fatslob-:O said:
Dravenet7 said:
*Sigh*....
I don't care if you didn't ask for my input. Maybe stop acting oblivious to what's said in plain English and maybe I wouldn't feel a need to give it. How about that?
For example: you say, "why exactly do people feel the need to discuss what Gamevice is suing Nintendo over?"
This completely oblivious. The thread is literally about Gamevice suing Nintendo. If it bothers you maybe you shouldn't post in the first place, but you considering the fact you posted here several times and you initiated a response to another user as well and asked an open question towards all who were in support of Nintendo in the thread, its not that you are clueless as to why people are debating it. It is simply the fact you want to dismiss ither people's opinions and it really isn't working out for you now is it?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exaggerating what? I counted your redundancy before posting. Here are the 5 times I was refering to:
1. What ?! Nintendo's not going out of business just because they have to pay relatively small damage fees (for their size as a corporation) and royalties for every Switch sold in the US ...
2. Then Nintendo only has to pay royalties in America or just design the Switch without detachable joy-cons ...
It's not the end of the world if Nintendo can't have detachable joy-cons on the Switch
3. Just like how Nintendo is trying benefit off of other people's invention ? Let Nintendo defend themselves in court and we'll see whether the judges determine Nintendo will or will not have to pay for damages and royalties ...
4. No more Switch in america ... (doesn't mean Nintendo can't sell Switch's in other territories providing they didn't infringe patents in those territories either)
Besides paying royalties is a relatively small price for Nintendo's size and they could design the Switch without detachable joy-cons to get around the patent issue ...
5. Patents are usually sovereign grants which only affects trade with a specific nation ...
If a patent is infringed on there's usually no recall since it's presumably settled in court (or outside) between the corporations so customers still get to keep the product in question, it's just that the defendant (Nintendo) hast to pay the damages and royalties (if Nintendo decides to keep detachable joy-cons) to the plaintiff (Gamevice) ...
|
You must've missed the second question ...
1. Nintendo is not going out of business ..
2. It's not the end of the world for Nintendo since they can design without detachable controllers ...
3. People need to stop assuming that Nintendo is the guiltless party ...
4. Nintendo may not be able to sell detachable Switch's in america ...
5. Patents are granted by nation ...
Sooo many redundancies cause I use the words 'royalties, damages and detachable joy-cons' too much LOL ...
|
This is cute. I like it. It makes drilling the facts in easier for me. This is what Azuren said:
"And if Gamevice doesn't want to settle, doesn't want royalties, and wants to specifically stop the sale of the Switch as it exists right now, that's what will happen in the affected territories should Gamevice win.Now, unless you can respond with something that addresses that outside of "but it doesn't usually do that" despite Gamevice already expressing interest in doing just that, just stop. I'm not interested in getting caught in a repeating discussion."
Most of these 5 posts were responses to what Azuren's post in which the scenario of having to the Switch sales shut down by gameVice were essentially given the response of, essentially, "but it doesn't usually do that". In other words saying royalties were the only option. The reason your response is cute is because you literally trim out the bulk of what you said in which, is about royalties, damages, yada yada yada. The fact that in those posts I quoted, its MOST of what you said, and you clipped out a small piece of sentence for each in order to frame it as you only sprinkled royalties and the like in is sad. Sad and irrelavent. Your redudancy is in line with you ignoring the scenario Azuren was talking about. The only time you remotely address it is in #4.
