• Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    Well this is a stupid move because what he did technically is illegal. Most companies are not stupid enough to actually try and enforce it but Nintendo have the letter of the law on their side.

    There is a reason why Nintendo wins all the time, it’s because none of what they’re doing is technically against the rules. It’s all in the letter of the law even if not in the spirit of the law.

  • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    That is definitely not good. A saying among the legal community is that a lawyer that represents himself has a fool for a lawyer. If he is going to stand up to Nintendo, he should at least be crowdfunding for a professional legal defense.

  • The Hobbyist@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    Many such lawsuits have ended in settlements outside of courts, so I’m guessing many legal claims have not been validated or invalidated in court yet. This can be good or bad of course. But now, if this guy goes to court, I’m actually concerned because it may give an unchallenged path to Nintendo’s legal arguments and assuming the court decides he’s guilty, there will be precedent of these legal claims having been vetted in court. Would that not be worse for anyone in the future who would want to challenge Nintendo’s legal claims?

    • dufkm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      That would be a nice legal loophole for a corporation. Bribe someone to lose a court case without council, and then use that case as legal precedent for future cases.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 days ago

            Not arbitrarily though. If they are going to choose to ignore precedent then they have to provide a reasonable justification. E.g. the legal precedent is very old and is not fit for purpose in the modern era, or, the specifics of the case are different enough from the specifics of the precedent that It is possible to argue that it does not apply.

  • Grass@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    good luck to him even though it seems futile. nintendo really needs to get fucked then pound sand after, but this doesn’t seem like the one. Hopefully it doesn’t just end up benefitting Nintendo more.

  • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    Maybe he has something up his sleeve we don’t know about

    Like maybe he’s going to prove that Nintendo was emulating his work all along? (/s)

    • vxx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      Maybe he doesn’t want to spend 50k for a case he’s losing anyway.

      • A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        Not legal advice, but I believe denying all facts even the ones that are obviously true is setting himself up to pay costs for proving those facts, even if he was to win overall.

        Nintendo are over litigious and have a reputation for weaponising copyright laws to shut down legitimate competition - but I suspect this might not be a good test case for challenging this.