Progenitor of the Weird Knife Wednesday feature column. Is “column” the right word? Anyway, apparently I also coined the Very Specific Object nomenclature now sporadically used in the 3D printing community. Yeah, that was me. This must be how Cory Doctorow feels all the time these days.
“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.
Pokemon: The innovative RPG where you couldn’t even walk diagonally until generation 6…
It is not about model rips. Check your inbox to my other reply to another of your comments.
Aren’t they suing because of the 3d models??
No, they’re not. The word “patent” is used in every single article about this repeatedly. Patents are not the same as copyrights.
A copyright protects a creative work: A work of fiction, a movie, a character.
A patent protects the method in which the way a thing functions: A machine, a chip, an algorithm, or in Nintendo’s assertion certain vague gameplay concepts.
Yeah, you did not read any of the articles about this or understand the suit.
Nintendo is putting this forth as a patent issue, not a copyright issue. I presume this is because even they are smart enough to realize that they would probably lose a copyright challenge. However, the patents they are attempting to claim are clearly bullshit. They’re just doing this as a bludgeon to bully a company they don’t like, most likely in the hopes that the sheer cost of litigation will break them.
If they were going to propose that some of the monster models from Palworld originated as Pokemon model rips, they could arguably have a leg to stand on. But that’s not what they’re saying. The outcome of this case is not going to have any impact on copyright issues. Rather, the potential result is much more dangerous – it would confirm that a big company can just come in late and retroactively lay claim to large swathes of mechanical concepts that have already widely in use in a particular industry for decades.
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.
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.
And while we’re at it, a physical tactile keyboard.
But if they omit the symbol entirely, they save 0.003 cents per unit, but they will continue to charge the same inflated retail price for it and all their cult members will cover for them by gushing about how sleek the “minimalist” design is.
Fucking magnets. Saved you a click.
(Magnetic clothing buttons have already been invented. Repeatedly. You can buy 20 for six bucks on Amazon.)
This comes full circle with everyone’s grandma incessantly calling every piece of software on their computer “The Microsoft.”