I love how this continues to crank out articles with 0 information and everyone speculating what it might be about.
Don’t get me wrong, Nintendo are dickheads, but you can clearly see how everyone greedily clicks on these articles considering how often they get rehashed.
I am just curious, do you have a take on how Nintendo’s lawsuit could be legitimate? Even a high-level theory, surely if you are so concerned about speculation and “greedy clickbait”, you have some logical ideas to back this up?
There is not enough information to have a take on it. That is his point.
The total amount of information out is:
- A filing has been made.
- They are claiming patent infringement.
That is literally it.
I would argue we do have enough information to have a take on it. What legitimate patent infringement case do you see in context of Palworld and Nintendo’s products? Be clear and specific.
If you’re going to call for a ban on commentary, you need to have some of argument.
From my perspective, it is crazy to defend some random corporation in this way when you can’t even come up with a basic explanation of why critical commentary is not justified at this stage.
What legitimate patent infringement case do you see in context of Palworld and Nintendo’s products? Be clear and specific.
Without going through all of their patent filings no one can. So again, that is the point. Lack of info
If you’re going to call for a ban on commentary, you need to have some of argument.
Never said a ban on commentary, just hate bullshit articles.
From my perspective, it is crazy to defend some random corporation
Something I agree with you on. Let them fight. This discussion is in the context of bullshit articles with zero information.
Without going through all of their patent filings no one can. So again, that is the point. Lack of info
We are both gamers (I am assuming this is true for you since you’re commenting here). I am not talking about legal understanding of Japanese patent law. Just a practical evaluation of Palworld vis-a-vis Nintendo products. What genuine technical innovation (I am not talking about bullshit patents for stuff that was implemented many decades ago) do you see in Nintendo’s products that was copied by Palworld?
This is not difficult.
Never said a ban on commentary, just hate bullshit articles.
The implication of thread OP was that articles critical of Nintendo (in the context of this case) should not be published as of today, no? Why is any commentary immediately categorized as “greedy clickbait” or “rehashed content”?
Something I agree with you on. Let them fight. This discussion is in the context of bullshit articles with zero information.
I would argue it’s not a bullshit article as I have yet to hear a single example of what legitimate (in the real sense, not related to Japanese patent law) case Nintendo has. What is this magical innovation that we see in Nintendo products that was copied by Palworld?
I for one am a lifelong Nintendo customer that has finally decided to boycott them moving forward. Plenty of other companies to support.
They could have bought the game out and lumped it into their existing games. Alternate dimension Pokémon anyone?
I don’t understand. So if I make a video game and my main character is an Italian plumber who wears red and blue, jumps on mushroom people and grows when he eats a mushroom, and Nintendo sues me. Nintendo is wrong? Or are we pretending palworld isn’t “Pokemon with guns” which was literally what people were pushing it as
Step 1: learn the difference between trademarks and patents. Then we can have a meaningful discussion.
Oh I’m sorry Lemmy lawyer. I didn’t know we needed a law degree to comment on threads
That’s not what I said at all. I gave you very helpful information to put you on the path of understanding this case.
the problem is, palworld isn’t “pokemon with guns”, they used that slogan originally sure, but palworld 100% shows more similar mechanics and concepts to ark then pokemon, it’s a mix of pokemon style mechanics and Arks RPG mechanics. I would say they had a stronger suit against trademark than they did mechanics side.
The only game mechanic similarity between the two is the ball capture system and the fact that it’s called a trainer/leader when you battle the NPC’s anything else is already present in other games.
By this logic, any game that features the ability to tame or capture monsters would be a pokemon clone. That’s far too broad of a category to allow as a patent if challenged. I personally believe it will result in them losing the patent as a whole if it is that patent they are fighting with.
Anyways, it’s very very clear what game palworld took it’s creature design from. So I don’t think the lawsuit is as silly as the Nintendo haters insist
that would be a trademark or copyright suit not a patent suit. Patents are strictly mechanics, they didn’t sue on design, I agree I think they had a better case on that, but the Nintendo lawyers decided otherwise
“Catch creatures to use to fight” is a broad enough theme that it should be fair use, and has other precedent. For example, it was done in Bomberman Generation. Why didn’t Nintendo sue Konami?
In the US, Atari tried to sue someone who made an Asteroids clone back in 1981 and lost because Meteors, the clone had made some improvements on the idea of Asteroids (color, among other things). This cemented US legal precedent that you can’t sue people for “ripping off” games so long as they make some meaningful change to it and aren’t just making a direct knock-off.
This current case is in Japan, however, where the legal landscape is very different and companies need to be legally aggressive to maintain any rights to their IP from what I understand. I have no idea how that’s going to go down.
