How is that allowed?

Well it's not, you aren't supposed to be able to get a patent for something that already exists. But you know, corruption

It’s not. In fact you know how this kind of patent gets invalidated, by pointing out what’s know as prior art. Things that did “this” before that patent was filed. So Palworlds and any other game that involves capturing a creature. This “killer patent” won’t stand up in Court unless the Japanese Court is entirely different than the US and German Courts.

Not in tbe US it's not.

An existing implementation would be prior art and make it EXTREMELY easy to get the patent invalidated.

yea that sounds nasty

just don't patent anything, other companies build a product around an unpatented idea, then you patent it and sue them? now their entire product is ruined??

this makes no sense, that would mean the optimal play is to not patent anything until someone else starts doing it

I found this but found after reading it a bit I didn’t want to put in the effort to understand it lol

https://patentbaristas.com/archives/2013/05/09/the-scope-of-prior-art-by-others-under-aia-and-a-comparison-with-european-and-japanese-patent-law-what-every-scientist-and-corporate-executive-needs-to-know/