Customer Discussions > Video Games forum

Jury decides Nintendo infringed on glasses-free 3D patent


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-16 of 16 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Mar 13, 2013 3:51:33 PM PDT
http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/13/4100924/nintendo-guilty-of-patent-infringement-3ds-technology

In developing its 3DS portable console, Nintendo infringed on a glasses-free 3D patent owned by a former Sony employee. That's according to a New York federal jury, which earlier today hit Nintendo with $30.2 million in damages. The patent in question - granted in 2008 - pertains to viewing 3D content without a need for specialized glasses, which is a major selling point of the 3DS. Seijiro Tomita (who spent 30 years at Sony according to the court complaint) sued Nintendo in 2011 for infringing on his invention, claiming that he'd met with the gaming manufacturer in 2003 to discuss the technology. In its defense, Nintendo's attorney argued that Tomita was just one of several 3D purveyors it was in contact with at the time and that the 3D implementation in the portable device avoided key aspects of his patent.

Ultimately the jury sided with Tomita and awarded him the compensatory damages. $30.2 million isn't exactly going to bankrupt Nintendo, and the case is unlikely to have any long-term consequences, but it's still an embarrassing legal defeat for the gaming industry giant.

Posted on Mar 13, 2013 3:53:52 PM PDT
HorizonBrave says:
I'll make sure it gets more coverage, thanks.

Posted on Mar 13, 2013 3:58:34 PM PDT
DVvM says:
I'm not saying the jury was wrong in this case, but jury trials for patent disputes are incredibly stupid. Why do we have them?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2013 3:59:39 PM PDT
Lawyers love them.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2013 4:00:25 PM PDT
I was kind of thinking the same thing. You'd think there would be some sort of group who knew the ins and outs of patents to go over the details after everything was presented then weigh in with their opinion instead of handing the verdict over to a random assortment of people who probably have no clue about these types of things.

Either way this isn't that big of a deal. Don't these kinds of cases happen all the time?

Posted on Mar 13, 2013 4:01:13 PM PDT
Joel H. says:
Also guilty of NO GAMEZ.

Posted on Mar 13, 2013 4:07:36 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 13, 2013 4:09:03 PM PDT
HorizonBrave says:
Thinking about it, $30 million is nothing for Nintendo. They will make that money back after 50 months of WiiU sales.

Posted on Mar 13, 2013 4:12:30 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 13, 2013 4:13:06 PM PDT
Nintendo's statement:

http://www.polygon.com/2013/3/13/4101054/jury-nintendo-liable-for-patent-infringement-3ds-technology

A jury awarded $30.2 million in damages to Tomita Technologies in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Tomita against Nintendo. The Tomita patent did not relate to the 3D games playable on the Nintendo 3DS. The trial was held in U.S. District Court in New York before Judge Jed Rakoff.

Nintendo is confident that the result will be set aside. The jury's verdict will not impact Nintendo's continued sales in the United States ofits highly acclaimed line ofvideogame hardware, software and accessories, including the Nintendo 3DS. Nintendo has a long history of developing innovative products while respecting the intellectual property rights of others.

Posted on Mar 13, 2013 9:32:48 PM PDT
The jury sided with the guy...you know, I think this would be an easy case to present evidence for. Look at his patent. Look at the tech Nintendo is using. There is indisputable evidence that they are either using stuff in the patent or they aren't.

Posted on Mar 13, 2013 9:43:11 PM PDT
Of course Nintendo stole from Sony again.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2013 2:33:38 AM PDT
If that were the case then Sony would have owned the patent and sued Nintendo.

Posted on Mar 14, 2013 2:38:32 AM PDT
This will most likely be dismissed in Appellate Court. For one thing in the US you need to have a working product and not just be sitting on a patent to sue which is an already set precedent by Nintendo and Sharp makes the screens not Nintendo.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2013 3:25:43 AM PDT
MrFoxhound says:
30 mil and they can keep selling it? Who really won here?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2013 3:51:02 AM PDT
Keller says:
Both parties? Nintendo keeps selling and 30 million is nothing to them. Meanwhile the guy gets 30 million which is a boat load for him.

Posted on Mar 14, 2013 4:13:47 AM PDT
Gameresq says:
If the damages were only $30 million, it must have been a very minor infringement. Defense costs can approach $30 million in a major patent infringement case.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2013 4:16:14 AM PDT
Gameresq says:
Generally speaking: If the law is on your side, a bench trial is preferable. If the law is more favorable to the other side, take your chances with a jury
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Video Games forum
Participants:  11
Total posts:  16
Initial post:  Mar 13, 2013
Latest post:  Mar 14, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions