Not really. -_-

It's really unlikely to benefit Nintendo directly, but it's more about sending a message that Nintendo will be very aggressive if you tru and sue them.

My point isn't whether they lost or not at all.  My point is that they did try to legally obtain the rights to use a parallax barrier screen by licensing and contracting Sharp.  They didn't intentionally infringe on Tomita which is what the contrary of that statement would conclude.  If they don't respect other company's intellectual property, that means they willingly and knowlingly use other's IP without permission.  But that's not the case here.  They thought they were respecting the rights of others by licensing patents from Sharp for Sharp's own displays.  The real question should be how in the world does Tomita have the same patents as does Sharp?  Or how you can license a technology and still get sued by someone else for the same technology?

But if we can decide in a forum who won the war (we can, can't we?) why not be able to decide if Nintendo is inovative or rip-off?

Subcontracting a service doesn't take off the responsibility from you... if you contract a fraudulent scheme or anything infringing any law or agreement you are responsible as well and will have to show that you have taken all possible precautions to be sure it was right... And again in courthouse anything is possible, maybe you could sue your younger zigotic gemini for copying your DNA.

While true, cases sucha s that are usually not pushed completely through as it undermines other legally obtained and applied patents for the exact same technology.   Normally this would put all patents involved into a reviewing period by the USPTO (who have a working relationship with the Japanese Patent Office) to ensure duplication of patented technologies are not causing legal issues.  The problem is that that federal courthouse in Marshall, Texas never forwards these cases back to the USPTO which is another reason patent trolls always file there.

As for the twin DNA suit, please don't give older twin patent trolls any ideas.

I agree with you that most of cases the company sued may have took all steps, but the ones after this kind of buck aren't worried, they could have filed the patent in Fiji Island just so no one find until they decide to sue. Was just responding about the company not being responsible because it was a contractors fault.

Sorry, will keep my evil ideas for myself. Do you have an evil twin?

Good for nintendo. Off topic, but I heard that nintendo stole their 3d capability from a former sony employee. They werent lucky in that case.

This is exactly what I and otehrs are discussing above.

Former Sony employee Tomita has some kind of 3D patent.  But Nintendo didn't steal it, they contracted and licensed Sharp for the parallax barrier technology and for supply of the 3D displays.

So, If I'm correctly understanding your vision, you're just here to say that Nintendo is copying, even though other valid arguments are on the table.

Talk about emotional investment...