| Nuvendil said: No, they are not supposed to protect ANYONE in a civil case. They are supposed to rule according to the law. Being small or weak should not and does not score you any brownie points. And looking at their suit and their device, I don't see a legitimate case. I see a shakedown, born out of the fact their company has not been as successful as they hoped. And THEY'RE the plaintiff. The one with all the burden of proof is them. If this was SO important to them, why not file the case last fall? Or in January? Why wait until NOW? I'll tell you why: they know Nintendo has a ton of money tied up in the Switch and can't change the design now. This is old school intimidation, plain and simple. We've seen it a million times in this industry. |
The 'weak' in a civil case could either be the plaintiff (Gamevice) or the defendant (Nintendo) depending on the ruling ...
We'll see whether the case they raise up is legitmate or not according to the court ruling ...
And LOL @ the accusation of jealousy, just pure deflection from the topic at hand due to partisanship ...
As for why it took so long that's because there's lot's of oversight in enforcing patent law to begin with ... (It may take months before you can figure if your intellectual property is being infringed on since you have to cross reference your patents at hand with a product from another company's and in turn the potential plaintiff also has to check the other company's IP portfolio so that they themselves don't have an invalid duplicate. The library of patents is MASSIVE.)
We've seen intimidation but we've also seen where corporations who dare try to step on innovators are rightfully reprimanded by court so who's say Nintendo isn't the latter ?
