• Echo Dot
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 hours 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
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 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.

  • Nosavingthrow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    179
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days 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.

  • KazuchijouNo@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    110
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    The title, worded like that, sounds like some brave man waving a sword at a mighty dragon…

    Upon reading the article the situation is more like a bafoon waving a toothpick at an elder god

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Who is gonna end up fucking it up so bad Nintendo gets the precedent they need to shut down all emulation forever.

    • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yea, so many other occurrences I wish had gone to court, this one not only doesn’t stand a chance, but will set bad precedence.

  • dan@upvote.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    ·
    3 days ago

    Rule #1 about going to court against a large company with good lawyers: don’t represent yourself, since there’s no way you’ll win, and the judgment will likely require you to cover at least some of Nintendo’s legal fees.

    • SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      76
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Rule #1 about going to court against a large company with good lawyers: don’t represent yourself, since there’s no way you’ll win, and the judgment will likely require you to cover at least some of Nintendo’s legal fees.

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        54
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        “The man who represents himself in court has a fool for a lawyer and an idiot for a client.”

      • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        This is only true if you prioritize your own well being.

        If you prioritize authentic truth you must go in alone and accept that the system will swallow you. No one knows your honest perspectives better than you, a lawyer will compromise your morality in order to protect you because for them this is just a means to an income, they don’t share your passion for justice.

        Basically become a token/martyr.

        What you gain is observable truth that the system is broken and makes you its victim trough bureaucratic oppression, giving you an ethical reason to rebel further against it.

        I very much DO NOT recommend this but in another way i feel like the ethics of the system are not frequently enough challenge by actual good.

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        True, but it’s especially true when they’re up against Nintendo.

      • celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        It is and it isn’t. The judicial process is a very complex system. There is hundreds of years of case precedent to consider. There is nuance to every situation. Judges and juries are meant to be impartial, and its the lawyers that need to argue convincingly that their appraisal of the law is more valuable than the opponent lawyer’s appraisal of the law. It is literally the most sophisticated method of determining the truth in a matter of legal wrongdoing. Copyright law is a fairly clear cut area of law, and this guy was bold faced selling Nintendo hardware that he modded.

        Now, criminal law on the other hand. That’s a complete joke.

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

  • SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    88
    ·
    3 days ago

    At that time, Daly agreed “both verbally and in signed writing” to refrain from these infringing sales, according to Nintendo. It was only after months of Daly continuing those sales and largely ignoring further contact from Nintendo that the company says it was forced to file its June lawsuit in a Seattle federal court.

    if that’s the case, I can’t see it going well for him…

    Heck, he’d probably have been fine if he just stopped selling cards with roms preinstalled, but kept the normal modding stuff up

    • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      61
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      He was selling chips preloaded with pirated games. No wonder he’s representing himself: no one bothered to defend him.

      Highlight from the comments

      It sounds like His defense might be ChatGPT, Throwing everything at the wall.

      I fear his previous counsel was ChatGPT, and it noped out.

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

    • mostlikelyaperson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days 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.

    • dan@upvote.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days 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)

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

  • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 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
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 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
        6
        ·
        2 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.