Yeah me too I got a warning for saying he's a troll. I think we're falling in his trap.

Nintendo do not copy people's ideas.

Honestly it can not be true. Nintendo innovate, they do not take ideas away from competitors

So why didnt' they do this 3 years ago? oh that's right now they can get alot of money.. gready bastards

I think the main reason for the lawsuit lies with the bluetooth communication that the Wii Remote uses. Since it's practically "open", it can be used in other applications on PCs and used as an investigation device thanks to it's low price and no need to mod the hardware.

If you read my earlier post, the BlueTooth is what is going to save Nintendo's butt actually, since the hillcrest device does not communicate via bluetooth.

I read it. And I agree

What I was sayin is that the Wii remote is being used in many PC applications not just gaming. And this worries Hillcrest to the point of suiting Nintendo. But as you said, the lawsuit won't prevail

The hillcrest device uses MOTION detected via MEMS to control the on screen selection and does not need to see the screen to select. The Wiimote uses infrared sensor / emitters to control the on screen selection and requires the screen to be pointed at (or, more accurately, the sensor bar) for the selection. There is no patent infringement. Hillcrest management should do their homework instead of wasting money on legal maneuvers.

When did that happen? You didnt post on this thread:/

A few on-topic points.

First, this news is ONE MONTH OLD. It was posted when it first was announced. (I posted in the thread but I am at a conference hotel with really slow Internet, so I can't find the link).

Related, the original announcement came out the day Hillcrest announced its product line.

Second, this news comes from the UK -- a place where a lot of Wiis have been sold and a lot of the video game press seem to enjoy actively throwing insults at the Wii.

Third, there is a big difference between investigation, indictment, and conviction. In other words, just looking it to it is no big deal.

Fourth, as has been pointed out, Nintendo licensed this technology. So someone else is also involved -- just yet unnamed.

Fifth, Nintendo could probably buy this company out if all else fails.

The reason Nintendo defends these suits -- and tends to do fairly well -- is to protect itself. I am not sure how some posters feel a small company will have access to more legal resources than one of the largest corporations in Japan -- unless it is a dummy company or being funded by larger competitor ... and that might change the complexion of a lot of things.

Mike from Morgantown