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.
controlled by a modded switch
Er, wait is that a killdozer reference?
I like to think of it as a modification of a killdozer reference.
the reference is definitely crushing it
Dude is fucked, but I’m rooting for him all the same.
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
Who is gonna end up fucking it up so bad Nintendo gets the precedent they need to shut down all emulation forever.
Rather Dashing gonna yeet his sword at Trogdor
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.
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
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.
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.
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.“The man who represents himself in court has a fool for a lawyer and an idiot for a client.”
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.
Objection! Hearsay!
True, but it’s especially true when they’re up against Nintendo.
The legal system is an irredeemable joke.
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.
Client is too crazy, and it’s Nintendo. Lawyers won’t touch this.
Yeah this doesn’t exactly sound like a Mr. Smith goes to Washington type…
Nah this isn’t usual Nintendo bullshit, this guy was installing pirated games as part of his mods - he’s brought this on himself.
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.
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)
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.
You either die a hero, or you live long enough to become Nintendo.
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.
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)
Maybe he doesn’t want to spend 50k for a case he’s losing anyway.
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.
Let the man cook!
Fly you fool
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.
You know what they say about someone who represents themselves in court?
They have an idiot for a client.
I wish you strength and might warrior.
Brave, but foolhardy.
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?
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.
indeed! so there must be more to this. So how does it actually work?
A judge can choose to ignore precedent.
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.
Yeah, is that how they overturned roe v wade?
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.
