| Azuren said: I never said it made sense. I'd go after royalties myself, but last I checked Gamevice was going after a sale ban.
And that worst case scenario would involve the recall of unsold Switches. I don't believe I said all, but if I did I can assure you it was a typo.
And I just don't have patience for cyclical arguments anymore. Been arguing with SJWs at work too much, and I tell ya: they can literally make the same argument all day long and fully believe it was the best response to their argument being dismantled. |
Here's what Gamevice has filed so far ...
1. Under 'Nature of Action', it says "Gamevice seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages" ...
2. Gamevice has declined to comment according to Engadget ...
Gamevice haven't even said that they were intending to seek a full ban on Switch sales at all!
| Dravenet7 said: 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. |
The first bit isn't true as Gamevice wants to settle regardless ... (Why else would they file a civil lawsuit ?)
@Bold How nice of you to pull a strawman ... 
(And BTW response #3 wasn't intended for Azuren so that was just a reach on your part.)
Just because I recycle some of what I've said before doesn't mean that I can't raise a new point ... (Are you gonna forbid me for repeating some of the things I say now ? LOL)
