- cross-posted to:
- technology
- cross-posted to:
- technology
Well that took a while but its finally here.
But also incoming Moon channel video now
You must log in or register to comment.
Claiming “multiple patent rights” without mentioning smells like kafkatrapping.
I think that Nintendo’s delayed reaction was to gauge how much money it could get from bullying Pocketpair to accept some unfavourable settlement outside the court; if too little the costs would be too high to bother, considering the risk, but now that Palworld sold a bazillion it’s more profitable to do so. It might actually backfire if Palworld decides to go through the whole thing, I don’t know how Japanese law works in this regard but if Nintendo loses this certainly won’t look good for them, and even if they win it might be a pyrrhic victory.
Claiming “multiple patent rights” without mentioning smells like kafkatrapping.
No, this is normal. If there is a case, then it needs to be handled in the court first.
Good catch - you’re right.
Good catch
hehehe
I don’t get it. I mean I get it because it’s Ninty, but I don’t get why now?
Has there been something in a major new feature update that has finally tipped the scales into clearly taking the piss, or have the legal team at Big N finally seen their erections subside after the game’s launch and only now can move enough to do something about it?
Considering they’re going for patent infringement and not copyright infringement, it’s possible it just took this long for Nintendo’s legal department to find something even remotely tangible that they could sue over. And since they haven’t said what patents Palworld infringes on, I have to assume whatever it is, is very flimsy.
Despite their reputation for being quick, my opinion is that Nintendo does often take their time. Most of the things they take down do exist for months or years (and also follow the same format of a ROM hack that got a lot of attention so easy copy paste). My assumption is they’re just dotting their i’s and crossing their t’s and patent is just what they think they’ll have the best chance at winning.
Going back to Yuzu, Nintendo was in Discord and all over the place monitoring and collecting evidence even since Tears of the Kingdom launch. It took almost a year before the final attack with overwhelming number and secured evidence. Nintendo is not fucking around and is serious, that’s for sure. So if Nintendo attacks, they often have a point or (legal) reason to.
That’s why I’m so curious in this case. I would hope that Nintendo being (legally) wrong for once.
My best guess: whatever they’re filing now was so exhaustively researched that it took months to prepare the strongest case they’re able to make, possibly delayed by the lawyers working on several other cases. Plus waiting until sales have dried up can maximize damages.
Another possibility is that Nintendo/TPC is planning to make some big Pokémon announcements soon and wants to target this shortly before their own new games to reduce competition. Palworld might seem like more of a threat to the execs now that Pokémon is nearing a major release than it was in the middle of a long drought for the series.
They should look up “Streisand effect”
Go fuck yourselves Nintendo
Hopefully Pocketpair wins, because they made the better monster catching game. I’m still reeling from how bad the performance is in Scarlet/Violet.
Oh yes, the better monster catching game with better slavery and guns!
Oh yes, the better monster catching game with better slavery and guns!
American Pokémon 🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷🦜
infringes multiple patent rights
What exactly is infringed here? I don’t see Palworld infringing anything Nintendo does (no its not sarcasm).
I’m not sure how the term “patent” is to be interpreted here. It could be used like back in the days when Apple sued Samsung because their phone had rounded edges too…
Like a “design patent” (sorry, I’m not a native English speaker, so I’m unsure if this is the correct translation).
A lot of the pals in the game look quite close to Pokémon. Not identical, of course, but so similar that one just has to wonder if the design has been “inspired” by Pokémon…
Pokemon design isn’t patented, they are secured by copyright. As long as they do not copy a Pokemon design directly, they are safe. Being inspired is not a copyright infringement. Patents usually are about hardware and other mechanical solutions, in example a certain dialog system. And it needs to be patented and all patents are open to see, I think.
Gameplay can be patented. Namco patented the mechanics of Katamari Damacy, for example.
And they continue to absolutely sweet fuck all with it in the modern age…(remasters do not count,)
They made some shitty tap-the-screen game with collectibles for the iPhone maybe 10 years ago, though the less said about it the better. My guess is that it was a fuck-you to Takahashi-san.
It depends on what kind of patent. I just googled the term I had used before, and it is indeed what I expected it to be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent
And yes, that name is stupid. That’s why I am happy that my native language, German, has a better distinction between “Patent” (what you described) and “Geschmacksmuster” (design patent).
About patents being public: They are. That’s because the idea behind patents is that after they expire, anyone can use them to build the technology they describe. The temporary exclusive usage rights that they offer are meant as an incentive for inventors to publish their findings. The only problem is that the legal situation did not keep up with the creativity of patent lawyers… (I will stop now, otherwise this will turn into an endless rant about how broken the patent system is.)
Just to add to the fuel: Apple has a patent for the swipe unlock on iPhones.
I’m from Germany too BTW, Hallo. :D My point was to distinguish copyrighted creative work from specific patented ideas. Patents are usually not about how it looks, but solving a specific (mechanical) problem. And they need to be paid and approved manually. While Copyright is automatically active on creation and is about creative work and or art in example. Copyright can can be licensed to any form like MIT. Patents cannot have a specific license like this to make derivatives.
You cannot put a dent into your tv and give it an MIT license. But you can go and patent this specific “Design Patent” (the name is not that bad actually!).
You could almost say… Parodied 😯
You could almost say… Parodied 😯
Right, legally speaking that would be covered in the US.
But Japanese law is completely different and IIRC parodies are not covered which is why anime always censors their parody references to other anime. It’s stupid, but it’s the society that both developers are from.
Only time will tell what they’re actually accusing Pocket Pair of doing though.
edit: censors, not sensors. 🤣
Good to know, I had not realized it wasn’t covered in Japanese law
Only thing I can think of are maybe the catching mechanics (which are straight out of Legends: Arceus). No idea if these would be considered unique enough to be patentable, guess we’ll find out.
They literally tried to patent the loading screen and mechanically locking a player object to a moving object ingame just after the release of TotK. Nintendo is the absolute king of frivolous gaming patents. Here’s hoping it’s their downfall. For an example of how seriously vague some of the patents they’ve been granted are, check out some of their current ones after pokemon sleep’s initial success (basically trying to keep everyone without 9 digit money out of the sleep app game space).
In a case where a second camera operation through a third input unit using an inertial sensor is performed while a pointer operation process based on a pointer operation through a first input unit or a camera operation process based on a first camera operation through a second input unit is performed, an absolute value of a quantity of change in a position or an image capturing direction of a virtual camera based on the second camera operation is reduced as compared with a case where the second camera operation is performed when neither of the pointer operation process based on the pointer operation and the camera operation process based on the first camera operation are performed.
Holy mother of long sentences
Those patent abstracts are wild.
Eh, that’s pretty normal for a patent.
The claim says patent claim. This isn’t design related then. What is the claim then? Appearance of monsters doesn’t make a patent case.
Nor the whole idea of capturing opponents to raise them and make them fight for you. That’s from 1987 already, from the Shin Megami Tensei series; it predates Pokemon by a fair bit.
Except they filed a patent for exactly that recently, so I’m guessing it is for the capture mechanics. It shouldn’t pass muster in that case, but Japanese courts be wild (and very pro-Nintendo).
I gave it a check. If Pocketpair plays it smart they can make Nintendo look like a herd of muppets in the court, and even potentially acting on bad faith. Pocketpair might also simply change a few elements of its own game through an update, much like PvZ replacing Michael Jackson zombie with a disco zombie.
I’m not even sure how much patents apply to games.
I really hope so. The last thing we need is Nintendo deciding that they own every game mechanic they’ve ever used.
If it’s about those pretty similar character models like those linked in the article, then I can understand Nintendo better.
But if it’s just about the concept of “collecting monsters” and using them in battles somehow, then they can go fuck themselves. I’m eager to learn where they see their patents infringed.It’s not copyright infringement… But patent infringement.
So the latter.
I said “patents infringed”. Or what do you mean?
Your first comment about the character designs is copyright.
The second part you mentioned is patent.
This is patent
Ah I see. Thanks for clearing that up!
Having played Palworld a bit, some of the monsters are distinct from Pokemon, but some of them are incredibly obvious clones.
But like, looking back at some of the knock-off toys I remember seeing in the 80s and early 90s? It definitely seems like copyright has gotten more robust in its attempted overreach.
But if it’s just about the concept of “collecting monsters” and using them in battles somehow, then they can go fuck themselves.
I don’t think it would be that because it would be unenforceable. There are plenty of games where you collect monsters, some of which existed before Pokemon’s creation and plenty that have existed after. It would be the King Kong case all over again, but inverted.
deleted by creator
read where?
it was in a discussion on Bluesky, but nothing official.
I tried finding more info but couldn’t, so theres probably nothing to it. I’ll delete my previous comment as it was just unfounded rumours
I’m pretty sure I saw the same tweet from Stephen Totilllo (sp?) just to give you some credence, but I think many people called him out for it as it was below his usual reporting standards.
We’ll have to wait and see when the case developers further.
thank you, that was what i saw. I was fully expecting to find articles that would back it up, (why else would you make such a claim?) but nope. I couldnt find anything to support it.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
If you beleive them, as far as I recall, Valve has said that they were working on the Steam Deck before the switch was revealed.
This might shock you, but Nintendo was also working on the Switch before it was revealed
I agree. The game development side of Nintendo are top notch, and care a lot about quality game design, fun, replayability, all the good stuff. These people do good work.
But the corporate/legal side of Nintendo, they are indeed raging assholes.
While I agree, its still his opinion if Nintendo did anything of value. BTW I played Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom this year on Yuzu. And I’m proud of it. Great games, although with big problems. I would add Super Mario Maker 2 and Super Mario Wonder to the list, and maybe Bayonetta 3, Lugi’s Mansion 3, Splatoon 3, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and probably a few more.
I will pirate anything from them that looks even remotely interesting. But I’ve never given them a cent and I sure as hell never will.
If corporations are to be considered people they should have to have shins or something to kick them in!
Am tired of hearing about Nintendo attacking everyone who even thinks about fun outside of their discrete products.
Ninty? I know by context it means Nintendo, but why Ninty? Is there any connection this specific abbreviation is used here?
Changed it 🤷 I’ve no idea why I decided to abbreviate there at all.
The details are still up in the air, but 404media has chimed in with a legal expert on this deplorable situation. They mostly talk about what damage this could do, and how Nintendo has never lost a lawsuit, but I found this to be an interesting key point
Nintendo has, as I mentioned in my tweet, a legendary track record. I think they never lost a lawsuit that they initiated themselves, and under the Japanese legal system, seven years ago, they sued a company called Colopl, which is a mobile gaming powerhouse from Japan. They [Colopl] have, I think, almost 2,000 [employees], nobody but knows them outside Japan but they had a famous mobile game called White Cat Project, not copying Mario, not copying Pokémon, not copying Zelda, nothing at all. Nintendo brought forward six patents that they thought that this company was violating inside their very successful mobile game at one time. It was one of the most popular mobile games in Japan, and they built a huge case. One of the patents was for a confirmation screen after sleep mode. You know when devices are sleeping and you want to resume there’s a confirmation screen in a lot of games? “Are you sure you want to resume?” And then you tap yes or no. Nintendo has a patent on that, and this game uses it. And then Nintendo said, you know, look, you’re using our patent and you cannot do that. You’re not paying us any licensing fees.
And they had five other ones, including one for isometric, pseudo, 3D games, when the character is hidden behind the tree, the game forms a shadow, so you have a kind of sense for where the character is, even though you don’t see the character clearly. Nintendo has a patent on that, and this game uses that technology. And Nintendo said, look, you cannot do this. And this goes on with four other patents, right?
So they had this legal battle. Colopl said, no way, but in 2021 they had a settlement where Nintendo got the equivalent of $20 Million US dollars and Colopl is now paying licensing fees to Nintendo for continuing to use the patents inside their mobile game. So it was a complete win for Nintendo, even though it was technically a settlement. I personally think you will see that after a few years, Nintendo will be in a very, very similar position. I don’t think that Nintendo will even think about filing a lawsuit like this without being as sure as they can that they’re going to win this.
If you are unaware, this was done because of the launch of Dragalia Lost, a game that has long been forgotten, and discontinued.
Somebody was suggesting this was deliberately done to bleed Pocketpair out of money and halt development that way, patent cases take years to be solved, and all during this time they have to keep paying lawyers. Nintendo likely has a small army of in-house lawyers so it’s no trouble to them, but to their victims it’s life-ruining.
Yeah except Palworld has joined Sony for their multimedia franchise, so potentially they can get a lot of monetary and legal support from that. Nintendo took way too long to actually do this frivolous lawsuit.
Let them fight.
They also sold 5 million copies in 3 days, and who knows how many copies since then. They can afford to pay good IP lawyers for a long time, if needed.
I understand and participate in the hate against Nintendo but Palworld was a game with such bad taste for me that I am just grabbing the popcorn on this one. For anyone surprised regarding the patents, for Tears of the Kingdom alone, Nintendo tried to file at least 30 patents. I have no idea how many they must have for mechanics from Pokémon.
Without a doubt, Patents and Software are a bad mix.
But there’s definitely a truth to the idea that Palworld in particular were aiming for a legal battle against Nintendo from the beginning with provocative action. There’s a reason why Nintendo has rarely gone after Pokemon-likes but have decided that this particular company is worth pursuing.
This is kind of a lose-lose situation. Palworld was clearly kit-bashing existing Pokemon models and were engaging in creative bankruptcy, but software/game patents serve only to hurt creatives and developers around the world and Japan in particular is poor around SLAP suits.
So, I agree, grab the popcorn. But I hope that whatever patents they’re choosing to enforce here don’t have a major ripple in game development as a whole. There’s a world with the brazen IP theft of palworld actually does us all a disservice by making it an easier case for Nintendo to enforce Patents that would otherwise be unenforceable or difficult purely out of optics.
