The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
As you may or may not be aware, Nintendo and Sony used to be a part of a joint project to create a CD drive for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System. Whilst Nintendo and Sony were collaborating, they called it a Playstation, however, when Nintendo decided they would rather spend their money on a new cartridge based system instead (probably after seeing the failure of Sega's Mega-CD), Sony decided that they wanted to keep the Playstation for themselves - and now they're a major card holder in the game they call the Videogames Trade.
Now, according to Special Reserve News (or as I like to call it, the FOG O'Clock News), Nintendo are rumoured to be planning to sue Sony for allegedly stealing the name Playstation after all these years. Sony released their Playstation many MANY years ago, so why wait this long to build up a case against Sony?
The main reason, assuming that the rumours are true, would most definately be to hit Sony in the 'drollocks as hard as they can at a time when their Playstation successor, Playstation 2, is doing so well. Basically, Nintendo could see Sony was doing so well with the Playstation, so why bring up a court case so soon when Nintendo could slowly and carefully plan and prepare a solid case against Sony, whilst Sony soil their underwear in an un-sexy fashion in fright when they realise such a case has been developed. After all, if Nintendo win the case, Sony will undoubtedly have to pay a heavy share of the profits on Sony's videogame goods (not including third party software, such as Grand theft Auto sales for example) containing the Playstation name.
Even so, these rumours have appeared out of the blue. Surely it would go against Nintendo that they waited so long before protesting the name's commercial use with Sony. If I were working for Sony in this court case, that would be my defense. After all, surely if Nintendo had a problem with Sony using the name, they would have mentioned it earlier.
At the end of the day, I reckon this will all amount to nothing. It would be like Coca Cola trying to sue Pepsi due to them describing the flavour of their drink as 'cola'. It wouldn't suprise me if the rumours were started by someone in Nintendo deciding to try and boost interest in the company by starting rumours of the beginning of Sony's demise. After all, the strongest contender in the market is definately going to sell more units (like Nintendo in Japan selling more GBAs than Sony do PS2s).
What do you think? Fact of fiction? Is it really worth all the legal costs over a name?
Now, according to Special Reserve News (or as I like to call it, the FOG O'Clock News), Nintendo are rumoured to be planning to sue Sony for allegedly stealing the name Playstation after all these years. Sony released their Playstation many MANY years ago, so why wait this long to build up a case against Sony?
The main reason, assuming that the rumours are true, would most definately be to hit Sony in the 'drollocks as hard as they can at a time when their Playstation successor, Playstation 2, is doing so well. Basically, Nintendo could see Sony was doing so well with the Playstation, so why bring up a court case so soon when Nintendo could slowly and carefully plan and prepare a solid case against Sony, whilst Sony soil their underwear in an un-sexy fashion in fright when they realise such a case has been developed. After all, if Nintendo win the case, Sony will undoubtedly have to pay a heavy share of the profits on Sony's videogame goods (not including third party software, such as Grand theft Auto sales for example) containing the Playstation name.
Even so, these rumours have appeared out of the blue. Surely it would go against Nintendo that they waited so long before protesting the name's commercial use with Sony. If I were working for Sony in this court case, that would be my defense. After all, surely if Nintendo had a problem with Sony using the name, they would have mentioned it earlier.
At the end of the day, I reckon this will all amount to nothing. It would be like Coca Cola trying to sue Pepsi due to them describing the flavour of their drink as 'cola'. It wouldn't suprise me if the rumours were started by someone in Nintendo deciding to try and boost interest in the company by starting rumours of the beginning of Sony's demise. After all, the strongest contender in the market is definately going to sell more units (like Nintendo in Japan selling more GBAs than Sony do PS2s).
What do you think? Fact of fiction? Is it really worth all the legal costs over a name?
½pint wrote:
> And Special Reserve got the rumour wrong. It wasn't 1995 when Sony
> and Nintendo were working together - the PlayStation was released in
> Japan at Christmas 1994 :-). No no, they were working together I
> think in 1992, though I could be wrong.
Sounds about right to me (could be a little wrong, but hey, I was 7 at the time, what do I know?)
> And Special Reserve got the rumour wrong. It wasn't 1995 when Sony
> and Nintendo were working together - the PlayStation was released in
> Japan at Christmas 1994 :-). No no, they were working together I
> think in 1992, though I could be wrong.
Sounds about right to me (could be a little wrong, but hey, I was 7 at the time, what do I know?)
And Special Reserve got the rumour wrong. It wasn't 1995 when Sony and Nintendo were working together - the PlayStation was released in Japan at Christmas 1994 :-). No no, they were working together I think in 1992, though I could be wrong.
pb wrote:
> I think we've pretty much been through this. There are more holes in
> this rumour than in a 15 kilo Swiss Cheese.
wow thats alot
> Still, it would be interesting in theory, the lawyers would have a
> field day and get paid loads on both sides, since there are so many
> arguements for both sides owning the name. I don't think it will come
> to that, but perhaps it's time to start looking at becoming a
> lawyer.... ;-)
but a lawyer is a boring job why would anyone do it?
> I think we've pretty much been through this. There are more holes in
> this rumour than in a 15 kilo Swiss Cheese.
wow thats alot
> Still, it would be interesting in theory, the lawyers would have a
> field day and get paid loads on both sides, since there are so many
> arguements for both sides owning the name. I don't think it will come
> to that, but perhaps it's time to start looking at becoming a
> lawyer.... ;-)
but a lawyer is a boring job why would anyone do it?
There are too many flaws in the rumour that would make me believe it, but I would be backing Nintendo if they did go through with it.
The thing is, if Nintendo do have the rights to the name, although that doesn't give them the right to claim all the profits for each unit, they could claim royalties for each unit sold using the name. And so, if Sony wanted to continue using the name 'Playstation', they would have to continue to pay Nintendo royalties.
So, Nintendo could make a fortune from it all, if it ever happens.
The thing is, if Nintendo do have the rights to the name, although that doesn't give them the right to claim all the profits for each unit, they could claim royalties for each unit sold using the name. And so, if Sony wanted to continue using the name 'Playstation', they would have to continue to pay Nintendo royalties.
So, Nintendo could make a fortune from it all, if it ever happens.
I think we've pretty much been through this. There are more holes in this rumour than in a 15 kilo Swiss Cheese.
Still, it would be interesting in theory, the lawyers would have a field day and get paid loads on both sides, since there are so many arguements for both sides owning the name. I don't think it will come to that, but perhaps it's time to start looking at becoming a lawyer.... ;-)
Still, it would be interesting in theory, the lawyers would have a field day and get paid loads on both sides, since there are so many arguements for both sides owning the name. I don't think it will come to that, but perhaps it's time to start looking at becoming a lawyer.... ;-)
I don't really know many of the stories so far, only from some of the stuff I've read in FOG.
However, from what I have read, basically comes down to apparently Nintendo believe they rightly own the name 'Playstation' ... is that correct??
Maybe they do, maybe the don't, I do not no, and to be honest, I don't really care much.
But having given the subject some thought, I don't see how Nintendo can demand profits from Sony, purely on the basis that they own the name 'Playstation'.
First off, I really don't think Sony would be that stupid to not check who owns the name they were planning to use for their new system. I mean they have been in big business for so many years, surely this is one of the first things you do when brainstorming for new ideas (like their new games console). If Nintendo believed they owned the name, then why did they not copyright it in the beginning??? I suppose it comes down to who in fact thought of using the name 'Playstation' and which company he/she worked for.
But that aside, lets say that Nintendo did infact have rights to the name 'Playstation'. What do you think this really means??? What are Nintendo entitled to, really??
All the profits from Playstation and Playstation 2??? Sure, you would think that, but why would they???
Sony calling their console 'Playstation' isn't the reason it was so succesful, so Nintendo can't say this was the reason Sony made so much. Sony created a console, amd marketed it in a way that made it a winner. Sony created the console, and it's power, and created games for it that people wanted to play. Sony created development kits for third party companies to create games for the console..... do you see where I am going with this?? The Sony Playstation has been a success because of Sony and their business sence ... not because the name of the console was 'Playstation'. Nintendo can't really go in and expect all the profits just because they think they own the name, as that would be unjustified.
Basicly, maybe these stories are fact, maybe they are fiction, the only people who only really know are Nintendo and Sony, but my point is this. If Nintendo do infact own the name 'Playstation', this isn't a just cause for them to be awarded Sony's profits. Maybe a settlement for having a name of theirs used by another company, but Nintendo had no part in the Playstations success (I don't believe so anyway) so why should they be entitled to the profits???
I'm in no way trying to bad mouth Nintendo here, but if these stories are in fact accurate, I don't think they should be asking for Playstation profits, as I don't believe they have the right to do so. It's unfair to Sony as a business.
.... what do everyone else think??? If you believe these stories are true, do Nintendo have a good enough reason to back-up demands for Playstation profits???
However, from what I have read, basically comes down to apparently Nintendo believe they rightly own the name 'Playstation' ... is that correct??
Maybe they do, maybe the don't, I do not no, and to be honest, I don't really care much.
But having given the subject some thought, I don't see how Nintendo can demand profits from Sony, purely on the basis that they own the name 'Playstation'.
First off, I really don't think Sony would be that stupid to not check who owns the name they were planning to use for their new system. I mean they have been in big business for so many years, surely this is one of the first things you do when brainstorming for new ideas (like their new games console). If Nintendo believed they owned the name, then why did they not copyright it in the beginning??? I suppose it comes down to who in fact thought of using the name 'Playstation' and which company he/she worked for.
But that aside, lets say that Nintendo did infact have rights to the name 'Playstation'. What do you think this really means??? What are Nintendo entitled to, really??
All the profits from Playstation and Playstation 2??? Sure, you would think that, but why would they???
Sony calling their console 'Playstation' isn't the reason it was so succesful, so Nintendo can't say this was the reason Sony made so much. Sony created a console, amd marketed it in a way that made it a winner. Sony created the console, and it's power, and created games for it that people wanted to play. Sony created development kits for third party companies to create games for the console..... do you see where I am going with this?? The Sony Playstation has been a success because of Sony and their business sence ... not because the name of the console was 'Playstation'. Nintendo can't really go in and expect all the profits just because they think they own the name, as that would be unjustified.
Basicly, maybe these stories are fact, maybe they are fiction, the only people who only really know are Nintendo and Sony, but my point is this. If Nintendo do infact own the name 'Playstation', this isn't a just cause for them to be awarded Sony's profits. Maybe a settlement for having a name of theirs used by another company, but Nintendo had no part in the Playstations success (I don't believe so anyway) so why should they be entitled to the profits???
I'm in no way trying to bad mouth Nintendo here, but if these stories are in fact accurate, I don't think they should be asking for Playstation profits, as I don't believe they have the right to do so. It's unfair to Sony as a business.
.... what do everyone else think??? If you believe these stories are true, do Nintendo have a good enough reason to back-up demands for Playstation profits???
As you may or may not be aware, Nintendo and Sony used to be a part of a joint project to create a CD drive for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System. Whilst Nintendo and Sony were collaborating, they called it a Playstation, however, when Nintendo decided they would rather spend their money on a new cartridge based system instead (probably after seeing the failure of Sega's Mega-CD), Sony decided that they wanted to keep the Playstation for themselves - and now they're a major card holder in the game they call the Videogames Trade.
Now, according to Special Reserve News (or as I like to call it, the FOG O'Clock News), Nintendo are rumoured to be planning to sue Sony for allegedly stealing the name Playstation after all these years. Sony released their Playstation many MANY years ago, so why wait this long to build up a case against Sony?
The main reason, assuming that the rumours are true, would most definately be to hit Sony in the 'drollocks as hard as they can at a time when their Playstation successor, Playstation 2, is doing so well. Basically, Nintendo could see Sony was doing so well with the Playstation, so why bring up a court case so soon when Nintendo could slowly and carefully plan and prepare a solid case against Sony, whilst Sony soil their underwear in an un-sexy fashion in fright when they realise such a case has been developed. After all, if Nintendo win the case, Sony will undoubtedly have to pay a heavy share of the profits on Sony's videogame goods (not including third party software, such as Grand theft Auto sales for example) containing the Playstation name.
Even so, these rumours have appeared out of the blue. Surely it would go against Nintendo that they waited so long before protesting the name's commercial use with Sony. If I were working for Sony in this court case, that would be my defense. After all, surely if Nintendo had a problem with Sony using the name, they would have mentioned it earlier.
At the end of the day, I reckon this will all amount to nothing. It would be like Coca Cola trying to sue Pepsi due to them describing the flavour of their drink as 'cola'. It wouldn't suprise me if the rumours were started by someone in Nintendo deciding to try and boost interest in the company by starting rumours of the beginning of Sony's demise. After all, the strongest contender in the market is definately going to sell more units (like Nintendo in Japan selling more GBAs than Sony do PS2s).
What do you think? Fact of fiction? Is it really worth all the legal costs over a name?
Now, according to Special Reserve News (or as I like to call it, the FOG O'Clock News), Nintendo are rumoured to be planning to sue Sony for allegedly stealing the name Playstation after all these years. Sony released their Playstation many MANY years ago, so why wait this long to build up a case against Sony?
The main reason, assuming that the rumours are true, would most definately be to hit Sony in the 'drollocks as hard as they can at a time when their Playstation successor, Playstation 2, is doing so well. Basically, Nintendo could see Sony was doing so well with the Playstation, so why bring up a court case so soon when Nintendo could slowly and carefully plan and prepare a solid case against Sony, whilst Sony soil their underwear in an un-sexy fashion in fright when they realise such a case has been developed. After all, if Nintendo win the case, Sony will undoubtedly have to pay a heavy share of the profits on Sony's videogame goods (not including third party software, such as Grand theft Auto sales for example) containing the Playstation name.
Even so, these rumours have appeared out of the blue. Surely it would go against Nintendo that they waited so long before protesting the name's commercial use with Sony. If I were working for Sony in this court case, that would be my defense. After all, surely if Nintendo had a problem with Sony using the name, they would have mentioned it earlier.
At the end of the day, I reckon this will all amount to nothing. It would be like Coca Cola trying to sue Pepsi due to them describing the flavour of their drink as 'cola'. It wouldn't suprise me if the rumours were started by someone in Nintendo deciding to try and boost interest in the company by starting rumours of the beginning of Sony's demise. After all, the strongest contender in the market is definately going to sell more units (like Nintendo in Japan selling more GBAs than Sony do PS2s).
What do you think? Fact of fiction? Is it really worth all the legal costs over a name?