7 replies to this topic

[SL the Pyro]

Sources:

http://www.polygon.c...motion-controls

http://wccftech.com/...t-infringments/

 

Why. Just... why.

 

I know this is probably old news by now, but I haven't seen it posted here yet, so I'll do it now. Short version: Philips has apparently been pissed off at Nintendo for dabbling with "user interface system based on pointing at a screen" since 2011, but haven't been able to settle it. Then around the time 2014's E3 hits and Nintendo gets some good games for Wii U showcased, Philips decides "OH HEY BETTER SUE THEM NOW" and takes Nintendo to court. Nintendo lost the case for two of the three reported patent infringements (which were rather vaguely worded), and as a result the US is facing a possible ban on the sales of the Wii and Wii U consoles.

 

I feel so sorry for Nintendo. Their E3 put a lot of focus on the Wii U and its upcoming games, and just when it seems they'll turn the console's lackluster debut around, this happens. To all of you contemplating getting a Wii U, now might be the time to do it; you may not get the chance later.

Edited by SL the Pyro, 09 July 2014 - 11:03 PM.

[Hana-Nezumi]

Philips is real shitty for suing Nintendo over those EXTREMELY vague and in some cases laughable:

patents (some of them even filed after the Wii was released!) and doing it in multiple countries just to try and get a settlement out of it. Nintendo has lost in the UK but there's still the possibility of appeal. The sale of Nintendo's consoles will not be banned anywhere; that's just what Philips is asking for and likely will not get. A settlement is more likely. It's not like Philips is hurting for money either; they make mountains of cash off their medical equipment.

The reason Philips took so long is deliberate: One is that they had to let Nintendo make their money off the Wii before they could take it. The other reason is that they were threatening Nintendo with these patents for years to try and get a piece of the Wii's insane profits, that didn't work so now they want to take the money retroactively.

[Egann]

It's a sham of an argument and it's ridiculous Philips won in the UK. The host of a tech podcast I listen to pointed out that prior art matching Phillip's patent description has been used in presentations since the mid 90's.

 

Unfortunately for Philips Nintendo is the kind of company which will defend itself in court quite aggressively. This is not going to be a pretty court battle.

[Fëanen]

Yeesh, I guess they're still trying to make some money off the all-around disaster that was the CD-i.

 

My knowledge of patent law is limited to the point of nonexistence, but I strongly doubt this'll get off the ground in the U.S., much less result in an import ban. Nintendo has a good track record with lawsuits (look up John Kirby).

[deep]

If Phillips successfully gets the Wii banned, they are never going to be able to sell another piece of hardware again in this country. You don't come back from that torrent of consumer hatred.

[Hana-Nezumi]

If Phillips successfully gets the Wii banned, they are never going to be able to sell another piece of hardware again in this country. You don't come back from that torrent of consumer hatred.

Ideally... but actually, consumer hatred would not make a bit of difference. Philips makes the bulk of their profits from selling expensive medical equipment.

[Sir Turtlelot]

Even if Phillips wins the case, I highly doubt they would actually ban the sales of the Wii and Wii U. There's no money to be made doing that, aside from the initial winnings from the court case itself. What's more likely to happen is they'll take a royalty of each Wii U sold, that way they get even more money out of Nintendo.

[JRPomazon]

From what I've read, the only reason WiiU is being targeted is because it has the Wii technology built in. If Phillips wins, that only means the next WiiUs have to have that entire hardware gutted before bing brought into market. So the worst case scenario is that Nintendo makes their very own technology in order to evade the legal bullcrap. Although I imagine this is much easier said than done.

Edited by JRPomazon, 13 July 2014 - 12:14 AM.