Homebrew Companies (Like Nintendo) Might have just been put up against a wall.

[Chizurd]

So. Apparently in Nintendo's terms of use (and many other companies) if you buy their product, you don't 100% own it, and these companies can seize their property back at any moment in time, and you basically aren't allowed to do anything you want to it because it's not yours technically. Well not anymore more. A ruling came down, that now makes companies change there terms, and now when you buy a product from them, it is 100% yours, and you can modify (CFW) resale, and do anything you want to it. So the fact that Nintendo banned people for using CFW for minor things like save back ups, and streaming could now force Nintendo to un ban these individuals.

The case is called

Impression Products, Inc v. Lexmark International, Inc

Look it up, good read, may be a fantastic step in the right direction. I'm pumped to read this, because now a lot of these companies will be forced to back off when it comes to user made content.

Thanks for your time.

 

[The Real Jdbye]

I thought you always owned them.
Anyway, it doesn't make any difference to online bans. Online access is a privilege and is not included in the price of the console, it's an extra service and they are allowed to take it away if you violate their ToS.

 

[austin5623]

Wow, GOOD TIMING THERE NINTY.

 

[SnakeOil992]

I thought that when you buy something it's yours, since you've made the creator of that something a service by paying them.

 

[DashAhead]

Well, I believe the bans would still hold. If that case's verdict holds up, then technically yes - we are allowed to modify the console, but that doesn't mean Nintendo can't ban us for it. Legal stuff is always wobbly.

 

[Chizurd]

Just thought I'd share this information with you all

 

[nitroBW]

Hasn't this been known for years now?

Also, why should they force them to unban? You broke the ToS so they don't have to let you use their services. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Meteor7]

After skimming the pdf released by the Supreme Court, it looks like the ruling deals specifically with the case of reselling patented products. It's barely a step in the right direction, really, but a step nonetheless. It'll be quite a while still until full consumer rights are given to people who do things like hack consoles. As far as Nintendo goes, they're as of now completely unaffected, as they've never tried to legally persecute the reselling of their consoles.

 

[petethepug]

By "seizing their property back at any moment." Are you referring to Nintendo's policy of coming to someones front door step and asking them for your Nintendo console for "unauthorized software" ???

Actually now that I think about that it seems weird but funny at the same time lol. And of course i'm just joking lmao

 

[duffmmann]

Don't hold your breath on Nintendo unbanning anyone, or to stop with the ban waves. You may own the system, but Nintendo has every right to allow and refuse online services to whoever they wish. Hell, Nintendo doesn't even have to offer an online service at all if they don't want to.

 

[Dracari]

ya know this comes to mind it maybe a grey area but is this why we only got an online ban and not an eShop ban as thats techincally crippling/blocking you from Digital exclusive content? (unsure if a full 002-0102 + eshop ban/NNID ban would also prevent System updates.)

 

[PrincessLillie]

Nintendo may have just fucked themselves. If people bring this to court, RIP Nintendo.

 

[Meteor7]

Well, this quote from the document might raise some odd implications.

When a patentee chooses to sell an item, that product “is no longer within the limits of the monopoly” and instead becomes the “private, individual property” of the purchaser, with the rights and benefits that come along with ownership. Id., at 549–550. A patentee is free to set the price and negotiate contracts with purchasers, but may not, “by virtue of his patent, control the use or disposition” of the product after ownership passes to the purchaser. United States v. Univis Lens Co., 316 U. S. 241, 250 (1942) (emphasis added). The sale “terminates all patent rights to that item.” Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U. S. 617, 625 (2008).

Particularly the statement that "(the patentee) may not, 'by virtue of his patent, control the use or disposition' of the product after ownership passes to the purchaser." In the future, company policies, like that of Nintendo and Sony, might be ruled to be in violation of this statement, as they do seem to attempt to control the usage of their products. The loophole seems like it would be in the "by virtue of his patent" part of that statement, as companies currently use a EULA to restrict the usage of their products and not their patent. That being said, EULAs are known to hold very little water when it comes down to (but not necessarily limited to) settling copyright disputes in court, or so I've been told, so I get the feeling they aren't held in very high legal regard. I'd imagine that if the EULAs were ever ruled to violate consumer rights by attempting to "control the use (...) of the product", as I personally believe they do, then they would be forced to make immediate revisions. In that sense, maybe this ruling could precede bigger changes than I thought, though I wouldn't expect anything soon.

 

[smileyhead]

-snip- nevermind...

 

[PrincessLillie]

I'd imagine that if the EULAs were ever ruled to violate consumer rights by attempting to "control the use (...) of the product", as I personally believe they do, then they would be forced to make immediate revisions.

Well, the EULAs do "control the use (...) of the product" as by violating the EULA of Nintendo's 3DS console, we were restricted online access, therefore controlling the online use of the console.

 

[BARNWEY]

MUAHAHAHAHAHA, HACK ALL THE CONSOLES!!!!

 

[duffmmann]

Nintendo may have just fucked themselves. If people bring this to court, RIP Nintendo.

yeah... no. I'd love to be unbanned, but I'm also living in the real world, this isn't going to do shit in regard to Nintendo and how they've banned users. Frankly I can't imagine any type of jurisdiction that would require Nintendo to unban users. Maybe if you were paying for Nintendo's online service and then they blocked you from it, there could be legal ground to reverse that, but as a free optional service... no, they're gonna be able to keep you banned indefinitely if they wish.

 

[invaderyoyo]

This won't change anything relating to the bans. It makes sense for Nintendo to try to ban CFW. I do think their words are vague, though.
On the back of 3DS game boxes it says using an "unauthorized device" or "unauthorized technical modification" will make the game or system unplayable. It's too vague.

 

[Meteor7]

Well, the EULAs do "control the use (...) of the product" as by violating the EULA of Nintendo's 3DS console, we were restricted online access, therefore controlling the online use of the console.

Well, I feel like that's more along the lines of "selectively withholding a service" than "controlling the usage of a product", but it could be a gray area. Nintendo isn't exactly "restricting online access", they're restricting access specifically to their services, which it is currently in their rights to do.

 

[PrincessLillie]

Maybe if you were paying for Nintendo's online service and then they blocked you from it, there could be legal ground to reverse that, but as a free optional service... no, they're gonna be able to keep you banned indefinitely if they wish.

*cough* Switch *cough*