The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
"Nintendo is set to file suit against Sony next week, declaring that the Playstation brand, and all of the profits made by Sony from it's sale, belong to Nintendo. While reading over the original contract between Sony and Nintendo (Sony were to make a CD drive for the Super Nes, entitled the Playstation), a lawyer for Nintendo noticed some key wording which showed that it was Sony's responsibility to make the drive, and that they broke the contract, not Nintendo, like initially believed.
According to sources, Nintendo is almost assured a victory, gaining all the profit's made by Sony off the Playstation since its introduction in 1996. Even if Nintendo do not win outright, they are guaranteed the rights to the Playstation name, and Sony will have to immediatley change the name of their console."
This is what will make Nintendo systems go flying from the shelves people. The "Nintendo Playstation," people won't know the difference, unsuspecting customers everywhere will be buying Nintendo, thinking that it's Sony. Sony is in a world of hurt."
Links:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/phorum/ viewtopic.php?topic=22546&forum=13&67
http://s2.cgi.gamefaqs.com/boards/genmessage.asp?board=965&topic=5338181
http://www.gamernewsnetwork.com/
http://rpg2knet.com/four-um/ topic.test.php?post_id=68010
http://forum.edge-online.com/viewtopic.php?t=35936
If it turns out to be true, I would let out one big and very long HAAAA at all you Sony fans.
According to sources, Nintendo is almost assured a victory, gaining all the profit's made by Sony off the Playstation since its introduction in 1996. Even if Nintendo do not win outright, they are guaranteed the rights to the Playstation name, and Sony will have to immediatley change the name of their console."
This is what will make Nintendo systems go flying from the shelves people. The "Nintendo Playstation," people won't know the difference, unsuspecting customers everywhere will be buying Nintendo, thinking that it's Sony. Sony is in a world of hurt."
Links:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/phorum/
http://s2.cgi.gamefaqs.com/boards/
http://www.gamernewsnetwork.com/
http://rpg2knet.com/four-um/
http://forum.edge-online.com/viewtopic.php?t=35936
If it turns out to be true, I would let out one big and very long HAAAA at all you Sony fans.
Page:
The 'Megaton Announcement' simply isn't worth discussing because:
a) Noone knows what it is yet, and if they do, noone believes them
b) It CAN'T be 'We're going to sue Sony!' because global corporations simply don't give out teasers for that kind of announcement, if anything they try to keep it under wraps from the public
c) It's probably one of the following:
(i) We're going to make another console
(ii) Zelda's scrapped and we're going to redo it properly
(iii) Merry Christmas
(iv) We're buying SEGA
(v) Your guess here, it's as good as mine
a) Noone knows what it is yet, and if they do, noone believes them
b) It CAN'T be 'We're going to sue Sony!' because global corporations simply don't give out teasers for that kind of announcement, if anything they try to keep it under wraps from the public
c) It's probably one of the following:
(i) We're going to make another console
(ii) Zelda's scrapped and we're going to redo it properly
(iii) Merry Christmas
(iv) We're buying SEGA
(v) Your guess here, it's as good as mine
there is no way nintendo will win this case, as much as i love nitendo, being a law student nitendo are very unlikely to get any of the prifits sony made, and they are not very likely to be awarded the rights to the name playstation.
this is because, a) the name is sononymous with sony now and there is no way nintedno could claim it,
b) Nintendo did not produce any of the hardware or contriubute to the playstation
the only possibility of nintendo winning anything woul dbe throguh damages.
this would be in the case of
a) the contract clearly stated (express terms) that the name "playstation" belonged to Nintendo, in which case nintendo could sue if the name had been registered, if not then they may be able to prove ownership in other ways such as documents containing the name playustation at the time of the relationship between sony and nitnendo,
b) nintendo could sue for breach of contract if there were express terms stating that sony were only allowed to produce hardware for nintendo, an or nintendo contrbuted to or developed hardware which sony then used to in or as the basis for, the playstation
in short, nintendo are only likely to win damages an or compensation, this may be a considerable amount but they will not be awarded the name playstation or any money from playstation sales, unless the hardware used was developed by nintendo,.
this is because, a) the name is sononymous with sony now and there is no way nintedno could claim it,
b) Nintendo did not produce any of the hardware or contriubute to the playstation
the only possibility of nintendo winning anything woul dbe throguh damages.
this would be in the case of
a) the contract clearly stated (express terms) that the name "playstation" belonged to Nintendo, in which case nintendo could sue if the name had been registered, if not then they may be able to prove ownership in other ways such as documents containing the name playustation at the time of the relationship between sony and nitnendo,
b) nintendo could sue for breach of contract if there were express terms stating that sony were only allowed to produce hardware for nintendo, an or nintendo contrbuted to or developed hardware which sony then used to in or as the basis for, the playstation
in short, nintendo are only likely to win damages an or compensation, this may be a considerable amount but they will not be awarded the name playstation or any money from playstation sales, unless the hardware used was developed by nintendo,.
½pint wrote:
> Miserableman wrote:
> LOL! Are all these facts from the same guy? 20 trillion pounds is
> about 200 times the value of the biggest company in the world, and
> is
> the gross domestic produce of the United Kingdom (i.e. the total
> amount of money available to the UK government) over 70 years.
>
> I don't think Sony are quite that rich. You're perhaps 3 powers of
> ten
> out, unless your inside source is just making it up.
>
> £20,000,000,000 divided by 70 = £285,714,285. You're
> saying that the combined income of 55 million people a year is that
> much money. You're saying that basically, we all earn £5 a
> year. Yes, it is you who is off my friend, not I. That would be
> funny though - a game costing eight years' income :D.
The figure you quote is 20 billion pounds, that's 20x10^9. A 20 plus nine noughts. Count them. 20 trillion pounds is 20x10^12. To clarify my other figures, the biggest company in the world is Shell, worth something in the region of £100 billion. The GDP (i.e. what the UK government earns from us in tax, not the sum of what we earn individually) is around £300 billion.
Bit of an idiot = you. Good luck in your maths exam.
> Miserableman wrote:
> LOL! Are all these facts from the same guy? 20 trillion pounds is
> about 200 times the value of the biggest company in the world, and
> is
> the gross domestic produce of the United Kingdom (i.e. the total
> amount of money available to the UK government) over 70 years.
>
> I don't think Sony are quite that rich. You're perhaps 3 powers of
> ten
> out, unless your inside source is just making it up.
>
> £20,000,000,000 divided by 70 = £285,714,285. You're
> saying that the combined income of 55 million people a year is that
> much money. You're saying that basically, we all earn £5 a
> year. Yes, it is you who is off my friend, not I. That would be
> funny though - a game costing eight years' income :D.
The figure you quote is 20 billion pounds, that's 20x10^9. A 20 plus nine noughts. Count them. 20 trillion pounds is 20x10^12. To clarify my other figures, the biggest company in the world is Shell, worth something in the region of £100 billion. The GDP (i.e. what the UK government earns from us in tax, not the sum of what we earn individually) is around £300 billion.
Bit of an idiot = you. Good luck in your maths exam.
I'm sorry, Boss Pac Man... did you not read my post? Let me outline the problems:
1) There is no official source. All the sites listed just have topics made by ameteur gamers like ourselves
2) If Sony "stole" the development plans for the PS1, do you think Ninty would have taken this long to do anything about it? Especially since the case is so "easy". I work for one of the biggest computer developers in the world. If someone stole our development plans we'd be on to them before they released the machine!
3) Points made such as Nintendo taking the name Playstation back are, legally-speaking, nonsense. Like I said, any court will simply say that the name is too synonymous with Sony to give away.
Sonic
1) There is no official source. All the sites listed just have topics made by ameteur gamers like ourselves
2) If Sony "stole" the development plans for the PS1, do you think Ninty would have taken this long to do anything about it? Especially since the case is so "easy". I work for one of the biggest computer developers in the world. If someone stole our development plans we'd be on to them before they released the machine!
3) Points made such as Nintendo taking the name Playstation back are, legally-speaking, nonsense. Like I said, any court will simply say that the name is too synonymous with Sony to give away.
Sonic
Boss_Pac_Man2 wrote:
> the issiue, sonic, is that Sony stole the developement plans for the
> PS1.
Crap. The only thing Nintendo ever worked with Sony on was the failed CD drive add on for the SNES, those of you with half a brain will realise that add on does not equal PS1, except Boss Pac Man here...
> nintendo desighned the console, and asked sony to build it. something
> went down on nintendo's side, and sony launched the playstation
> independantly.
See above, and it was codesinged, what little of it was done in the first place...
> the revaleations hint that it may have been sony who broke the
> contract, thus entiteling ninendo to all the money made by the PS1.
Rumours actually, and as others have said, getting the money would be nigh on impossible, and very hard to legally prove. If not impossible...
> not sure where the PS2 stands, but the mohooney from the PS1 is alone
> enought to buy Capcom +Sega
Just been reading on a PROPER news site that MS are after 22% shares in Sega, so that kinda scuppers that anyway, 'cause even if this big pile of crap was true then old Bill would hang onto the 22% he's close to buying :)
Ha ha this whole statement by Boss Pac Man is like part of that Boulderdash game, spot the lies. Trick is, the whole damn thing is wrong !
~~Belldandy~~
> the issiue, sonic, is that Sony stole the developement plans for the
> PS1.
Crap. The only thing Nintendo ever worked with Sony on was the failed CD drive add on for the SNES, those of you with half a brain will realise that add on does not equal PS1, except Boss Pac Man here...
> nintendo desighned the console, and asked sony to build it. something
> went down on nintendo's side, and sony launched the playstation
> independantly.
See above, and it was codesinged, what little of it was done in the first place...
> the revaleations hint that it may have been sony who broke the
> contract, thus entiteling ninendo to all the money made by the PS1.
Rumours actually, and as others have said, getting the money would be nigh on impossible, and very hard to legally prove. If not impossible...
> not sure where the PS2 stands, but the mohooney from the PS1 is alone
> enought to buy Capcom +Sega
Just been reading on a PROPER news site that MS are after 22% shares in Sega, so that kinda scuppers that anyway, 'cause even if this big pile of crap was true then old Bill would hang onto the 22% he's close to buying :)
Ha ha this whole statement by Boss Pac Man is like part of that Boulderdash game, spot the lies. Trick is, the whole damn thing is wrong !
~~Belldandy~~
Boss_Pac_Man2 wrote:
> the issiue, sonic, is that Sony stole the developement plans for the
> PS1.
>
> nintendo desighned the console, and asked sony to build it. something
> went down on nintendo's side, and sony launched the playstation
> independantly.
>
> the revaleations hint that it may have been sony who broke the
> contract, thus entiteling ninendo to all the money made by the PS1.
>
> not sure where the PS2 stands, but the mohooney from the PS1 is alone
> enought to buy Capcom +Sega
>
> so there.
Yeah, but in the end Sony will bury Ninty in paperwork... lawyer speak goes on for years... and in the end it all seems too long ago to come to anything Sony can't deal with.
> the issiue, sonic, is that Sony stole the developement plans for the
> PS1.
>
> nintendo desighned the console, and asked sony to build it. something
> went down on nintendo's side, and sony launched the playstation
> independantly.
>
> the revaleations hint that it may have been sony who broke the
> contract, thus entiteling ninendo to all the money made by the PS1.
>
> not sure where the PS2 stands, but the mohooney from the PS1 is alone
> enought to buy Capcom +Sega
>
> so there.
Yeah, but in the end Sony will bury Ninty in paperwork... lawyer speak goes on for years... and in the end it all seems too long ago to come to anything Sony can't deal with.
the issiue, sonic, is that Sony stole the developement plans for the PS1.
nintendo desighned the console, and asked sony to build it. something went down on nintendo's side, and sony launched the playstation independantly.
the revaleations hint that it may have been sony who broke the contract, thus entiteling ninendo to all the money made by the PS1.
not sure where the PS2 stands, but the mohooney from the PS1 is alone enought to buy Capcom +Sega
so there.
nintendo desighned the console, and asked sony to build it. something went down on nintendo's side, and sony launched the playstation independantly.
the revaleations hint that it may have been sony who broke the contract, thus entiteling ninendo to all the money made by the PS1.
not sure where the PS2 stands, but the mohooney from the PS1 is alone enought to buy Capcom +Sega
so there.
Thank God for sonic - some common sense at last.
Firstly, all the links you provide except one are forums no different to this. In fact, some of them just quote from each other. Just. Like. This. Topic.
This smells suspiciously like another internet rumour to me. Indeed, just looking at it from a legal viewpoint, Nintendo could not take the name "Playstation" simply because the brand has become synonymous with Sony. This "source" even goes as far as saying that Sony will have to rename their console - Ha! What garbage. The only way Nintendo could make big wins from such a case would be to prove that Sony have stolen some technology from them... which they clearly can't.
As a result, the only thing that nintendo could possibly have on Sony is breaking a contract almost a decade ago. However, the issue of who broke it off, and who was to blame, is so confused that I don't expect a case soon.
Sonic
This smells suspiciously like another internet rumour to me. Indeed, just looking at it from a legal viewpoint, Nintendo could not take the name "Playstation" simply because the brand has become synonymous with Sony. This "source" even goes as far as saying that Sony will have to rename their console - Ha! What garbage. The only way Nintendo could make big wins from such a case would be to prove that Sony have stolen some technology from them... which they clearly can't.
As a result, the only thing that nintendo could possibly have on Sony is breaking a contract almost a decade ago. However, the issue of who broke it off, and who was to blame, is so confused that I don't expect a case soon.
Sonic
Armatige Shanks wrote:
> Drdragon wrote:
> Did no one else notice just how stupid this post was??
>
> lol... theres nothign wrong with the post, only if people take it
> seriously :)
I think the scary thing is he WAS being serious...
> Drdragon wrote:
> Did no one else notice just how stupid this post was??
>
> lol... theres nothign wrong with the post, only if people take it
> seriously :)
I think the scary thing is he WAS being serious...
Page: