I never said or insinuated you couldn't regurgitate your point. Sometimes you remphasize what your state point. I merely stated that him essentially requesting you either bring up new points or end this convo was not an aggressive post, but one of fatigue. I then proceeded to point out you made the same point 5 times in this thread. Yes, you sprinkled new things in your posts, something I at least brought up with #4. That doesn't change the fact that you made the same point 5 times.

And I'm fully aware not #3 wasn't directed towards him. I state in the beginning of the paragraph (the same one which you bolded a line and accused me of strawman), that MOST were directed towards him. So its clear that you favor selective reading.

Speaking of strawman, I was originally going to ignore your follow-up responses because I soundly made my point, but now you're accusing me of strawman, which I take very seriously. I'm curious how you think what you bolded is a strawman because it makes no sense to claim so.

you are aware that patents in general need to specify SOME THINGS right? for example, a detachable controller attachment for a PHONE is quite different than a proprietary attachment to your own unique game device

Nintendo would have to literally be using like the identical method of attachment, and an extremely similar controller for that to be the case. The picture you posted is not a wireless controller that can be used seperate from the phone and, again, to begin with it's an attachment to help transform a phone into a better gaming device.

Nintendo's controllers are unique designed controllers SPECIFICALLY only for their own device and that involve a million unique features (wireless features, different game modes, advanced rumble, etc.)

Nintendo would be 'screwed' if they had come out with a controller attachment sold for use with their mobile games that attached to phones. But that's not the case at all.

There is no patent in existence that is going to completely cover something as loose as "a detachable controller". You are aware that controllers that connect to and can be removed from bases are nothing original or new right? they've existed for a long time in different formats 

It most certainly makes sense to claim otherwise ... 

You said, "In other words saying royalties were the only option." but I call bullsh#t on that since since responses #2 & #4 contradict this as I clearly specificed another option ... 

You can play the denial game all you want but see if I'll care after your next response ...  

Oh and I didn't even intend to make the same point 5 times, it's just that this happened ... 

I only used the idea of royalties of making my real points which were #1 (Nintendo REALLY aren't going out of business looking at their cash resserves with respect of paying royalties), #4 (Not sure how you saw this as a repeat since it obviously states Nintendo can't sell the Switch as it is in america without paying royalties) and #5 (Patents are assigned by nation, oh and look I've raised different subjects like how corporations can't seize sold products or how the court system works.) but all of that fell blind ...  

The non crossed out point is the only thing I care about. Like I said in previous post I didn't care about you're other responses because I used evidence of you literally saying what you said to respond to it. But like I said, earlier you read selectively, so you wasted your time attempting to convice me with whatever you wrote. If it correlates to me strawmanning I missed it because you went on a tangent I, now continously, decimated and I frankly couldn't care less about your defense.

In regards to the actual strawman claim, again your selective reading shows up again. For it to be a strawman, I would have to say something completely away from what you said, and make a false equivlancy in order to misrepresent your point. There is no false equivlancy. I did not claim that you said royalties were the only option. If I did, I never would have, twice, made a point about #4.  If you look at the previous sentence (I know its hard for you but try), you can see that was my interpretation of what Azuren said. Now it could be wrong in part, but essentially he was tired of the repetitive nature of what you were saying. Which you were being. 

I leave with the idea of looking into the dictionary before you use words you clearly don't know the meaning of.

Yeap, definitely not going to try since you're in denial ...  

Keep feigning that ignorance ... 

You only wish I made false equivalency just so you could save your own hide since I called out on your crap ... 

Too hard for you to go back and read the previous sentence, eh? For me to be in denial post less than half of what I said in 5 posts and claim that was my only point. Oh wait...

You can claim I'm feigning ignorance or prove it by quoting the full paragraph to prove that it wasn't an interpretation, but you won't because you can't.

And there is no false equivilancy != I claim you made a false equivilancy. How the hell did you get this? Actually nevermind. If anyone follows this string of posts, its made quite clear that I proved my points and backed them up, and you made allegations you can't prove a single one.

Enjoy mulling that over.

I don't care about your interpretation of what Azuren said, it's the claims that you raised up ... 

And you're the one who made the false equivalencies by trying to reinterpret my arguments only to be shit up with your naive simplification ... 

It's hilarious how you jump to claim conclusion, that's the behaviour you see from an internet strongman ... 

Good day to you on fabricating my arugments then denying a statement that you made ... 

This is your 3rd post stating I am in denial. The second time (the first time is the one where I crossed it off and ignored it because I only cared about the strawman accusation, only reading it now) I responded to that with something along the lines of you can't prove it.

I'll make this very easy for you: Instead of simply claiming that I am in denial, why don't you quote the paragraph I said this, in its entirely, and prove it from there? When I made a claim, I actually did that to back it up, and everyone who looks at these posts can see this for themselves. So if you can simply do that, I'll gladly accept I was in denial and continue with this waste of time. Otherwise I'll continue to see your responses as immature and you should keep silent.

well at least this just confirm that switch is not revolutionary in terms innovation, Even 3 month before the Switch shows on the Youtube some company already marketed an prototype of gaming tablet that function like switch

Well, this actually could be excellent news for Gamevice: if Nintendo filed in the middle of 2016, it means that there is an extremely high probability of prior art that was in its latency period. If Nintendo had been issued a patent with granted claims by the USPTO, that would be a very different story.

Two important considerations here are 1) a "filed" patent is not an "issued" patent and can't be used to assert anything in court and 2) the USPTO is notorious for having issues with prior art searches, so many issued patents are later invalidated.