141
Nintendo filed a lawsuit against Pocketpair, Inc.
(www.nintendo.co.jp)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
141 points (99.3% liked)
Games
16409 readers
954 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Patent infringement? Did they patent "beat up thing, throw ball at thing, capture thing?"
They seem to have a patent for "Pokemon Box Storage" and palworld also has a "Palbox" so maybe that?
So putting shit in a box is apparently Nintendos invention!
Do they get royaltys for shipping goods?
Their list of patents is enormous. They could throw darts drunk and in the dark, miss the board completely, and still likely land on something they could claim.
This is a weird patent; it seems to be describing something more akin to Pokemon Home than an actual in-game mechanic, but then the references talk about the pokemon storage system, so who knows?
Maybe not on that, but the creatures in Palworld are sometimes a direct ripoff of Pokémon. I'm with Nintendo on this one.
That's irrelevant. You can't patent fantasy creatures. That's a copyright issue. If they were suing for copyright infringement I might think they had a point, but they're not.
I think the fact they're going for a patent suit says they probably think they don't have enough of an argument for a copyright suit which kind of makes sense. Just because the designs are similar doesn't mean it's copyright infringement.
Oh no, both the wolves look like wolves. Never mind they have different color schemes and geometry; look, they're both wolves!
I approached the claims with an open mind, but when I read that the worst offender was the wolf I realized that none of the claims could possibly hold water.