• I Cast Fist@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 hours ago

    “Multiple patents”

    Specifies none

    Off to a great start, I see. I know that actual game mechanics cannot be patented or copyrighted (the same principle applies to non digital games), so I’m really curious to what these patents are.

    • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      Someone linked a list of all the patents Pokemon Company specifically holds and the very first one was “creature breeding based on good sleep habits.”

      1. How does that even get a patent?
      2. What the fuck iteration of Pokemon requires you to have good sleep habits to breed your pokemon? 🤨
      3. Does it actually help you sleep? 🤔 I might need to start breeding pokemon…
      • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 hour ago

        I know for sure that palworld does not promote good sleeping habits in any shape or form, at least not to my addicted ass

    • Charzard4261@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Game mechanics can be patented. It’s stupid, but things such as “loading screen mini games” and “overhead arrows pointing to your objective” have been patented. The second I believe even got enforced once.

      I think these kind of things have been getting approved less and less, but I wouldn’t be surprised if “balls that contain monsters” was patented back in the early days too.

      • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 hours ago

        The game during loading screen isn’t a “game mechanic” per se, which is why I think it was patented back then. Completely ass backwards that it could be patented, but there’s that.

        As for the overhead arrow for navigation, I wasn’t aware of that one. Was that from EA? I think it can be argued that’s not a “game mechanic” either, because it’s not “an essential component of the game”

        • greenskye@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 hour ago

          It was crazy taxi and no other game could use the mechanic. And telling you where to go is pretty darn important to a lot of games

    • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      “Method for releasing 927 iterations of the same stale game across multiple platform generations.”

      It can’t possibly be for “Method of splitting one complete game into two mutually exclusive cartridges with separate rosters to entice whales to buy two copies,” because if it were they’d have already sued Capcom 15 years ago.

  • Cock_Inspecting_Asexual@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 hours ago

    It shocks me just the amount of people rallying behind Palworld SOLEY just to “stick it to the big corp”

    At worse its blind rage and ignorance

    • Cock_Inspecting_Asexual@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I dont care who it is thats suing.

      You cant fuckin make what looks and feels like “pokemon” or any other fucking property and expect to get away with it. Thats PLAGIRISM.

      I DONT CARE IF ITS NINTENDO. If Palworld fucking wins, then that means that anyone else who makes 3d models, or just any kind of content IN GENERAL, can have their shit stolen, tweaked, and resold to millions. If you think that is a valid and okay thing to do to ANYONE, then go fuck yourself.

      Majority of yall are the same people to bite dien on companies like ChatGBT and others a like. but once they start stealing content, patents, and recourses from large companies, then its suddenly ok. The amount of Moral flipflopping this country does is fuckin stupid at best.

      This all comes down to one point and one point only

      “DONT TAKE MY BASE MODEL AND USE IT WITHOUT MY CONSENT.”

      I’ve gone against nintendo on a buncha shit, I still do, this shit ain’t one of em. They have the right to try someone in court if they suspect they are using their models for profit.

      Theres THOUSANDS of avenues they could’ve taken with this game. It coulda made with voxels, coulda been legofied, it coulda been hyper realistic, coulda been created to look like Dark souls, they could’ve AT THE VERY LEAST, play the game of “Im making a Parody so therefore my content is fine.” Theres so many avenues they coulda took to avoid shit like this. Super Mario Logan and SMG64 have been doing this shit for AGES. But nah yall are up and arms and shocked with the slightly altered Pocket Monsters game is hit with some court papers. Make it make sense, deadass.

      • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 hours ago

        How much is Nintendo paying you to be their mouth piece?

        Have you seen the kind of patents Nintendo are trying to get?

        Here is an example :

        Publication number: 20240286040 Abstract: In an example of a game program, a ground boarding target object or an air boarding target object is selected by a selection operation, and a player character is caused to board the selected boarding target object. If the player character aboard the air boarding target object moves toward the ground, the player character is automatically changed to the state where the player character is aboard the ground boarding target object, and brought into the state where the player character can move on the ground.

        You can check them out for yourself

        patents assigned to the pokemon company

        So calm the fuck down with your chatGPT which is a whole different situation.

        • Cock_Inspecting_Asexual@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Bitch I pirate all my nintendo games wtf are you on 😭😭😭

          Their sueing in Patents. Not how similar it looks.

          I dont see this as any different than ChatGBT generating me an essay similar to one that already exists, the only difference is it changed some of it. Thats plagiarism(if not then its just wrong).

          Theres even proof of them using THEIR MODELS and altering them. You cant do that shit without being transparent about it. Hoe hard is that to grasp

          • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 hours ago

            What do you think I linked dipshit?

            With ridiculous patent like that, Nintendo could sue pretty much any companies.

            ChatGPT is scraping copyrighted material, not patents.

            Nintendo is suing for patent infringement.

        • Cock_Inspecting_Asexual@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Why tf would you even say that, everybody deserve the right to own some shit bruh. I fuck with fangames n all that but stealing assets and profiting from them with no consent is fucked.

    • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 hours ago

      The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

      IDGAF about Palworld as a game, personally. I’ve never played it and I don’t plan to. But that doesn’t make Nintendo’s behavior not bullshit, and I still hope the Palworld developers win this battle.

      • Cock_Inspecting_Asexual@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Thats perhaps the dumbest shit I’ve ever heard and fuels my point if yall only acting like this cus “big gaming industry bad”

        Palword did what thousands of scammers, Cryptoland, and some con artists Vrchat model makers do. Take a model or asset that ISNT THEIRS alter it, then sell it.

        if they win. Companies like ChatGBT and AI’s like it will have free rain to steal whatever shit they want, you think the government will give a shit if its from a indie game? Hell no. Everyone is gonna suffer from this dude.

        Im not boutta live in a world where people, anyone ever, can take my stuff, alter it, then profit from it

        • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Yeah, you did not read any of the articles about this or understand the suit.

          Nintendo is putting this forth as a patent issue, not a copyright issue. I presume this is because even they are smart enough to realize that they would probably lose a copyright challenge. However, the patents they are attempting to claim are clearly bullshit. They’re just doing this as a bludgeon to bully a company they don’t like, most likely in the hopes that the sheer cost of litigation will break them.

          If they were going to propose that some of the monster models from Palworld originated as Pokemon model rips, they could arguably have a leg to stand on. But that’s not what they’re saying. The outcome of this case is not going to have any impact on copyright issues. Rather, the potential result is much more dangerous – it would confirm that a big company can just come in late and retroactively lay claim to large swathes of mechanical concepts that have already widely in use in a particular industry for decades.

          • Cock_Inspecting_Asexual@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Wait.

            so this whole situation isnt about Model rips???

            I will respectfully shit the fuck up then and delete my comments. Im compulsive, and judging by what everyone else was saying read all if this as

            A. Fuck nintendo cus they bad

            B. The patent is that they ripped their models.

  • Buttons@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    Patents and video games huh? We can’t ignore what John Carmack had to say about this:

    The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.

    –John Carmack

    • Cock_Inspecting_Asexual@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 hours ago

      The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.

      Thats essentially what both an AI does and what ChatGBT does. Are you gonna defend that to?? Just dont take credit for shit someone else made, who cares if its Nintendo. I don’t want my game sprites altered and then sold as though whoever altered them made them by hand?!

      • Veneroso@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        My cock is not inspired after reading this bad take.

        John Carmack is human intelligence and therefore more valuable than artificially generated drivel.

        -edit- I mistook inspecting for inspiring for your name. I’m leaving it.

        • Cock_Inspecting_Asexual@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 hours ago

          I never said John is an AI. But there are steps Palworld coulda taken to avoid the inevitable. If anything its just sad they did nothing to prevent this. I can see why thousands of people like it a fuckton. But they did nothing to actually avoid this from happening.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 hours ago

      More like he wouldn’t be able to sell his solution to others, but yeah I think Patents on simple processes and mechanisms are dumb, especially certain software and firmware.

    • Cock_Inspecting_Asexual@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      Dont steal my base model that I patented and made entirely by hand and then claim it as your model.

      its that simple. As barbaric as the VRCHAT community can be sometimes, I can wholeheartedly agree that it is 100% a crime to take someone else’s hard work, tweak it, and then pretend that you own it. Pay people their fucking respects/royalties or take a different approach. Toby Fox did it, Every other Pocket Monster-like Series in Japan did it, and so on. if your gonna make a product similar to another, especially fucking Nintendo with how notorious they are for copyright striking, TAKE THE STEPS AVAILABLE TO MAKE IT DIFFERENT. Don’t churn out a “Pokemon with guns” and then get shocked with your copyright stricken. Thats fucking stupid to me. And its even stupider people are shocked it’d fuckin happen.

      There’s deadass so many routes they could’ve went with, Art-styles they could’ve went with, fucking game mechanics they could’ve went with. And they chose something that 90% of people can agree “looks like Pokémon, smells like Pokémon, functions similar Pokémon”

      I mean for GOD FUCKING SAKES, At least GO WITH DIFFERENT MONSTER IDEAS. We have an ENTIRE WORLD Filled with Cryptids and mystical beasts of all kind, and Palworld STILL CHOSE TO GO for Yokai/Japanese based creatures? Get the fuck outta here with that. Homeboy coulda did American mythos and got away with that, no ones holding a patent against the design of The Flatwoods monster?? Let alone is there a “pokemon” clone of Australian Mythos, so why the fuck are we still trying to do what’s already been done to death and then getting shocked with it falls flat or is criticized.

      • Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 hours ago

        You are conflating copyright and patents. Copyright is protection for the expression of an idea, like the art design. This is a patent issue, which is a protection of how something works.

        If somehow I patent a vague mechanic like “a method of selecting weapons with the directions of an analogue stick or mouse, presented as an 8 direction on screen circle.” Then I could sue Red Dead Redemption and Batman Arkham, despite there being no copyright infringement with whatever game I made with that feature.

        • Cock_Inspecting_Asexual@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Aren’t they suing because of the 3d models?? not the design of them but the fact they took Nintendo models and tweaked them???

          If im deadass wrong I will 100% shut tf up and delete my rants.

          • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Aren’t they suing because of the 3d models??

            No, they’re not. The word “patent” is used in every single article about this repeatedly. Patents are not the same as copyrights.

            A copyright protects a creative work: A work of fiction, a movie, a character.

            A patent protects the method in which the way a thing functions: A machine, a chip, an algorithm, or in Nintendo’s assertion certain vague gameplay concepts.

  • littlecolt@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    I can read the room here. I know this will be an unpopular opinion, and I want to preface this with a big “fuck Nintendo” and particularly their legal team.

    That said, fuck Palworld, too. They are absolutely just straight up copying Nintendo/The Pokemon Company’s designs. It’s blatant. It’s AI bros making money by copying Pokemon designs, plain and simple. Palworld would not have caused the stir it did if not for the blatant “It’s Pokemon with guns!” angle.

    So, while Nintendo can normally go suck the biggest of dicks when they swing around their lawsuit arms, this time I think they fully have every right to go after these guys, I don’t care how much they say they’re gonna fight the big bad mega company “for the fans and for indie devs everywhere” lol man, great statement. Guaranteed to get the base riled up.

    Thank you for reading, you may downvote.

    • Furbag@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I’m not going to downvote you, but, I disagree. Nintendo might have had a leg to stand on if they tried to say Palworld infringed on their Pokemon intellectual property and/or copyright, especially after the mesh controversy, but they didn’t attack them on that. They’re going after Pocketpair for patent infringement on a so-far undisclosed patent. Probably a game mechanic of some sort. Pokemon did not invent the monster collecting and/or battling genre. Dragon Quest predates it by a good margin.

      I’d like to see the patent they claim to have. In what way might Palworld be infringing upon their patent that another similar game, like say TemTem for instance, is not? I hate the idea that a fun game mechanic can be patented and locked down by one company for up to 20 years.

      Palworld would not have caused the stir it did if not for the blatant “It’s Pokemon with guns!” angle.

      This was 100% a fan reaction to the trailer, and not an official stance by the developers at all. That’s obviously what they were going for, but they stopped long before outright saying it out loud and let the consumer make their own inferences.

      They have every right to go after them, but I really hope they lose this one. Nintendo doesn’t deserve to have a monopoly on fun creature collecting games.

    • SSJMarx@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      I think you could be right, but it depends on the details Nintendo comes out with. I remember people were saying that they thought certain Palworld monsters had been ripped from the Pokemon games and recolored - if Nintendo can demonstrate that, then that’s a slam dunk for them.

      But if it’s just creature designs and collecting them, then I just don’t think that “a cute monkey with green fur” is a novel enough concept to be defensible against someone else doing something similar.

    • Buttons@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 hours ago

      They didn’t copy Pokemon, they created new content that is similar to Pokemon.

      Do you believe it is wrong to create new content that is very similar to existing content that people enjoy?

      Is it wrong for Pocket Pair (Palworld’s creator) to create new content that is similar to existing Pokemon? Is it wrong for GameFreak to create new content that is similar to existing Pokemon? Morally speaking, why are the answers to those questions different?

      • littlecolt@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 hours ago

        If you can’t see how blatant it is, I don’t know what to tell you. You can be all “it’s just SIMILAR wink wink” all you want. Similar is a fucking understatement.

    • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I just don’t believe in copyright, IP or having fences on human culture.

      So even if they straight up put Pikachu in their game I think they have the moral right to do so. If they can make a good game with Pikachu in it, who is Nintendo to private humanity from that piece of culture?

      My statement is about morality. What’s legal or not is another matter.

      • kyle@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 hours ago

        I mean…artists should be paid for their work right? Fuck Nintendo, but that same logic could be applied to anyone. I’d be pissed if someone just straight up lifted my designs and resold it.

        • littlecolt@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Absolutely. I don’t get how someone can say stealing the work of others is morally correct.

      • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 hours ago

        I’m not extremely against all of copyright because I believe artists should have some protections (though the law sucks at this), but I also believe that once something becomes a decades-old billion-dollar franchise, non-identical imitation should be fair game. Can you imagine what would happen if companies could simply say that they own whole genres?

  • Harvey656@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Pocketpair is a Japanese company too right? That doesn’t bode well, Japan has some shit laws for defending these sorts of lawsuits. I really like palworld, and don’t want it to go away. Fuck Nintendo.

    • Summzashi@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 hours ago

      This isn’t about copyright. Is there anybody here that has actually read the article? It’s absolutely insane how everyone just opens their mouths without understanding anything.

    • Ragincloo@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Idk about that, maybe indefinite copyrights would be but limited term is entirely fair. Like imagine you spend 5 years and $50M to develop something (random numbers here), then the next day someone just copies it and sells it cheaper since they had no overhead in copying your product. There’s no incentive to create if all it does is put you in debt, so we do need copyrights if we want things. However Pokemon came out in 96, that’s 28 years. There’s been very little innovation in their games since. And seeing as Digimon wasn’t sued it’s not about the monsters, it’s about the balls. But those balls haven’t changed in almost three decades so I don’t think the really have a case to complain

      • blazera@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 hours ago

        The people spending 5 years to develop something arent the ones that own the rights to the end product. Like I said, copyright exists so rich people can own more. The people that own the rights to pokemon are not game developers, artists, writers, anyone that put actual work into creating the games and other media. Its people that had a lot of money, shareholders and executives. And then they receive the biggest share of the profits off others work and the feedback loop continues.

      • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 hours ago

        The problem is that IP laws eventually are lobbied by the big copyright holders into being excessively long. How long did Steamboat Willie really have to be copyrighted for, and has their release into the public domain really affected Disney?

        Eventually after you get back the money you invested, it’s just free money, and people like free money so much they pay lawyers and lobbyists that free money so that they can keep it coming.

      • BaldManGoomba@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 hours ago

        How about no. Let people create if your only incentive is money fuck you. If someone spent $50 million to develop something the labor has been paid. You will be first to the market and you can make money if your invention isn’t that unique oh well.

        • Womble@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Thats a great way to make companies spend 0 on r&d that has longterm benefits and instead focus on squeezing out every penny from current assets.

          • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 hours ago

            So you tax the fuck out of them and fund invention though schools and unis. But the fact companies won’t is not a sure thing… it just means they will be more pickey.

          • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 hours ago

            Want to make something, the people eho want it pay to make it happen, once it’s done and paid for, it belongs to everyone. I rather live in the star citizen dystopia than the Disney vampire dystopia.

            Making an unlimited reproducible resource artificially scarce for 160 years is really fucking evil parasiticism.

  • PenisDuckCuck9001@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    Fuck Nintendo. I think Palworld is a stupid game that I wouldn’t ever bother to play but Nintendo is pure evil and they NEED to lose. They do not deserve a monopoly on whatever type of genre that is.

  • Rob200@lemmy.autism.place
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 hours ago

    You know Nintendo is just weird.

    They file a patent lawsuit against an indie game, just because someone finally got popular. But why don’t thay sue digimon or blue dragon, and while their at it, howtotrain a dragon while their at it.

    This whole thing is just weird.

    • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 hours ago

      The really odd but is being unaware of which patents they’re allegedly infringing on

      That should be part of the filing shouldn’t it?

      Also are they going to sue Square Enix for Dragon Quest Monsters while they’re at it?

  • Franklin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    12 hours ago

    It’s still identifiably distinct, I really hope Nintendo lose because allowing copyright of a concecpt is dystopian especially in the context of our lengthy time frames for copyright.

    It reminds me of when Apple wanted to patent the idea of rounded corners.

    • simple@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      12 hours ago

      It’s not even copyright, they’re suing for using things they patented, but their patents are extremely general. I kid you not, they have a patent for MOUNTING CREATURES, something hundreds of games have done.

      Abstract: In an example of a game program, a ground boarding target object or an air boarding target objects is selected by a selection operation, and a player character is caused to board the selected boarding target object. If the player character aboard the air boarding target object moves toward the ground player character automatically changed to the state where the player character is aboard the ground boarding target object, and brought into the state where the player character can move on the ground.

      I’m no lawyer so I can’t tell you how well this would hold up in court but it’s ridiculous. See more: https://patents.justia.com/assignee/the-pokemon-company

      • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 hours ago

        It’s a little more specific, I think the patent is about:

        • mounting either an air or ground mount
        • when riding the air mount, going close to the ground transforms it into the ground mount and you keep riding it

        But that’s still something multiple games have done in some way I think.

      • troed@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        12 hours ago

        IANAL - but I’ve worked for Big Company and have gone through the patent process a few times. A patent isn’t what’s written in the supporting text and abstract. It’s only the exact thing written out in the claims.

        First claim from the patent the abstract is from:

        1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a game program causing a computer of an information processing apparatus to provide execution comprising:

          controlling a player character in a virtual space based on a first operation input;

          in association with selecting, based on a selection operation, a boarding object that the player character can board and providing a boarding instruction, causing the player character to board the boarding object and bringing the player character into a state where the player character can move, wherein the boarding object is selected among a plurality of types of objects that the player character owns;

          in association with providing a second operation input when the player character is in the air, causing the player character to board an air boarding object and bringing the player character into a state where the player character can move in the air; and

          while the player character is aboard the air boarding object, moving the player character, aboard the air boarding object, in the air based on a third operation input.

        Exactly everything described above must be done in that exact same way for there to be an infringement.

        • Petter1@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 hours ago

          That seems a bit more easy to get around. It is still crazy to think that you have to check your whole game design against that many patents 😅

          • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 hours ago

            it’s stupid. I’m convinced that people who oversee software patents don’t even know what’s a computer.

      • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        12 hours ago

        I am positive prior art could be claimed for most if not all of those. Square Enix could cry afoul of the “mounting creatures” one as well as I’m sure many, many other earlier games on a plethora of platforms.

        You could mount and ride Chocobos in Final Fantasy 2, i.e. the real “2,” the JDM only one on Famicom, which was released in 1988. The aforementioned patent was only filed on Nintendo’s part in 2024.

        They can, to use a technical legal term, get fucked.

        • Cypher@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Blizzard should be paying attention to this, as it perfectly describes their flying mounts.

          I really hope Nintendo just picked a fight with Blizzard/Microsoft lol

          • A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Bullies tend to pick victims who can’t fight back too effectively, so I doubt they’d go after Microsoft.

            All the big tech companies have a bunch of vague patents than in a just world would never exist, and they seldom go after each other, because they know then they’ll be hit with a counter-suit alleging they violate multiple patents too, and in the end everyone except the lawyers will be worse off. It’s sort of like mutually assured destruction. They don’t generally preemptively invalidate each other’s patents, so if Microsoft is not a party to the suit, they’ll likely stay out of it entirely.

            However, newer and smaller companies are less likely to be able to counter-sue as effectively, so if they pose a threat of taking revenue from the big companies (e.g. by launching on competitor platforms only), they are ripe targets for patent-based harassment.

    • Telorand@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      12 hours ago

      It’s not a copyright suit, it’s a patent suit. So it’s indeed just like the Apple suit, though what patents were infringed upon is still unknown as of now.

    • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      12 hours ago

      They are being sued for patent infringement not copyright violations, which is extra weird.

  • rocci@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 hours ago

    I’ve never been interested in Palworld, and I certainly don’t intend to play it, but I’ll probably buy it today.

    Because fuck Nintendo.