Nintendo Being Sued For Glasses-less 3D Screen Technology

[chris888222]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

He probably misread or didnt quite get it lol.

Ahem sry meant to say does. XD

 

[Nathan Drake]

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]

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

 

[cwstjdenobs]

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]

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

 

[cwstjdenobs]

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]

If this fucker wins. is ninty gonna die?

 

[YetoJesse]

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]

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.

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?!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

The guy owns the patent to glassless 3D.

Nintendo doesn't own the patent to motion control.

That's the way I see it. PSMove is based upon using the Playstation Eye making the technology used different, and it's not like they copied the Wii Mote's exact design. It's simply a wand style controller. Same goes for Kinect. They use the same concept, but different technologies.

Provided that Glassless 3D was created by Nintendo in a very similar design to this guy's design, then he does have the right to sue them. If they just used the same concept but not the same technological design, then he doesn't. I'm not totally sure if Nintendo did, so sorry about my previous statement.

QUOTE(KingdomBlade @ Jul 8 2011, 12:00 PM)

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?

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]

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]

[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]

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.