Nintendo Sued For Alleged Patent Infringement Over Wii U’s Dual Screen Capabilities
Posted in: Today's Chili
One of the Nintendo Wii U’s unique selling points is the fact that it is essentially like a much bigger 3DS system in the sense that the GamePad on the Wii U can act as a secondary display in which gamers can interact with. For games like ZombieU, this meant that the GamePad can be used to access your inventory while your main screen will display all the action.
Unfortunately it seems that Nintendo did not create this technology or idea themselves, and it seems that they might not have licensed the technology either, at least that’s according to a recent lawsuit in which a company by the name of Secure Axcess is suing Nintendo for allegedly infringing on the patent.
This is not the first time that Nintendo has been sued for patent infringement and while they might have lost some, they have also won some of their cases before. According to the patent that Nintendo allegedly infringed upon, it is described as “a computer providing multiple display capability where one display presents the current document and another display may show a true display of a previously opened document.”
Secure Axcess is also suing retailers such as Wal-Mart, Target, and Amazon who sold the devices, although we’re not sure how successful they will be since those retailers only sold the device as opposed to making it and selling it. The company is current asking for compensatory damages, costs, among other reliefs.
If anything it sounds like Secure Axcess might be just another patent troll looking to reach some kind of settlement agreement based on a vaguely worded patent. Will they be successful? We guess we will just have to wait and see, but either way we’re pretty sure another patent lawsuit is not what Nintendo needs at the moment.
Nintendo Sued For Alleged Patent Infringement Over Wii U’s Dual Screen Capabilities , original content from Ubergizmo, Filed in Gaming, legal, Nintendo, Wii U,
Earlier this year, 
Imagine that you’re out and about, perhaps phone in your hand, when you witness a crime take place either in front of you or you’re the victim, so you start using your phone to record the incident to use it as evidence or proof of the crime taking place. Sounds fine, right? Imagine the surprise of a Pennsylvania sophomore who discovered that he had been charged with wiretapping instead of being able to use his recordings as evidence.
We have learnt time and time again that the things we post and say digitally can never be taken back, as much as many of us would love to. What this means is that the next time you decide to send a text message, post a tweet, 
It seems that folks in the Netherlands (or Holland, for example) no longer have the right to download copyrighted movies and music for free even when it is for personal use. Apparently, the Netherlands government had propped things up in such a way that there is a “piracy levy” on selected products in order to please the film and music industries. The European Court of Justice recently ruled that the country’s “piracy levy” is now illegal, as it might result in the encouragement of a greater level of distribution of pirated copyrighted content.
Apple currently claims that they are entitled to a whopping $2.2 billion in damages from South Korean conglomerate Samsung for infringing on five of its patents, simply because the infringement happened during a time where the smartphone market experienced extremely rapid expansion. In U.S. District Court in San Jose, Calif., Christopher Vellturo, who is an economist and also Apple’s damages expert, touts that this patent infringement would encompass over 37 million smartphones and tablets that were sold by Samsung in the U.S. from August 2011 to the end of last year, where the total revenue generated by those devices remains undisclosed because it is deemed as “confidential”.
