Actually, you did.   You suggested that Nintendo didn't respect other company's patents and your proof of that is Nintendo being found guilty in the suit by Tomita.

But being found guilty of infringement doens't mean they don't respect patents.  When developing the 3DS, they established a legal and respectful connection to a 3D technology license holder that not only had a license but could also manufacture and supply the 3D display itself.  It was either that or license a patent from a single guy, an ex-Sony employee, that has no capabilities of manufacturing and supplying the 3D screen (that's if they even knew his patent existed).

And why would you double license a technology anyway?  Once you've licensed a technology, that's it.  If I were to manufacture a toothpick, do I need to license out all 700+ toothpick patents or just 1?  If I license from only one holder, does that mean I don't repsect the other 700 patents?  No.

By the way, I may not be a patent lawyer but I do have patents and I have a patent lawyer on retainer.  I've also had a patent revoked for infringement that the lawyer and I (along with LexisNexis, WestLaw, USPTO Search, Google Patent, JPO and EPO) never knew existed.  I never disrespected the patent, I simply had no knowledged it existed.

There is no way that defense can work when they had a meeting with the guy and he gave them a presentation regarding his technology.  If they didn't know what patents he held then it was their own fault.

As far as licensing a technology, we don't know the details.  We don't know if there were modifications on Nintendo's part that infringed on patents not belonging to Sharp.  The guy clearly does hold patents relating to this technology.

This is the reason why I don't waste time arguing over the internet. People can't differenciate facts from juridical decisions that are still under appeal and then come to the internet telling the world that we are wrong. And also uses the "emotion" argument.

Geez...

Fair point that they knew him and likely his patents.  Fair to say we don't know what modifications they took with Sharp's patents.  But it's also fair to say we don't know if they intentionally snubbed Tomita's patents or altered Sharp's technology intentionally to infringe upon Tomita's. 

What we do know is that they needed a 3D screen.  They found a 3D screen license holder and manufacturer in Sharp.  Does this mean that Sharp also infringes on Tomita's patents given that they use the same technology in many cell phones?  Does that means Sharp doesn't respect other's patents too?

Another question, if Tomita met with Nintendo and obviously knew of their interest in developing a 3D capable system, why did he not file against Nintendo the moment they announced the system? 

Finally, I had a look at Tomita's patent.  It's not even the 3D screen and means of display that's at suit here but the fact the 3DS also has a 2 cameras on the same device which enables glasses-free 3D display of the video feed from the cameras.  In fact, it's more about using those cameras to detect the depth of the user from the device rather than redisplying the video feed on the screen. The real messed up is that the camera portion of his patent is noted in the prior art section meaning that the dual camera video feed is actually either public domain or he liscensed that part from someone else.