Support NeoGAF

[onilink88]

Better Call Saul.

Nope.

 

[Huff]

We'll see what happens.

It very well could get overturned because of some sketchy descriptors between what the 3DS does and the tech the patent owner claims is being infringed on.

based on the description of the lawyers defense, they should hire a better lawyer if they are planning an appeal. Although cutting their losses as 30 mil may not be a bad idea.

 

[meow]

nvm, should've just looked at the patent instead. It pretty clearly claims a video image display that outputs different images for each eye. Stuff about how the cameras capture the 3D image and the ability to adjust the image afterwards to maintain the 3D effect are just another part of the patent. (basically, two posts down)
Disclaimer this time is I know nothing about whatever tech it is that the 3DS uses.

 

[odhiex]

30 mil...ouch! They've sold about 30 mil units, I hope they're making a profit from the hardware.

So...he is taking a dollar of each 3DS sold profit to date? that's.. a lot.

 

[Ponn]

I skimmed through the patent in question and while it does describe something about adjusting for the position of the viewer, it does seem to describe what sounds a lot like the parallax barrier used in the 3DS display as well. IIRC one of Tomita's complaints was that Nintendo described his technology to Sharp and Sharp manufactured the display (possibly unknowingly violating the patent). Disclaimer: I am not a patent expert.

Bingo. was actually reading it to and the people claiming it was just about cameras capturing the viewer are being misleading. That is part of several claims in the patent and basically something the inventor added in to solve the viewing angle issue from the first couple claims. The design and layers of the screen are right there and how the 3D works on the 3ds is pretty spot on.

 

[Rogue Agent]

@A Human Becoming - yay! That's him.

@onilink88 - Dammit!

 

[Mondriaan]

Bingo. was actually reading it to and the people claiming it was just about cameras capturing the viewer are being misleading. That is part of several claims in the patent and basically something the inventor added in to solve the viewing angle issue from the first couple claims. The design and layers of the screen are right there and how the 3D works on the 3ds is pretty spot on.

He may have been describing the current state of the art (prior art) rather than saying that it was part of his patent, though. I only had a few minutes t before I headed out when I skimmed and posted.

At any rate, some people in this thread are saying that in the summary of the case it was something else that was infringed. Maybe someone else who actually deals with patents will weigh in later. I'm somewhat inclined to believe that Tomita isn't just another patent troll, though.

 

[Eusis]

At any rate, some people in this thread are saying that in the summary of the case it was something else that was infringed. Maybe someone else who actually deals with patents will weigh in later. I'm somewhat inclined to believe that Tomita isn't just another patent troll, though.

Yeah, at worst he may be a little pissed that he got rejected only for something similar to have been accepted, and it's close enough to his patent for a real case. If it was proper patent trolling it'd probably be someone from Texas no one's heard of before and his no real site or work to show.

Then again, the Tomita Technologies I've uncovered through Google seems to be about agricultural technology, so... huh.

 

[Cat Party]

Without knowing much, I am very curious why this made it to trial. Juries are notorious for finding infringement in so-called hi-tech patents because the technology is so foreign to them. Odd that Nintendo chose to risk it where the guy was not a patent troll.

If you're wondering why Nintendo was sued instead of or in addition to Sharp, welcome to the US patent system where you get to sue evetyone.

 

[Lexxism]

Do the Nintendo still have continue to pay $1 for every hardware sold after paying $30m?