• bitwolf
    link
    fedilink
    51 hour ago

    Rooting for Palworld devs, I can think of several examples of prior art.

  • @towerful@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    207 hours ago

    Worth reading the article, but for the TL:drs and comment readers:

    • A patent attorney has narrowed down the list of potential candidates that could be central to Nintendo’s lawsuit against Palworld developer Pocketpair to 28 patents.
    • Out of those, one particular intellectual property describing creature-capture mechanics was labeled as a “killer patent” that would be difficult not to infringe when making a game with monster-taming elements.
    • The said property is part of a recently approved patent family consisting of three more patents, all of which were approved mere weeks before Nintendo and The Pokemon Company sued Pocketpair.
  • @KoboldCoterie
    link
    10311 hours ago

    This patent was first submitted in late July 2024 and granted the following month, after Nintendo and The Pokemon Company asked for an accelerated review process.

    What the fuck - so, they’re claiming infringement on a work that was released before they ever submitted their patent? How is that allowed? Are you telling me a company can wait until another company releases a similar product, then apply for a patent for something they used, then claim infringement? I knew patents were fucked, but I didn’t realize they were that fucked.

    • @Die4Ever@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      65 hours ago

      yea that sounds nasty

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

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

    • @ripcord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      126 hours ago

      Not in tbe US it’s not.

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

    • @EddoWagt@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      7111 hours ago

      How is that allowed?

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

    • @irish_link@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      4011 hours ago

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

      • sunzu2
        link
        fedilink
        1810 hours ago

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

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

  • recursive_recursion [they/them]
    link
    fedilink
    5011 hours ago

    Nintendo’s stagnated and has become a patent troll

    as someone that used to be a fan I’m sad as it’s hard to be hyped for any of their games when they’re widely known for pulling these kinds of scummy tactics time and time again

    indies be dammed, it’s too much of a risk to make Nintendo-inspired games let alone direct fan-games

  • Stern
    link
    fedilink
    2111 hours ago

    Does JP patent law not allow for prior art?

  • luciole (he/him)
    link
    fedilink
    29 hours ago

    Ugh, the suspense… When will we even get to know what the accusations are about? Is this Japan or Kafka’s Trial?