-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Nintendo found guilty for infringing glasses-free 3D patent
- Thread starter Wario64
- Start date
Alcotholic
Banned
Pretty clear there is no patent infringement if this is really whats patented.
MisterHero
Super Member
But they had Luigi's Mansion working in 3D before the Gamecube launched. One would think that Nintendo had the proper documentation for a long time. .__.
Alcotholic
Banned
This is the screen technology, not 3D gaming itself.
That isn't glassless 3D technology.
Commanche Raisin Toast
Member
is it too late for popcorn.gif?
frankie_baby
Member
look at his patent, its nothing like how the 3ds works
MisterHero
Super Member
Obviously, but them looking into the technology precedes their meeting with this guy. There's no reason they would decide to rip him off to achieve the effect.
Betrayer of hope
Banned
Well it breaks the combo of sony copying nintendo we have been getting since ages.
Well done to that man.
Well done to that man.
frankie_baby
Member
actually nintendo planned a glassesless 3d screen for the gamecube
I thought it was a prerequisite for account approval.
I would have got him more than 30 mil,
I'm not a lawyer so prob not
Jury case? Of course he won- it's big company vs. little guy. I'd honestly put money on it that they argued with emotion to win the jury over.
When they appeal and (if they) don't get a jury- it's likely Nintendo will win. Their argument was pretty weak against a jury, but against a judge alone they have a better chance. It's hard to prove Nintendo actually took the ideas when they were shopping around for the tech and got it from someone else.
Well- so the story goes they got it from Sharp. That could be some PR spin.
The guy likely won't have a case against other companies using the tech though. He only had a case because he met with Nintendo and showed it to them. Makes them look pretty guilty.
When they appeal and (if they) don't get a jury- it's likely Nintendo will win. Their argument was pretty weak against a jury, but against a judge alone they have a better chance. It's hard to prove Nintendo actually took the ideas when they were shopping around for the tech and got it from someone else.
Well- so the story goes they got it from Sharp. That could be some PR spin.
The guy likely won't have a case against other companies using the tech though. He only had a case because he met with Nintendo and showed it to them. Makes them look pretty guilty.
Maybe I did read the thread and was posing the question in sarcasm to the person who responded to me. You know what happens when you assume right?
bro no way lol
I got myself a college education in sarcasm. What you said earlier was nowhere close to sarcasm.
radioheadrule83
Banned
Can someone actually explain to me why he didn't go after HTC for the evo 3d or against sharp for their screen technology? I've nothing against seeing a guy rewarded for good ideas or invention, it just seems selective to go after the 3DS when the exact same tech is used elsewhere. I find the reward odd too. If it infringes why aren't they made to license and give the guy back pay and future payments?
That's the worst sarcasm I've ever seen.
If I'm understanding it correctly, it is using a camera to detect where the person's eyes are and displays the 3D accordingly?
Yea, just searched this up. It was too expensive back then.
lol Unless you are able to read my mind then I would have a hard time proving what I said was sarcasm but oh well.
Good for you champ. Let's stay on topic.
Neither.
Have you actually analyzed the details of this case?
It seems that most people in this thread didn't even care about the details or facts of the actual case in question. Their only interest in this topic was that something bad happened to Nintendo, which they apparently are happy about.
eighty(one)
Member
The patent must certainly involves/describe specific application or implentation of the technology.
If that is/were the case, that would be the reason Nintendo is/was seen as the infringing party.
In other words, the 3D display isn't the basis/meritous/contentious point - it's the method of utilization with the 3D display, by Nintendo, and specifically by their system (3DS) that is at fault.
So, Sharp isn't in the wrong. The 3D display is only part of the equation. It's how Nintendo used the display, in conjunction to the system the is in violation.
It's weird because the patent indicates "Prior Art" and at one point in that section explains how a glassless 3d screen would work. What I get from this is that the patent is for a device that captures a 3d image with 2 cameras, send the image to a reciever, that reciever will output the glassless 3d image and somehow adjust the distance of the 2 images acording to the position of the viewer. Nothing like the 3ds, it even admits that 3d screens like the one on the 3ds exists in the prior art section.
Evolution_1ne
Banned
which explains the quality of the one on the 3DS
Maybe he's a Vita fan
Samurai_Heart
Member
The Sony blood still boils in this inventor =P
But in all seriousness I think it's more to do that Nintendo 3DS is one of the best known 3D product in comparison to the phones you said and he had an easier winnable case due to Nintendo did actually have a meeting with him.
frankie_baby
Member
yeah sounds like his patent is pretty cool but definitely nothing like the 3ds
would've been a cool little add on, shame it never saw the light of day
Bullshit. I love the feature and have no sympathy for 2D peasants!
Unstoppable Lionheart
Banned
Clearly you've never heard of contingency fees.
This right here is a good example of why people who aren't lawyers shouldn't talk about the law as if they have any idea what they are talking about.
There's a reason it takes 3 years extra of schooling and the passing of a huge exam to become a lawyer.
Dion Blaster
Member
Doesn't the 3DS take 3D pictures/video? Wouldn't that be the patent infringement?
When they say they are setting it aside does that mean they are just cutting their loses? All they have to do is pay some damages at the moment. While some have said that they could win if they appealed is their a risk for a worse judgement that could effect the 3DS itself if they lost again?
Also I like how some people have completely missed the idea behind the Sony copies Nintendo joke. If you're going to reverse it at least make sure it actually works first.
Also I like how some people have completely missed the idea behind the Sony copies Nintendo joke. If you're going to reverse it at least make sure it actually works first.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
this is one guy, he's not some weird shell corporation. i wouldnt necessarily think he's a patent troll... he DID win...
Didn't someone display a prototype for a game on the 3DS that gave you different views of a panorama scene depending on the angle you were looking at the camera or am I confused?
Probably would've been too bulky for portable displays at this point.
But yeah, if that's all the patent REALLY covers this is going to be eviscerated by anyone who actually understands this stuff well enough to properly judge.
Looking at the patent.. it's not even the same tech.
His tech is a complete matrix with the pixels essentially tilted towards each eye. It appears to be close to a lenticular image.
The Sharp screen Nintendo licensed uses parallax barriers.
Nintendon't start.
maybe you should reread the details...
like, FORMER sony employee. And it was patented under his own companies name. Tomita Technologies
Sony has nothing to do with this at all.
Yeah I was thinking that too, but you would need to ignore the "adjust the image acording to the position of the viewer automatically". I don't know if he can just say "yeah ignore that part and is totally the same". In that case it has nothing to do with the games, and probably nothing to do with the screen technology itself. In any case don't know how the patent system works, I just read what the patent says.
frankie_baby
Member
you are thinking of that dsi game that did some pseudo 3d thing, it became a running joke in early 3ds threads before the system was revealed
Boss Man
Member
Sir Tim Berners Lee will ride in on you with his mighty steed and javelin you.
Are you thinking of Rittai Kakushi, the game that often used to troll people into thinking it was a video of the 3DS before it was first shown?
Exactly.
I am not sure whether the court decision is correct or not. Even if correct, $30 million is a drop in a bucket for Nintendo.
...it's an option. Keep it turned off and move on with your life.
Never understood why it bothers people so much
frankie_baby
Member
british telecom tried to claim the world wide web breached their patents, didnt get very far in court
MisterHero
Super Member
A prototype is recommended but the creator needs to document everything they did to come up with the idea and how it works.
Hopefully Nintendo has such paperwork that describes the differences between technologies.