kupomogli said:
archbrix said:
kupomogli said:
Didn't Nintendo make a statement that the Wii U is the only console they've sold that they lose money on each console and it's required to sell atleast one game to make a profit?
I think the judge was ruling it based on the money that the 3DS makes alone and they're not including the software, which is a bit ridiculous since Nintendo is making money on everything, not just the console. |
@bolded: No, it's not ridiculous at all. The lawsuit was regarding the 3-D display technology patent regarding the hardware, not Nintendo's software.
|
Software that takes advantage of this 3D technology, the selling point of the console. While many didn't buy the console for the 3D, Nintendo was pushing it as a selling point, so it's a selling point, and since Nintendo infringed on a patent, the owner of the patent should be compensated for everything that makes use of that patent, including the games that utilize that 3D effect.
|
I disagree. I'm sure it was argued that the 3D selling point was for the 3DS hardware. The software is not reliant upon the 3D panel to run, selling point or not. And as you said, there's no way to prove that the 3DS was bought solely for the 3D. If word around the internet is to be taken seriously, it largely was not.
Furthermore, it also depends on how the lawsuit was filed. From what I've read, Tomita sued specifically for patent infringement - probably because he knew he had a case for that and wanted to win. If Nintendo infringed on a patent for a specific technology then they should pay up for that, but fortunately in this case it was limited to that, as it should be IMO.
