[News] Nintendo vs. Interlink

They don't have to be used for exactly the same purpose for it to be patent infringement. If this company came up with a new, novel design and Nintendo was inspired/copied it, then Interlink deserves some compensation for their prior work.

A quick example I think you guys might be more likely to agree with is what IBM (or whoever's making their consumer laptops now) did in order to make their drop-proof systems. Instead of starting from scratch trying to develop their own impact-detection systems and algorithms they licensed technology from automobile manufacturers on how to deploy airbag systems. They then modified it slightly in order to work for buffeting the fall of a harddrive inside of a laptop during a five foot drop. Do you think IBM should have been able to send someone in, steal GM's computer code, and then use it in their devices just because they aren't in the same market?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

They didn't sure the other people because it wouldn't be profitable. What good is protecting your intellectual property if you lose money off of it? They also waited until now because Nintendo can't re-engineer every controller they've manufactured, they're stuck with what they've created so far and have to pay royalties on the design (if Interlink wins, that is). If they had sued before, it would have just made Nintendo change the design and Interlink only loses money on the litigation.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

If Nintendo has documented prior work to Interlink's design then the patent shouldn't matter (assuming that it's working by an identical design). Nintendo could file for their own patent to deprive Interlink of theirs, since Nintendo would have the original designs and work on it. Of course, I know there's a grace period for which you hold exclusive rights to an idea after you've made it public, though I suppose that's probably passed by this point.

How ya doing, buddy?