Looking back at it now, yes it was probably a mistake. Sony made their own brand and 3 of 6 Playstations have outaold their Nintendo counterparts. At the time, though, it was the only logical choice. Sony was being a pain about how profits would be shared, and Nintento was watching as Sega and NEC's already released CD attachments crashed and burned. I would have cancelled it too.

So basically Philips is like a divorced wife that's come back to sue because she's noticed she is dirt broke without her husband.

Nintendo is a playa.

Its kind of weird how the author keeps comparing the wii u sales to the x1 and ps4 as a barometer for popularity. Makes me wonder if the author even knows the wii u had a year head start... Thats the problem with motley fool articles. These people know the stock market pretty well, but rely on quick google searches to flesh out their knowledge.

And Sony is a Divorce Lawyer/Single Mom.

At least have the Decency to do it before Prom Night, or better yet before you get her preggo.

Sony was in her 3rd trimester when Nintendo decided it wanted her to have an abortion, but Sony ran away and had the baby in secrecy. Now father and son are locked in an eternal battle for glory.

It was actually a CD drive add-on for the SNES and not the  N64.

I can't take anything from Fool.com seriously. One of the worst sites in da intranet!

Lots of young 'uns here, lol. I remember the Nintendo-Phillips-Sony love triangle well.

What a stupid article.
OF COURSE Phillips really wants a cut of Nintendo money, i.e. a licence fee for their patents.
They are liable to a lawsuit by their own shareholders if they do not pursue maximizing revenue of patents they hold.

As the article itself points out, the patents are primarily relevant to original Wii, not just Wii U,
so why the article can then fixate on the level of current Wii U sales is beyond me...
If Nintendo is found infringing, they will owe a licence fee for ALL infringing products sold, i.e. original Wiis.
The requested injunction is mainly because you can get an import injunction much more quickly than
you can get an entire court case resolved, which of course can go thru multiple appeals stages.
Getting the Wii U injunction threatens Nintendo's current business, likely forcing a negotiated settlement,
as well as Wii U itself being a valid source of licencing revenue, even if minorly incremental vs original Wii.

All that is DEAD OBVIOUS to anybody who even remotely understands modern patent law and business practice,
and while the "archaeology" of Nintendo/Phillips historic relationship was minorly interesting on it's own right,
the purported premise of the article falls flat, and just further lowers any repution of Motley Fool (if it had any left).