Worth noting this is about patent infringement (for example gameplay mechanics) and not copyright (like Pokemon brand). They also don't list these alleged infringements so it's hard to assess how...
Worth noting this is about patent infringement (for example gameplay mechanics) and not copyright (like Pokemon brand). They also don't list these alleged infringements so it's hard to assess how legit this all is. The way Nintendo ends it statement also sounds like they aren't sure either:
Nintendo will continue to take necessary actions against any infringement of its intellectual property rights including the Nintendo brand itself
Either way patents in video games seem to be more of a hindrance than anything else. Like load screen mini games or the nemesis system haven't really seen any use which is to say the patents seem to just block innovation, not protect it.
Although I don't know which specific patent this is in regards to, I think people who are against this type of behavior should be aware of this post from the EFF the other day regarding pieces of...
Although I don't know which specific patent this is in regards to, I think people who are against this type of behavior should be aware of this post from the EFF the other day regarding pieces of legislation working their way through Congress:
The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA, S. 2140) would overturn Alice, enabling patent trolls to extort small business owners and even hobbyists, just for using common software systems to express themselves or run their businesses. PERA would also overturn another 2013 Supreme Court case that prevents most kinds of patenting of human genes.
...the PREVAIL Act (S. 2220) seeks to severely limit how the public can challenge bad patents at the patent office. Challenges like these are one of the most effective ways to throw out patents that never should have been granted in the first place.
I'm in agreement with you; it's a terrible shame that the nemesis system can't be used more widely. I also think that the patent system could use a refresh. But the original concept of patents did...
I'm in agreement with you; it's a terrible shame that the nemesis system can't be used more widely. I also think that the patent system could use a refresh.
But the original concept of patents did promote innovation, insofar as a person had an incentive to come up with an innovation & earn money from it (in an ideal world)
I'm not against patents as a concept, I just think they don't seem to be doing the thing they were designed to do in the context of games. I tried to frame my comment to reflect that.
I'm not against patents as a concept, I just think they don't seem to be doing the thing they were designed to do in the context of games. I tried to frame my comment to reflect that.
the idea of patents came when it described an entire product in and of itself. But games are such a diverse mixture of arts that it's hard to patent it wholesale. So if some small part gets...
the idea of patents came when it described an entire product in and of itself. But games are such a diverse mixture of arts that it's hard to patent it wholesale. So if some small part gets patented, companies just take that part out or tweak around it.
I think a big issue is that companies tend to file most patents, not individuals. It's not as much an issue in Asia, but there's a perverse incentive in the west to hire, exploit, and fire...
I think a big issue is that
companies tend to file most patents, not individuals. It's not as much an issue in Asia, but there's a perverse incentive in the west to hire, exploit, and fire innovation, and not much protection for the proper individuals
patents aren't really use based. The Nemesis system is a perfect example. They used it for one game, AFAIK, and never again. But they keep others from using it at all, since one single feature isn't really enough to have other developers ask for a license. No one really wins here since innovation isn't really spreading. Just under a lock and key.
there's tons of loopholes, but I think ways to fix this in spirit include tying patents to individuals involved in making the concept (which cannot be instantly claimed by an employer, they need to make licensing deals like every other 3rd party company) and have renewal terms be based on actual plans of use, not "well maybe we'll try to use it in a decade".
I hope they lose. Nintendo is hyper litigious to the detriment of everyone else, and the Pokemon Company needed this kick in the rear to get them to realise that they've been resting on their...
I hope they lose. Nintendo is hyper litigious to the detriment of everyone else, and the Pokemon Company needed this kick in the rear to get them to realise that they've been resting on their laurels a bit too much.
well their laurels are the biggest media franchise of all time. They could probably lose and payout on 10 lawsuits and still keep the course (But sales and demographics are a whole other...
well their laurels are the biggest media franchise of all time. They could probably lose and payout on 10 lawsuits and still keep the course (But sales and demographics are a whole other discussion).
It was odd to not disclose the actual patens broken though:
We will refrain from commenting on topics that relate to the content of the lawsuit."
Japanese gamers suspect the lawsuit is related to a patent on how to capture monsters in the way Legends Arceus did. If true, it sure is a stretch of a suit for this small time developer.
Yes, and to my point, that semi-open world Pokemon game was limiting and awful. Their latest entries in the main series are mediocre and not very innovative either, I suppose you can fault Game...
well their laurels are the biggest media franchise of all time
Yes, and to my point, that semi-open world Pokemon game was limiting and awful. Their latest entries in the main series are mediocre and not very innovative either, I suppose you can fault Game Freak for that, but if they're going to meddle with videogames like Palworld I'm going to lump the overarching company into this argument too.
They're not actively improving or innovating, and targeting others that do, which makes "resting on their laurels" fairly apt.
Strong agree. I lost interest in Pokemon games because I felt the grind wasn't worth it anymore (and I have less time to play grindy games now than I did as a kid). But the reality is that those...
Their latest entries in the main series are mediocre and not very innovative either
Strong agree. I lost interest in Pokemon games because I felt the grind wasn't worth it anymore (and I have less time to play grindy games now than I did as a kid).
But the reality is that those games print money. Basically just refresh the art and come up with a slightly different story that still follows the old formula, and proceed to make absurd profit because it's Pokémon. Sure, a lot of the sales go to people purchasing it for kids, but there's still plenty of adults who will complain about the lack of innovation yet buy every new entry.
Not just that, I don't like to think about how this would affect the indie gaming scene. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine this would set a precedent for genre spin offs.
Not just that, I don't like to think about how this would affect the indie gaming scene. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine this would set a precedent for genre spin offs.
The Japanese legal system, where this suit is taking place, is different from that of the US, and is not based on English Common Law. I'm not entirely sure precedent matters that much there. (Nor...
The Japanese legal system, where this suit is taking place, is different from that of the US, and is not based on English Common Law. I'm not entirely sure precedent matters that much there. (Nor do I pretend to know anything about it.)
Copyright law is also stricter there, and I believe can have criminal implications in some cases. I suspect Nintendo has a very good chance of burying them, given the schtick seems to be very much along the lines of "Pokemon but with X and Y." (Oops, Pokemon X and Y is already a thing...) All of the discourse I've seen surrounding the game has been heavily comparing it to Pokemon, and the similarity of some of the not-Pokemons' designs (I.e. how derivative they could be considered).
Not a lawyer, but it looks like you could make a case out of it. I think the original patent is overly broad and claims a mechanic that's already been in the wild, but not my call.
Here is the Twitter link and I updated the patent link, with hopefully working authorization: https://x.com/stephentotilo/status/1836754369334632467
Here is the Twitter link and I updated the patent link, with hopefully working authorization:
If I'm reading this correctly, here is a Nintendo patent from 2021 for a video game character throwing an item to catch a monster while out in the field https://t.co/7Dvicj2lnchttps://t.co/rM6Ak45K0k
I don't know about broad, but I would describe it as an obvious evolution of the idea "catching monsters within a ball". But they didn't manage to patent that?
I don't know about broad, but I would describe it as an obvious evolution of the idea "catching monsters within a ball". But they didn't manage to patent that?
Worth noting this is about patent infringement (for example gameplay mechanics) and not copyright (like Pokemon brand). They also don't list these alleged infringements so it's hard to assess how legit this all is. The way Nintendo ends it statement also sounds like they aren't sure either:
Either way patents in video games seem to be more of a hindrance than anything else. Like load screen mini games or the nemesis system haven't really seen any use which is to say the patents seem to just block innovation, not protect it.
Although I don't know which specific patent this is in regards to, I think people who are against this type of behavior should be aware of this post from the EFF the other day regarding pieces of legislation working their way through Congress:
I'm in agreement with you; it's a terrible shame that the nemesis system can't be used more widely. I also think that the patent system could use a refresh.
But the original concept of patents did promote innovation, insofar as a person had an incentive to come up with an innovation & earn money from it (in an ideal world)
I'm not against patents as a concept, I just think they don't seem to be doing the thing they were designed to do in the context of games. I tried to frame my comment to reflect that.
the idea of patents came when it described an entire product in and of itself. But games are such a diverse mixture of arts that it's hard to patent it wholesale. So if some small part gets patented, companies just take that part out or tweak around it.
I think a big issue is that
companies tend to file most patents, not individuals. It's not as much an issue in Asia, but there's a perverse incentive in the west to hire, exploit, and fire innovation, and not much protection for the proper individuals
patents aren't really use based. The Nemesis system is a perfect example. They used it for one game, AFAIK, and never again. But they keep others from using it at all, since one single feature isn't really enough to have other developers ask for a license. No one really wins here since innovation isn't really spreading. Just under a lock and key.
there's tons of loopholes, but I think ways to fix this in spirit include tying patents to individuals involved in making the concept (which cannot be instantly claimed by an employer, they need to make licensing deals like every other 3rd party company) and have renewal terms be based on actual plans of use, not "well maybe we'll try to use it in a decade".
I hope they lose. Nintendo is hyper litigious to the detriment of everyone else, and the Pokemon Company needed this kick in the rear to get them to realise that they've been resting on their laurels a bit too much.
well their laurels are the biggest media franchise of all time. They could probably lose and payout on 10 lawsuits and still keep the course (But sales and demographics are a whole other discussion).
It was odd to not disclose the actual patens broken though:
Japanese gamers suspect the lawsuit is related to a patent on how to capture monsters in the way Legends Arceus did. If true, it sure is a stretch of a suit for this small time developer.
Yes, and to my point, that semi-open world Pokemon game was limiting and awful. Their latest entries in the main series are mediocre and not very innovative either, I suppose you can fault Game Freak for that, but if they're going to meddle with videogames like Palworld I'm going to lump the overarching company into this argument too.
They're not actively improving or innovating, and targeting others that do, which makes "resting on their laurels" fairly apt.
Strong agree. I lost interest in Pokemon games because I felt the grind wasn't worth it anymore (and I have less time to play grindy games now than I did as a kid).
But the reality is that those games print money. Basically just refresh the art and come up with a slightly different story that still follows the old formula, and proceed to make absurd profit because it's Pokémon. Sure, a lot of the sales go to people purchasing it for kids, but there's still plenty of adults who will complain about the lack of innovation yet buy every new entry.
Not just that, I don't like to think about how this would affect the indie gaming scene. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine this would set a precedent for genre spin offs.
The Japanese legal system, where this suit is taking place, is different from that of the US, and is not based on English Common Law. I'm not entirely sure precedent matters that much there. (Nor do I pretend to know anything about it.)
Copyright law is also stricter there, and I believe can have criminal implications in some cases. I suspect Nintendo has a very good chance of burying them, given the schtick seems to be very much along the lines of "Pokemon but with X and Y." (Oops, Pokemon X and Y is already a thing...) All of the discourse I've seen surrounding the game has been heavily comparing it to Pokemon, and the similarity of some of the not-Pokemons' designs (I.e. how derivative they could be considered).
This comes from Stephen Totilo, and it appears to be the patent in question.
https://ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadBasicPdf/20230191255?requestToken=eyJzdWIiOiI3NzQyMDE2MC05M2I1LTRkMTEtYWRhYi0xNjE2MmFkM2FlMDkiLCJ2ZXIiOiIzODExMjdiZS01MWYyLTRlNzYtYWNiZS0yMWY3MmEzMDM5ZjciLCJleHAiOjB9
Not a lawyer, but it looks like you could make a case out of it. I think the original patent is overly broad and claims a mechanic that's already been in the wild, but not my call.
They patented: { "message": "Too many requests" }
!?
Here is the Twitter link and I updated the patent link, with hopefully working authorization:
https://x.com/stephentotilo/status/1836754369334632467
Wow, so they are kinda patenting a digital lasso (pokeball) that responds to button inputs. Seems kinda broad.
I don't know about broad, but I would describe it as an obvious evolution of the idea "catching monsters within a ball". But they didn't manage to patent that?
Nitpick: patents are IP. It's not a copyright infringement lawsuit, but it absolutely is an IP lawsuit.