• DontMakeMoreBabies@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Fuck Nintendo. Come on, someone grab* this pro bono… There has to be some bored, rich af partner out there who wants to tilt at windmills.

      • Lem Jukes@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yeah this doesn’t exactly sound like a Mr. Smith goes to Washington type…

    • Kushan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 months ago

      Nah this isn’t usual Nintendo bullshit, this guy was installing pirated games as part of his mods - he’s brought this on himself.

    • dan@upvote.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Nobody’s going to go against Nintendo pro-bono lol

      At best you may be able to find a lawyer that’ll work on a contingency basis, but they tend to only take cases that they’re fairly confident they’ll win (since they don’t make any money if they lose)

    • mostlikelyaperson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Nah man, as much as I might dislike Nintendos business practices, this dude in particular only has himself to blame. Dude literally sold pirated games, signed an agreement with Nintendo to stop, then didn’t. Not surprised no one would want that case.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Unfortunately the number of people who need a lawyer’s help is far greater than the number of helpful lawyers.

      I really think The Simpsons missed the mark with their “8 lawyers per person” joke.

  • Wilzax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    2 months ago

    This isn’t a smart play, but it forced Nintendo to spend more of their legal team’s time on him, rather than the emulation community, so I support his suicide mission.

  • Nosavingthrow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    181
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    It is likely that he is going to get shit canned, but, I hope he purchases a bulldozer and modifies it during all legal proceedings.

  • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months 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
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months 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
        6
        ·
        2 months 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.

  • The Hobbyist@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    2 months 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
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months 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
            1
            ·
            2 months 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.

              • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                It also helped the US supreme court basically doesn’t do its job anymore. Had the justice system worked as intended it would have been quite difficult to justify overturning it. It’s not like anything new had happened or any new evidence had come to light.