this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2024
368 points (98.7% liked)
Games
16751 readers
577 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If they win is going to be a very bad day for Nintendo.
And it's not that imposible. As these kind of companies operate on the principle that "small" people would never go to court after them, so they don't care if they actually have legal ground.
The guy even denies he owns his own business, I doubt he'll do anything worthwhile in court.
IANAL, but I don't think he's claiming he doesn't own the business, but that the "offers for sale a variety of products and services designed to circumvent and bypass Nintendo's TPMs" is wrong. The only argument I can see at this point is "The TPM ceases to be Nintendo's after the customer purchases it". I have no idea if that's his angle or if it's a solid argument.
Anything's possible, but...
I have a feeling that the people who are just smart and capable enough to pull this off without any prior legal training or experience are also smart and capable enough to realize how incredibly bad an idea it would be to try in the first place.
If you're going to fight the case on principle, then it is a no-brainer to hire at least some sort of legal representation. In terms of expected value, I imagine that it's practically buying free money, at least up to a point.
Lawyers don't even try to represent themselves if they're taken to court. They'll be the first to tell you you need a lawyer no matter who you are. There's no scenario where it isn't a bad idea to try to represent yourself.
I wonder if there's any side benefits that if Nintendo destroy a mentally ill man's life, they experience a PR backlash.