>especially considering they've literally just won a court case against it.
Wait what? When did this happen? Doesn't this story (about devs settling) mean the opposite of a court case being won or lost?
Wait what? When did this happen? Doesn't this story (about devs settling) mean the opposite of a court case being won or lost?
> Plaintiff Nintendo of America Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Nintendo”) and Tropic Haze LLC (“Defendant” or “Tropic Haze”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby consent to judgment in favor of Nintendo, and jointly move the Court to enter monetary relief in the sum of US$2,400,000.00 in favor of Nintendo and against Defendant.
Translation:
"Hey court, we both agree that Nintendo wins, can we just skip the rest of this and mark this down as a win for them?"
But it does set a "precedent" in that when courts deal with similar cases in the future, they would look back and see the settlement, and it does influence a judges' assessment of whether Nintendo has a case or not, in the sense of "well, the defendants in the prior case forfeited, they must have had an open and shut case, right?"
In a perfect world where courts have all the time and resources to try a case, this shouldn't happen, but in practice courts use all sorts of heuristics (as long as they're not explicitly banned)...