U.S. jury finds Nintendo liable for patent infringement. Ordered to pay 30 million to inventor of 3D - Polidicks

[quote=Reuters] The jury awarded the inventor, Seijiro Tomita, $30.2 million in compensatory damages. [B] The patent relates to technology that Tomita developed for providing 3-D images without the need for 3-D glasses. [/B] In opening arguments last month, Tomita's attorney, Joe Diamante, told the jury in U.S. District Court in Manhattan that Nintendo used technology that Tomita developed for its 3DS. Tomita is a former longtime Sony Corp employee. But Scott Lindvall, a defense attorney for the Super Mario Bros franchise creator, argued that the 3DS doesn't use key aspects of Tomita's patent. Lindvall also said a 2003 meeting with Nintendo officials that Tomita cited in his argument was merely one of several the company held with vendors selling 3-D display technology. Tomita, 58, sued Nintendo and its U.S. unit in 2011 for patent infringement. Tomita was not present in the courtroom on Wednesday. "We are thankful to the jurors for their diligence and hard work," Diamante said in an e-mail after the verdict. "It has been a honor to represent Mr. Tomita and to protect his invention."[/quote] [url="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/13/us-nintendo-patent-infringement-idUSBRE92C1DA20130313"]Source[/url]. I really hate patent trolls.

Patent trolling [B]needs [/B]to be a very [I]massive [/I]federal crime I mean holy fuck. there's literally [I]nothing [/I]good about it. This type of shit is the kind of fraud that matches what killers and rapists should get in years. It's on par with how bad it is to those. And Nintendo's also far too friendly a company for shit like this to have happen to them.

The troll won, the law lost.

[QUOTE=Nystical;39906919]The troll won, the law lost.[/QUOTE] and Judge Dredd is in tears. [thumb]http://cdn.dstv.com/www.dstv.com/2012/News/July/Dredd_BG.jpg[/thumb]

[QUOTE=J!NX;39906874]Patent trolling [B]needs [/B]to be a very [I]massive [/I]federal crime I mean holy fuck. there's literally [I]nothing [/I]good about it. This type of shit is the kind of fraud that matches what killers and rapists should get in years. It's on par with how bad it is to those. And Nintendo's also far too friendly a company for shit like this to have happen to them.[/QUOTE] To be able to sue for the use of something that's been patented you should have to be actively using it or have used it in a product in the past 5 years, or have filed the pattent within the past 5 years, or have evidence showing that you had directly given them the idea, such as what happened with delayed winshield wipers, else you still retain the patent, but you cannot sue someone for using it, and may not sue for pre existing products once you do start producing

Wait, I don't understand. So an inventor got them sued for using his invention without asking. What's wrong with that?

If this guy patented parralax screen technology then this suit is valid If he patented the 3d screen without glasses as a vague concept in itself then fuck him

[I]I want to see a patent document.[/I] [editline]13th March 2013[/editline] Goddamn, thats a cool thing I didn't know Google did, [url]http://www.google.com/patents/US7417664[/url]

i hate patents on principle. just because you figured out how to do something doesn't mean you should have exclusive right to that knowledge for any amount of time. inventions should be for the public good, not for companies to hoard for profit.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39907350]i hate patents on principle. just because you figured out how to do something doesn't mean you should have exclusive right to that knowledge for any amount of time. inventions should be for the public good, not for companies to hoard for profit.[/QUOTE] So, say I invent something, its totally awesome, and I'd like to feed my family with it. I pitch it to Ford, Ford goes "I'm not quite sure this is what our customers will want..." and they turn me down. Two weeks later they come out with the same fucking thing and make shittons of money off of it. They were my in to the market, and they cut me out because they were assholes about it. Now, with no patent system, I [I]still[/I] don't make any cash, [I]still[/I] can't feed my family, and Ford [I]sill[/I] hoards the idea for profit because they got in on it with my idea and nobody else could possibly overtake the lead they just got on it. [editline]adsf[/editline] BUT. [U]WITH[/U] a patent system, I can invent something, patent it, and THEN pitch it to Ford. They turn me down, I say "whatevs" and I go to Honda or GM or just someone else. Ford can't then turn around and release something just like it based off of my idea because its [I]mine[/I] and [I]I alone[/I] will decide where the profits come from. The difference here between fantasy me and patent troll is I actually made a product and am selling my idea to a company in exchange for a slice of the profits/further development funds

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39907350]i hate patents on principle. just because you figured out how to do something doesn't mean you should have exclusive right to that knowledge for any amount of time. inventions should be for the public good, not for companies to hoard for profit.[/QUOTE] Without patents, there would be little motivation to innovate and invent when you could just copy off another guy. If someone develops a technology, they deserve to make money off of it. (not disagreeing with the need for reform)

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39907350]i hate patents on principle. just because you figured out how to do something doesn't mean you should have exclusive right to that knowledge for any amount of time. inventions should be for the public good, not for companies to hoard for profit.[/QUOTE] Patents have a legitimate purpose, but the system does need reform.

[QUOTE=froztshock;39907414]Patents have a legitimate purpose, but the system does need reform.[/QUOTE] Explain

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;39907382]So, say I invent something, its totally awesome, and I'd like to feed my family with it. I pitch it to Ford, Ford goes "I'm not quite sure this is what our customers will want..." and they turn me down. Two weeks later they come out with the same fucking thing and make shittons of money off of it. They were my in to the market, and they cut me out because they were assholes about it. Now, with no patent system, I [I]still[/I] don't make any cash, [I]still[/I] can't feed my family, and Ford [I]sill[/I] hoards the idea for profit because they got in on it with my idea and nobody else could possibly overtake the lead they just got on it.[/QUOTE] i mean i'm opposed to corporations anyways(but that's a BIG digression that i don't wanna get into). if you want to know my point of view, then imagine someone finds a way to harvest grain better, or a way to make sofas comfier, or whatever the fuck people invent these days. now imagine this person hoards that invention, allowing only a select few people to use it in exchange for extra money or resources or w/e. this person is able to enforce his monopoly over his invention by a legal system that recognizes him as the owner of this "intellectual property". wouldn't you think that it if improves our lives, that society should be able to access it? [editline]14th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=froztshock;39907414]Patents have a legitimate purpose, but the system does need reform.[/QUOTE] they are an infringement of human rights and dignity by limiting what people are allowed to do with their own knowledge arbitrarily.

[QUOTE=maxumym;39907003]Wait, I don't understand. So an inventor got them sued for using his invention without asking. What's wrong with that?[/QUOTE] The Patent itself is of 3D without glasses.

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;39907502]honestly, patents aren't that ridiculous; especially for technology like this. remember how everyone loves tesla talking shit about how edison stole his designs? patents are what would've protected that intellectual property is a real thing and patents are fine, and i'd argue that this is one of the cases where the patent is 100% legitimate [editline]13th March 2013[/editline] they even say there were going to people [I]selling[/I] 3D technology - they ripped this guy off[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39907442]i mean i'm opposed to corporations anyways(but that's a BIG digression that i don't wanna get into). if you want to know my point of view, then imagine someone finds a way to harvest grain better, or a way to make sofas comfier, or whatever the fuck people invent these days. now imagine this person hoards that invention, allowing only a select few people to use it in exchange for extra money or resources or w/e. this person is able to enforce his monopoly over his invention by a legal system that recognizes him as the owner of this "intellectual property". wouldn't you think that it if improves our lives, that society should be able to access it? [editline]14th March 2013[/editline] they are an infringement of human rights and dignity by limiting what people are allowed to do with their own knowledge arbitrarily.[/QUOTE] This person that invents a way to make sofas comfier has no way to actually produce said sofas so he can either keep it to himself and tell no one (helping no one), or tell someone who does have the money who will inevitably fuck him over because he is in no way protected against the person with the funds. What will happen is the first, people inventing things won't share them with the world because they stand nothing to gain by doing so. It is perfectly reasonable to allow the inventor some time to benefit from his or her invention before others may, the problem nowadays is the eons a company (a company should imho never be able to hold a patent, patents are to protect people) has to benefit from an invention which is utterly ridiculous. This way society does have access to it, albeit limited at first, but is guaranteed to have access to the invention after the inventors monopoly is over. They way you want it would simply not work because there is a very high chance that society will never get to see the invention that way, wheres patents are a guarantee that society will stand to benefit at some point. Once you have a patent, it WILL become public domain.

the only - [B]only[/B] - problem with patents is the biopatenting system for pharmaceuticals patent holders literally let people die because they cannot afford the medication (that they won't subsidize or generic...icize?)

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;39907519]This person that invents a way to make sofas comfier has no way to actually produce said sofas so he can either keep it to himself and tell no one (helping no one), or tell someone who does have the money who will inevitably fuck him over because he is in no way protected against the person with the funds. What will happen is the first, people inventing things won't share them with the world because they stand nothing to gain by doing so. It is perfectly reasonable to allow the inventor some time to benefit from his or her invention before others may, the problem nowadays is the eons a company (a company should imho never be able to hold a patent, patents are to protect people) has to benefit from an invention which is utterly ridiculous. This way society does have access to it, albeit limited at first, but is guaranteed to have access to the invention after the inventors monopoly is over. They way you want it would simply not work because there is a very high chance that society will never get to see the invention that way, wheres patents are a guarantee that society will stand to benefit at some point. Once you have a patent, it WILL become public domain.[/QUOTE] that's assuming the only reason that people invent or innovate is to personally reap profit from it. that may be true now in a society and economic system that encourages that type of behavior, but it sure isn't the only reason. people generally invent because they see that a way of doing something can be improved upon, and often do want to make the world a better place through their inventions. maybe patents are necessary in a capitalist system where inventors are not provided for just for inventing, but are given money based on how well they can sell a product. but in principle, the idea that a person cannot use his or her knowledge to make their life easier or the lives of other people easier is, in my opinion, quite immoral. [editline]14th March 2013[/editline] knowledge is meant to be shared, not monopolized.

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;39907537]the only - [B]only[/B] - problem with patents is the biopatenting system for pharmaceuticals patent holders literally let people die because they cannot afford the medication (that they won't subsidize or generic...icize?)[/QUOTE] [img]http://oi50.tinypic.com/25ilxch.jpg[/img] This is an actual patent that Apple holds. You still sure that's the only problem?

[QUOTE=Splarg!;39907694][img]http://oi50.tinypic.com/25ilxch.jpg[/img] This is an actual patent that Apple holds. You still sure that's the only problem?[/QUOTE] Can you post the rest of the figures please.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39907435]Explain[/QUOTE] Make it illegal to patent a concept, or patent an invention and then not actually make it, or only cash it in years later when you want some quick money.

They'll win the appeal. As far as I understand, they ultimately used someone else's autostereoscopic screen, not his. He may have developed 3D screen tech of his own, but that's not grounds for him to sue if they didn't use it, considering you can't just hold a patent on the entire concept of an autostereoscopic screen. And in any case, Sharp's the ones who actually make the screen, so shouldn't he have gone after them instead? ... In any case, it peeves me that he's technically an ex-Sony employee since that'll just give pro-Sony trolls a field day. Those NGG morons are already having a party over this. This'll become the new "Lik-Sang was a criminal organization" over there.

[QUOTE=plunger435;39907766]Can you post the rest of the figures please.[/QUOTE] [url]http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=D670,286&OS=D670,286&RS=D670,286[/url]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39907350]i hate patents on principle. just because you figured out how to do something doesn't mean you should have exclusive right to that knowledge for any amount of time. inventions should be for the public good, not for companies to hoard for profit.[/QUOTE] Its intellectual property, man

[QUOTE=Splarg!;39907694][img]http://oi50.tinypic.com/25ilxch.jpg[/img] This is an actual patent that Apple holds. You still sure that's the only problem?[/QUOTE] if you look closely, there are 4 buttons so they were CLOSE to patenting a round-edged rectangle, but nawp

Call a Spectre to silence him.

[QUOTE=VinLAURiA;39907920]Those NGG morons are already having a party over this. This'll become the new "Lik-Sang was a criminal organization" over there.[/QUOTE] I don't think anyone besides you and I will know what NGG is.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;39907382]So, say I invent something, its totally awesome, and I'd like to feed my family with it. I pitch it to Ford, Ford goes "I'm not quite sure this is what our customers will want..." and they turn me down. Two weeks later they come out with the same fucking thing and make shittons of money off of it. They were my in to the market, and they cut me out because they were assholes about it. Now, with no patent system, I [I]still[/I] don't make any cash, [I]still[/I] can't feed my family, and Ford [I]sill[/I] hoards the idea for profit because they got in on it with my idea and nobody else could possibly overtake the lead they just got on it. [editline]adsf[/editline] BUT. [U]WITH[/U] a patent system, I can invent something, patent it, and THEN pitch it to Ford. They turn me down, I say "whatevs" and I go to Honda or GM or just someone else. Ford can't then turn around and release something just like it based off of my idea because its [I]mine[/I] and [I]I alone[/I] will decide where the profits come from. The difference here between fantasy me and patent troll is I actually made a product and am selling my idea to a company in exchange for a slice of the profits/further development funds[/QUOTE] The patenting system is to protect innovation, but the way it's used so frequently today, it's just an enormous shitfest full of totally insane patents that should never exist in the first place. What you said is the IDEA of the patenting system, not the actual USAGE of the patenting system. It's so easy to exploit the shit out of it it's just sad.

[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;39909729]I don't think anyone besides you and I will know what NGG is.[/QUOTE] neogaf something?