160
submitted 3 months ago by alessandro@lemmy.ca to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] irish_link@lemmy.world 71 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 38 points 3 months ago

JP courts are corpo jokes and their IP laws are even big clown shoe than US.

I take extra pleasure pirating JP product, fuck the corporate trash

[-] MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown@fedia.io 4 points 3 months ago

The request for an expedited review of patent number 7545191 also facilitated the approval of three other patents from Nintendo and The Pokemon Company (7528390, 7493117 and 7505854). Kurihara noted that amending an existing patent for specific litigation purposes is an established industry practice, and possibly what happened in this particular case.

This does not make sense to me.

this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
160 points (97.6% liked)

PC Gaming

8800 readers
244 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS