http://www.gamespot.com/news/6141487.html
...
...
...
...
....
WHAT SOULLESS COMPANY SUES CANCER RESEARCH?!?!?!!?
i'm not sure if i should get angry or laugh at this. oo;
Do both.
*In before lame Poke-trolls*
Don't Nintendo(or one of the US branch at least) have more important things to do than worry about a cancer gene named after than most popular properties threating to sue over it? But I guess they are that paranoid that they don't want to tarnish Pokemon's good name(and those god-awful non-RPG spinoffs the bring here don't)?
Like the article said, Sega didn't get that hissy over the Sonic gene though I have to admit that most people probably didn't know that the Sonic gene brings certian negative effects to the body whereas most people know what cancer is.
Well you call a Cancer causing gene Pokemon and then announce that to the world what do you expect?
But still that is just wrong on Nintendo. There is taking pride in your brands and then there is SUING A CANCER RESEARCH CHARITY.
Well Thats the Revolution fecked.
I can understand why Nintendo would be upset by this. Referring to a cancer causing gene as 'Pokemon', will be damaging to one of Nintendo's biggest ideas. It could even lead to them losing sales and so on.
But as John Taylor has just said, suing a cancer research charity is low. I think that merely requesting that the gene be referred to as something else other than 'Pokemon' would suffice.
Geez, no matter what you do, you're gonna orange someone off. 
WHY!? Nintendo, WHY!? I'VE ADMIRED YOU FOR SO LONG!
~Neo
...Who the hell names a gene Pokemon anyway?
In all fairness, I see Nintendo's point. Those sort of headlines are not exactly going to be beneficial to them...
As long as they're aiming for an injunction rather than ruinous damages...
I understand that Nintendo is pissed, but I don't know if THAT was the right way to go. XD...I can laugh though.
~T2K
As a cancer survivor myself, I find this totally stupid for nintendo to assume that the cancer researchers are comparing the cancer causing gene to thier washed up franchise when the acronym is mearly a coincidence. Man!talk about egotism!
As for Pokemon I always believed they're evil, everybody knows about the 1997 seizure incident in Japan and I've had one before back in 1999.
^Because Pokemon was the only anime with bright flashing lights that ever aired. Nope, there was no such thing as Shonen anime prior to Pokemon.
And for some washed up franchise, the RPG games seems to sell millions worldwide.
Quote:
I can understand why Nintendo would be upset by this. Referring to a cancer causing gene as 'Pokemon', will be damaging to one of Nintendo's biggest ideas. It could even lead to them losing sales and so on.
Pssh, like this incident will actually keep people from purchasing say...Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess.
Having this gene named Pokemon could be a good thing.
Why, when little 8-year-old Timmy puts in a search in Ask Jeeves for the word "Pokemon," he has a chance to stumble upon a site that provides knowledge to such gene. Little Timmy could learn that he may possibly have this bad gene! This could possibly save hundreds of little Timmy's lives around the world!
But "Zbtb7"...? What 8-year-old that unkowingly may have cancer is going to search for that? Well, maybe an extememly bored 8-year-old. But that child should be studying and making good grades and making plans on being an astronaut someday! Only a drunk that was smashing his face into a keyboard, trying to see what words he can make, is going to search for "zbtb7." Now who would you rather save? Poor, defenseless, unknowing Timmy? Or that crazy drunk guy that almost ran you over a few months back?
Though, when little Timmy asks "Mommy, do I have Pokemon genes?" Mommy will say "lol Timmy I just sewed that Gengar patch on your jeans last week. Now go to bed, you have karate class in the morning."
Eh, it could go either way I guess.
That is all. Nintendo have apparently called off the ninja assassins though when it was renamed Zbtb7.
Well, that's another reason I won't be supporting Nintendo. I can't believe anyone would sue a cancer research group.
For the curious, the name of the gene in question is POK erythroid myeloid ontogenic gene, abbreviated as the POKEMON gene.
Besides, it's not the first time the Pokemon name has been under scrutiny for health problems. Remember the incident with the episode "Electric Soldier Porygon?"
In the interest of Brevity, I'm going to sum up all my thoughts on the various issues in this topic in two words apiece.
Pat L: Stop Posting.
This Topic: Pretty Retarded.
Me: Done here.
Well, Sega never sued over the Sonic hedgehog gene even though mutations of the gene can lead to several brain and facial anomalies, including cyclopia.
Pssh, like this incident will actually keep people from purchasing say...Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess.
Nobody'll buy it if they keep on delaying it.
I see nothing wrong with suing Charities.
*goes off to steal from the Salvation Army clothing drops*
Cyc: OH SNAP.
Steeb: I never!
I don't know if to laugh or not to laugh.
It doens't even stand for "Pokemon" its stands for "Pokemog".
And the USA should really be the USOA.
~Rico
If I'm not mistaken, this is Nintendo of America that's doing this, not Nintendo of Japan, which is probably the "main" part of the company. The US branches of some companies tend to do some wierd things(though the only example I can think of is Capcom,) but this does take the cake. Is it really nessessary to sue? Could they just have contacted them and told them not to do this?
Well, suing apparent gets the message across quick. Besides, I never really liked Pokemon.
The fact a cancerous gene was named Pokemon is funny, Nintendo suing charity about it is nearly infuriating.
I wonder what Terry Fox would have said about this if, hypothetically, he knew it was going to happen now?
Pokemon USA has no excuse to sue. They could have easily just told the researchers "your acronym is harming our product name and humiliating our company" and if they acted just left it at that. If they didn't act, then they should consider the irony in complaining about "Pokemon causes cancer" headlines. It's the journalists saying that, it's not the cancer researchers' fault, so if anyone they should sue the journalists, (who used misleading headlines) not the cancer researchers, (who merely used an acronym)
Unfortunately, it sets a bad name for the videogame industry, and for that matter, a bad name for Nintendo. (though as Ashura Fan pointed out, it's the American branch doing this) Actually, is Pokemon USA part of Nintendo USA? Because they sound like two different companies. (Sounds to me like Pokemon USA was in charge of other Pokemon-related things than the games, like North American broadcasting of the show, but I don't know, as I'm not into Pokemon)
Notice how SEGA didn't sue over it?
[Edited just a couple minutes after posting to add something, a few minutes later decided to remove it and replace it with something else]
wow that is very interesting Nintendo suing cancer research hope they don't accidentally inject themselves with the gene LOL
What I'm about to say in this post is something I had been considering saying earlier, but by the time I'd got around to it the thread would have been considered old, and even when the thread was bumped I was busy. Anyway, now I'm here and something about this is really stuck to my mind.
My earlier comment about harming the product name and all that was assuming that's why Nintendo was about to sue, judging entirely according to the article saying Nintendo was "not pleased by the rush of headlines". But thinking about it more carefully, I considered one thing: "Was that really their reason or was it an excuse, and their real motives concealed?"
When cancer survivors go school to school telling students that excercise can decrease one's risk of developing cancer it provides an extra motive for people to excercise more. Doesn't necessarily mean they will, let alone that it'll stop them from playing video games, as I play video games frequently but I do excercise a fair bit as well. (on my excercise routine that gives me plenty of excercise as well as plenty of time for video games) But when people think of active lifestyles they think of having things like competitive sports take up "most" of one's time. And if they take up most of one's time, they can't use "most" of their time to play video games...
...and that includes Nintendo games.
So when diehard Nintendo fans no longer spend most of their spare time playing Nintendo games, that's a LOT of people spending a LOT less time playing Nintendo games, and therefore going through less games in the same amount of time. A decrease in sales for Nintendo when cancer research has kids' attention.
Would it be logical to assume that Nintendo was looking for an excuse to sue cancer research as its findings and what it exposed drew away from Nintendo sales? I'm not saying that makes it ok at all, (in fact I'm saying it makes it even worse because "Pokemon causes cancer" headlines that stemmed from plagiarism would probably make it seem like somewhat of an understandable provocation even though it's the journalists that use the headlines like I said) but what I am saying is that American branches of large corporations, just like large American corporations themselves, will tend to do things whether those things are right or wrong. An example of this is how Disney, a company similar to Nintendo, sets up sweat-shops in third world countries to make certain merchandise. (And knowing that is why I try to avoid watching Disney movies, I think they may be in actuality corporate propaganda) Even having that connection drawn, it isn't really easy to tell if that would quite make them threaten to sue, as suing won't bring back those sales.
Though I suppose it might, since if Nintendo takes money out of the hands of cancer research charity, they cannot do as much with less money. If they cannot do as much, that includes cannot get that message ("excercise more often") publicized, let alone find more proof of that message. If less of it gets out and if it isn't proven well enough, it won't be a publicly sympathized cause (cancer research) being a more dynamic voice to excercise. (Albeit there are lots of other publicly sympathized causes that emphasize excercising) Won't be as big of something to take away from sales.
Now I know charity doesn't compete with big business financially but in a way to some extent it sorta competes for our time and attention. It has to. To me it seems possible, and the most key signs to me are that Nintendo threatened to sue, and for that matter directly threatened the cancer research as opposed to the news, and didn't even ask unthreateningly before threatening to sue, have it make sense to me.
By the way, sorry about the fact that my other post mostly mentioned things that were already mentioned. Often times before I wouldn't post because my opinion is one that was already expressed by almost everyone else, but realizing that isn't a good way to post, I don't think mentioning what everyone else already mentioned is either. From now on when I'm going to mention things that were already mentioned, should I instead quote people and say "agreed" or would that be too annoying and space-consuming?
[Edited a few minutes after posting to fix the wording and add a few things]
I read that rant and heard Jeffery "The Question" Combes voice speaking it.
Quote:
I read that rant and heard Jeffery "The Question" Combes voice speaking it.
It wasn't intended as a rant, but instead to suggest that maybe Nintendo's "reason" to threaten to sue like they did wasn't what the article said. I know some of my wording may have made it my post look like a rant, and for examples of comments that may be misunderstood:
When I said "cancer survivors go school to school" I was judging by when a cancer survivor came around to my town's high school giving us basic guidelines to follow to reduce our risk of cancer, and excercise was one of them.
When I said "diehard Nintendo fans" I wasn't saying that all Nintendo fans were diehard. I was saying that the diehard OF the fans, (again, not saying they all were) if they had a lot more time spent on excercising instead of gaming, they wouldn't go through as many games in the same amount of time, therefore decreasing the sales for Nintendo.
When I said "Now I know charity doesn't compete with big business financially but in a way to some extent it sorta competes for our time and attention. It has to." I know that was very opinionated, and yes, admittedly, even to the point of unfair bias. But I don't think it would quite qualify as "rant" material.
Now I know there's a lot of other rant-ish content in my post, but in my opinion, "Nintendo want us all to die of cancer" sounds a bit rant-ish to me as well.
I don't think Nintendo wants us all to die of cancer, but I think what it MIGHT (and I stress MIGHT) want is an excuse to go against what looks for it's customers' time, so that it can maximize its profit, it probably doesn't think about whether or not we get cancer.
But then again, I know that's just my opinion, as I cannot really be sure what Nintendo is thinking. By the way, who's Jeffery Combes?
Holy crap! I didn't even state an opinion and I got a rebutal! That's... terrifying.
The power of matthayer.
Quote:
Holy crap! I didn't even state an opinion and I got a rebutal! That's... terrifying.
When you said "I read that rant and heard Jeffery "The Question" Combes voice speaking it." I assumed that was you expressing an opinion about the post, as in I thought that's why you made the comment.
"I read that rant" indicated to me you were expressing that you found that post to be much too much of a rant, and it gave me the impression my wording sounded crazy. "heard Jeffery "The Question" Combes" sounded like you were comparing me to him, and though I don't know who he is, it sounds like he is either famous or infamous or maybe both in Britain. I figured that the comment you made was intended to give an opinion.
Nope, I was just saying that I read your post with a cartoon characters voice. That's hardly relating to the topic at hand, but amusing to myself and anyone who knows the show.
Quote:
Nope, I was just saying that I read your post with a cartoon characters voice. That's hardly relating to the topic at hand, but amusing to myself and anyone who knows the show.
Ok thanks. It's just that when you called it a rant that gave me the impression at first that you were voicing an opinion about my post and I just wanted to make sure my wording wasn't misunderstood.
Heh, I guess that is kinda ironic. Anyway, sorry about the misunderstanding. 
Bah, naming it after Pokemon is just asking for trouble. But I digress.
The Question is a conpiracy theorist who's mask has no face. He's a detective who's pretty much paranoid about everything. He has wild and crazy conspiracy theories and has a connection to Batman's(The series, not the character.) Huntress.
Uh... anyyywayy.
It's still pretty heartless to sue a Cancer Research institute @__@. Even if it is bad publicity. Way to go Nintendo.
It's an odd thing, even though Craig already explained he was just saying he read my post with a cartoon characters' voice, after reading ShadowAldrius' description of "The Question" I almost can't help but think Craig was suggesting my conspiracy theory was crazy...
Oh well. Anyway, I've been considering e-mailing that conspiracy theory to Nintendo (reworded of course) and asking them if it's true. (And further asking that if it isn't, asking why they threatened to sue the researchers as opposed to journalists and why they didn't ask unthreateningly first) Is sending them a conspiracy theory about them an unwise idea that I should back off from, or should I send it since I posted it? (I got a feeling that Nintendo would post it on their site and publicly respond to it, yet I find it slightly hypocritical to post it here and not say it to them...)
You are absolutely hilarious. I mean seriously, gut-bustingly hilarious. "E-mailing the conspiracy theory to Nintendo"? Dear Lord, man.
As for the topic at hand, I do disagree with their heavy-handed way of dealing with the matter. No doubt they were just adopting the "sue first, questions later" mentality of a fair amount of modern Americans (at least the idiotic ones that make their way into the national papers for suing the Government after they swallowed a jar of pennies or something). This way of dealing with things has never sat well with me, and I've got very little time for people who would rather ask for obscene amounts of undeserved money than just sit down with a cup of tea and talk about it all like grown-ups.
I'll admit I wasn't thinking carefully when I asked if that was a good idea, and afterwards I decided not to anyway, as I figured it'd be kinda risky and definitely not worth it, and just plain pointless either way. (even IF it's true, it wouldn't be logical to assume that they would say that to us anyway) The key word there was "considering". It wasn't something that I was all that bent on trying.
All the same, when I admit the e-mail idea is stupid I still don't find it funny, (albeit that's a somewhat biased perspective as I posted it) just as I do not find the issue of Nintendo suing cancer research a laughing matter.
Anyway, enough of that. I agree with your other comment. Many people, not just businesses, (though Americans in particular I guess) are too quick to sue these days anyway. It almost makes me think people just want to make money off a lawsuit.
[Edited a couple minutes later, and yet again, it was to fix the wording]
Ok, I'm feeling kind right now, so I'll be blunt and try to talk some sense. Matt, you're making people laugh at you again.
Nintendo are a company on the dying end of the console race (ok, they rule the hand held market, but it's a stone cold fact that Sony are kicking their arses), they have more to worry from trying to get consumers away from the competition than securing that there are gamers to game.
The idea of excercise isn't exactly a threat to the gaming industry, infact with games like Dance Dance Revolution, it's one which is very profitable. People can have fun and lose weight at the same time? What's the catch.
There's absoloutely no proof to believe a guy telling people to excercise or die will do anything, by logic if you spent 30 minutes a day excercising and got to live an extra 5 years, you'd have wasted most of those 5 years excercising. Most people can't be bothered.
Plus, lung cancer is mostly caused through smoking. Have those adverts with lung cancer victims or talks dropped the sales of ciggarettes? No. Even though we're now in the new generation of smokers who KNEW it would kill them when they started. Smoking sales are ever increasing.
Thusly, until inspirational cancer speak prevents people from smoking, no one has to worry about Cancer Research kiling video games, least of all Nintendo.
And the reason why they cannot sue journalists is because their headline is accurate and eye catching. It isn't slander to report something which is true. However it IS slander to name a deadly gene after a product of your copyright.
So drop the conspiracy theory, please? I seriously cringe inside when I see you make a fool of yourself like this.
Has Pat already been in to call this "THE END OF NINTENDO!!", or anything like that?
Sorry to bump this thread, but I was so busy the past few days I almost forgot about the thread until now, and really want to respond to Craig's post. And yes, I do realize I'm making people laugh at me again; I noticed that from DMJ's "you are hilarious" comment.
Well Craig, I'm glad you responded politely. While I think you might have slightly misunderstood my post, I would agree your comments are very logical. First of all a less important comment I'd like to get out of the way, when I think of blunt I don't think of polite, I think of "as straightforward as possible even if it makes it sound more harsh". I see that post more as a "calm explanation" than "being blunt" after reading the post. It's just that before reading the post I was confused when you said "I'm feeling kind... I'll be blunt"
Anyway, onto the post. When I was talking about people playing video games less when they excercise more, I wasn't saying that Cancer Research kills games, let alone even that excercise kills game sales. Remember, what I said was "when people think of active lifestyles they think of having things like competitive sports [taking] up "most" of one's time. And if they take up most of one's time, they can't use "most" of their time to play video games..."
I was by no means saying it WAS that way, as I am an example of otherwise... I excercise a fair bit but excercise doesn't take up "most" of my time. I was not saying Nintendo "needed" to do this lawsuit or anything but that Nintendo might have been looking for an opportunity to weaken something that they thought might have took away from sales somehow.
Cancer patients were telling people to get more excercise; Nintendo might have wanted to weaken cancer research enough that they couldn't get that message out as easily and/or to as many people, as they could otherwise...
Nintendo might have wanted to prevent that message from getting out so they could maximize the number of games their customers would buy in the same amount of time.
Now yes it's more important, for Nintendo's immediate sales, for them to bring people away from competitors. But Nintendo might not have had as much of an opportunity to do that; it might not be as easy to do.
And I think it might be a sorta similar thing with smoking sales, cigarette companies might not have had excuses to sue cancer research, or maybe whatever excuses were there weren't really opportunities because they may have made people suspicious.
I'll admit I don't know what opportunities companies of different kinds have had for lawsuits, and I'll agree that the lawsuit probably did require some degree of plagiarism to be there; but I think the reason they might have threatened to sue would be that they may have considered the Pokemon gene thing a more publicly acceptable excuse, and thus an opportunity to weaken something that they felt may have took from the sales.
As for your comments about "slander", I wouldn't necessarily call it that. Remember, they were taking an already established name and giving it another meaning. That's done a lot in our society, right?
Bear in mind that when I talk about this sorta conspiracy theory of Nintendo, I'm by no means trying to say it IS this way or so, (though however I worded my other post may have made it seem like I did) I'm saying it might be, and I'm saying so because it just makes sense to me. And now I find it less likely than I did when I posted that, but it still might be possible. I don't know if by "drop" the conspiracy theory you mean to edit it or forget about it, but I really don't want to do either of those things, since IF it IS possible, I still would like to keep the the theory that it might be, on the Internet.
As for DMJ's comments, Pat L Hedgehog, if that's who he's referring to, called this incident egotism, but he didn't seem to be saying it's the end of Nintendo...
This is text equivalent of diarrhea.
PURE LIQUID DIARRHEA
You want the endless spewing of assnuggets to cease and descist but the more you press the issue the more it just makes you hurt and eventually bleed. Except in this case ALL OF THE BLEEDING GOES DIRECTLY TO YOUR BRAIN.
This kinda reminds me of English class last year when the teacher said some of the students had "verbal diarrhea" in their assignments. Anyway, WB, the reason I was "pressing" the issue so to speak, was because I wanted to emphasize that I was not saying Nintendo would have needed to do so, so much as saying that Nintendo seemed to me to be looking for an opportunity to sue, since it might have seemed to some of its employees, well at least in the backs of their minds, that suing would silence something that may have taken slightly away from game sales.
I'm tempted to go on, but I won't...
What are you talking about?
Seriously, you're not making one iota of sense, Matt.
- When I said that what I wanted to emphasize was not saying Nintendo needed to do so, "do so" was referring to "suing the cancer research charity"
- When I said "in the backs of their minds" I was saying Nintendo might have even been looking to sue if they didn't see it as much of a threat, but more along the lines of wanted an opportunity to weaken anything they vaguely thought might've taken from sales.
Sorry about the sloppy wording of that last post, I typed it in a bit of a hurry. Anyway, could you say what else about my post didn't make sense to you?
But in general:
-I'm not necessarily saying it's very likely so much as saying it seems possible to me, and so long as it may be possible, it's always best to consider it, right?
- I'm judging Nintendo mostly based on it being a large corporation.
