Viper1 said:
My point isn't whether they lost or not at all. My point is that they did try to legally obtain the rights to use a parallax barrier screen by licensing and contracting Sharp. They didn't intentionally infringe on Tomita which is what the contrary of that statement would conclude. If they don't respect other company's intellectual property, that means they willingly and knowlingly use other's IP without permission. But that's not the case here. They thought they were respecting the rights of others by licensing patents from Sharp for Sharp's own displays. The real question should be how in the world does Tomita have the same patents as does Sharp? Or how you can license a technology and still get sued by someone else for the same technology? |
Subcontracting a service doesn't take off the responsibility from you... if you contract a fraudulent scheme or anything infringing any law or agreement you are responsible as well and will have to show that you have taken all possible precautions to be sure it was right... And again in courthouse anything is possible, maybe you could sue your younger zigotic gemini for copying your DNA.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."







