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

PC Gaming

8395 readers
509 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

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

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
160
Nintendo Patent Approved in August Could Be What It Uses Against Palworld (gamerant.com)
submitted 3 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
49 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 182 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 121 points 3 weeks 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

[–] [email protected] 71 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 3 weeks 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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago

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

This does not make sense to me.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 3 weeks 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.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 weeks 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