- cross-posted to:
- pcgaming@lemmy.ca
- cross-posted to:
- pcgaming@lemmy.ca
You must log in or register to comment.
Game mechanics should not be patentable, change my mind.
How the hell can one have patent of ‘catching a creature through aiming’ or even more crazy to me ‘riding a creature’ in games? Both concepts exist in so many games and even in real life. I mean did Nintendo never hear of horses?
Riding a creature. “Daggerfall” had ride-able horses. That’s the oldest example I can think off. But there’s probably something even older than that.
Greed. Simple as that. They only care for money. And they used to get a pass because they made good games. Not anymore.
suing over an amended patent is utter bullshit. get fucked nintendo.
They tried to make video game rentals illegal in the US. They’ve always been a shitty, anti-consumer company.
I used to love Nintendo but I’m done with their litigious bullshit
I still love their games and franchises, but damn I hate them as a company
They’ve lost much of their innovation over the years. They have forgotten one of the core concepts of marketing to kids and that’s that the parents have to approve of the product. Many parents these days are Nintendo fans so we can smell bullshit when we see it.
I loved them but Nintendo’s overzealous attacks on hobbyists and indie devs has killed any enjoyment I had left. For a while there I thought they might’ve turned the page on that, but sadly I was mistaken.
Also, stick drift.
Plus Steam Deck is infinitely better.
My lay understanding was that patents were invalidated if prior art could be found before the application date?
If that was true then no patent Nintendo applied for after palwold demonstrated its use of a technique would hold water. This demonstration would be easy to verify as occurring at the time of release of preview videos, the games release, content patches, etc
So I must be wrong if they think JP7545191B1 might be the one.
That’s probably true in normal countries. Japanese patent office is… Less than normal if these things can happen.
I’ve heard this a few times, but what does it ultimately mean? Doesn’t it mean that, if they desired, they could still operate and just not sell in Japan? Granted, obviously, if the dev is Japanese (I have no idea in this case and don’t feel like looking) then they’d have some issues, but for a western developer, it’d still be bad, losing all Japanese sales, but overall manageable.
I’m not a lawyer, so my knowledge is limited, but from what I understand, you can only make a claim for a patent infringement in the country where the company responsible for the infringement is located.
So they have this patent in Japan, but if I make a Pokémon-like game but I’m from, say, France, where this patent doesn’t exist, Nintendo can only suck it up and cope, because they don’t have a patent for this in France.
Isn’t this the scenario the Patent Cooperation Treaty was intended to resolve?
I’m not a lawyer but, I know when you file for a patent you can do that in just one country or internationally (which is significantly more expensive). Skimming through the Wikipedia article it seems to be talking about that, but first you need to have filed for the patent internationally and not in just one country.
From what I’ve read about this topic, it sounds like this is a patent active in Japan only.
May your Ls be massive, and your wenches dry, Nintendo.
So they got a new patent after a competitor’s game comes out, and used that new patent to sue the competitor out of existence.
Fucking IP law is broken.deleted by creator
