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.

[–] Ashtear@lemm.ee 27 points 1 month ago

Yes, there are going to be opinion pieces like this one filling the space for a major news story like this one, but there's still room for proper journalism right now. I recommend folks check out PC Gamer's interview with an IP attorney that worked in Tokyo (which was also the second link in this posted article).

Software patents are a thorny topic, and it's worthwhile for enthusiasts of the industry or those interested in IP law to read up on the concept in general. There's risk for Nintendo here, and I found Sigmon's offhand comment about how Nintendo's ramped up legal hiring to be particularly interesting.

[+] pyrflie@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 48 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Except this isn't a copyright case. They're claiming patent infringement.

[–] MrNesser@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So nintendo and palworld are based in Japan which has no fair use on copyright.

If this became a copyright case in Japan and palworld won it could change the law on copyright fair use in, which Nintendo and other corps don't want as it would open up new games based on their products under fair use.

The only way Nintendo can attack palworld is via patent infringement.

[–] ben_dover@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

If this became a copyright case in Japan and palworld won it could change the law on copyright fair use

not every country has case law. most of Europe is eg using "code law", which means a precedent doesn't change the law, but only applies to the one specific case with all its specific context and circumstances taken into account. under slightly different circumstances, a judge may rule differently

[+] Agent_Karyo@lemmy.world -32 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 52 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[+] Agent_Karyo@lemmy.world -28 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 41 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[+] Agent_Karyo@lemmy.world -23 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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?

[–] missingno@fedia.io 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I am not talking about legal understanding of Japanese patent law.

But that's what the case is about.

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.

Well then the fact that we still don't know what the case is really about is exactly why these articles are useless. No information in there.

[+] Agent_Karyo@lemmy.world -18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

What is your argument here? Your support the Japanese patent law irrespective of whether it reflects reality? You would be OK with Japanese patent that is de facto non-valid (i.e. the approach was already used in games 10+ years ago) just to support a random company?

I am going off memory, but one example would be one of the Japanese gaming companies patenting cross-game saves (release to sequel); an approach that was implemented by the Ultima games 10+ years before the patent was filled? Do you support this?

We have access to Palworld, we have access to Nintendo products. If commentary criticizing Nintendo is "greedy clickbait", then what innovation has been abused by Palworld? Can you provide an example in context of gaming experiences?

[–] Butterpaderp@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They just think the article sucks, which it does lmao

It's not that deep, dude

[–] missingno@fedia.io 4 points 1 month ago

Let's go back to the start of this comment thread:

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.

That's the argument: these articles add nothing to the discussion. And you responding to that with "but can you prove Nintendo is right?" isn't the point and also isn't adding anything to the discussion.

[–] Novamdomum@fedia.io 35 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I think the thing that's the most confusing about this is why did they wait??

"The timing is particularly baffling: Nintendo did not strike when the iron was hot and everyone was talking about Palworld and Pokémon, and at this late date, why bother? The greatest heights of Palworld's success were clearly driven by the memetic catchiness of its Pokémon parody, now it's just another survival crafting game with a stable enough core community⁠—see also Valheim or Sons of the Forest. Palword has faded into the background, a brief curiosity overshadowed by 2024's far more enduring megahit, Helldivers 2. Just in time for everyone to have largely forgotten about Palworld and moved on, Nintendo has swooped in to announce: "In case you've forgotten, they're the little guy, and we are huge, awful bullies."

Palworld has reportedly made nearly $500 million now (source - Simon Carless). Even if Nintendo win in some way won't it cost them so much more to take Pocket Pair down now?

[–] burgersc12@mander.xyz 36 points 1 month ago (2 children)

They waited until they could file a few new patents, namely the catching and mounting mechanisms. Now they have a bit more legal standing it seems, although I'm not sure how this is all gonna shake out

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 29 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Patents filed after your rival releases a product don’t work - it’s textbook prior art.

[–] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago

I remember reading that Japan is very weird in regards to patent law, there's almost no oversight whatsoever even for incredibly basic concepts like a title screen but there's kind of a general agreement not to sue eachother. Assuming thats true Nintendo is currently burning a lot of face right now by breaking that precident.

[–] Killer@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

They aren't "new" patents. They're divisional patents, essentially splitting an older patent into two different patents that retain the date of the parent patent.

Either way this is a pretty scummy move on Nintendo's part.

[–] burgersc12@mander.xyz 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Not sure how it works in Japan but you're probably right. Edit: Was thinking about this article that lays out the known details pretty well

[–] CaptPretentious@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I'm going to patent the crap out of everything.

Like if you push a button in the direction your character is facing you move in that direction. I'm going to patent that shit.

Then I'm going to patent that if you push button and the opposite direction of your character, if it's a 3D game you turn around. And then I have ab separate patent with having the character walk backwards.

I'll just take the absolute piss out of the most basic things and absolutely everything I can find. And then throw a bunch of frivolous patent lawsuits at Nintendo.

I know it's petty. But maybe Nintendo, like many other corporations in the gaming industry, have just been around maybe a little too long and have lost the vision and the purpose. Cuz at this point Nintendo's not even trying. But they are heavily relying on nostalgia for sales. They're more known for being a litigious company than a gaming company.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 1 month ago

To maximize profits and costs they can go after, and to be a bit less on the radar of the public eye. Now that palworld is essentially done making money, Nintendo can go after that amount.

Say it is the throwing spheres that Nintendo is basing the suit off of. If Nintendo tried suing in the midst of its popularity, palworld could have just switched the capture system to like a special gun or cubes or something. Nintendo wanted to wait in order to financially crush them into dust.

[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago

I for one am a lifelong Nintendo customer that has finally decided to boycott them moving forward. Plenty of other companies to support.

[+] kinther@lemmy.world -6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They could have bought the game out and lumped it into their existing games. Alternate dimension Pokémon anyone?

[–] Snowpix@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

And let another IP fall to a large corporation? No thanks.

[–] kinther@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

They're going to get sued into oblivion, so that's one alternative path forward.

[–] phx@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago

Meh. Even small corps often do something well once and then fall to the wayside.Nintendo has been pretty good at recreating their core IP, whether it's the 3D version of Metroid on GC or open-world Zelda on Switch.

If they'd actually bought out the Palworld IP (assuming that was an available option) that would have meant cash for the devs and a way to work with it in a way that was unique but inclusive to the Pokemon franchise. A lot of people are getting tired of the latter because it has become rather stagnant, but the new mechanics with the official Pokemon characters/stats/etc could have benefitted both

Nintendo doesn't do that though. They don't go "wow, this looks cool and there's real interest. Maybe we could work with the dev and make it an official product. They've done most of the work already!" It's lawsuits all the way

[+] Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world -28 points 1 month ago (5 children)

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

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 25 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Step 1: learn the difference between trademarks and patents. Then we can have a meaningful discussion.

[–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world -4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

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

[–] morphballganon@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

"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?

[–] Lev_Astov@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

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.