Don't forget to mention the Switch in first place.

I never said it made sense. I'd go after royalties myself, but last I checked Gamevice was going after a sale ban.

And that worst case scenario would involve the recall of unsold Switches. I don't believe I said all, but if I did I can assure you it was a typo.

And I just don't have patience for cyclical arguments anymore. Been arguing with SJWs at work too much, and I tell ya: they can literally make the same argument all day long and fully believe it was the best response to their argument being dismantled.

This is cute. I like it. It makes drilling the facts in easier for me. This is what 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."

Most of these 5 posts were responses to what Azuren's post in which the scenario of having to the Switch sales shut down by gameVice were essentially given the response of, essentially, "but it doesn't usually do that". In other words saying royalties were the only option. The reason your response is cute is because you literally trim out the bulk of what you said in which, is about royalties, damages, yada yada yada. The fact that in those posts I quoted, its MOST of what you said, and you clipped out a small piece of sentence for each in order to frame it as you only sprinkled royalties and the like in is sad. Sad and irrelavent. Your redudancy is in line with you ignoring the scenario Azuren was talking about. The only time you remotely address it is in #4.

The lawsuit is over the patent for the Wikipad patent, not the Gamevice controller. 

A key feature explicitly stated in the patent is a "bridge" section which sits behind the tablet and connects both halves of the controller, which act as one unit. You can even see above in the second photo that the Gamevice controller is one device connected by a strap which sits behind the phone.

Seeing as the Switch Joycons are two separate controllers that individually work and connect to the Switch console, the entire lawsuit hinges on their claim that the Switch console itself is acting as this "bridge" section of the Wikipad controller patent.

If this were the case, there would be no need to mention a "bridge" section in the patent design in the first place, so the suit is without merit.  

Well you have the issue backwards.  They are making the argument over the Switch being the bridge because their patent specifically mentions that bridge.  Which matters.  Mentioning such specific details narrows your control over similar designs.  This was famously used by Tesla in 1893 to get around Edison's patent on the lightbulb.  The Tesla bulb looked almost identical but used a different plug system and different filament shape/design.  Because of the specificity of Edison's  patent, it worked.

Another issue is purpose.  See, patents for things like this deal in utility, not just appearance.  And the Wikipad patent specifically references - if the quote I saw is accurate - bringing physical control inputs and traditional gaming experiences to a tablet.  And the new Gamevice controller similarly references tablets and smartphones.   This is obviously problematic for the suit since the stated utility of the Joy-Con's are entirely different since they pertain to only a proprietary device and serve more than that individual function.

As for appearance, that is convered in patents but to win solely on that, the thing needs to be virtually identical.

My point was that if any screen used alongside the wikipad could be counted as a bridge, the bridge itself is redundant and would not be a noteworthy feature.

Well this got out of control.

Here's what Gamevice has filed so far ... 

1. Under 'Nature of Action', it says "Gamevice seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages" ... 

2. Gamevice has declined to comment according to Engadget ... 

Gamevice haven't even said that they were intending to seek a full ban on Switch sales at all! 

The first bit isn't true as Gamevice wants to settle regardless ... (Why else would they file a civil lawsuit ?) 

@Bold How nice of you to pull a strawman ... (And BTW response #3 wasn't intended for Azuren so that was just a reach on your part.)

Just because I recycle some of what I've said before doesn't mean that I can't raise a new point ... (Are you gonna forbid me for repeating some of the things I say now ? LOL)

Hmm, I say we do a survey study to determine how much detachable controllers are worth to Switch customers ... 

The most important thing about detachable controllers to Nintendo are is that they only have to make 1 set of controller rather than 2 sets of controllers if they intend for the Switch to be used as a hybrid ... (it's cheaper this way for them or they could just make the Switch an entirely integrated portable unit)

I'd say no if you intend to fully use the Switch as a portable system ... 

If you use it as a hybrid then maybe ...