| Alkibiádēs said:
And lol at the people thinking Gamevice has a legitimate case. |
My thoughts exactly.
We reap what we sow
Nem said:
Don't think the band is necessary for it to work. So, i don't think it's relevant. It's cosmetic if you will. But, generally yes to what you concluded. |
It is relevant because *they* reference the bridge as part of their patented design.
odd that no one is calling nintendo out for copying another company when i suppose many of the same people love to call out companies for copying nintendo
| 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. |
Huh ? It doesn't make much sense for a business to pass on easy profits such as royalties but that presumes if Nintendo wants to also pay these royalties too ...
The worst case scenario is Nintendo creating a Switch without detachable joy-cons for the US market ...
And why the aggressive tone with your last line ? (oh and neither Nintendo or Gamevice can recall the sold Switch systems either as it goes specifically against US laws)
|
fatslob-:O said: Huh ? It doesn't make much sense for a business to pass on easy profits such as royalties but that presumes if Nintendo wants to also pay these royalties too ... The worst case scenario is Nintendo creating a Switch without detachable joy-cons for the US market ... And why the aggressive tone with your last line ? (oh and neither Nintendo or Gamevice can recall the sold Switch systems either as it goes specifically against US laws) |
Aggression?
"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."
You basically make the same redundant point 5 times, not including this post. You completely dismiss people's request to discuss what Gamevice is actually suing over and state whatever you feel like stating. That isn't an aggressive post. It's fatigue from dealing with you.
Which he clearly states by saying, "I'm not interested in getting caught in a repeating discussion."
| CaptainExplosion said: Which is also why Nintendo must be the one to win this case. |
Not really ...
| Dravenet7 said: Aggression? "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." You basically make the same redundant point 5 times, not including this post. You completely dismiss people's request to discuss what Gamevice is actually suing over and state whatever you feel like stating. That isn't an aggressive post. It's fatigue from dealing with you. Which he clearly states by saying, "I'm not interested in getting caught in a repeating discussion." |
I didn't ask for your input. This is purely from my perspective ...
How exactly did I make the same redundant point, even '5' times for your exaggeration ?
And why exactly do people feel the need to discuss what Gamevice is suing Nintendo over ? Did everyone just suddenly miss what was addressed in the OP ?
| fatslob-:O said:
I didn't ask for your input. This is purely from my perspective ... How exactly did I make the same redundant point, even '5' times for your exaggeration ? And why exactly do people feel the need to discuss what Gamevice is suing Nintendo over ? Did everyone just suddenly miss what was addressed in the OP ? |
*Sigh*....
I don't care if you didn't ask for my input. Maybe stop acting oblivious to what's said in plain English and maybe I wouldn't feel a need to give it. How about that?
For example: you say, "why exactly do people feel the need to discuss what Gamevice is suing Nintendo over?"
This completely oblivious. The thread is literally about Gamevice suing Nintendo. If it bothers you maybe you shouldn't post in the first place, but you considering the fact you posted here several times and you initiated a response to another user as well and asked an open question towards all who were in support of Nintendo in the thread, its not that you are clueless as to why people are debating it. It is simply the fact you want to dismiss ither people's opinions and it really isn't working out for you now is it?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exaggerating what? I counted your redundancy before posting. Here are the 5 times I was refering to:
1. What ?! Nintendo's not going out of business just because they have to pay relatively small damage fees (for their size as a corporation) and royalties for every Switch sold in the US ...
2. Then Nintendo only has to pay royalties in America or just design the Switch without detachable joy-cons ...
It's not the end of the world if Nintendo can't have detachable joy-cons on the Switch
3. Just like how Nintendo is trying benefit off of other people's invention ? Let Nintendo defend themselves in court and we'll see whether the judges determine Nintendo will or will not have to pay for damages and royalties ...
4. No more Switch in america ... (doesn't mean Nintendo can't sell Switch's in other territories providing they didn't infringe patents in those territories either)
Besides paying royalties is a relatively small price for Nintendo's size and they could design the Switch without detachable joy-cons to get around the patent issue ...
5. Patents are usually sovereign grants which only affects trade with a specific nation ...
If a patent is infringed on there's usually no recall since it's presumably settled in court (or outside) between the corporations so customers still get to keep the product in question, it's just that the defendant (Nintendo) hast to pay the damages and royalties (if Nintendo decides to keep detachable joy-cons) to the plaintiff (Gamevice) ...
| Dravenet7 said: *Sigh*.... I don't care if you didn't ask for my input. Maybe stop acting oblivious to what's said in plain English and maybe I wouldn't feel a need to give it. How about that? For example: you say, "why exactly do people feel the need to discuss what Gamevice is suing Nintendo over?" This completely oblivious. The thread is literally about Gamevice suing Nintendo. If it bothers you maybe you shouldn't post in the first place, but you considering the fact you posted here several times and you initiated a response to another user as well and asked an open question towards all who were in support of Nintendo in the thread, its not that you are clueless as to why people are debating it. It is simply the fact you want to dismiss ither people's opinions and it really isn't working out for you now is it? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Exaggerating what? I counted your redundancy before posting. Here are the 5 times I was refering to: 1. What ?! Nintendo's not going out of business just because they have to pay relatively small damage fees (for their size as a corporation) and royalties for every Switch sold in the US ... 2. Then Nintendo only has to pay royalties in America or just design the Switch without detachable joy-cons ... It's not the end of the world if Nintendo can't have detachable joy-cons on the Switch 3. Just like how Nintendo is trying benefit off of other people's invention ? Let Nintendo defend themselves in court and we'll see whether the judges determine Nintendo will or will not have to pay for damages and royalties ... 4. No more Switch in america ... (doesn't mean Nintendo can't sell Switch's in other territories providing they didn't infringe patents in those territories either) Besides paying royalties is a relatively small price for Nintendo's size and they could design the Switch without detachable joy-cons to get around the patent issue ... 5. Patents are usually sovereign grants which only affects trade with a specific nation ... If a patent is infringed on there's usually no recall since it's presumably settled in court (or outside) between the corporations so customers still get to keep the product in question, it's just that the defendant (Nintendo) hast to pay the damages and royalties (if Nintendo decides to keep detachable joy-cons) to the plaintiff (Gamevice) ... |
You must've missed the second question ...
1. Nintendo is not going out of business ..
2. It's not the end of the world for Nintendo since they can design without detachable controllers ...
3. People need to stop assuming that Nintendo is the guiltless party ...
4. Nintendo may not be able to sell detachable Switch's in america ...
5. Patents are granted by nation ...
Sooo many redundancies cause I use the words 'royalties, damages and detachable joy-cons' too much LOL ...
twintail said:
im pretty confident the lawsuit is because of this:
|
Oh,if this is the case, Nintendo is screwed.
Patent legislation is a joke. So much wrong and easy to abuse.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
.
