Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Nintendo's Playstation Settlement Bombshell (or not...updated) 398

Posted by chrisd from the sony-aplay-ationstay dept.
Magamo writes "Console Talk has the story on a settlement between Sony and Nintendo over the rights to the "PlayStation" name, which was originally a joint owned copywrite, given to a CD and Cartridge based system to play SNES games. The settlement is for 10% of Sony's proceeds, past and present on the "PlayStation" name, currently amounting to approximately $2.3 billion. Nintendo is allowing Sony to pay it off in installments over the next 20 years. Nintendo currently plans on using the money to create a new game studio comprised of members of some of the biggest in the japanese industry, in order to create titles exclusively for the GameCube. Hmm, my guess is that Sony's next console will be shying away from the PlayStation moniker..." CD: It seems that I might have fallen for a hoax. Doh!
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nintendo's Playstation Settlement Bombshell (or not...updated) More

Nintendo's Playstation Settlement Bombshell (or not...updated)

Comments Filter:

  • Not copyright (Score:5, Informative)

    by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @01:40AM (#4921039) Journal
    joint owned copyright

    I think it should be "trademark"...

    • Re:Not copyright (Score:5, Funny)

      by Drakonian ( 518722 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @02:01AM (#4921133) Homepage
      "Copywrite" was even more wrong!
      • Anyone remember copywrite and copyiipc?

        I'm dating myself, but back in the day, these were the two major copying programs that everyone used to copy IBM PC games/programs, back in the mid-80's. They would break most floppy-disk protection schemes and new versions would be coming out, it seemed every few months that would cover more and more programs and games.

        I think it was thanks to the efforts of those two programs that software companies finally gave up on trying to add physical protection mechanisms on the floppies and eventually give up entirely.

        Now if only the RIAA and the rest of the music industry would just learn from the mistakes of the past, they would realize that all their stupid protection mechanisms are just a complete waste of time.

  • Well, damn (Score:5, Funny)

    by wcbarksdale ( 621327 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @01:40AM (#4921040)
    Maybe we won't see the PlayStation 5 [theonion.com] after all.

    • Re:Well, damn (Score:2, Insightful)

      by brandorf ( 586083 )
      Considering that "Playstation 2" is a pretty long name, and The Playstation and Playsion have always has the abbreviations "PSX" and "PS2" respectively, I woud not be suprised if the next console is simply called the PS3.
    • wcbarksdale, thank you for posting that link... that's the funniest thing I've read all week, and I wouldn't have known about it if you hadn't posted it.

    • Re:Well, damn (Score:2, Interesting)

      by kingOFgEEEks ( 598145 )
      I've been wondering if Sony changed the name from Playstation to PSX, and subsequently PS1 and PS2 due to this issue? Just think about it: Sony knew that Nintendo had joint ownership of the name, so they began phasing it out. The name was too recognizable to drop completely, so Sony just slowly started shrinking the Playstation word in the title of anything, with the intention of not actually calling the console that name anymore. Any opinions? If this is redundant, i'm sorry.

      • Re:Well, damn (Score:5, Informative)

        by Nexx ( 75873 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @05:53AM (#4921656)

        I've been wondering if Sony changed the name from Playstation to PSX

        No, the PSX moniker came about because the popular Japanese abbreviation for the PSX (puresute) sort of implied "play and throw away"(1). It had *nothing* to do with Nintendo and everything to do with Sony's brand image. Subsequently, they pushed "PSX" in the US as well, because ultimately Sony K.K. in Japan outranks Sony of America, Inc.

        (1) The moniker PSX didn't stick in Japan. Not all marketdroid schemes work. *grin*

    • Re:Well, damn (Score:5, Insightful)

      by packeteer ( 566398 ) <packeteerNO@SPAMsubdimension.com> on Thursday December 19, 2002 @02:17AM (#4921200)
      Sure you will... this is the most obvious hoax i have ever seen posted to slashdot. Consolenews is FULL of spoof articles. Dont you think we would be reading this from the wall street journal if it was a $2.3 billion settlement? Don't you think Sony would fight this untill the end of time? it would be so tied up in the legal process we would never see the end...

      Its a funny reas as are most of the spoof articles but i thought people KNEW it was a hoax at first.

  • Oh really? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MrBlue VT ( 245806 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @01:40AM (#4921042) Homepage
    I like how the story is down even before any comments. Somehow I don't trust my news from www.consoletalk.com.

  • Hrm... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by marcushnk ( 90744 )
    My guess is that they will have to drop any backward compatability with the older playstaion consoles when the produce the new model without the "playstation" name tag...

    That'll cost em..

    • Re:Hrm... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Dimensio ( 311070 )
      I doubt that much. Only the name is copyrighted, and somehow I doubt that merely mentioning the name when discussing backwards compatability would qualify for royalty payments.

    • backward compatibility costs nothing (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Few people realize the jump between PS2 and the original Playstation. I know the halfly informed will jump out and say "yeah the old one is 33MHz, new one is several hundred," etc. But in this case the MHz (just as in intel/amd world) says nothing.

      in every PS2, the "PS1" portion is not even another chip, let along anything they had to work hard for: there was no signal routing on the circuit board, no data passed between the new and the old (gfx proc, new cpu), and I don't even think it usued the memory (might be wrong on the last part, though).

      The PS1 portion is but a corner of the I/O processor. (I/O processor handles (duh) I/O - but also sound - so PS1 core pipes the audio directly through.) So pretty much PS1 is running on the "sound card" portion of the PS2, if you will. I highly suspect that they had a lot of chip area left when making the I/O processor (or adding on the entire IP core of PS1 costed minimally) so they just said fsck it let's put that on there.

      In desktop terms, this is equivalent to, say, running a Pentium II system using your SCSI card controller. (which, btw, the higher end ones from adaptec actually do use a P2 for the microcontroller)

      Contrastingly - while that's not possible for the PS2 to be integrated into a dusty corner of a new-gen console for now - by the time P2 retires, I would not be surprised if they can pull the trick again - or if it proved to be costly then, they will probably just skip it.

      Not sure if this is coverable under NDA, as it should be pretty common info via developer kits; but i am posting AC anyhow.

  • WOW (Score:2, Insightful)

    by crumbz ( 41803 )
    Considering that the PS2 has been responsible for SONY staying in the black for the past couple of years, this is huge. Even more for Nintendo. Given that the average age of the game player is increasing, methinks that Nintendo better start creating content (love that phrase) for adults pretty soon.

    • Funny thing is.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Inoshiro ( 71693 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @01:59AM (#4921125) Homepage
      Even though I'm an adult, I still find the same things fun.

      It's not like I suddenly stopped finding Metroid fun. Metroid will always be fun. To actually say something that implies you stop enjoying certain things once you get past a set age, well.... I call bullshit.

      • It's more about losing intrest. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by autopr0n ( 534291 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @02:49AM (#4921247) Homepage Journal
        I used to love comic books, video games, and TV. I still enjoy video games once in a while, but my desire for all three of those things has really gone down. I now find Comic books way overpriced for 3 or 4 minutes of plesure, and TV just knaws at my brain.

        People really do grow out of things, but it's not like throwing more blood into a video game is going to make me want to play it more. The only stuff that kind of thing apeals to are 12-15 year old boys.

        • True, but not what the original poster said. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Inoshiro ( 71693 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @03:07AM (#4921287) Homepage
          The original poster was trying to imply that any game with bright, primary colours, or any game with Mario, had to be a kids game. That such games were only of enjoyment to kids. Ludicrous!

          I still enjoy video games a lot. Granted, I don't have nearly as much patience for jumping puzzles as I used to (which could also be linked to the greater numbers of games I own ;)), but I still enjoy Mario Party 4, Super Monkey Ball, Smash Bros, etc. Games marked as "kiddy" by some. I play the crap out of them until my controllers don't work anymore. Is there something wrong with me? Not at all. I also enjoyed Monsters, Inc -- another "cute" movie which happenened to have depth, and a great execution.

          • Here Here! (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Chris Canfield ( 548473 )
            I don't understand this nationwide taboo against admitting to enjoying anything that might be labeled "for kids." How many parents enjoyed Aladdin, or Spirited Away? I have a deep suspicion that Americans refuse to like things tainted with the "kid" label because they never grew out of that pre-adolescent phase where they had to constantly prove they weren't pre-adolescents.

            In Video Gaming, anything lighthearted and fun gets labeled "Kids," and anything edgy and violent gets labeled "adults." While an adult movie like What Women Want can be fun, very few adult games retain that sense of lighthearted enjoyment.

            Kids games are also in digestably shorter bites, with more intense enjoyment up front, for the little one's attention spans. This is great when you are trying to grab a moment between work and a trip to the grocery store.

            That's just my opinion, but I'm not wrong.

            -C

        • Appart from the fact that you seem to have lost a deal of your sence of wonder (for which my sincerest condolences), I'd also say you never read the likes of Gaiman (the Sandman), Miller (his SinCity series), Wagner (Grendel) or any of the truly greats. There are some grandmasters in comics which deserve Booker Prises.
          And I find sometimes a dose of pulp like the Dragon or most of Dark Horse Comics (some gems, some good pulp) enliven my day too.

          I'll give you 'overpriced' though. That's what stops me from getting all the 'Lone wolf and cub' series.
          • Seriously, the stories in most commic books are extreemly trite. If they cost 10 They might be worth it. 1/3rd the price of a move for 1/20th the entertainment isn't much of a deal... especialy when most of the stories are lower quality then free entertanment on the boob toob.

            Yeah, I never really looked at the supposed literary greats of the comic world... but there the price diferential is even greater. I could pay $8 for a Gibson (for example) novel that would take me 18 hours to get through, or $3 for a comic that would take 10 minutes if you were lucky...

      • Re:Funny thing is.. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by nomadic ( 141991 )
        Sure, I like to play fun, "kids" games too.

        But I, like a lot of the people here, want to occasionally play a game that someone tried to push the envelope with. Game design should be an art, too, and that means grown up storylines occasionally.

        Fun is not synonymous with enjoyable. 2001: A Space Odyssey is not a "fun" movie, but I get more enjoyment out of it than any comedy or mindless action film. The latter may be a good way to kill two hours, but you stop thinking about it soon after you see it. A great movie stays with you for a lot longer.

        Anyone who's finished Shenmue knows that sizeable chunks of the game aren't very fun. But the lulls make the action scenes more worthwhile.

        Look at Ico. The genius of the game wasn't in the gameplay; it was in the characters' movements, the music, the storyline, the atmosphere. I think most children would miss a lot of the beauty, simply because they haven't developed emotionally enough to catch the more subtle touches.

        It's not like I suddenly stopped finding Metroid fun. Metroid will always be fun. To actually say something that implies you stop enjoying certain things once you get past a set age, well.... I call bullshit.

        I'm not sure if I could have appreciated games like Ico or Shenmue as much if I played it as a child. In the same way, things I enjoyed as a kid (like FPSes) I don't enjoy the same way anymore. Like any other red-blooded American boy, violence thrilled me; now it just depresses me. When I was younger I liked numeric-based CRPGs (Might and Magic, Bard's Tale, etc), but now I wouldn't even start a game with endless, menu-driven combat like that. Life's too short.

        So what's so awful about the idea that tastes change as you grow older?
  • from news.google.com:

    Your search - sony playstation nintendo trademark - did not match any documents.

    Suggestions:
    - Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
    - Try different keywords.
    - Try more general keywords.
    - Try fewer keywords.
    Also, you can browse today's headlines on the Google News homepage.

  • Chances are.... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by foniksonik ( 573572 )
    That Sony will change the name to JUST PS2 and in the next revision PS3, not PlayStation at all. They've put way too much into branding PS2 to let it all go, but they also can't give Nintendo all their earnings.

    So look for the new PS3 in 2003 - 04.

  • Sorry but (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jchawk ( 127686 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @01:46AM (#4921066) Homepage Journal
    I'm sorry but this is bullshit, something like this would be major news especially considering that Sony is a publicly traded company and would have been obligated to inform it's investors that it was being sued.

    Sorry guys, no news here move along, it's bullshit.
  • This type of billion dollar settlement is a typical artifact of high-technology management
    styles for conflicts. I doubt that anyone over
    at Sony that caused this problem will take any
    fallout from it.

    More likely, this conflict slowly progressed where no product manager wanted to take the sales hit for moving away from the protected PlayStation brand. After all, the loss of brand recognition would be felt immediately in the sales figures that measure the success of a product manager and the current settlement is only felt long after those product managers have been promoted.

    A good dictator could have fixed this problem before PlayStation was such an entrenched brand.

  • Why is it that Nintendo only gets to reap the benefits of the Playstation name? Can't Sony countersue for Nintendo to cover some of the liabilities associated with the Playstation name?

  • Sure (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sprayNwipe ( 95435 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @01:47AM (#4921070) Homepage
    Yep, this is definitely true. A major story like Nintendo getting 10% of past sales from the PlayStation brand would definitely be only reported on an unreputable site like ConsoleTalk, and not on, say, Yahoo News, CNN, or Reuters.

    And as for no news from Nintendo and Sony about this? That's just because they're slow in getting the press release out. Right.

    This isn't true. How about doing some small amount of research next time before publishing the article.

    This is related to the "Megaton" announcement from Nintendo coming soon. Some sites say it's Capcom being bought by Nintendo, some sites say it's Sony paying Nintendo money for the PS brand, some sites have equally ridiculous stories. All sites are rumours and aren't true (so far), as no announcement has been made.
    • One interesting thing though; even if it were completely true and was all over the mainstream news, it reminds me very much of the OS/2 vs Windows case. Specifically, it's amazing how fragile "joint" projects are when proprietary interests start to smell some real $$$.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • I wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by failrate ( 583914 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @01:48AM (#4921077) Homepage
    how much the Playstation moniker is actually worth, anyway. If it is worth more than the asking price, then Sony could just as easily come out with PS3 without much of a problem. I also wonder if I would have bought a Playstation if it had been named something different... probably. So I can't imagine that Nintendo, which changes the names of its systems into something unrecognizable every few generation (Famicom, NES, SNES, N64, GameCube?), would be suffering at all that they didn't get to use the Playstation name.
    • Nintendo, which changes the names of its systems into something unrecognizable every few generation (Famicom, NES, SNES, N64, GameCube?)

      Famicom was what they called it in Japan. In North America, it was released as the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES). Same unit, same generation, different country (most game consoles are like this, fyi).

      The SNES was the Super Nintendo Entertainment System. Hmm.. looks like Playstation/Playstation 2 to me.

      N64 was actually called the Nintendo 64. Same name, they just took out the 'entertainment system' bit, and added info about the cpu.

      The latest (and greatest).. Nintendo Gamecube. A bit of a change, admitted.

      Now, let's compare that to Sega: Master System, Genesis, Saturn, Dreamcast. Hmm.. all different names here.

      Atari: 2600/5200/7800. Well, they all share the same part of alpha-numeric (the numeric part), but beyond that they really don't have much in common (yes, I'm aware it's increments of 2600).

      Hmm, that leaves Sony. With a whopping 2 consoles, they are the first console company in history to have a sequel named like movies ('2'). Oh wait.. their first machine was the Playstation, then the PSX, then the PSOne.... all within one generation.

      Your point again was?

  • source of the rumour? (Score:5, Informative)

    by fireduck ( 197000 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @01:48AM (#4921078)
    doing a google search turned up the following page [madgamers.net]. relevant text as follows:

    Well, this morning, another rumour was released.

    "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 rumour seems to follow what the Gaming Age staff member said last night. This is very interesting, and if true, it could possibly cripple Sony to the point where they could no longer compete in the console war!

    Apparently nintendo had the idea of making the snes a cd-drive and thought of the name "playstation"... as Sony were very high into the cd business (cd-players, walkmans etc.) Nintendo asked them to build the cd-drive code name "playstation" for the snes.
    Meanwhile Philips were also in the works of a cd-based console called the CD-i and they asked Nintendo for some help, Nintendo gave them the right to produce four Zelda games on it which they did.
    Sony were angry at this because they thought that they were being cheated so they dumped Nintendo and took the idea of the cd-based console aswell as the name "playstation".

    Sony and Nintendo's contract was for seven years and guess what? This is their last year as partners according to the contract...

    So, as you have read, Nintendo lawyers are suing Sony, blah blah blah...

    is dated dec 1, 2002. i can't imagine that in 17 days a lawsuit was filed and settled (particularly given the outrageous amount suggested)...
    • Scratch that ... new source ... SLASHDOT!

      with all them "in soviet russia posts" the propaganda delievery to the front page was only a matter of time.

      so is this the new troll sport? Trolling the front page??

      • so is this the new troll sport? Trolling the front page??


        Sport? It's like shooting ducks in a barrel. It always takes me a while to remember on April 1st that the editors are actually in on the joke for once.


        Furthermore, who needs submitters to troll the front page when Michael and Timothy are happy to add flamebait lines to the end of submissions or even make up titles that are incredibly misleading (i.e. the GM corn article).

  • That's a lot of money (duh). Some interesting things about this story. 1. The article seems to be gone (the site is up, but the article is gone). 2. Can't find the news anywhere else on the internet. 3. That's a lot of money for a supposed (?) shared copyright (trademark?). Seems fishy.

  • call for a /. news editor (Score:3, Funny)

    by carpe_noctem ( 457178 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @01:53AM (#4921097) Homepage Journal
    copywrite? COPYWRITE?

  • WTF? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Frozen-Solid ( 569348 ) <frozen@frozen-solid.net> on Thursday December 19, 2002 @01:54AM (#4921100) Homepage
    I am in total disbalief that an upstanding bullshit free site such as slashdot as posted this article. For one, Nintendo has never had ANY stake in the playstation name. Nintendo and Sony's partnership on the then dubbed "SNES CD" ended without the project going anywhere. Because of Sega CDs flop, Nintendo pulled out extremely early in the process and left Sony to develope it alone. AFTER Nintendo left the partnership is when Sony took up the PlayStation name. Check out Copyright.gov if you dont believe me. 3. Registration Number: VA-759-813 Title: PlayStation. Description: Computer graphic. Claimant: acSony Computer Entertainment, Inc. Created: 1994 Published: 10May94 Registered: 2Apr96 Title on © Application: PS device. Special Codes: 5/S The official copyright database says NOTHING ABOUT NINTENDO. There is no way in hell that Nintendo could POSSIBLY win this suit, and there's no way in hell they are dumb enough to pursue it. I have lost much faith in my beloved slashdot for posting such total unofficial rumored bullshit.

    • Re:WTF? (Score:3, Informative)

      by stratjakt ( 596332 )
      Well, the story is fake, but, IIRC the history was more like this:

      - Nintendo and Sony to jointly develop CD Addon for SNES

      - Nintendo reannounces its partnership with Phillips - citing 'superior' technology. Though it was probably just a better (cheaper) deal.

      - Sony gets pissed. Sony produces many of the proprietary chips inside the SNES, like the audio unit for one.

      - Sony shows up at industry trade show with a new console, called Playstation. It has a cartridge slot, which plays SNES games. It has a cd-drive which playes SNES CD games (which never existed). SNES liscencing was Nintendo's, but the tech was Sony's. Sony has Nintendo by the balls.

      - Nintendo does some kissing ass, and eventually winds up in some screwy 3-way partnership thing with Sony and Nintendo to jointly develop the 'Playstation', Phillips to be involved in production somehow.

      - As you said, Nintendo sees Sega CD and TurboGrafx CD, watches them bomb, drops out, vows to only produce cartridges.

      - Sony produces new console, Playstation X (the PSX we all know), Nintendo partners up with SGI for N64

      There is a kernel of truth. There is some litigation as to the contract Nintendo had with Sony. Sony may have the trademark, but there's a contract saying that "Playstation" was to be produced for Nintendo. AFAIK, it's still in the hands of the lawyers, and will likely stay there forever.
    • I have lost much faith in my beloved slashdot for posting such total unofficial rumored bullshit.

      You must be new here... welcome to slashdot where nobody is quite sure exactly what the editors do.
    • I distinctly remember news articals from the early 90s discussing the SNES-CD, and they said it would be called the PlayStation.

      As far as copyright.gov goes, well.

      1) it's not a copyright, it's a trademark.
      2) The deal was made in Japan, not the US.
      3) Trademark law is a bit diffrent, in that you can start using a term, and trademark it later. As long as you've been 'trading' under that name, you get protection. So even with out legal ownership nintendo could still have a case.

      And lets not forget 4) Slashdot is not a bullshit free site.

      Anyway, the artical is total crap for reasons other people mentioned, but so is your post. Your history is warped, and so is your understanding of Intelectual Property.
    • I am in total disbalief that an upstanding bullshit free site such as slashdot as posted this article.

      disbalief? Oh, I see you are a part of the same Hooked on Phonics program -- the one that gets its graduates jobs at news sites -- as the slashdot editors.

  • This simply cannot be true (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 19, 2002 @01:54AM (#4921103)
    Here's why:

    I would expect Sony's stock price to have plummeted and investors would be made aware (no evidence on Yahoo Biz).

    I would expect that Sony's website would mention this issue (here's the press release site for the Playstation http://us.playstation.com/news/PressReleases/ [playstation.com] and Sony's official press release site [sony.com]) Note the lack of this story.

    Google turns up no results either.

    Don't post stories like this without checking them.
    • Wasn't it one of the editors that said that only 5% of /. readers actually read the comments? Imagine the 95% of us that are going to go into work tommorow and drop this bomb on our coworkers, only to have them ask us to quote our source. "Uh, Slashdot quoting some fanboy site." "Riiiight."
  • and sony will make the platform.

    nintendo designed games on the playstation??? ouch.

  • Somebody just got duped by a fanboy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nukem1999 ( 142700 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @01:59AM (#4921129)
    This is all pure speculation related to an upcoming "megaton" announcement Nintendo is supposed to make in the near future. The speculation ranges from this story to Nintendo buying Campcom and Sega. It's all been a contest to see who can get their page linked the most with the most outrageous story, and it looks like this site won.

    As for the actual announcement, please don't post any more news on it until you see it on nintendo.com

  • No mention on either site... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Acaila ( 259043 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @02:00AM (#4921130) Homepage Journal
    There is no mention of this "settlement" on either the playstation or nintendo sites.

    In the words of Kent Brockman: "Do we have a source on this?"
    • -- Kent Brockman's breaking news story, ``Brother from the Same Planet''

      Brockman: This just in. A fistfight is in progress in downtown Springfield. Early reports indicate, and this is very preliminary, that one of the fighters is a giant lizard. [inset of Godzilla] Do we have a source on this? ... Uh huh. A bunch of drunken frat boys. ... All right, I could use some names. I. P. Freeley.

      Compliments of www.snpp.com

  • 45 y.o. italian plumber named mario sues Nintendo (Score:5, Funny)

    by paughsw ( 620959 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @02:00AM (#4921131)
    In other news, a 45 year old italian plumber named mario, sues nintendo, for defamation of character, and slander.

    • Mario: "It is a complete... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 19, 2002 @02:05AM (#4921159)
      ...stereotyping of me and my profession. Plumbers rarely venture into pipes to fight mushrooms and turtles, especially fire-breathing ones at that. People now ask me all the time what it was like to drop the drawbridge from under the 20-foot tall hammer-throwing snapper turtle. I can't stress it enough that we of the plumber's profession take out jobs, and out butt-cracks seriously. They both need to be properly polished and shown to all the right people."
    • In other news, a 45 year old italian plumber named mario, sues nintendo, for defamation of character, and slander.

      Isn't he still in rehab for that shroom habit of his?

  • Gullible (Score:2, Funny)

    by StrikerObi ( 145657 )
    gullible
    adj 1: naive and easily deceived or tricked; "at that early age she
    had been gullible and in love" [syn: fleeceable, green]
    2: easily tricked because of being too trusting; "gullible
    tourists taken in by the shell game"

  • How the shit did this get here? (Score:5, Informative)

    by rosewood ( 99925 ) <rosewood.chat@ru> on Thursday December 19, 2002 @02:08AM (#4921169) Homepage Journal
    http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?sect ion_name=pub&aid=998

    uh? This is an old rumor. Fuck, its damn near ready for snopes. chrisd: Dont just post cause it looks cool, check it out first.
  • When asked about the 2.3 billion dollar fiasco, a spokesman for Sony had this to say:

    "Oops."

  • US Patent and Trademark Office (Score:5, Informative)

    by minesweeper ( 580162 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @02:12AM (#4921184) Homepage
    After doing a search on PlayStation [uspto.gov], here are some of the results:

    • PlayStation [uspto.gov]
      • (REGISTRANT) KABUSHIKI KAISHA SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION JAPAN 1-22 AKASAKA 8-CHOME, MINATO-KU TOKYO 107 JAPAN

    • PlayStation [uspto.gov]
      • (REGISTRANT) Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment CORPORATION JAPAN l-l Akasaka 7-chome Minato-ku, Tokyo JAPAN
  • While it is apparently true that the (defunct) Super NES CD-Rom addon project was a joint effort between Nintendo and Sony, and was codenamed "Playstation," this story is a hoax.
  • What about the playstation 5 [theonion.com]!!!

    (it has a trinary processor :P)
  • As their link results in this:

    Warning: Failed opening 'StoryText/story146.html' for inclusion (include_path='') in /home/console2/public_html/News/FullStory.php on line 145

    On both mozilla and netscape 4.77. I am all out of browsers since I don't want to fire up VMWare...

  • I don't believe it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mao che minh ( 611166 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @02:59AM (#4921263) Journal
    No company whom's livelyhood is in an industry as volatile and sudden as gaming would agree to a "20 year" payment plan. That is absurd. I could see a massive corporation like Canon agreeing to maybe a 10 year suit of this magnitude with a much smaller company like Hewlitt-Packard/Compaq (in case you didn't know, Canon has patents on almost all laser printer and camera technologies, and builds almost all of HP's printers and the components that go in cameras - such a suit could be concievable if HP slipped up). This is because Canon knows that it will be around for at least another 20 years, and HP at least 15. But 20 billion from Sony over 20 years? Not likely. Nintendo would rather have 3 billion right now. The market in which Nintendo thrives would demand it.
  • Brand names are protected by trademarks, not copyrights. That does matter because copyright law and trademark law are very different. For example, trademarks evaporate if you don't enforce them, while copyrights don't.

    And it's a "copyright"; "copywrite" is something a "copywriter" does.

  • Hmph (Score:5, Funny)

    by Iscariot_ ( 166362 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @03:18AM (#4921308)
    I guess the next system from Sony won't be a "box", "cube", or "station". How about "Sony Girlfriend Eliminator"?

  • Another Dupe (Score:5, Funny)

    by Skraut ( 545247 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @03:18AM (#4921310) Journal
    What is it with Slashdot today.

    First we get stories that are duped.

    Now we are getting duped by stories.

  • The 'Megaton' announcement thing (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Timmeh ( 555676 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @03:53AM (#4921388)
    I was confused what everyone meant when they were talking about the 'Megaton' rumor from Nintendo, but here's a link [gamesindustry.biz] that 'rounds up' the 'Megaton' rumors that has everyone abuzz. Basically there are two, the Playstation trademark thingey, and that Nintendo is planning on buying Sega and Capcom (hadn't heard about Sega) so produce games exlusively for the cube. I'm as skeptical as the writers of the above-linked article:
    Yes, people actually believe this. Presumably they also expect the megaton announcement itself to be made by Shigeru Miyamoto on the back of a flying pig...
  • :s/Bombshell/Bollocks

    What, you're taking editorial lessons in publishing groundless fanboy bollocks from fat Harry at Aint It :s/stuff I just made up/Cool News?

    I can't remember. Can companies sue rumourmongers if said rumours drive down their stock price?

  • "STEEEEEEEEEE-RIKE TWO!!!!"

    Nice going, chrisd.

    Plan something BIG for number three, would ya? If you're going to get booted as a Slashdot "editor" (even with quotes, I can't believe I just juxtaposed those two words...), your final act should be something really monumental.

    Seriously, though: Is this, like, the earliest April Fool's joke in history? I mean, past mistakes aside, I never figured you for a dumb guy. Are you really telling us that you read this submission, and you seriously thought it seemed plausible?!?

    Otherwise, you should be thankful you posted this at 1238AM. Imagine if you'd posted it mid-morning, and every Slashdotter had run straight to Ameritrade to sell his/her shares in Sony. Imagine what might have happened, at least temporarily, to Sony's stock. (In this climate, a small blip can be interpreted as a relatively large spike...and before you can say "Open Source," stockholders are assuming that "spike" represents information they don't have, and they're scrambling not to be left behind.)

    Now imagine what the correspondence from Sony's attorneys might have looked like, when it arrived in your office the next morning. Does the name "PairGain" ring any bells?

    crib

  • Has anyone else noticed that, the more hyperlinks a submission includes, the more likely the Slashdot editors are to take it seriously?

    If I were to submit a story including links to a commercial real estate firm, eBay, and a picture of the Brooklyn Bridge, would you post my story about how I'm auctioning it off using a zero-feedback profile with a "Buy It Now!" of $19.95?

    It looks to me like "Magamo" figured out exactly how to slip one through your blind spot, chrisd. Better work on your tells.

    crib
  • yeah, that's like 115 million dollars per year to pay that off... i think some other news sites would've covered this if it's this huge :-/

    come on guys, april fools is still many months away!

  • Slashdot Liablity (slightly off topic) (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Sancho ( 17056 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @04:28AM (#4921464) Homepage
    As a "news site," how liable is Slashdot for posting this story should it turn out to be total fiction? There was apparently zero editorial checking, and since the story isn't there, you have to wonder if it ever was. Did some Slashdot editor just see a cool story and "OK" the submission? If that's the typical way things get done, it's awfully unethical.

    • As a "news site," how liable is Slashdot for posting this story should it turn out to be total fiction? There was apparently zero editorial checking, and since the story isn't there, you have to wonder if it ever was. Did some Slashdot editor just see a cool story and "OK" the submission? If that's the typical way things get done, it's awfully unethical.

      Until you can prove a direct correlation between something like a major dip in Sony stock and this story on Slashdot, I don't think Slashdot is liable for anything. Oh my, did I just stick up for the Slashdot editors? Crap. Anyway, you're 100% correct -- the editors should have at least followed the link (when the link is to a page that doesn't exist, don't post the story. end of ... story). Failing that, they should've realized that any legitimate story on this would've at least linked to a more reputable source (cnnfn, yahoo, even msnbc), either without the consoletalk link or along side it.

      My prediction is that this will get blamed on the editors seeing the Two Towers today. The movie was so damned long, they were probably half asleep by the time they got back to "work".

      • Re:Slashdot Liablity (slightly off topic) (Score:4, Informative)

        by iapetus ( 24050 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @08:33AM (#4921956) Homepage
        The story did exist at the time the article was posted. I know, since I've had to prune out countless topics about it on a well-known gaming forum (incidentally, if Slashdot is covering ludicrous gaming rumours these days, I'm sure we can supply them with a few more interesting ones...) Consoletalk have since taken it down, presumably partly in response to the widespread coverage Slashdot is getting it. :)

  • OUCH (Score:3, Insightful)

    by katalyst ( 618126 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @04:32AM (#4921473) Homepage
    That must have hurt Sony. However, this shows how important the "brand"/name is to a company. Hmm.. I wonder if Micrsoft will get sued by some sextoy company for using "XBox".
    This case is very interesting though. There was no news about this "Playstation" controversy. Doesn't a company have to run through an agency before it launches a product of a particular name?
  • Why not just build the next playstation inside the aibo? No more having to move it around yourself, and you can call for it and it will come to you. A logical choice for Sony of course ;)
  • Surely if Nintendo felt that Sony had screwed them over with the Original PlayStation (the SNES add on) then they should have said something back in 1994* not all these years later.

    *Obviously this date is incorrect.
  • Ironically enough, the 'Fortune' at the bottom of my page is:

    People don't usually make the same mistake twice -- they make it three times, four time, five times...

    So, we'll see a duplicate of this posted?

  • Even if it is true... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Fugly ( 118668 ) on Thursday December 19, 2002 @10:59AM (#4922643) Homepage
    Hmm, my guess is that Sony's next console will be shying away from the PlayStation moniker..."

    Um, providing this article were true, why wouldn't they use the name? They just paid 2.3 billion dollars for it.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Buy land. They've stopped making it." -- Mark Twain

Close