3 ms·

>especially considering they've literally just won a court case against it. Wait what? When did this happen? Doesn't this story (about devs settling) mean the

by snvzz 3y ago

>especially considering they've literally just won a court case against it. Wait what? When did this happen? Doesn't this story (about devs settling) mean the opposite of a court case being won or lost?

kube-system 3y ago
Out of court settlements are a thing, but this wasn't one. This was filed in-court. It's like the equivalent of a forfeit. > Plaintiff Nintendo of America Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Nintendo”) and Tropic Haze LLC (“Defendant” or “Tropic Haze”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby consent to judgment in favor of Nintendo, and jointly move the Court to enter monetary relief in the sum of US$2,400,000.00 in favor of Nintendo and against Defendant. Translation: "Hey court, we both agree that Nintendo wins, can we just skip the rest of this and mark this down as a win for them?"
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- GabrielTFS 3y ago
  What's the distinction, then ? I can't imagine a company can set precedent to their liking on basically any issue by suing someone who has a vague relation to that issue and doesn't have to money to fight back to get them to sign up to some random settlement that says "the company is right, please set a precedent on this issue. - person who didn't have the money to fight back", right ?
  - hnfong 3y ago
    It doesn't set a "precedent" in the strict legal sense, especially that there's no point of law being discussed. But it does set a "precedent" in that when courts deal with similar cases in the future, they would look back and see the settlement, and it does influence a judges' assessment of whether Nintendo has a case or not, in the sense of "well, the defendants in the prior case forfeited, they must have had an open and shut case, right?" In a perfect world where courts have all the time and resources to try a case, this shouldn't happen, but in practice courts use all sorts of heuristics (as long as they're not explicitly banned)...

by snvzz 3y ago

kube-system 3y ago

Out of court settlements are a thing, but this wasn't one. This was filed in-court. It's like the equivalent of a forfeit. > Plaintiff Nintendo of America Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Nintendo”) and Tropic Haze LLC (“Defendant” or “Tropic Haze”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby consent to judgment in favor of Nintendo, and jointly move the Court to enter monetary relief in the sum of US$2,400,000.00 in favor of Nintendo and against Defendant. Translation: "Hey court, we both agree that Nintendo wins, can we just skip the rest of this and mark this down as a win for them?"

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
GabrielTFS 3y ago
What's the distinction, then ? I can't imagine a company can set precedent to their liking on basically any issue by suing someone who has a vague relation to that issue and doesn't have to money to fight back to get them to sign up to some random settlement that says "the company is right, please set a precedent on this issue. - person who didn't have the money to fight back", right ?
- hnfong 3y ago
  It doesn't set a "precedent" in the strict legal sense, especially that there's no point of law being discussed. But it does set a "precedent" in that when courts deal with similar cases in the future, they would look back and see the settlement, and it does influence a judges' assessment of whether Nintendo has a case or not, in the sense of "well, the defendants in the prior case forfeited, they must have had an open and shut case, right?" In a perfect world where courts have all the time and resources to try a case, this shouldn't happen, but in practice courts use all sorts of heuristics (as long as they're not explicitly banned)...