Geez things got heated real fast.
I don't think any party in this lawsuit actually has positive intentions for the consumer or something, and I don't want what I said to come off that way. Even if Nintendo was going after Palworld explicitly for plagiarism, it wouldn't be because they actually dislike plagiarism, I have zero illusions on that.
While I do think Pocketpair is in the wrong here, I don't want anyone to think that I believe Nintendo is doing anything righteous. It's a business.
Was anyone in doubt of that? This has nothing to do with the consumers (aside from where we spend out money). Nintendo & TPC sees Palworld infringing on their ip, chooses to go after them.
I know very little about Pocket Pair. From what I know is that they previously made games which were also a blatent mishmash of other popular games, Palworld was the one that got popular cause it heavily cribbed off Pokemon, made a ton of money and used none of it to make it less infringement-y, and now the bears they poked have woken up and coming down on them.
If I were to make a jump to a conclusion about them, they feel like a cocky group. They mishmash games, wear their inspirations (and copied assets) on their sleeve as the game's selling point, yet claim complete originality. Like them or hate them, this brazenness paid off but it was always a double-edge sword.
Overall I'm not that worried because patent trolling game mechanics has had limited effect.
It's nothing to worry about... until a company decides to act upon it. Now, as you pointed out with the above patents, they feel very specific to the game they were implemented in. The Zelda ToTK patent is about the complex mathematics needed for binding items together to make a movable object. The Splatoon patent shows how the map screen looks and displays info. It's likely no one is going to directly copy these mechanics in the same way.
However, the problem & concerns arise that, because a company has patented these concepts, it removes the opportunity for other developers to do something else & potentially unique with the concept.
Two most famous examples:
* Lord of the Rings: Shadow of War's "Nemesis System". A system which generate Orcs with unique traits, ranks them in an army, and if one kills you they raise in prestige becoming more powerful & given more personality, potentially turning them into a rival for a time.
Now imagine such a system in a Fire Emblem game? Or Dynasty Warriors? Or a Dark Souls? Or Like A Dragon? Or Legend of Zelda? Etc..
But you can't, WB patent it. Now WB themselves could use it for one of their DC Comic games (most likely would be Batman as it deals with crime families), but they haven't. LoTR Shadow of War is the only one who used it and they never looked back, taking what potentially what could have been a revolutionary mechanic for enemy creation and killing it or weaponizing it for anyone who attempts to do something similar.
* While no longer in effect, Namco patented "auxiliary games on loading screens" which they had in a few of their games. You're a game developer who's game has some instances of prolonged loading and would like to keep the player distracted with a small mini-game? Well before 2015 you were SOL (though some publishers worked around this by having the mini--game have some affect in the main game, though obviously not all games could do this or would have to go out of their way to).
Patented in 1995, for 27 years players were forced to sit and wait through loading screens because, while who knows how many games would have had one, Namco assured no game could which took away from the game experience (sure a random mini-game could too, but having to wait assured it on a more in-your-face level).
Getting back on point, Pokemon-likes are a popular genre and there has been quite a few who did their own unique thing, especially with the creature design. But Nintendo and TPC are not going after the creature design which likely sparked their wrath, their going after Palworld via patent infringement which is a more obtuse thing (especially in Japanese courts if what I heard is true). If they get Palworld on all the Pokemon mechanics they copied, many which other Pokemon-likes also use, it now creates unstable ground. To what extent would a Pokemon-like have to go in order to avoid the patent? Is it simply because Palworld copied Pokemon designs that raised Nintendo's/TPC's ire (in which case other Pokemon-likes with unique creature design don't have to worry about), or is there some other things which puts Pokemon-likes in danger for simply being Pokemon-like?
Realistically speaking, if the thing is really just about the whole "capturing monsters with a pokeball", Pocket pair could easily take the easy way out and just... change the pokeballs to something else.
Like, Nexomon uses triangular traps instead.
What patent the Palword devs were disrespectful about it, we don’t know so far, but it might have something to do with the fact that you can capture and sell Pals and humans alike, which is way too close to human trafficking or slave trading for comfort.
As
Yung Dramps said a page before, I think this is a "get Capone on tax fraud" case. There's been plenty of other Pokemon-likes that Nintendo and TPC don't care about (some are even on Nintendo consoles) because they have unique monster designs (and sometimes art styles). This isn't about the capturing mechanic, it's just something they have a stronger case to win with due to their patent (if that's what they're going for).
The one thing that saddens me the most is people still shitshowing each other about the design issue when what Nintendo is fighting against isn't that, and the lawsuit is much more dangerous to general public than people think it is cause of what patents fighting means in terms of creating precedents..
Would Nintendo and TPC be doing this if not for certain Pals cribbing off Pokemon (a few in a blatant matter)? People are stuck on the designs because that is what so clearly started it and has Nintendo and TPC mad. They could make a strong copyright case for it, who knows maybe it would be brought up in some form like the model assets, but their lawyers know what will exactly work in the Japanese court system; why settle for first base when you can likely hit a home run?
resemble ≠ plagiarize
not illegal
hence why Nintendo's lawsuit is problematic, is patent trolling, it has no actual legal ground to stand on
Obviously you feel strongly about this, but come on man, how can you say these:
Are equivocal to this:
It's alright, you can dislike Nintendo & TPC without defending copyright infringement. You can like Palworld while admitting they really should have put some of the millions they made to redesigning the infringe-worthy Pals.
