# Nintendo Being Sued For Glasses-less 3D Screen Technology



## heartgold (Jul 8, 2011)

The 3DS's must unique feature -- its glasses-free 3D display -- has gotten Nintendo sued. Tomita Technologies alleges in a lawsuit filed in a New York district court last month that Nintendo is violating a patent, number 7,417,664, which was filed for in 2003 by Seijiro Tomita and issued in August 2008.
Tomita is described in the complaint as an "accomplished scientist and engineer" who worked at Sony for nearly 30 years before retiring in 2002. He began filing for patents after leaving the company, dozens of which now exist that list him as the inventor or co-inventor.

"Mr. Tomita has done substantial research and development in the area of stereoscopic display technology. Among other things, Mr. Tomita invented and developed technology relating to displaying stereoscopic (3-D) images on-screen for viewing with the naked eye, i.e., without utilizing glasses or other devices," the lawsuit states. "The '664 patent asserted in this action covers 3-D technology invented and developed by Mr. Tomita." It also says the Japan Patent Office has granted him a similar patent to the one in question.

No specifics were cited for how the 3DS violates the patent.[/p]

Source


----------



## KingVamp (Jul 8, 2011)

What kinda nonsense is this? Surely he can't win?

I hate it when people wait forever to say anything. This just seem like Nintendo is going to get more money.

There is noway that patent cover the 3DS.


----------



## TheDreamLord (Jul 8, 2011)

If he does win... is nintendo fucked?


----------



## Deleted member 473940 (Jul 8, 2011)

LOLOL!
I should sue Nintendo, because I  thought of the glass-free 3D back in '96! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Like wtf o.o. Whats up with all that bullshit these days -.-


----------



## Raika (Jul 8, 2011)

TheDreamLord said:
			
		

> If he doesnt win... is nintendo fucked?


Wait what? How is Nintendo fucked if that guy _doesn't_ win? Shouldn't it be the other way around?


----------



## Lucifer666 (Jul 8, 2011)

That guy.. deserves to DIE


----------



## Deleted member 473940 (Jul 8, 2011)

Raika said:
			
		

> TheDreamLord said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He probably misread or didnt quite get it lol.


----------



## jan777 (Jul 8, 2011)

Oh look! It's that time again.







 This happens every time. Im wondering how come Ninty hasn't sued Sony for the Move? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I kid.


----------



## Narayan (Jul 8, 2011)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> This is hardly the first time Nintendo has been targeted by patent holders. The Wii's "trigger" got it sued back in 2006; the Wii remote itself was almost banned before the decision was overturned; another company went after the Wii remote again; and even Wii Fit has been targeted.


lol, i don't think this'll go anywhere.


----------



## SamAsh07 (Jul 8, 2011)

Guys guys guys, read the paragraph again and lookout for this line "Tomita is described in the complaint as an "accomplished scientist and engineer" who worked at Sony for nearly 30 years before retiring in 2002"

He worked at Sony, pfft. Makes sense over his allegations. Sony are like Apple, anything that exists in the market is invented by them first.

Like that "new" tech Apple is bringing on their next iPhone (which was a rumor, not sure if true though) of a curved screen, it's already present on Nexus S, they'll sue Samsung for it later. Wait for it.


----------



## Jamstruth (Jul 8, 2011)

Its not Nintendo he should be suing. THey didn't make the glasses free screen. It was...Samsung? I think. I can't remember. THe point is that Nintendo have only bought the screen, they themselves haven't actually violated the patent.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 8, 2011)

To be fair, if he patented the specific technology used, and that technology was released without compliance *after* the approval of the patent, then the man has every right to sue. It is damn hard to just sue over an idea, but when there are legal patents protecting that specific idea in question, then the man can sue for all he can get if the item is used illegally.

The "herp derp he's from Sony and has no basis for what he's saying herp derp" doesn't work when he actually has a basis for his case. That Wii remote one was nearly successful too, so don't think this will just be an instant turn over either.

@Jamstruth: Then he can sue both Sharp and Nintendo for illegally marketing an item that falls under his patent if that ends up being the case.

Edit: Had to change the name of the company. :3


----------



## SamAsh07 (Jul 8, 2011)

Jamstruth said:
			
		

> Its not Nintendo he should be suing. THey didn't make the glasses free screen. It was...Samsung? I think. I can't remember. THe point is that Nintendo have only bought the screen, they themselves haven't actually violated the patent.


Not Samsung, as far as I can recall, it is Sharp's tech the 3DS uses.


----------



## Frogman (Jul 8, 2011)

Spoiler






			
				QUOTE said:
			
		

> United States Patent	7,417,664
> Tomita	 August 26, 2008
> Stereoscopic image picking up and display system based upon optical axes cross-point information
> 
> ...


----------



## heartgold (Jul 8, 2011)

Jamstruth said:
			
		

> Its not Nintendo he should be suing. THey didn't make the glasses free screen. It was...Samsung? I think. I can't remember. THe point is that Nintendo have only bought the screen, they themselves haven't actually violated the patent.


Sharp 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Indeed Nintendo just used the technology that sharp created.

EDIT: Beaten to it -.-


----------



## spinal_cord (Jul 8, 2011)

The American patent/copyright system is a complete mess. If it wasn't for people using and bettering previously invented stuff, regardless of WHO invented if first, then almost non of the technology we have to would even exist. The 'legal system' will ruin all technological advances in the near future.
If you can not build on other peoples ideas, then there is no point having ideas in the first place.


----------



## Youkai (Jul 8, 2011)

well if he rellay has the rights on it and wins against nintendo they pay him some bucks (well if he goes to court in america ninty is done for) and everything is good. 
nintendo wouldn't have problems with paying some houndred thousand as long as there is no insane american court again that says give him the whole company -.-V

Spinal
you are right BUT if you were to be an inventor and you have an idea that you could even prove working and you were just lacking the funds and wouldn't find an investor it would suck if a big company would just come and steal your idea where you actually worked for and even put in money.
I think its a good thing that you can get a patent on stuff even thaught its just to much already they should sort all the junk out, who the hell needs more than 7 million patents ? most of it is bound to be shit ... they should go down to a maximum of 1 million so that its easyer to see what is already there and what now, noone can be forced to go trough all the patents before making something hopefully new


----------



## Joe88 (Jul 8, 2011)

Nathan Drake said:
			
		

> The "herp derp he's from Sony and has no basis for what he's saying herp derp" doesn't work when he actually has a basis for his case. That Wii remote one was nearly successful too, so don't think this will just be an instant turn over either.


pretty sure 1up just put that unneeded fact in to attract fanboys
judging from the various posts in this thread and on 1up, I guess they were successful


----------



## Lucifer666 (Jul 8, 2011)

Nathan Drake said:
			
		

> To be fair, if he patented the specific technology used, and that technology was released without compliance *after* the approval of the patent, then the man has every right to sue. It is damn hard to just sue over an idea, but when there are legal patents protecting that specific idea in question, then the man can sue for all he can get if the item is used illegally.
> 
> The "herp derp he's from Sony and has no basis for what he's saying herp derp" doesn't work when he actually has a basis for his case. That Wii remote one was nearly successful too, so don't think this will just be an instant turn over either.
> 
> ...



Does this dude have the right? Yeah..
But he's still an asshole IMO. Purposely going around bothering big companies for no reason.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 8, 2011)

Youkai said:
			
		

> well if he rellay has the rights on it and wins against nintendo they pay him some bucks (well if he goes to court in america ninty is done for) and everything is good.
> 
> nintendo wouldn't have problems with paying some houndred thousand as long as there is no insane american court again that says give him the whole company -.-V



I highly doubt the man would just sue for around $100k considering the world wide profit off the 3DS so far. I would guess several million, and possibly worse depending on how far the man is willing to go in his case. I don't care to look at the name. :3

Edit: No reason? He has all the reason he needs.


----------



## chris888222 (Jul 8, 2011)

This may be a fanboy remark but

I heard that the person who sued Nintendo was an ex Sony employee, who worked for 30 years. 
Source: 
http://www.1up.com/news/former-sony-employ...3ds-screen-tech

But I don't really find any reason to sue. There are other glasses free 3D products now.


----------



## Joe88 (Jul 8, 2011)

Darmanitan said:
			
		

> But he's still an asshole IMO. Purposely going around bothering big companies for no reason.


for no reason?

I guess its okay then for big corporations to profit over your pattened technology while you will never see a dime from them


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 8, 2011)

chris888222 said:
			
		

> This may be a fanboy remark but
> 
> I heard that the person who sued Nintendo was an ex Sony employee, who worked for 30 years.
> 
> But I don't really find any reason to sue. There are other glasses free 3D products now.



They either have a slightly different system with their own patents in place, or they have the permission required to use said patent.


----------



## Lucifer666 (Jul 8, 2011)

chris888222 said:
			
		

> *There are other glasses free 3D products now.*



Where I live, if you walk in the shopping malls, there are glasses-free 3D showing adverts.
They're everywhere.

I thought of glasses-free 3D before Nintendo released the 3DS.. Does that mean I can sue? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 [/sarcasm]


----------



## TheDreamLord (Jul 8, 2011)

Tanveer said:
			
		

> Raika said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ahem sry meant to say does. XD


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 8, 2011)

Darmanitan said:
			
		

> chris888222 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Regardless of the sarcasm, a lack of understanding of the patent system down to its basic functions is no excuse for ignorance.


----------



## cwstjdenobs (Jul 8, 2011)

Well if he wins Range Rover are screwed too.

EDIT: But seeing as parallax barriers have being used for this since the 80's by Dimension Technologies and Sharp have had it working since 94ish he shouldn't have being granted the patent anyhows. Forget the patents they already have, even if they hadn't bothered prior art should have stopped it.


----------



## NiGHtS (Jul 8, 2011)

Seeing as I've turned so against Nintendo's ethics since 2009, this guy totally has my support


----------



## cwstjdenobs (Jul 8, 2011)

NiGHtS said:
			
		

> Seeing as I've turned so against Nintendo's ethics since 2009, this guy totally has my support



What's up with Nintendo's ethics?


----------



## TheDreamLord (Jul 8, 2011)

If this fucker wins. is ninty gonna die?


----------



## YetoJesse (Jul 8, 2011)

I don't get why nintendo, in their turn, doesn't sue sony...

Wii-mote... PS-move?... their the same thing...

and the Eyetoy from playstation?... xBox stole that, making the Kinect...

like... wtf?!


----------



## KingdomBlade (Jul 8, 2011)

Oh my God. Another thread that attracts Nintenwhores? This is getting kinda sickening.

1. SONY is an excellent company that makes excellent products and services. SO please, stop with the fucking irrational hatred.
2. The guy has the fucking right to sue Nintendo (or Sharp or some shit) since he patented it.  The Nintendowhores appear to lack a basic knowledge of patenting.
3. Glassless 3D is a stupid idea anyways. 3D in general is stupid. I blame James Cameron.
4. Yes, there is a reason for this. If you patented a design for a.. say, automatic water drinker or some shit, and someone else used it and got rich with it without any consent from you whatsoever, I'm sure you would sue the shit out of him.



			
				YetoJesse said:
			
		

> I don't get why nintendo, in their turn, doesn't sue sony...
> 
> Wii-mote... PS-move?... their the same thing...
> 
> ...


They don't have the right to since the motion control is not owned by Nintendo, and Sony does not own the rights to the concept behind the Eyetoy either, which makes neither of them justified to sue.


----------



## shakirmoledina (Jul 8, 2011)

one of the most silliest things IMO are patents of this nature. if u completely steal the exact copy of that item then its wrong.
this guy has taken an idea even if from u, its an immaterial thing, how can u claim something immaterial as yer own?
we may differ but i believe patents and copyrights should be on tangible things already in existence and not concepts or iDeaS.
ppl fear competition so much that they sue each other for stealing ideas. business rules the world.


----------



## Veho (Jul 8, 2011)

KingdomBlade said:
			
		

> They don't have the right to since the motion control is not owned by Nintendo, and Sony does not own the rights to the concept behind the Eyetoy either, which makes neither of them justified to sue.


But they have patents to those devices and the design. How come the guy has the "fucking right" to sue, but Sony or Nintendo don't? Motion control is not "owned" by Nintendo, but parallax barrier is not "owned" by this guy either.


----------



## cwstjdenobs (Jul 8, 2011)

KingdomBlade said:
			
		

> 2. The guy has the fucking right to sue Nintendo (or Sharp or some shit) since he patented it.  The Nintendowhores appear to lack a basic knowledge of patenting.



Sharp having them working since 1994 makes his patent worthless. It shouldn't have even being granted to begin with. As I have said before the USPTO is unfit for purpose or corrupt.

How does that make me a Nintendowhore or show a lack of understanding of the patent system? And who exactly is being a "Nintendowhore"? Or is that aimed at the source?


----------



## machomuu (Jul 8, 2011)

TheDreamLord said:
			
		

> If he does win... is nintendo fucked?


Are you kidding?  Nintendo = Phoenix Wright, need I say more?

Seriously, though, I don't think he can really make a case off of that.  I'm pretty sure Nintendo didn't copyright glasses-less 3d, but even if they did I don't really see how he can make a case off of it as it's a rather simple idea, and moreover...does it really matter?  I mean really, is this going to affect Nintendo negatively at all if they did lose?


----------



## KingdomBlade (Jul 8, 2011)

Veho said:
			
		

> KingdomBlade said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nintendowhores (or quite simple Nintendo Fanboys) are those that have an extremely vicious love for Nintendo and hatred for Sony. They show an unconditional and irrational love for all things Nintendo, and loathe Sony and all it's products, at least in the aspect of gaming. I've noticed that when a person is from Sony, people immediately flock and call him worthless, etc., etc. And that's what a lot of people here have been doing. Thinking that a person loses all his credibility because he worked for Sony, which is just plain dumb.

I wasn't really aware of the whole Sharp thing due to the fact that I've never known this. If this is the case, then sorry.


----------



## MaxNuker (Jul 8, 2011)

Nintendo didn't create the glassless 3D, Sharp did.


Nintendo haz Phoenix Wright. As Machomuu said, they don't need anything else xD

And if Sharp really has the techonology working since 1994, that patent is as good as my ass....


----------



## cwstjdenobs (Jul 8, 2011)

KingdomBlade said:
			
		

> [snip..]



He has a patent, sharp have older ones and DTI have even older ones than that. Why is his more worthy than theirs when they had this tech working from the 80's?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 8, 2011)

If anyone, it's not Nintendo who's in-breach of the patent but SHARP, the manufacturer of the paralax barrier-equipped screen. Nintendo only purchases prepared screens and generally has nothing to do with them.


----------



## MaxNuker (Jul 8, 2011)

In this case, Nintendo is just a costumer of Sharp, so if someone is Sued, It's Sharp, not Nintendo.

Sharp is the one using the "idea" of the other guy, but still it's stupid, because Sharp has used that technology since 1980's


----------



## KingdomBlade (Jul 8, 2011)

cwstjdenobs said:
			
		

> KingdomBlade said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## cwstjdenobs (Jul 8, 2011)

KingdomBlade said:
			
		

> [snip...]



Ahh sorry, didn't notice that line.

But yeah Sharp have had it working for a long time. Ninty even experimented with putting one in the GBA before release, but the resolution possible at the time was really low.


----------



## chris888222 (Jul 8, 2011)

cwstjdenobs said:
			
		

> KingdomBlade said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yup.

I guess Nintendo is always into 3D for handhelds?

That time (GBA era), there wasn't even HD ready I think.


----------



## Lucifer666 (Jul 8, 2011)

chris888222 said:
			
		

> cwstjdenobs said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Even back then, movies were being filmed at REALLY high res (more than HD), but yeah, as you said, I don't think there were HD screens back then.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 8, 2011)

This is a situation similar to the first graphene processors. They could be produced back in the year 2000, but it's only this year that scientists figured out a cheap way to manufacture them.

These screens suffered from the same fate - back in the 80' it was hard to produce a high-res LCD with a barrier, now it's just "not that hard" anymore.


----------



## Giga_Gaia (Jul 8, 2011)

That guy suing them is never gonna win this. He is just gonna waste legal money in the end, he should stop while he didn't.

I swear, idiots these days are gonna try everything to get money.


----------



## Lucifer666 (Jul 8, 2011)

KingdomBlade said:
			
		

> 4. Yes, there is a reason for this. If you patented a design for a.. say, automatic water drinker or some shit, and someone else used it and got rich with it without any consent from you whatsoever, I'm sure you would sue the shit out of him.



I wouldn't "sue the shit out of him" when he's been doing it before I patented it.
That dude only patented it recently when Sharp's been doing it for ages.
I'm not being a "Nintenwhore" (what kind of word is that?) or whatever you wanna call it, I'm being logical.


----------



## cwstjdenobs (Jul 8, 2011)

Giga_Gaia said:
			
		

> That guy suing them is never gonna win this. He is just gonna waste legal money in the end, he should stop while he didn't.
> 
> I swear, idiots these days are gonna try everything to get money.



I think he's hoping it's not worth  Sharp or Nintendo's time to fight him and they'll just settle out of court because it might be cheaper for them even if they do win.

And seeing as I can't find a single piece of information for Tomita Technologies from before this suit I think he might just be a patent troll anyway and that is their SOP.

EDIT: I mean why else wait for so long to put stuff into motion, He hopes they have too much invested to waste the time on, and deal with the bad publicity of, this going to trial.


----------



## chris888222 (Jul 8, 2011)

I don't want to be a fanboy of either side or whatever... but I seriously find no reason why he sued Nintendo. I mean, not only was Sharp the patent, there are also products which have stereoscopic 3D as well (including phones), which also use the same similar technology.

What a competitive world I guess


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Jul 8, 2011)

This is just patent trolling at its finest.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Jul 8, 2011)

1. Make a bunch of random patents.
2. Wait a couple of years until someone makes anything relatively close to a patent you filed and sue them.
3. ????
4. Profit?


----------



## CyborGamer (Jul 8, 2011)

Heck, Nintendo probably has enough money to buy the man himself.


----------



## arogance1 (Jul 8, 2011)

Darmanitan said:
			
		

> That dude only patented it recently when Sharp's been doing it for ages.



2003 isn't exactly recent.

The reason he's waited this long is becuase theres no point sueing someone before knowing how much it will make you.

For example, If you sued Atari over something in the Jaguar, you wouldn't have gotten much from it (250k worldwide sales).

But, Nintendo have bigger and better lawyers than he can afford, this will get swept away quickly and quietly.

Now everyone move on, nothing more to see here


----------



## Bladexdsl (Jul 8, 2011)

i'm gonna go patent fusion and wait till they perfect it than sue them and make billions! that's how stupid this guy is his gonna get laughed out of the courtroom 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 !


----------



## EJames2100 (Jul 8, 2011)

It's his patent that's been used without permission, he has every right.

Doesn't matter how ridiculous the patent is.


----------



## InuYasha (Jul 8, 2011)

TheDreamLord said:
			
		

> If this fucker wins. is ninty gonna die?



Seriously how old are you?,even if the guy wins nintendo isn't just gonna go bankrupt...


----------



## _Chaz_ (Jul 8, 2011)

If he filed the patent, I agree that he should receive compensation.


----------



## machomuu (Jul 8, 2011)

Guild McCommunist said:
			
		

> 1. Make a bunch of random patents.
> 2. Wait a couple of years until someone makes anything relatively close to a patent you filed and sue them.
> 3. ????
> 4. Profit?


That made me laugh


----------



## Schlupi (Jul 8, 2011)

The patent system is a fucked up mess. People file for the "same" things and stuff like this happens.


----------



## machomuu (Jul 8, 2011)

Schlupi said:
			
		

> The patent system is a fucked up mess. People file for the "same" things and stuff like this happens.


Isn't this how Microsoft got started?

In that case...

WIN.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 8, 2011)

I swear Nintendo's 3D Tech are supplied by Sharp. Also, this guy deserves to die.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Jul 8, 2011)

tigris said:
			
		

> I swear Nintendo's 3D Tech are supplied by Sharp. Also, this guy deserves to die.


For rightfully claiming the rights to a patent that he made several years ago?


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 8, 2011)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> tigris said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes. _"No specifics were cited for how the 3DS violates the patent."_

... Hmm. 

_"Mr. Tomita has done substantial research and development in the area of stereoscopic display technology. Among other things, Mr. Tomita invented and developed technology relating to displaying stereoscopic (3-D) images on-screen for viewing with the naked eye, i.e., without utilizing glasses or other devices,"_

So, you're telling me, Mr Tomita, that you invented autostereoscopy? Yup, apparently, this guy invented the Autostereogram. (1838, Charles Wheatstone) OK. 

On the development side, this guy was working at Sony. Who publicly stated they don't feel like putting 3D screens into the Vita, and also have Glasses-on 3D for their TVs. Sharp has developed the 3D tech; Mr Tomita should not be suing Nintendo. He should be suing Sharp, at least.


----------



## Slyakin (Jul 8, 2011)

If the guy really made the patent and the tech, and Nintendo is using it illegally... Then I hope Nintendo loses and goes bankrupt.

Nintendo shouldn't be using patented technology. They shouldn't be using any type of stolen ideas either. Nintendo deserves to die if they stole stuff.

But then, Nintendo will never die, will they? They're a company. In America, being a company means being God.


----------



## Necron (Jul 8, 2011)

lol if Sony would be sued for this instead of Nintendo, everyone would be like:
DIE SONY YOU DAMN COPYCATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111oneone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			










NINTENDO IS THE KING


----------



## Nujui (Jul 8, 2011)

If he did make the patent and Nintendo used without consent, I say he has every right to sue them.

Like it will hurt them though.


----------



## ball2012003 (Jul 8, 2011)

Necron N.N said:
			
		

> lol if Sony would be sued for this instead of Nintendo, everyone would be like:
> DIE SONY YOU DAMN COPYCATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111oneone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> ...


lol so true


----------



## Necron (Jul 8, 2011)

and



			
				shakirmoledina said:
			
		

> one of the most silliest things IMO are patents of this nature. if u completely steal the exact copy of that item then its wrong.
> this guy has taken an idea even if from u, its an immaterial thing, how can u claim something immaterial as yer own?
> we may differ but i believe patents and copyrights should be on tangible things already in existence and not concepts or iDeaS.
> ppl fear competition so much that they sue each other for stealing ideas. business rules the world.


So why are songs copyrighted???


----------



## sergster1 (Jul 8, 2011)

No where in his patent does he mention the Parallax barrier which is used the 3DS's ability to produce 3D images. 

Also I do not think he CAN sue nintendo. The 3DS is manufactured in Japan and the tech COMES from Japan. Because of this he has NO right to sue nintendo because US patents cannot be used in cases that come from tech overseas. 


The max i believe they can do is bar the sales of 3DS's in america like they did in Europe for a short period of time. However ill be DAMMED if they do a forced recall on 3DS's

Correct me if im wrong.

Also seeing as the 3DS is an upgrade from his device I believe his patent automatically becomes invalid...


----------



## naruses (Jul 9, 2011)

I can bet that's Sony under the scenes.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 9, 2011)

This is the most pointless lawsuit since the Geohot lawsuit


----------



## celeron53 (Jul 9, 2011)

In other news, turns out water wets objects. That's right. Water is able to make a dry object into a wet object.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Jul 9, 2011)

this guy also used to work for sony so put 2 and 2 together


----------



## spinal_cord (Jul 9, 2011)

Slyakin said:
			
		

> Nintendo shouldn't be using patented technology. They shouldn't be using any type of stolen ideas either. Nintendo deserves to die if they stole stuff.



You do realise that almost EVERYTHING is a copy of previous items don't you?
Are you saying that no company should have the right to make, say, a waste paper basket because someone ELSE had the idea first? What about that optical mouse you are using on a your computer? I bet is wasn't manufactured by Xerox! If it wasn't for people using 'stolen' ideas, the TV would never have became popular, every day items would not be mass produced on a production line, you wouldn't have Linux or Windows or MacOX. We would still be in the dark ages because caveman1 killed anyone who used _his_ idea to use a rock as a seat.


----------



## KingdomBlade (Jul 9, 2011)

Darmanitan said:
			
		

> KingdomBlade said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Again, I wasn't aware that Sharp had made it previously. Read my post.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 9, 2011)

spinal_cord said:
			
		

> Slyakin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Amen to this.


----------



## FireGrey (Jul 9, 2011)

Nintendo would be one of the only companies that don't decide to sue them back


----------



## GameWinner (Jul 9, 2011)

Why didn't I think of this!?


			
				Bladexdsl said:
			
		

> this guy also used to work for sony so put 2 and 2 together


LOL!


----------



## Joe88 (Jul 10, 2011)

GameWinner said:
			
		

> Why didn't I think of this!?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


becuase it's a typical nintendrone post


----------



## Veho (Jul 10, 2011)

Joe88 said:
			
		

> GameWinner said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think he means "why didn't I think of patenting glasses-less 3D and suing Nintendo for truckloads of moneyz?"


----------



## TheDarkSeed (Jul 10, 2011)

He shouldn't be able to sue if he patented that long ago and did nothing with the technology for that long. Doing that locks out possibilities for (any)technology to progress.


----------



## chartube12 (Jul 10, 2011)

patents expire after 20 years. It's how hyperkin was able to show off a nes/snes clone made with the nes2 and snes2 chips at E3. If a patent goes unused by the holder after 15 years, you can legally fight for it's early expiration. After 10 years if the patent holder has gotten another patent for a very similar product, another person can claim the new patent superseeds the 10 year one and fight for old's fair use.


----------



## Joe88 (Jul 11, 2011)

Veho said:
			
		

> Joe88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


oh, well I think many people commenting in this thread have no idea how the patent process works
its not like you can write "herp derp glasses-less 3d" on a napkin and patent it
something like this design idea would have cost thousands upon thousands of dollars for patent attorney fees, professional drawing and figures, filling fee's, and other associated fee's, and may still get rejected by the patent office


----------



## Qtis (Jul 15, 2011)

Interesting, but stupid. The patent system works when considering blatant copying ie. I can't make a copy of the iPhone and sell it as a uPhone. Still it doesn't really cheer companies to spend money on R&D if they can't be sure that there is some kind of profit or at least 0-profit. Funny thing though is how different tech is released.. "LOOK THE NEW IPHONE WITH FEATURE XXX!" has happened quite a few times before and still those features might be used very rarely. And been on different companies products for years. Inb4 rage over Apple's products, I own a MBP and like using it. It's just the point of bringing this into perspective.

Good try anyway for the lawsuit. 


-Qtis


----------



## Chaosruler (Aug 19, 2011)

Nintendo are Sharps customers, they bought those screens, as much as you are a Nintendo customer to buy those screen from Nintendo, Nintendo can be sued but not for as-much, It's like saying Optimus 3D customers are sued due to using that same 3D technology


			
				tigris said:
			
		

> spinal_cord said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Atari did the mouse, if I remember correctly, and they thrown it away while Gates and Jobs picked it up


----------



## spinal_cord (Aug 19, 2011)

Chaosruler said:
			
		

> Nintendo are Sharps customers, they bought those screens, as much as you are a Nintendo customer to buy those screen from Nintendo, Nintendo can be sued but not for as-much, It's like saying Optimus 3D customers are sued due to using that same 3D technology
> 
> 
> 
> ...



optical?


----------



## awssk8er (Aug 19, 2011)

Why is this guy waiting until now to try to sue them?....

I doubt he'll win, but if he does... I don't even know what would happen.


----------



## chris888222 (Aug 19, 2011)

awssk8er said:
			
		

> Why is this guy waiting until now to try to sue them?....
> 
> I doubt he'll win, but if he does... I don't even know what would happen.


This is a pretty old news article...


----------



## Clydefrosch (Aug 19, 2011)

i dont think this can even be won, the technology in itself is way to basic, way to easy and the concept of it has been known for decades already.

also, even if he should win, whats the problem? he'll be payed a small sum or a few cents for every ds and thats it.
or nintendo might just pour the money they would otherwise have to pay him into lawyers and degrade him back to gradeschool


edit: wait what oo lol i didnt even check the original post date... damn you, latest discussion thingy


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Aug 19, 2011)

Nice necrobumping guys!

[youtube]xGytDsqkQY8[/youtube]


----------

