• Prethoryn Overmind@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Seeing a lot of comments on here and it just reminds me of what I have been telling my friends since day one.

    1. PalWorld is a threat to Pokemon. It has potential to crown Pokemon in a different way and really compete. Nintendo will 100% find a way. I told them and told them. I said the same thing on Reddit. Sure enough, downvoted.

    2. I love Pokemon, I love Zelda, and Mario but I absolutely love competition. There is no way a billion dollar franchise, multi level marketing, insanept popular game series is going to let something come along and compete against it. If you haven’t watched The Boys on Amazon you are missing out. One of the most redeeming characters, IMO, says it best in two sentences in the boys in one whole episode and it is the premise of everything. "You don’t get it do you? You don’t mess with the money.

    3. I love seeing games come along and bring something new to the table because it should drive Nintendo to do better for GameFreak to do better. I liked PalWorld and welcomed it as someone who loves Pokemon. While PalWorld didn’t maintain my interest its because Pokemon just does something for me PalWorld doesn’t. However, that being said I have found my self turned away from Pokemon since Gen 7 and 8 semi redeemed 7 and 9 is just sad (performance wise). I have found my self playing the hell out of tjr classic Pokémon games. Point being I welcomed PalWorld in hopes that it would light a fire under Nintendo’s ass to develop a really good next gen Pokemon game. It was wishful thinking though. Nintendo is a “don’t mess with the money” company and that is all it is. Fuck Nintendo. PalWorld was good for the game industry. What Nintendo is going to try to set precedence on is that you can own an idea a simple concept.

    I have been telling my friends for literal fucking years and for some reason they just swing the bat for Nintendo. Nintendo makes some great games but holy fuck they are a shit company. They just are. I told them over and over this was coming Nintendo would find something and now here we are.

    I sent this too them and they all got silent. They genuinely believed Nintendo couldn’t and wouldn’t.

    • kaffiene@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Well arguably they can’t legally but… Bludgeoning people with lawyers regardless of legality is pretty standard big business behaviour

  • Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    3 hours ago

    I mean, Nintendo isn’t typically the bad guy though, right? And palworld is a pretty clear like 1:1 rip, so…

    I mean, good to challenge the “big” guy generally, but wrong target here specifically and weak case, right?

    • Traister101@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      3 hours ago

      What parallel universe did you come from? Nintendo is like the company known to be a bad guy when it comes to IP lawsuits. They went after a Smash Bros tournament for emulating a game they literally don’t sell anymore for a console they also no longer produce.

  • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    “Multiple patents”

    Specifies none

    Off to a great start, I see. I know that actual game mechanics cannot be patented or copyrighted (the same principle applies to non digital games), so I’m really curious to what these patents are.

    • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      7 hours ago

      I know that actual game mechanics cannot be patented or copyrighted

      In America, sure. But these are two Japanese companies…

      I’m not an expert on Japanese copyright and patent law, but I don’t have a great outlook for Palworld.

    • sandbox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      You’ve mixed copyright and patents together and confused yourself a bit. Game mechanics cannot be copyrighted, but they can be patented. Some game component designs can be copyrighted as well, and even trademarked.

      There are many, many, many game mechanics and features which have been patented, such as in-game chat, minigames on loading screens, arrow pointing to destination, and so on. Game studios have to license those features from the patent holders if they wish to use them.

      Some random company even owns a patent for the concept of sending and receiving email on a mobile device. The entire system is a fucking joke.

    • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      Someone linked a list of all the patents Pokemon Company specifically holds and the very first one was “creature breeding based on good sleep habits.”

      1. How does that even get a patent?
      2. What the fuck iteration of Pokemon requires you to have good sleep habits to breed your pokemon? 🤨
      3. Does it actually help you sleep? 🤔 I might need to start breeding pokemon…
    • Charzard4261@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Game mechanics can be patented. It’s stupid, but things such as “loading screen mini games” and “overhead arrows pointing to your objective” have been patented. The second I believe even got enforced once.

      I think these kind of things have been getting approved less and less, but I wouldn’t be surprised if “balls that contain monsters” was patented back in the early days too.

      • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        The game during loading screen isn’t a “game mechanic” per se, which is why I think it was patented back then. Completely ass backwards that it could be patented, but there’s that.

        As for the overhead arrow for navigation, I wasn’t aware of that one. Was that from EA? I think it can be argued that’s not a “game mechanic” either, because it’s not “an essential component of the game”

        • greenskye@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 hours ago

          It was crazy taxi and no other game could use the mechanic. And telling you where to go is pretty darn important to a lot of games

    • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      “Method for releasing 927 iterations of the same stale game across multiple platform generations.”

      It can’t possibly be for “Method of splitting one complete game into two mutually exclusive cartridges with separate rosters to entice whales to buy two copies,” because if it were they’d have already sued Capcom 15 years ago.

  • irotsoma@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Patenting things like this that are obviously unpatentable ideas rather than actual inventions is unfortunately a necessity for defensive purposes in a world where companies will do anything in order to kill competition except risk competing with them since that isn’t guaranteed by throwing money at it. Enforcing a bunch of patents against a company with fewer liquid assets is a guaranteed way to beat a competitor with money alone since winning the suit isn’t the goal, only draining the assets of the competitor. Sucks that this is considered a valid business practice now.

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Oh shit here we go again with your rectangle looks too much like my rectangle.

  • Buttons@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    Patents and video games huh? We can’t ignore what John Carmack had to say about this:

    The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.

    –John Carmack

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      More like he wouldn’t be able to sell his solution to others, but yeah I think Patents on simple processes and mechanisms are dumb, especially certain software and firmware.

      • BigPotato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Imagine if you had a hammer and decided to use it to hit a nail and then someone came along and said “I see you’re using my method to build a house! Pay up!”

        Well, you can’t patent something like that!

        Imagine you open up a game engine, any engine, and decide you need to point to an objective so you decide to use an arrow. A game company says “You’re using our method to identify objectives! Pay up!” and that one is a unique mechanic?

        How long has humanity been using arrows to point to things? How can you patent it just because it’s a digital arrow?

            • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              7 hours ago

              No, the very premise of that user’s analogy is that he isn’t profiting from it. If somebody invented hammering nails literally this year and a company came in selling it as a product without permission, then it would be comparable. It reads as if he failed to read my comment entirely but still replied with multiple paragraphs.

              The game development analogy is better, floating arrows about characters heads was actually patented, but it was widely criticized and it expired in 2019. Plus I already took offense to simple mechanisms and especially certain software and firmware solutions.

              • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                7 hours ago

                A patient on hitting a nail with hammer is ridiculous if it’s your framing or theirs.

                • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  7 hours ago

                  Countless buildings would never be built if you didnt invent hammer and nails, being paid royalties for a few years by large businesses who make use of it seems pretty fair.

    • Cock_Inspecting_Asexual@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      > The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.

      Thats essentially what both an AI does and what ChatGBT does. Are you gonna defend that to?? Just dont take credit for shit someone else made, who cares if its Nintendo. I don’t want my game sprites altered and then sold as though whoever altered them made them by hand

      I was mislead about what the lawsuit was about and Im retracting all my statements thank you :’ )

      • Veneroso@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        12 hours ago

        My cock is not inspired after reading this bad take.

        John Carmack is human intelligence and therefore more valuable than artificially generated drivel.

        -edit- I mistook inspecting for inspiring for your name. I’m leaving it.

        • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 hours ago

          John Carmack is human intelligence

          [X] Doubt

          John Carmack is many things, but I have my doubts about whether human is one of them. At minimum, he’s some kind of alien. Most days I lean more toward incognito archdevil of the plane of knowledge. I’ve heard someone accuse him of being God, or at least standing in for him on Wednesdays.

        • Cock_Inspecting_Asexual@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          I never said John is an AI. But there are steps Palworld coulda taken to avoid the inevitable. If anything its just sad they did nothing to prevent this. I can see why thousands of people like it a fuckton. But they did nothing to actually avoid this from happening.

          • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 hours ago

            The whole game was intended from the very beginning to thumb their nose at Nintendo, just so happens that it got really popular and sold a ton of copies because it isn’t difficult to make a better Pokémon game than The Pokémon Company does, even when the entire game in question is a shitpost.

            • Cock_Inspecting_Asexual@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              8 hours ago

              Im not about to sit here and tout the game that gives Lugia a gun as a game better than Pokemon, fuck no 😭😭😭

              I’ve changed my statements (see above) about the lawsuit but this game is DEADASS just a higher quality newgrounds game similar to “Mario with a gun/bazooka/truck”

              A shitpost is a better way to describe this. I simply refuse to look past the quirky, cartoony, 3d monsters HOLDING WHOLE ASS GLOCKS n RIFLES, to suspend my disbelief just enough to enjoy whatever this game has to offer. It hits these levels of Uncanniness with me that I severely dont like and bothers me for whatever reason.

              • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 hours ago

                And that’s fine, different strokes and all. I personally find it highly goddamn hilarious and enjoy playing it with my gaming group. I just think it’s a little disingenuous to say “palworld devs did nothing to prevent this, sad” when the whole original concept was basically designed around parodying Pokémon. They knew what they were doing.

  • Harvey656@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Pocketpair is a Japanese company too right? That doesn’t bode well, Japan has some shit laws for defending these sorts of lawsuits. I really like palworld, and don’t want it to go away. Fuck Nintendo.

  • moonleay@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago
    >Open Thread
    >People shitting on Nintendo, because fuck Nintendo
    >Nobody actually looked at the 1:1 model comparisons
    >Nobody actually looked into PocketPair as a company
    
    Jeez. I thought we were better then Reddit. 
    

    That being said, I don’t like Nintendo & their Ninjas, but PocketPair is not innocent here.

    This is not their only ripoff. For their next project, they choose to ripoff Hollow Knight. (At least they are consistent I guess?).

    They also abandoned an unfinished early access game (This game is 4 years into Early Access).

    Their CEO is also a crypto bro and said himself that he does not necessarily care about originality, if it means, that he can reach more people (and by extension earn more money).

    Just to name a few.

    • Spaceballstheusername@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      My opinion for what it’s worth is generally no one is going to not play hollow knight because they are playing the ripoff. You can’t own a style or game genre if someone has a similar look and feel there’s not much you can do about it than have a better game.

    • IzzyScissor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Didn’t the guy who originally posted the “1:1 model comparisons” later admit that he stretched and scaled the models to fit better?

      It’s derivative, but not a ripoff.

  • Cock_Inspecting_Asexual@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    It shocks me just the amount of people rallying behind Palworld SOLEY just to “stick it to the big corp”

    At worse its blind rage and ignorance

    edit: watch me get pelted with downvotes.

    I was wrong and I will take my L for it✌

    • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

      IDGAF about Palworld as a game, personally. I’ve never played it and I don’t plan to. But that doesn’t make Nintendo’s behavior not bullshit, and I still hope the Palworld developers win this battle.

      • pkmkdz@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Your wall of text doesn’t make sense, contradicts itself and mixes up cases. PocketPair was sued for patent infringement, not intelectual property. If they did commit intelectual property / copyright infringement, you bet they’d be sued before even releasing the game.

        That being said, this angry wall of text implies that you might need help with mental health. I’m sure there is a beautiful human being underneath all that, so please, consider talking to therapist.

        • Cock_Inspecting_Asexual@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 hours ago

          Did I not already just say that I admitted to being wrong beforehand???

          And of course I got mental health issues you dipstick IM AUTISTIC lmfao. I’m not finna hide that fact either. I’ll admit when I’m wrong and be done with it! Id appreciate you not bringing my mental health into this shit thanks✌ I cant always control what I do but owning up to my mistakes is the best I can do. You playing me off like I need therapy is a shit move.

      • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        How much is Nintendo paying you to be their mouth piece?

        Have you seen the kind of patents Nintendo are trying to get?

        Here is an example :

        Publication number: 20240286040 Abstract: In an example of a game program, a ground boarding target object or an air boarding target object is selected by a selection operation, and a player character is caused to board the selected boarding target object. If the player character aboard the air boarding target object moves toward the ground, the player character is automatically changed to the state where the player character is aboard the ground boarding target object, and brought into the state where the player character can move on the ground.

        You can check them out for yourself

        patents assigned to the pokemon company

        So calm the fuck down with your chatGPT which is a whole different situation.

        • Cock_Inspecting_Asexual@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          9 hours ago

          Bitch I pirate all my nintendo games wtf are you on 😭😭😭

          Their sueing in Patents. Not how similar it looks.

          I dont see this as any different than ChatGBT generating me an essay similar to one that already exists, the only difference is it changed some of it. Thats plagiarism(if not then its just wrong).

          Theres even proof of them using THEIR MODELS and altering them. You cant do that shit without being transparent about it. How hard is that to grasp

          Ignore this and read the edited post. thank you.

          • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 hours ago

            What do you think I linked dipshit?

            With ridiculous patent like that, Nintendo could sue pretty much any companies.

            ChatGPT is scraping copyrighted material, not patents.

            Nintendo is suing for patent infringement.

        • Cock_Inspecting_Asexual@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Why tf would you even say that, everybody deserve the right to own some shit bruh. I fuck with fangames n all that but stealing assets and profiting from them with no consent is fucked.

  • Franklin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    20 hours ago

    It’s still identifiably distinct, I really hope Nintendo lose because allowing copyright of a concecpt is dystopian especially in the context of our lengthy time frames for copyright.

    It reminds me of when Apple wanted to patent the idea of rounded corners.

    • simple@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      20 hours ago

      It’s not even copyright, they’re suing for using things they patented, but their patents are extremely general. I kid you not, they have a patent for MOUNTING CREATURES, something hundreds of games have done.

      Abstract: In an example of a game program, a ground boarding target object or an air boarding target objects is selected by a selection operation, and a player character is caused to board the selected boarding target object. If the player character aboard the air boarding target object moves toward the ground player character automatically changed to the state where the player character is aboard the ground boarding target object, and brought into the state where the player character can move on the ground.

      I’m no lawyer so I can’t tell you how well this would hold up in court but it’s ridiculous. See more: https://patents.justia.com/assignee/the-pokemon-company

      • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        17 hours ago

        It’s a little more specific, I think the patent is about:

        • mounting either an air or ground mount
        • when riding the air mount, going close to the ground transforms it into the ground mount and you keep riding it

        But that’s still something multiple games have done in some way I think.

      • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        20 hours ago

        I am positive prior art could be claimed for most if not all of those. Square Enix could cry afoul of the “mounting creatures” one as well as I’m sure many, many other earlier games on a plethora of platforms.

        You could mount and ride Chocobos in Final Fantasy 2, i.e. the real “2,” the JDM only one on Famicom, which was released in 1988. The aforementioned patent was only filed on Nintendo’s part in 2024.

        They can, to use a technical legal term, get fucked.

        • Pennomi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          19 hours ago

          Yes but it’s fucking expensive to invalidate a patent. Possibly in the millions of dollars. That’s how patent trolls succeed - it’s far cheaper to own a bad patent than to fight one.

        • Cypher@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Blizzard should be paying attention to this, as it perfectly describes their flying mounts.

          I really hope Nintendo just picked a fight with Blizzard/Microsoft lol

          • A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 hours ago

            Bullies tend to pick victims who can’t fight back too effectively, so I doubt they’d go after Microsoft.

            All the big tech companies have a bunch of vague patents than in a just world would never exist, and they seldom go after each other, because they know then they’ll be hit with a counter-suit alleging they violate multiple patents too, and in the end everyone except the lawyers will be worse off. It’s sort of like mutually assured destruction. They don’t generally preemptively invalidate each other’s patents, so if Microsoft is not a party to the suit, they’ll likely stay out of it entirely.

            However, newer and smaller companies are less likely to be able to counter-sue as effectively, so if they pose a threat of taking revenue from the big companies (e.g. by launching on competitor platforms only), they are ripe targets for patent-based harassment.

            • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 hours ago

              While Microsoft is not a target right now, if that patent for ground-flying mounts is used (which I doubt it will, given it’s too recent and widely used by older games), Palworld can just point at World of Warcraft Burning Crusade as prior art and it suddenly becomes MS vs Nintendo.

      • troed@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        20 hours ago

        IANAL - but I’ve worked for Big Company and have gone through the patent process a few times. A patent isn’t what’s written in the supporting text and abstract. It’s only the exact thing written out in the claims.

        First claim from the patent the abstract is from:

        1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a game program causing a computer of an information processing apparatus to provide execution comprising:

          controlling a player character in a virtual space based on a first operation input;

          in association with selecting, based on a selection operation, a boarding object that the player character can board and providing a boarding instruction, causing the player character to board the boarding object and bringing the player character into a state where the player character can move, wherein the boarding object is selected among a plurality of types of objects that the player character owns;

          in association with providing a second operation input when the player character is in the air, causing the player character to board an air boarding object and bringing the player character into a state where the player character can move in the air; and

          while the player character is aboard the air boarding object, moving the player character, aboard the air boarding object, in the air based on a third operation input.

        Exactly everything described above must be done in that exact same way for there to be an infringement.

        • TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Which sounds like mount selection based on if onland==True: landmountlist, else: airmountlist. ??? Can you really patent “I used an if statement to change what the mount button does based on a condition”

          Boy, better fucking patent that fucking pure genius there’s no way anyone could program that without having copied us.

          Like I fucking hope I misread that.

          • troed@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            All of the statements in the claim need to be fulfilled - so while that if looks correct it’s only a very small part of the actions described. Example:

            in association with selecting, based on a selection operation,[…], wherein the boarding object is selected among a plurality of types of objects that the player character owns;

        • Petter1@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          13 hours ago

          That seems a bit more easy to get around. It is still crazy to think that you have to check your whole game design against that many patents 😅

          • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            13 hours ago

            it’s stupid. I’m convinced that people who oversee software patents don’t even know what’s a computer.

            • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 hours ago

              More than likely.
              And then you have people like Albert Einstein that worked in the patent office.
              (Obviously not software)

    • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      20 hours ago

      They are being sued for patent infringement not copyright violations, which is extra weird.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        17 hours ago

        What’s weird about it? AFAICT, Palworld doesn’t violate Nintendo copyright in any meaningful sense, though it might violate Nintendo’s patent claims.

        That said, this lawsuit seems really late, and I wonder if that’ll factor into the decision at all (i.e. if it was close, the judge/jury might take the lack of action by Nintendo as evidence of them just looking for money).

        • Doomsider@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          It is all known as intellectual property. This covers copyright, trademarks, and patents all with the same concept of creating artificial scarcity to ensure profits.

  • PenisDuckCuck9001@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    Fuck Nintendo. I think Palworld is a stupid game that I wouldn’t ever bother to play but Nintendo is pure evil and they NEED to lose. They do not deserve a monopoly on whatever type of genre that is.

    • Summzashi@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      This isn’t about copyright. Is there anybody here that has actually read the article? It’s absolutely insane how everyone just opens their mouths without understanding anything.

      • blazera@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Consider it a catch all term for “copying intellectual property”. Patents, copyrights, trademarks, its different words for the same idea.

    • pjwestin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      13 hours ago

      No, Copyright exists to protect creators. It’s just been perverted and abused by the wealthy so that they can indefinitely retain IP. Disney holding on to an IP for 70 years after an author dies is messed up, but Disney taking your art and selling it to a mass audience without giving you a dime is worse.

      • Doomsider@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Copyright cannot protect 99% of creators because enforcing it takes enormous amounts of time and money. This isn’t really a big deal though because 99% of people who create don’t need these supposed protections.

        That’s right, the amount of writing, art, and music that is created for non-commercial purposes dwarfs what is created for profit.

        Your last tidbit is highly accurate. Big business almost exclusively uses copyright to control others work to the detriment of society.

        • ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Anyone who creates anything? If not for copyright Steam would be a sea of games named Undertale Stardew Valley Elsa Spider-Man

          • Doomsider@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 hours ago

            You would deprive everyone of the joy of playing this game mashup!?

            I know you are joking, but honestly we would have a lot better games if we were allowed to openly borrow and build off of other concepts including characters and storylines.

            Simply put commercial interests don’t produce the best games. Instead of innovative gameplay we get loot boxes and micro transactions.

            A great example of this is Pokemon. You know damn well that fans could make a better Pokemon game than Nintendo ever could.

        • pjwestin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Literally everyone who’s ever written a book, recorded a song, painted a painting, or created any other artwork.

          • blazera@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            8 hours ago

            Books and song rights go to the publisher. Graphic artists generally dont own their art they make money from, I.E. illustrations or concept art for various things like shows, movies, games.

            • pjwestin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 hours ago

              First of all, no, publishers don’t necessarily own the copyright. Most authors do a licensing deal with a publisher, but they retain the copyright to their work. My understanding is that music industry contracts vary a lot more, since music is usually more collaborative, but lots of artists still own the rights to their songs. But even if that were true, artists being forced to sell their rights to cooperations isn’t an issue with copyright, it’s an issue with capitalism. It’s like blaming America’s shitty healthcare on doctors instead of a for-profit system controlled by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

        • nomous@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Holy fuck I see some stupid takes posted here but this might be the stupidest.

    • Ragincloo@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Idk about that, maybe indefinite copyrights would be but limited term is entirely fair. Like imagine you spend 5 years and $50M to develop something (random numbers here), then the next day someone just copies it and sells it cheaper since they had no overhead in copying your product. There’s no incentive to create if all it does is put you in debt, so we do need copyrights if we want things. However Pokemon came out in 96, that’s 28 years. There’s been very little innovation in their games since. And seeing as Digimon wasn’t sued it’s not about the monsters, it’s about the balls. But those balls haven’t changed in almost three decades so I don’t think the really have a case to complain

      • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        The problem is that IP laws eventually are lobbied by the big copyright holders into being excessively long. How long did Steamboat Willie really have to be copyrighted for, and has their release into the public domain really affected Disney?

        Eventually after you get back the money you invested, it’s just free money, and people like free money so much they pay lawyers and lobbyists that free money so that they can keep it coming.

      • Syrc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        However Pokemon came out in 96, that’s 28 years. There’s been very little innovation in their games since.

        First, not really, there’s been a LOT of innovation in Pokémon, as much as people want to deny it.

        And second, 28 years is really not that much. We’re not in the Disney realm of copyright-hogging, I think 50 years is a fair amount of time. The issue is that it’s often way too broad: it should protect only extremely blatant copies (i.e. the guy who literally rereleased Pokémon Yellow as a mobile game), not concepts or general mechanics. Palworld has a completely different gameplay from any Pokémon game so far, and (most of) the creatures are distinct enough. That should suffice to make it rightfully exist (maybe removing the 4/5 Pals that are absolute ripoffs, sure).

        • Petter1@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 hours ago

          I think 50 is generally too much, but I think it should depend on categories, so that it is based upon the efforts put into an idea to create and how much it value (like in expected ROI).

          I fear, that is hard to define

          • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            As an artist 20-50 depending on context is where I’m hovering. It is very hard to define.

        • Teils13@lemmy.eco.br
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          13 hours ago

          50 years is already excessive, dude or dudette. The north american law originally gave 14 years, plus another 14 years if the creators actively sought after and were approved (most did not even ask, and approval was not guaranteed). This is comparable time to patents, which serve the exact same function, but without the absurd time scales (Imagine if Computers were still a private tech of IBM … those sweet mainframes the size of a room). 28 years, or lets put 30 years fixed at once, is more than sufficient time for making profit for the quasi totality of IPs that would make a profit (and creators can invest the money received to gain more, or have 30 years to think of something else). 30 years ago was 1994, think of everything the Star Wars prequels have sold, now remeber the 1st film was from 1999, would star wars prequels ventures really suffer if they started losing the IP from 2029 onwards ?

        • pjwestin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          13 hours ago

          I agree with you almost entirely, but if we’re being honest, there really hasn’t been a lot of innovation in their games since Gen 4, and that was almost 20 years ago. Once they figured out the physical/special split, nothing really changed in the major mechanics. They have a new gimmick mechanic every game, like Z-Moves or Dynamax, but they’re always dropped by the next game. I guess camping/picnics are evolving into a new feature, but that’s about it.

          • Syrc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 hours ago

            If we’re talking PvP, battling has constantly evolved through new abilities, even without gimmicks the way the game is played changed a lot through the years.

            In single player they also changed a lot of stuff since gen 4, although the positive changes were mostly in gen 5/6 and the later ones like wild areas and the switch to “””open world””” were… not as well received.

            • pjwestin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 hours ago

              Well, I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. To me, most of the updates have been set dressing, not significant changes to the formula or gameplay. But I guess that’s a matter of opinion, not fact.

      • BaldManGoomba@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 hours ago

        How about no. Let people create if your only incentive is money fuck you. If someone spent $50 million to develop something the labor has been paid. You will be first to the market and you can make money if your invention isn’t that unique oh well.

        • Womble@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 hours ago

          Thats a great way to make companies spend 0 on r&d that has longterm benefits and instead focus on squeezing out every penny from current assets.

          • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            14 hours ago

            Want to make something, the people eho want it pay to make it happen, once it’s done and paid for, it belongs to everyone. I rather live in the star citizen dystopia than the Disney vampire dystopia.

            Making an unlimited reproducible resource artificially scarce for 160 years is really fucking evil parasiticism.

            • Womble@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              I dont think anyone here thinks that the ridiculous terms on current IP laws make sense (at least I havent seen anyone defending them), but there is a big difference between a short term of 5-10 years for you to get the earned benefits of an innovation you created and zero protection where a larger more well funded company can swoop in copy your invention and bury you in marketing so they get the reward.

  • ozoned@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Welp, I had no plans of buying Palworld. I’ve been playing Enshrouded instead. But I’ll be picking it up now. Screw you Nintendo and your anticompetitive ways.