Palworld monsters are not AI generated. The artist would very much like to stop being compared to an AI.
testuserpleaseupvote@lemmy.world
on 19 Sep 02:11
nextcollapse
Well, it makes me think that AI training was probably biased towards legal drivel like this, since it’s public facing, professional and likely even translated in multiple languages.
The student got so good that people think the teacher is imitating it.
lowleveldata@programming.dev
on 19 Sep 05:44
collapse
Those are just abstract if I’m not mistaken. There should be more detailed specifications.
ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
on 19 Sep 00:54
nextcollapse
My guess is the “Pokemon Box Storage” system since palworld stores pals in a palbox.
Is that the wrong link? This seems totally unrelated to Pokemon in boxes, and is more about multi console character storage systems. This patent just sounds like someone described steam cloud saves in way too many big words.
ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
on 19 Sep 02:44
collapse
In the “other references” they link to the bulbapedia article for Pokemon box so I figured thats what the whole thing was about, but yeah it does read like accessing data on a server
(Not a patent lawyer, and I’m sure it’s more complicated than that, but come on)
testuserpleaseupvote@lemmy.world
on 19 Sep 02:07
nextcollapse
How can they let companies file such broad, vague patents for mechanics that have existed since forever? For example, 20240286040, is just what flying mounts have done in WoW since 2007 or even the flying cap in Mario 64 ffs. There are probably other earlier examples, but it goes to show that it’s just noise to monopolize innovation and scare other devs.
Long story short, the claims get much longer and restrictive through the application process. The example you asked about is currently undergoing a non-final rejection, and the claims will get much more restrictive in further iterations (assuming that the application has actual merit somewhere in the original dependent claims)
You can check the application history here: Global Dossier
june@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 19 Sep 05:30
nextcollapse
Since this was filed in Japan, it would have to be patents Nintendo own in Japan that are infringed and those don’t necessarily perfectly match those in the US
I’m sorry who in their right mind signed off on this patent
NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM HAVING STORED THEREIN GAME PROGRAM, GAME SYSTEM, INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD
None of those made hundreds of millions of dollars.
RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world
on 19 Sep 02:53
collapse
Digimon did, right? Why didn’t they ever go after that?
lowleveldata@programming.dev
on 19 Sep 00:33
nextcollapse
Didn’t they own like a shit ton of patents? Which one are we talking about?
Caligvla@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 19 Sep 00:34
nextcollapse
Took them a while. But like clockwork, Nintendo never misses a chance to be the villains.
RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world
on 19 Sep 02:35
nextcollapse
They had to wait for PalWorld to sell a lot and make a lot of money so they can financially ruin these people instead of just telling them “don’t do that.”
They had to wait for PalWorld to sell a lot and make a lot of money so they can financially ruin these people instead of just telling them “don’t do that." make themselves a lot of money by doing nothing but make a lawsuit to steal their earnings."
I don’t know if that’s true, but most of those patents are incredibly iffy, they seem to describe basic functions of how videogames have worked since WoW.
They seem to have tried patenting having a player character that can walk, drive, and fly in a videogame on May 2, 2024.
It has to do with how the statute is written (I used to do comparative international IP policy research and analysis). Japanese works are given fairly wide latitude in creative sectors based on artistic intent. For example, you’ll see knockoff brands all the time in anime or manga, but the intent is clearly world building (or parody), not appropriation for promotional use. That artistic intent standard is used in the courts. This is why all the side-by-side comparisons people here probably saw on Twitter when Palworld came out was more of an ethnocentric American approach. Plus, copyright infringement is frequently incidental and not the result of large investment (unlike patents), so, in a country that prefers to handle domestic disputes informally, these incidents are less likely to go to court.
As a country that more recently entered the world stage based on manufacturing, patent protection is simply going to be taken more seriously as part of the culture. And yes–while I don’t have numbers–patent litigation does seem to get thrown out often when it comes to video games, at least the high-profile stuff, anyway. Here’s an example between Koei Tecmo and Capcom since I was already on Variety.
Gotta wait until palworld has made a bucket of money for Nintendo to point at, claim damages, then try to take.
ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml
on 19 Sep 00:48
nextcollapse
Unsurprising. Flew a little too close to the sun there fellas.
NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
on 19 Sep 00:50
nextcollapse
Anybody who’s played palworld knows the game is nothing like pokemon. What’s next, are they going to claim they are the only company who can make games with 4 legged animals?
GuillaumeGus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 19 Sep 03:48
nextcollapse
I’m sorry, it’s mostly humanoid furries now with the starter Pokémon…
june@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 19 Sep 05:24
nextcollapse
They said patent violations, not copyright, so it is about some sort of mechanic or system and not the pals or any specific designs. I’m guessing the thrown ball capture system, since it seems no other developers have published anything using that specifically.
Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world
on 19 Sep 12:26
nextcollapse
World of Final Fantasy is as close to a Pokemon rip off as you can get, and they didn’t get sued.
Edit. And now I think about it, the mobile game of Rick and Morty was very much a reskin of Pokemon.
RogueAozame@programming.dev
on 19 Sep 12:27
nextcollapse
They shouldnt be able to sue for that cause a patent only lasts for 20 years in Japan. I saw some guesses that there might be a patent for one of their legends games that they are suing for.
p5yk0t1km1r4ge@lemmy.world
on 20 Sep 08:38
nextcollapse
World of Warcraft’s pet capture system was actually very similar to Pokemon, including better traps with better chances of success.
Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world
on 19 Sep 11:33
nextcollapse
I don’t understand. Everyone, literally EVERYONE was calling this game pokemon with guns when it released, so why are people mad that the makers of pokemon are suing? We all saw it from the start
Croquette@sh.itjust.works
on 19 Sep 11:57
nextcollapse
The comparison is valid, but doesn’t mean it infringes on any patent.
Otherwise, FromSoftware would sue the shit out of every soulslike out there.
PunchingWood@lemmy.world
on 19 Sep 13:24
nextcollapse
I think it’s understandable why they sue them (I doubt it holds up in court though), it’s just horrible business practice because Nintendo is too lazy to actually innovate and do something creative for a change, instead of sitting on franchises like that and do fuck all with it, only releasing repetitive piss-poor games based on the exact same concept they invented like 30+ years ago.
The problem is people will still buy Pokemon, even if they’re absolute garbage games. So Nintendo won’t change it either.
Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world
on 19 Sep 22:52
collapse
I think it’s an issue with Japanese game companies in general. I’ve been complaining about Capcom forever. Megaman 11 was a side scroller. I’m a massive mega man fan and I like the side scroll. But it’s 2024. Can we try something new? I would love a ratchet and Clank style, open world 3d mega man where you go to the different areas of the city and take down the bosses.
Also games like monster hunter, are so janky and look 10 years out of date, and most Capcom games look outdated
NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
on 19 Sep 15:07
nextcollapse
Just because it has a resemblance to pokemon doesn’t make it pokemon. The gameplay is completely different.
zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
on 19 Sep 17:26
collapse
Palworld is an open world survival crafting factory/base building game, that happens to borrow the catching mechanic from Pokemon (who borrowed it from Shin Megami Tensei).
zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
on 19 Sep 20:13
nextcollapse
Copying would imply a one to one duplication. The catching system in Palworld differs in multiple ways from the Pokemon system. I think that’s enough to call it borrowing and not copying.
NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
on 19 Sep 22:55
collapse
If you can’t draw inspiration from other games, then the gaming industry as a whole is in trouble.
zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
on 20 Sep 00:50
nextcollapse
K first of all, the mechanic you’re referencing was already an established mechanic before Pokemon Red/Blue came out. The Pokemon Company didn’t invent the “creature catcher” genre of video games.
Second of all, as I’ve said already, the catching mechanic in Palworld is absolutely distinct enough to be considered as drawing inspiration from Pokemon, and not copying. If you wanna get into the nitty gritty, I’ll meet you down there, but if you’re just gonna continue to spout meaningless contrarianisms I’ve got better things to do
Third of all, “cell shaded anime art style” describes hundreds if not thousands of video games, not just Pokemon games. You can’t realistically claim that Palworld copied Pokemon’s art style* just because it uses a cell-shaded anime style, especially because Pokemon has only used that art direction for the last two generations of games, and the style has been in use long before sword and shield came out.
zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
on 20 Sep 14:16
collapse
but not capturing by weakening the creature and throwing a ball at them.
If you think “throwing a ball” is a patentable (or even copyrightable) mechanic, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Palworld explicitly copies the style of creature design from Pokemon
Some pals are similar to Pokemon, sure, but a lot are quite distinct. If you have a problem with that though, take it up with The Pokemon Company, because they did it first.
The developers knew exactly what they were doing, so to claim it wasn’t intentional is disingenuous at best.
Of course it was intentional to make a game in the same genre as Pokemon, with similar mechanics. That’s how video games in the same genre work. You make them similar to things you know people like, so that there’s a greater chance they’ll like your game too, but you also introduce new, unique things so that you’re not copying. Yes, Palworld did that intentionally.
None of that is illegal though, or shouldn’t be anyways, unless they’re straight up stealing assets/code from a Pokemon game and using it in Palworld.
zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
on 20 Sep 15:44
collapse
the mechanic is capturing a creature by weakening them and throwing a ball at them. Not just throwing a ball.
And like I’ve said before, Shin Megami Tensei did this before Pokemon. This concept was not original to Pokemon, and exists in several other creature catcher games.
None of the creatures I’ve seen are entirely new designs, but rather hybrids of existing, well known Pokemon.
Then you haven’t seen a large portion of Pals. Plenty of pals are unique. Some of them look similar to Pokemon, sure, because they’re based on the same real world animal.
outright lying to defend them and ignoring obvious facts does
🙄🙄🙄
It’s fine to admit that a thing you like has flaws, and admit that those flaws need addressing.
K, Palworld has flaws. Never claimed otherwise.
We’ve run far field of the point though. Palworld is being sued for patent infringement. If there was ever a patent on the “weaken creature then capture” mechanic, it’s long expired, so they’re not being sued over that. They’re not being sued over art or Pal designs, because that would be copyright infringement, not a patent violation.
Given those facts, what do you think Palworld is being sued for?
chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 19 Sep 23:31
collapse
Lots of games are also called Roguelike. Based off a game called Rogue. The makers of Rogue do not get to sue the makers of Hades.
Pets that fight for you, including being able to store them for portable carry has been done by many other games, including Ark. In fact, playing Palworld made me compare it more to Ark than Pokemon: base building, automation, catching dinos/animals/monsters of different varieties for different uses. Some can fly, some run, some can be used as parachutes. Some help automate actions at base. There is a tech tree unlocked by leveling, starting with primitive weapons and moving on to guns and higher caliber guns. Blueprints are common in ark for higher quality crafts to build at, you guessed it, crafting benches.
Collecting wood, stone, metals, etc. Also the animal assistants can help there too, but only certain ones. Also, Ark has cryopods for storing your animals/dinosaurs. You even throw em to release.
If they had exactly Pikachu or something it’s one thing, but similar games are just part of the business.
Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world
on 20 Sep 11:36
collapse
But we’re not talking about a game type here. You can agree that this is a dumb lawsuit, but you have to be honest. Palworld was marketed online as pokemon with guns. It’s not just a similar style but almost identically copies the characters in Pokemon. You can make a stealth action political thriller video game, but if the main character looks just like solid Snake and is called “Viper”, you gonna get sued.
chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 20 Sep 22:48
collapse
Really? Why does Deathstroke and Deadpool both exist? One is DC, one is Marvel, and Deadpool pretty much started as an expy. Slade Wilson and Wade Wilson. You’re arguing from a place of what feels like it should be wrong, yet your fake example has been done in the real world and they got away with it.
This happens so many times in industries they can often just argue parody. In fact, changing a name slightly is classic parody to avoid being sued. Japan in particular often just bleeps out a syllable or forgets a character in the name.
Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world
on 20 Sep 23:06
collapse
I guess you must know more than lawyers huh.
PunchingWood@lemmy.world
on 19 Sep 13:22
nextcollapse
I played it and I felt like it borrowed a lot of elements from Pokemon. It wasn’t Pokemon, but you can’t deny it took like 90% of their inspiration from Pokemon and then added guns to it.
towerful@programming.dev
on 19 Sep 20:00
nextcollapse
That’s like any FPS game ripping off any other FPS game.
Fight, capture, tame, train, breed animals.
Base building, research tree, enemy raids.
Exploration, resource gathering, survival.
I don’t think Nintendo has a monopoly on enslaving animals.
I know what you mean, tho. It’s always described as “Pokémon with guns and 3xE gameplay”.
But does Nintendo actually have a case that will hold up in courts?
Pocketpair seems confident they can defend against it. So either they have done their research and are up for a fight. Or they (think they) are calling Nintendo’s bluff.
But Nintendo has a whole pack of lawyers.
Unfortunately there are no details on what the patents being infringemed upon are, just that they relate to “Pocket Monster”.
But it’s the combination of it all, aside from guns and concentration camp levels of slavery, that make it look like they straight up copied ideas from Pokemon.
It’s true Nintendo doesn’t hold the specific style or gameplay mechanics, and that’s where I think they’ll fail to win a case, but just saying it’s just so blatantly obvious where the inspiration comes from.
I have a feeling that this is going to be the case. Palworld is not copying anything so it’s not copyright and doesn’t even need a “fair use” argument for it. The patents of gameplay mechanics don’t really hold up in court.
Nintento’s legal battle chest is stuff of nightmares for smaller companies and they should be countersued for anti competitive behavior.
That said, lawyers can send a C&D letter for anything. Doesn’t mean it will hold up in court, but they’re betting the target won’t want to pay that kind of money to fight it.
Nintendo is making a case that the use of capsules to capture and carry creatures is their IP.
CaptPretentious@lemmy.world
on 20 Sep 12:29
nextcollapse
Dragon Ball was using capsules to store things long before Pokemon did. And Dragon Ball Z, which ended in Japan in '96 had already done storing 'creatures in capsules. Saibamen for one. And after the Saiyan saga Bulma puts her dead friends in coffin capsules.
So Akira Toriyama did it before Pokemon.
frezik@midwest.social
on 20 Sep 12:59
nextcollapse
Also, Iron Bands of Bilarro in DnD 5e, but I’m not sure how far back the history of that item goes. DnD 3.5 had Iron Flask that works kinda the same, but Iron Bands is more similar to a Pokeball.
Yeah, they should absolutely argue that storing things, alive or not, in capsules has been used in numerous movies and shows and that the patent is invalid. Big corporations make tons of patents all the time just in case and then see if they hold up in court later, such as Nintendo with their pokeballs in this case. They still don’t know whether Palworld is an infringement or not
RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world
on 19 Sep 02:49
nextcollapse
Since this is over patent and not copyright, wouldn’t this have to be about patents filed after the year 2003 and before 2024? AFAIK, patents don’t get extended and cannot be re-filed, and Pokemon has existed since the 1990s, where a lot of its patents would have been created. Unless for some reason Nintendo delayed filing the patents for more than 5-10 years but I don’t know that patents are allowed to have such a time gap between publication and filing or not. Perhaps Japan has different patent laws, their laws notoriously favor businesses so I wouldn’t be surprised.
Additionally, at least in the USA, some things like gameplay elements cannot be patented if they are necessary for the genre of the product. For example, a first person camera, guns, shooting, etc. are not elements that can be patented as they are necessary for FPS games in general, but some kind of specific new technology like the way Doom draws its 3D world could be patented.
For a Creature Catcher game like PalWorld, devices (very vague and generic term that legally should not be patentable because it is too generic BTW) to catch, store, and deploy creatures is necessary to the genre. Unless it is specifically code or the same exact way that both PalWorld and PokeMon function, I do not see how Nintendo thinks they can win other than by bankrupting their opposition like usual.
Really hope this one turns out like Lewis Galoob Toys Inc v Nintendo of America, but the Japan version.
Patent infringement is a curious angle. Do we know what specific patent(s) they're claiming here?
JiveTurkey@lemmy.world
on 19 Sep 03:22
nextcollapse
Fuck you Nintendo.
Tikiporch@lemmy.world
on 19 Sep 04:09
nextcollapse
Bad move by Nintendo. This game was on track to be forgotten. Pocketpair forgot about it months ago, but the players were starting to catch on to that. Now there will be a resurgence of interest.
Nah all that gamer malice will be dropped at the tip of a hat with a Switch 2 announcement sadly. Pocketpair will be bled of money into bankruptcy and Nintendo will win.
It is morally right to pirate Nintendo games.
RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world
on 19 Sep 06:44
nextcollapse
Sony is a shareholder and Microsoft has also supportted PocketPair, it will be interesting to see how that works out with Nintendo.
The steam deck didn’t exist when the switch came out, it innovated and filled a niche that turned out to be a severely underserved segment of the gaming market.
Nintendo struck gold with the switch, and a ‘switch 2’ likely isn’t going to cut it.
It’s not like Nintendo is infallible, remember the console before the switch was the Wii u.
suburban_hillbilly@lemmy.ml
on 19 Sep 11:18
collapse
This game was on track to be forgotten
Game is just outside the top 50 on steam and had a major content release at the end of June. This ‘game is dying’-because-it-didn’t-indefinitely-sustain-player-counts-in-the-top-10 meme is dumb as hell.
PunchingWood@lemmy.world
on 19 Sep 13:21
nextcollapse
Well statistically speaking like only 1% of their peak player count at launch was still playing the game.
It doesn’t do bad on the top ranking out of all games on Steam, but it didn’t do great anymore either.
It’s a pocketpair thing though as far as “abandoning” a game. As a craftopia player I know all too well how they start off and then drag their feet with minimal input after a certain time. It’s one thing I was worried about with palworld before it even came out. :/
sumguyonline@lemmy.world
on 19 Sep 05:06
nextcollapse
Stop buying Nintendo. They can’t create quality new IP’s, just rehashes over and over, at this point she ain’t got a peach, bowser mashed it into a pie, and Mario’s eating it for breakfast, lunch, an after dinner snack.
The problem is they’re such a large and recognizable company that they could probably switch to making and selling malware and everyone would still buy it without thinking twice. Humanity is full of idiots.
celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 19 Sep 12:08
collapse
Congrats Nintendo, I’m done with you. SNES, Gameboy, N64, GameCube, Wii, Switch, and now done for good. Cantankerous old dinosaur of a company that has lost touch with the world.
MajorHavoc@programming.dev
on 19 Sep 12:34
collapse
Yeah. I love their games and liked their hardware, but I just can’t morally justify sending money into Nintendo anymore.
celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 19 Sep 12:09
nextcollapse
Are the SMT games not on Nintendo’s radar? Like, does Id get to sue anyone who makes a FPS?
RogueAozame@programming.dev
on 19 Sep 12:23
collapse
Its hard to sue shin megami tensei when megami tensei came out first. Also Nintendo is apparently sueing for patent infringment and im curious which patent they are suing for cause most of the og patents should be expired by now. The best guess I’ve seen is maybe patent related to either legends game.
FabledAepitaph@lemmy.world
on 19 Sep 23:47
nextcollapse
I will continue to never give Nintendo any of my money on account of their litigiousness.
TriflingToad@lemmy.world
on 20 Sep 00:07
nextcollapse
why is Nintendo going after pokemon with guns and not that one game that popped up on the steam home page (I disabled NSFW tags) that’s literally just 2d Pokemon but if you beat the trainer you fuck them.
At the root of this cognitive dissonance is who benefits and who doesn’t. Copyright law is selectively applied in a way that protects the powerful and exploits the powerless. In a capitalist economy copyright is meant to protect people’s livelihoods by ensuring they are compensated for their labor, but due to the power imbalance inherent to capitalism it is instead used only to protect the interests of capital. The fact that AI companies are granted full impunity to violate the copyright of millions is evidence that copyright law is ineffective at the task for which it was purportedly created.
Its just unprecedented terroritory and the cutting edge of technology is always at odds with the slower justice system. Not taking sides here but the only entities that are on the cutting edge of tech innovation are generally always going to be tech corporations.
In a capitalist economy copyright is meant to protect people’s livelihoods by ensuring they are compensated for their labor
Whose propaganda did you suck down blindly? Copyright is meant to foster and improve the commons and public domain, and only that. The goal of copyright is not “money” and monopolies, but that’s what capitalism does to things designated as property.
The fact you can transfer and sell your copyright (because it’s property in capitalism), it becomes a commodity to be bought and sold and traded. If copyright was not tradeable or transferable, we wouldn’t be in in this situation where art is property to be owned.
Chill out a bit, my comment could not have possibly given you the impression that I’m a supporter of capitalism if you had read it carefully. I began my comment by putting forward the capitalist argument for copyright - a steel-man argument - and ended it by debunking it.
Copyright is meant to foster and improve the commons and public domain
You said yourself that copyright establishes art as private property (or “intellectual property” if we’re being more precise). That does the opposite of fostering and improving the commons and public domain.
If copyright was not tradeable or transferable
Then it wouldn’t be copyright. Copyright is a capitalist construct, not a public good corrupted by capital.
mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
on 20 Sep 16:46
collapse
We’re saltly because all of these rich people truly got to skirt copyright laws while regular people got in trouble for “digesting the same digital bits.” They even get to resell any work that has been processed and mixed with other works as long as it comes from their AI…
p5yk0t1km1r4ge@lemmy.world
on 20 Sep 08:36
nextcollapse
Fuck nintendo. I really hope this blows up in their face like their stupid fucking “King Kong is dk” lawsuit. Fucking bullies. The irony that they blatantly stole the designs of pokemon from dragon quest but are butthurt at palworld for pAtEnT vIoLaTiOn is gross. So glad I just pirate their shit.
Tattorack@lemmy.world
on 20 Sep 14:16
nextcollapse
So… Um… If Nintendo patented elements of Pokemon (we don’t know what the patents are yet), then… Why is TemTem allowed to live? TemTem is literally one-to-one Pokemon, all but in name.
If, somehow, TemTem isn’t in violation of Nintendo’s patents, despite just being Pokemon made by someone else, then I’m very curious what Nintendo’s patent actually is.
Could it be the capture ball? TemTem uses cards. Palworld uses balls like Pokemon. Did Nintendo patent the idea of capturing creatures inside of balls, specifically? Is that why Nintendo never went after TemTem?
TemTem is probably just further down on the to-sue list.
aesthelete@lemmy.world
on 20 Sep 15:04
nextcollapse
I agree, and want to add that it could also be that PalWorld is a bigger target because it is kinda like a Mickey Mouse horror film: it runs counter to the brand of Pokemon to have a game where you shoot them with heavy weaponry.
I’m not sure why. TemTem, and a number of smaller projects like it, are basically exact copies of Pokemon and have been around far longer, some with succesfull kickstarter campaigns.
I remember Nintendo being RUTHLESS when people over at GBATemp tried making a smash bros clone for the NDS… For free.
mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
on 20 Sep 16:44
nextcollapse
If Temtem is a Pokemon ripoff then Pokemon is a Dragon Quest V ripoff. All these games involve collecting monsters through battle. Can anyone really patent “monster catching RPG?”
There are only two things Dragon Quest V and Pokemon have in common; monster taming through battle and they’re both turn based RPGs.
Have you played or seen TemTem? It’s literally Pokemon in every way, from mechanics, level design, to even how and what kind of moves the Tems can learn.
Nintendo goes after even the smallest infringements, so since they’ve never gone after TemTem it tells me the patent isn’t “monster catching RPG”. It’s more specific than that, and Palworld somehow infringes on it. As of yet we can only guess what the patent is.
mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
on 20 Sep 22:01
collapse
I own Temtem. I also love Dragon Quest and its side games. Pokemon was very inspired by those games.
I’ve never heard of TemTem before and plugging it into Google Trends, it looks like it’s not even comparable to Palworld. It’s still somewhat big, looks like 500,000 copies sold. But still doesn’t really compare to what appears to be nearly 20 million Palworld players.
Companies lose rights to protect their IP if they don’t protect it themselves, so it may be in their best interest to go after the big competitors and pretend they’ve never heard of TemTem.
There is also cassette bests. It just makes it obvious that they fon’t care about their ip or it’s not out of principle, it’s just because someone else made a game that don’t suck and people like, which is something they can not do.
500,000 copies sold is not insignificant. Nintendo fries even the smallest of fish. They’ll literally go out of their way to fuck up someone’s small hobby project only a niche few even care about. So if Nintendo is turning blind eye to a game that copied them in every way one could possibly copy a Pokemon game, then there’s something else going on.
Remember, this is not a copyright case, this is a patent case. Considering Palworld is the only game vaguely similar to Pokemon in some minor ways that I’ve seen use spheres as a catching tool, I’m just (blindly) guessing it MIGHT have something to do with that.
bigmclargehuge@lemmy.world
on 20 Sep 17:55
collapse
I would love to see a Palworld update that changes the balls to cubes. Same animations and effects, same textures, just stretched over a cube.
Reminder that Nintendo is to Japan as Disney is to the USA.
We can only speculate what patents are involved, might be legit might not but it doesn’t have to be legit and the actual patent they obtained could be nonsense, they have the power to bend someone over a chair because they felt like it.
Also reminder apple managed to patent a rectangle. what countries allow to be patented is often bullshit at best.
threaded - newest
So like…no mention of which patents?
I initially assumed they were referring to the Pokemon franchise but I don’t think that’s related to patents? Maybe it’s a regional thing?
You can’t patent certain game mechanics. Would have to be an actual piece of code that was replicated.
I didn’t know you could patent code. I thought patents only applied to physical inventions.
I suppose it makes sense though, there isn’t much difference.
In the United States you are correct, you cannot patent game mechanics.
Nintendo is a Japanese company. They basically wrote their own laws on how IP works in the country.
They’re just gonna wing it and hope they have something.
Had to wait until no one gave a shit about Palworld anymore
Wait until they make all the money that was to be made on their game.
Then yoink all of that money.
That and it also would have been a lot more bad press for Nintendo had they taken action when the game was first popular
Not that Nintendo’s legal team has ever had an issue with bad press
We should play a game of guessing which patent(s) they’re gonna try to nail Palworld for infringement with.
Half of those patents read like if they use vague enough language they can justify patenting how computers work.
Welcome to Software Patents 101.
These can’t be real, they read like they were generated by an AI prompt.
No, that’s the pal-world-monster arts.
Palworld monsters are not AI generated. The artist would very much like to stop being compared to an AI.
Well, it makes me think that AI training was probably biased towards legal drivel like this, since it’s public facing, professional and likely even translated in multiple languages.
The student got so good that people think the teacher is imitating it.
Those are just abstract if I’m not mistaken. There should be more detailed specifications.
My guess is the “Pokemon Box Storage” system since palworld stores pals in a palbox.
Is that the wrong link? This seems totally unrelated to Pokemon in boxes, and is more about multi console character storage systems. This patent just sounds like someone described steam cloud saves in way too many big words.
In the “other references” they link to the bulbapedia article for Pokemon box so I figured thats what the whole thing was about, but yeah it does read like accessing data on a server
Nintendo patents video game inventory system.
Not the onion.
(Not a patent lawyer, and I’m sure it’s more complicated than that, but come on)
How can they let companies file such broad, vague patents for mechanics that have existed since forever? For example, 20240286040, is just what flying mounts have done in WoW since 2007 or even the flying cap in Mario 64 ffs. There are probably other earlier examples, but it goes to show that it’s just noise to monopolize innovation and scare other devs.
Long story short, the claims get much longer and restrictive through the application process. The example you asked about is currently undergoing a non-final rejection, and the claims will get much more restrictive in further iterations (assuming that the application has actual merit somewhere in the original dependent claims)
You can check the application history here: Global Dossier
Since this was filed in Japan, it would have to be patents Nintendo own in Japan that are infringed and those don’t necessarily perfectly match those in the US
I’m sorry who in their right mind signed off on this patent
Thats literally any online game server
I think that’s setting the context for the claims they make, not a claim in itself.
That’s some Tauros-shit (sue me). I hope the Japanese legal system can see that.
It’ll be hard to see that when their vision will be blocked by stacks of yen.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/78b31b32-c94c-4e42-ac31-350330ac664c.jpeg">
Haven’t seen this meme for a while.
It took a while to catch up
I wonder if they are going to go after the monster tamer genre as a whole ar some point. I can see them going after tem tem, coromon, nextmon, etc…
None of those made hundreds of millions of dollars.
Digimon did, right? Why didn’t they ever go after that?
Didn’t they own like a shit ton of patents? Which one are we talking about?
Took them a while. But like clockwork, Nintendo never misses a chance to be the villains.
They had to wait for PalWorld to sell a lot and make a lot of money so they can financially ruin these people instead of just telling them “don’t do that.”
Literal Comic-Book Villain behavior.
Doesn’t matter to them, when millions line up to see the next wacky thing Mario is up to, for the 55th time
Only surprise here is “Why did it take so long?”
It’s kinda surprising they didn’t sue over the much less legally grey IP infringements.
Similar visual design happens all the time in Japanese media and there’s rarely litigation over it. Patent lawsuits are much more common in Japan.
I don’t know if that’s true, but most of those patents are incredibly iffy, they seem to describe basic functions of how videogames have worked since WoW.
They seem to have tried patenting having a player character that can walk, drive, and fly in a videogame on May 2, 2024.
It has to do with how the statute is written (I used to do comparative international IP policy research and analysis). Japanese works are given fairly wide latitude in creative sectors based on artistic intent. For example, you’ll see knockoff brands all the time in anime or manga, but the intent is clearly world building (or parody), not appropriation for promotional use. That artistic intent standard is used in the courts. This is why all the side-by-side comparisons people here probably saw on Twitter when Palworld came out was more of an ethnocentric American approach. Plus, copyright infringement is frequently incidental and not the result of large investment (unlike patents), so, in a country that prefers to handle domestic disputes informally, these incidents are less likely to go to court.
As a country that more recently entered the world stage based on manufacturing, patent protection is simply going to be taken more seriously as part of the culture. And yes–while I don’t have numbers–patent litigation does seem to get thrown out often when it comes to video games, at least the high-profile stuff, anyway. Here’s an example between Koei Tecmo and Capcom since I was already on Variety.
Nintendo: Can we sue them over the designs?
Lawyer: Not really, this shit is impossible to prove
…
Lawyer: But we can sue them anyway
Lawyer: Not really, this shit is impossible to prove
…starts closing the money briefcaseLawyer: But we can sue them anyway
Gotta wait until palworld has made a bucket of money for Nintendo to point at, claim damages, then try to take.
Unsurprising. Flew a little too close to the sun there fellas.
Anybody who’s played palworld knows the game is nothing like pokemon. What’s next, are they going to claim they are the only company who can make games with 4 legged animals?
I’m sorry, it’s mostly humanoid furries now with the starter Pokémon…
They said patent violations, not copyright, so it is about some sort of mechanic or system and not the pals or any specific designs. I’m guessing the thrown ball capture system, since it seems no other developers have published anything using that specifically.
World of Final Fantasy is as close to a Pokemon rip off as you can get, and they didn’t get sued.
Edit. And now I think about it, the mobile game of Rick and Morty was very much a reskin of Pokemon.
They shouldnt be able to sue for that cause a patent only lasts for 20 years in Japan. I saw some guesses that there might be a patent for one of their legends games that they are suing for.
Actually ARK does this with cryopods.
World of Warcraft’s pet capture system was actually very similar to Pokemon, including better traps with better chances of success.
I don’t understand. Everyone, literally EVERYONE was calling this game pokemon with guns when it released, so why are people mad that the makers of pokemon are suing? We all saw it from the start
The comparison is valid, but doesn’t mean it infringes on any patent.
Otherwise, FromSoftware would sue the shit out of every soulslike out there.
I think it’s understandable why they sue them (I doubt it holds up in court though), it’s just horrible business practice because Nintendo is too lazy to actually innovate and do something creative for a change, instead of sitting on franchises like that and do fuck all with it, only releasing repetitive piss-poor games based on the exact same concept they invented like 30+ years ago.
The problem is people will still buy Pokemon, even if they’re absolute garbage games. So Nintendo won’t change it either.
I think it’s an issue with Japanese game companies in general. I’ve been complaining about Capcom forever. Megaman 11 was a side scroller. I’m a massive mega man fan and I like the side scroll. But it’s 2024. Can we try something new? I would love a ratchet and Clank style, open world 3d mega man where you go to the different areas of the city and take down the bosses. Also games like monster hunter, are so janky and look 10 years out of date, and most Capcom games look outdated
Just because it has a resemblance to pokemon doesn’t make it pokemon. The gameplay is completely different.
.
Palworld is an open world survival crafting factory/base building game, that happens to borrow the catching mechanic from Pokemon (who borrowed it from Shin Megami Tensei).
.
Copying would imply a one to one duplication. The catching system in Palworld differs in multiple ways from the Pokemon system. I think that’s enough to call it borrowing and not copying.
If you can’t draw inspiration from other games, then the gaming industry as a whole is in trouble.
.
K first of all, the mechanic you’re referencing was already an established mechanic before Pokemon Red/Blue came out. The Pokemon Company didn’t invent the “creature catcher” genre of video games.
Second of all, as I’ve said already, the catching mechanic in Palworld is absolutely distinct enough to be considered as drawing inspiration from Pokemon, and not copying. If you wanna get into the nitty gritty, I’ll meet you down there, but if you’re just gonna continue to spout meaningless contrarianisms I’ve got better things to do
Third of all, “cell shaded anime art style” describes hundreds if not thousands of video games, not just Pokemon games. You can’t realistically claim that Palworld copied Pokemon’s art style* just because it uses a cell-shaded anime style, especially because Pokemon has only used that art direction for the last two generations of games, and the style has been in use long before sword and shield came out.
.
If you think “throwing a ball” is a patentable (or even copyrightable) mechanic, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Some pals are similar to Pokemon, sure, but a lot are quite distinct. If you have a problem with that though, take it up with The Pokemon Company, because they did it first.
Of course it was intentional to make a game in the same genre as Pokemon, with similar mechanics. That’s how video games in the same genre work. You make them similar to things you know people like, so that there’s a greater chance they’ll like your game too, but you also introduce new, unique things so that you’re not copying. Yes, Palworld did that intentionally.
None of that is illegal though, or shouldn’t be anyways, unless they’re straight up stealing assets/code from a Pokemon game and using it in Palworld.
.
And like I’ve said before, Shin Megami Tensei did this before Pokemon. This concept was not original to Pokemon, and exists in several other creature catcher games.
Then you haven’t seen a large portion of Pals. Plenty of pals are unique. Some of them look similar to Pokemon, sure, because they’re based on the same real world animal.
🙄🙄🙄
K, Palworld has flaws. Never claimed otherwise.
We’ve run far field of the point though. Palworld is being sued for patent infringement. If there was ever a patent on the “weaken creature then capture” mechanic, it’s long expired, so they’re not being sued over that. They’re not being sued over art or Pal designs, because that would be copyright infringement, not a patent violation.
Given those facts, what do you think Palworld is being sued for?
.
Agree to disagree then. I highly doubt they’re suing over the capture mechanic. If they ever had a patent for that, it would have expired already.
You obviously haven’t actually played the game.
.
Obviously not
.
Just play the game and find out.
.
Lots of games are also called Roguelike. Based off a game called Rogue. The makers of Rogue do not get to sue the makers of Hades.
Pets that fight for you, including being able to store them for portable carry has been done by many other games, including Ark. In fact, playing Palworld made me compare it more to Ark than Pokemon: base building, automation, catching dinos/animals/monsters of different varieties for different uses. Some can fly, some run, some can be used as parachutes. Some help automate actions at base. There is a tech tree unlocked by leveling, starting with primitive weapons and moving on to guns and higher caliber guns. Blueprints are common in ark for higher quality crafts to build at, you guessed it, crafting benches.
Collecting wood, stone, metals, etc. Also the animal assistants can help there too, but only certain ones. Also, Ark has cryopods for storing your animals/dinosaurs. You even throw em to release.
If they had exactly Pikachu or something it’s one thing, but similar games are just part of the business.
But we’re not talking about a game type here. You can agree that this is a dumb lawsuit, but you have to be honest. Palworld was marketed online as pokemon with guns. It’s not just a similar style but almost identically copies the characters in Pokemon. You can make a stealth action political thriller video game, but if the main character looks just like solid Snake and is called “Viper”, you gonna get sued.
Really? Why does Deathstroke and Deadpool both exist? One is DC, one is Marvel, and Deadpool pretty much started as an expy. Slade Wilson and Wade Wilson. You’re arguing from a place of what feels like it should be wrong, yet your fake example has been done in the real world and they got away with it.
This happens so many times in industries they can often just argue parody. In fact, changing a name slightly is classic parody to avoid being sued. Japan in particular often just bleeps out a syllable or forgets a character in the name.
I guess you must know more than lawyers huh.
I played it and I felt like it borrowed a lot of elements from Pokemon. It wasn’t Pokemon, but you can’t deny it took like 90% of their inspiration from Pokemon and then added guns to it.
That’s like any FPS game ripping off any other FPS game.
Fight, capture, tame, train, breed animals.
Base building, research tree, enemy raids.
Exploration, resource gathering, survival.
I don’t think Nintendo has a monopoly on enslaving animals.
I know what you mean, tho. It’s always described as “Pokémon with guns and 3xE gameplay”.
But does Nintendo actually have a case that will hold up in courts?
Pocketpair seems confident they can defend against it. So either they have done their research and are up for a fight. Or they (think they) are calling Nintendo’s bluff.
But Nintendo has a whole pack of lawyers.
Unfortunately there are no details on what the patents being infringemed upon are, just that they relate to “Pocket Monster”.
I don’t believe Nintendo will hold up in court.
But it’s the combination of it all, aside from guns and concentration camp levels of slavery, that make it look like they straight up copied ideas from Pokemon.
It’s true Nintendo doesn’t hold the specific style or gameplay mechanics, and that’s where I think they’ll fail to win a case, but just saying it’s just so blatantly obvious where the inspiration comes from.
I have a feeling that this is going to be the case. Palworld is not copying anything so it’s not copyright and doesn’t even need a “fair use” argument for it. The patents of gameplay mechanics don’t really hold up in court.
Nintento’s legal battle chest is stuff of nightmares for smaller companies and they should be countersued for anti competitive behavior.
Which, incidentally, would probably past legal muster. You can get pretty close to the source material, and as long as it’s your own custom art, it’s not infringement.
That said, lawyers can send a C&D letter for anything. Doesn’t mean it will hold up in court, but they’re betting the target won’t want to pay that kind of money to fight it.
Nintendo is making a case that the use of capsules to capture and carry creatures is their IP.
Dragon Ball was using capsules to store things long before Pokemon did. And Dragon Ball Z, which ended in Japan in '96 had already done storing 'creatures in capsules. Saibamen for one. And after the Saiyan saga Bulma puts her dead friends in coffin capsules.
So Akira Toriyama did it before Pokemon.
Also, Iron Bands of Bilarro in DnD 5e, but I’m not sure how far back the history of that item goes. DnD 3.5 had Iron Flask that works kinda the same, but Iron Bands is more similar to a Pokeball.
Yeah, they should absolutely argue that storing things, alive or not, in capsules has been used in numerous movies and shows and that the patent is invalid. Big corporations make tons of patents all the time just in case and then see if they hold up in court later, such as Nintendo with their pokeballs in this case. They still don’t know whether Palworld is an infringement or not
Does patent mean something else there?
Since this is over patent and not copyright, wouldn’t this have to be about patents filed after the year 2003 and before 2024? AFAIK, patents don’t get extended and cannot be re-filed, and Pokemon has existed since the 1990s, where a lot of its patents would have been created. Unless for some reason Nintendo delayed filing the patents for more than 5-10 years but I don’t know that patents are allowed to have such a time gap between publication and filing or not. Perhaps Japan has different patent laws, their laws notoriously favor businesses so I wouldn’t be surprised.
Additionally, at least in the USA, some things like gameplay elements cannot be patented if they are necessary for the genre of the product. For example, a first person camera, guns, shooting, etc. are not elements that can be patented as they are necessary for FPS games in general, but some kind of specific new technology like the way Doom draws its 3D world could be patented.
For a Creature Catcher game like PalWorld, devices (very vague and generic term that legally should not be patentable because it is too generic BTW) to catch, store, and deploy creatures is necessary to the genre. Unless it is specifically code or the same exact way that both PalWorld and PokeMon function, I do not see how Nintendo thinks they can win other than by bankrupting their opposition like usual.
Really hope this one turns out like Lewis Galoob Toys Inc v Nintendo of America, but the Japan version.
Patent infringement is a curious angle. Do we know what specific patent(s) they're claiming here?
Fuck you Nintendo.
Bad move by Nintendo. This game was on track to be forgotten. Pocketpair forgot about it months ago, but the players were starting to catch on to that. Now there will be a resurgence of interest.
Nah all that gamer malice will be dropped at the tip of a hat with a Switch 2 announcement sadly. Pocketpair will be bled of money into bankruptcy and Nintendo will win.
It is morally right to pirate Nintendo games.
Sony is a shareholder and Microsoft has also supportted PocketPair, it will be interesting to see how that works out with Nintendo.
The steam deck didn’t exist when the switch came out, it innovated and filled a niche that turned out to be a severely underserved segment of the gaming market.
Nintendo struck gold with the switch, and a ‘switch 2’ likely isn’t going to cut it.
It’s not like Nintendo is infallible, remember the console before the switch was the Wii u.
Game is just outside the top 50 on steam and had a major content release at the end of June. This ‘game is dying’-because-it-didn’t-indefinitely-sustain-player-counts-in-the-top-10 meme is dumb as hell.
Well statistically speaking like only 1% of their peak player count at launch was still playing the game.
It doesn’t do bad on the top ranking out of all games on Steam, but it didn’t do great anymore either.
It’s a pocketpair thing though as far as “abandoning” a game. As a craftopia player I know all too well how they start off and then drag their feet with minimal input after a certain time. It’s one thing I was worried about with palworld before it even came out. :/
They are not going to abandon a success this big
Stop buying Nintendo. They can’t create quality new IP’s, just rehashes over and over, at this point she ain’t got a peach, bowser mashed it into a pie, and Mario’s eating it for breakfast, lunch, an after dinner snack.
The problem is they’re such a large and recognizable company that they could probably switch to making and selling malware and everyone would still buy it without thinking twice. Humanity is full of idiots.
You lost me in the second half.
Congrats Nintendo, I’m done with you. SNES, Gameboy, N64, GameCube, Wii, Switch, and now done for good. Cantankerous old dinosaur of a company that has lost touch with the world.
adieu
Yeah. I love their games and liked their hardware, but I just can’t morally justify sending money into Nintendo anymore.
Are the SMT games not on Nintendo’s radar? Like, does Id get to sue anyone who makes a FPS?
Its hard to sue shin megami tensei when megami tensei came out first. Also Nintendo is apparently sueing for patent infringment and im curious which patent they are suing for cause most of the og patents should be expired by now. The best guess I’ve seen is maybe patent related to either legends game.
I will continue to never give Nintendo any of my money on account of their litigiousness.
why is Nintendo going after pokemon with guns and not that one game that popped up on the steam home page (I disabled NSFW tags) that’s literally just 2d Pokemon but if you beat the trainer you fuck them.
Because, like many, you can’t remember the name of that game, but just about everyone knows about Palworld.
Copyright is bullshit! Fuck nintendo!
Scrolls to ai related lemmy post*
Copyright is sacred! Fuck openai!
At the root of this cognitive dissonance is who benefits and who doesn’t. Copyright law is selectively applied in a way that protects the powerful and exploits the powerless. In a capitalist economy copyright is meant to protect people’s livelihoods by ensuring they are compensated for their labor, but due to the power imbalance inherent to capitalism it is instead used only to protect the interests of capital. The fact that AI companies are granted full impunity to violate the copyright of millions is evidence that copyright law is ineffective at the task for which it was purportedly created.
Its just unprecedented terroritory and the cutting edge of technology is always at odds with the slower justice system. Not taking sides here but the only entities that are on the cutting edge of tech innovation are generally always going to be tech corporations.
Whose propaganda did you suck down blindly? Copyright is meant to foster and improve the commons and public domain, and only that. The goal of copyright is not “money” and monopolies, but that’s what capitalism does to things designated as property.
The fact you can transfer and sell your copyright (because it’s property in capitalism), it becomes a commodity to be bought and sold and traded. If copyright was not tradeable or transferable, we wouldn’t be in in this situation where art is property to be owned.
Chill out a bit, my comment could not have possibly given you the impression that I’m a supporter of capitalism if you had read it carefully. I began my comment by putting forward the capitalist argument for copyright - a steel-man argument - and ended it by debunking it.
You said yourself that copyright establishes art as private property (or “intellectual property” if we’re being more precise). That does the opposite of fostering and improving the commons and public domain.
Then it wouldn’t be copyright. Copyright is a capitalist construct, not a public good corrupted by capital.
We’re saltly because all of these rich people truly got to skirt copyright laws while regular people got in trouble for “digesting the same digital bits.” They even get to resell any work that has been processed and mixed with other works as long as it comes from their AI…
Fuck nintendo. I really hope this blows up in their face like their stupid fucking “King Kong is dk” lawsuit. Fucking bullies. The irony that they blatantly stole the designs of pokemon from dragon quest but are butthurt at palworld for pAtEnT vIoLaTiOn is gross. So glad I just pirate their shit.
So… Um… If Nintendo patented elements of Pokemon (we don’t know what the patents are yet), then… Why is TemTem allowed to live? TemTem is literally one-to-one Pokemon, all but in name.
If, somehow, TemTem isn’t in violation of Nintendo’s patents, despite just being Pokemon made by someone else, then I’m very curious what Nintendo’s patent actually is.
Could it be the capture ball? TemTem uses cards. Palworld uses balls like Pokemon. Did Nintendo patent the idea of capturing creatures inside of balls, specifically? Is that why Nintendo never went after TemTem?
TemTem is probably just further down on the to-sue list.
I agree, and want to add that it could also be that PalWorld is a bigger target because it is kinda like a Mickey Mouse horror film: it runs counter to the brand of Pokemon to have a game where you shoot them with heavy weaponry.
I’m not sure why. TemTem, and a number of smaller projects like it, are basically exact copies of Pokemon and have been around far longer, some with succesfull kickstarter campaigns.
I remember Nintendo being RUTHLESS when people over at GBATemp tried making a smash bros clone for the NDS… For free.
If Temtem is a Pokemon ripoff then Pokemon is a Dragon Quest V ripoff. All these games involve collecting monsters through battle. Can anyone really patent “monster catching RPG?”
There are only two things Dragon Quest V and Pokemon have in common; monster taming through battle and they’re both turn based RPGs.
Have you played or seen TemTem? It’s literally Pokemon in every way, from mechanics, level design, to even how and what kind of moves the Tems can learn.
Nintendo goes after even the smallest infringements, so since they’ve never gone after TemTem it tells me the patent isn’t “monster catching RPG”. It’s more specific than that, and Palworld somehow infringes on it. As of yet we can only guess what the patent is.
I own Temtem. I also love Dragon Quest and its side games. Pokemon was very inspired by those games.
That could track because Nintendo hasn’t gone after Moonstone island either and that uses food / barns to store captured “spirits”.
I’ve never heard of TemTem before and plugging it into Google Trends, it looks like it’s not even comparable to Palworld. It’s still somewhat big, looks like 500,000 copies sold. But still doesn’t really compare to what appears to be nearly 20 million Palworld players.
Companies lose rights to protect their IP if they don’t protect it themselves, so it may be in their best interest to go after the big competitors and pretend they’ve never heard of TemTem.
There is also cassette bests. It just makes it obvious that they fon’t care about their ip or it’s not out of principle, it’s just because someone else made a game that don’t suck and people like, which is something they can not do.
500,000 copies sold is not insignificant. Nintendo fries even the smallest of fish. They’ll literally go out of their way to fuck up someone’s small hobby project only a niche few even care about. So if Nintendo is turning blind eye to a game that copied them in every way one could possibly copy a Pokemon game, then there’s something else going on.
Remember, this is not a copyright case, this is a patent case. Considering Palworld is the only game vaguely similar to Pokemon in some minor ways that I’ve seen use spheres as a catching tool, I’m just (blindly) guessing it MIGHT have something to do with that.
I would love to see a Palworld update that changes the balls to cubes. Same animations and effects, same textures, just stretched over a cube.
And every pal has a badly drawn moustache
Nintendo files suit against a Pocketpair of deez nuts.
Obligatory fuck Nintendo!
Reminder that Nintendo is to Japan as Disney is to the USA.
We can only speculate what patents are involved, might be legit might not but it doesn’t have to be legit and the actual patent they obtained could be nonsense, they have the power to bend someone over a chair because they felt like it.
Also reminder apple managed to patent a rectangle. what countries allow to be patented is often bullshit at best.