What a stupid article.
OF COURSE Phillips really wants a cut of Nintendo money, i.e. a licence fee for their patents.
They are liable to a lawsuit by their own shareholders if they do not pursue maximizing revenue of patents they hold.
As the article itself points out, the patents are primarily relevant to original Wii, not just Wii U,
so why the article can then fixate on the level of current Wii U sales is beyond me...
If Nintendo is found infringing, they will owe a licence fee for ALL infringing products sold, i.e. original Wiis.
The requested injunction is mainly because you can get an import injunction much more quickly than
you can get an entire court case resolved, which of course can go thru multiple appeals stages.
Getting the Wii U injunction threatens Nintendo's current business, likely forcing a negotiated settlement,
as well as Wii U itself being a valid source of licencing revenue, even if minorly incremental vs original Wii.
All that is DEAD OBVIOUS to anybody who even remotely understands modern patent law and business practice,
and while the "archaeology" of Nintendo/Phillips historic relationship was minorly interesting on it's own right,
the purported premise of the article falls flat, and just further lowers any repution of Motley Fool (if it had any left).
