a kind of example of the ways things can go then https://www.inbrief.co.uk/intellectual-property/defences-to-patent-infringement/
And who are to decide what I can and can't do again?... Oh yeah, no one ...
Did we just get to the point of complainers complaining about complainers complaining about complainers?
In a much nicer way, hes just saying its just a tad hypocritical considering even in the OP, most of it isnt backed up with 100% concrete info anyway
They aren't; however the DMCA (which despite its name, has only tangentially to do with real copyright, focussing instead on other anti-consumer measures) forbids stuff that "defeats or bypasses an 'effective' protection system" and Geohot happened to be an American doing stuff in the USA, said stuff being high profile, qualifiable as the above definition, and inconvenient to a megacorp
Only trademarks work that way (as it usually happens for romhacks or originally developed fangames that get too big)
Copyright of Ideas needs to die asap.
I guess the Switch isn't getting them the amount of money they were expecting
Except it isn’t. Stop making stuff up for a quick troll attempt and pay more attention to what was written.