-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Nintendo is suing Palworld devs
- Thread starter Wastelander92
- Start date
Hero_Select
Member
yeah thats clearly the reason
Evil Smurf King
Member
ShaiKhulud1989
Gold Member
On the one hand they've waited for more damages.
On the other current Pocketpaitr is not a Reddit enthusiast and they have not only money on good lawyers, but entire Sony Corporate Legal behind their backs.
This case, especially since it's a patent case, will take years. And unlike bullying around emulator and remake authors it's not as clear-cut as Mario fans think.
On the other current Pocketpaitr is not a Reddit enthusiast and they have not only money on good lawyers, but entire Sony Corporate Legal behind their backs.
This case, especially since it's a patent case, will take years. And unlike bullying around emulator and remake authors it's not as clear-cut as Mario fans think.
Last edited:
WhamBamThankYouMaam
Member
This seems completely expected, doesn’t it?
Cyborg
Member
Can you make with a PlayStation logo?
killatopak
Gold Member
Twinblade
Member
Just for dragon quest to take it from Nintendo.
Oof85
Banned
Breh...
The lens isn't plastic boxes, it's "mean ass Nintendo at it again."
Nintendo is and for a long time has been "bitch eating crackers" status for many people.
Not because they sleep in Playstation pajamas or eat out of Xbox bowls, just because many feel Nintendo is a draconian company when it comes to IP protection.
I never said these were Sony fans or Xbox fans.
What makes it ludicrous to me is the idea that anyone else would be different if they were in Nintendo's position.
Like, a company as small as Nintendo yet with such an outsized influence footprint in the industry going back decades wouldn't be rightfully as meticulous about making sure their bread and butter wasn't being exploited or profited off by just anyone.
Like c'mon slime.
BattleScar
Member
Nintendo could have done the smart thing and done nothing. And eventually Palworld would have died off - I had already forgotten about it myself, and so too would the rest of the world eventually.
But in doing this dumb, scummy bullshit, they have successfully revitalised interest in Palworld. If their lawsuit fails, this whole endeavor would simply be a shot in the arm for a dying game.
While that might be true, I personally couldn't give a single fuck about Nintendo or its outsized industry image. Palworld is not a threat to Pokemon, in the same way that coffee shop with an Apple shaped logo was not a threat to Apple. Pokemon was and is currently the highest grossing media franchise in existence. And Palworld's existence will not change that. Suing Palworld into oblivion won't do anything to preserve the sanctity of Nintendo's brand image. It won't move the needle in either direction more than an iota. All it does is speak to the absolute insecurity of Nintendo as a business in how it "protects itself".
Pokemon did not become what it is because Nintendo meticulously litigated any and all competitive threats from the industry. Its because it captured the imagination of generations of children. Nintendo's properties are successful because of their quality and near-universal appeal (with a healthy dose of nostalgia), not because of litigiousness.
But in doing this dumb, scummy bullshit, they have successfully revitalised interest in Palworld. If their lawsuit fails, this whole endeavor would simply be a shot in the arm for a dying game.
While that might be true, I personally couldn't give a single fuck about Nintendo or its outsized industry image. Palworld is not a threat to Pokemon, in the same way that coffee shop with an Apple shaped logo was not a threat to Apple. Pokemon was and is currently the highest grossing media franchise in existence. And Palworld's existence will not change that. Suing Palworld into oblivion won't do anything to preserve the sanctity of Nintendo's brand image. It won't move the needle in either direction more than an iota. All it does is speak to the absolute insecurity of Nintendo as a business in how it "protects itself".
Pokemon did not become what it is because Nintendo meticulously litigated any and all competitive threats from the industry. Its because it captured the imagination of generations of children. Nintendo's properties are successful because of their quality and near-universal appeal (with a healthy dose of nostalgia), not because of litigiousness.
Last edited:
Oof85
Banned
Like I said, Nintendo for many is "bitch eating crackers" status.
Like if anyone did an elaborate dissertation presentation and aced it, getting their PHD with notable laudation and someone Palworlded it and got the same grade, you and I both know they'd be highkey tight about it.
Rightfully so.
But the energy for one is different.
Oof85
Banned
darrylgorn
Member
I have a feeling this lawsuit won't be all encompassing, and pocketpair will still be making hefty revenue. If this lawsuit is solely about the likeness of characters, Palworld's creature roster has a variety of monsters and only a handful will likely be scrutinized.
Last edited:
BattleScar
Member
Its completely needless. Palworld isn't a threat to them.
They're effectively a gaming monolith taking on a couple of guys in a basement. Yeah they "copied" Pokemon's aesthetic, but then they put it in a game that is fundamentally different to pokemon in every meaningful way other than its monster designs. Nintendo do not own the concept of "cute evolving monsters", otherwise Digimon couldn't exist. They don't own the concept of monster-catcher RPGs, because they aren't even the first. They don't own turn-based RPGs or open world monster-catcher RPGs.
It remains to be seen if there are any code violations; me thinks that given this is patent related and not copywrite means that this is unlikely. Nintendo are claiming ownership to a certain patentable concept, which should get pushback and should get thrown in the trashcan.
Its scummy, because it shows how insanely insecure Nintendo are, over one of the most successful properties in the history of man. How about give the money they're burning on legal fees and shunt that into a hiring round at Gamefreak, and maybe make a good fucking Pokemon game, instead.
Holammer
Member
There's been rumours how a Playstation version would be shown at TGS and that's just a week away and Pocketpair's social media activity did increase recently.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was meant to be a surprise reveal at Sony's upcoming Sep 24'th State of Play presentation.
Question is if Sony will shy away or face tank this to help Pocketpair, whom they recently partnered for a joint venture for media & merch. My respect for Sony will increase by +1 they still reveal the game loud and proud.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was meant to be a surprise reveal at Sony's upcoming Sep 24'th State of Play presentation.
Question is if Sony will shy away or face tank this to help Pocketpair, whom they recently partnered for a joint venture for media & merch. My respect for Sony will increase by +1 they still reveal the game loud and proud.
tkscz
Member
Oh shit I was just guessing, didn't think I would be right. If it's purely about how the player catches Pokemon in 3D, it won't hold. At least in America, game rules and mechanics cannot be patented or copywriter. If it's the catch rate formula, then Pocket Pair may be in trouble IF Nintendo can prove they used the exact same formula. Mathematic formulas can be considered inventions and can be patented, but it has to be the exact same to stand up in court. If even one integer is different, it won't stand.
Thick Thighs Save Lives
NeoGAF's Physical Games Advocate Extraordinaire
W
Wastelander92
You should update your OP with Pocket Pair's response.
We apologize to our fans and supporters for any worry or discomfort that this news has caused.
As always, thank you for your continued support of Palworld and Pocketpair.
news16 | 株式会社ポケットペア
pocketpair.jp
Last edited:
Buggy Loop
Gold Member
Not really
It’s not a copyright infringement, so it has nothing to do with how the characters look like.
It’s a patent infringement. Can anyone figure that one out? Surely Nintendo does not have a patent on monster catching.
Patents Assigned to THE POKEMON COMPANY - Justia Patents Search
Justia - Patents - Patents and Patent Application Resources
patents.justia.com
I haven’t played palworld nor pokemon, ever, so those patents don’t say much to me, but they patent sleep rewards such as a breeding event? There’s a bunch of shit about waking up, storage, etc.
I really hate patents like these, vague as fuck
majestix1988
Member
oh typical nintendo....love lawsuit to do a while waiting for next console to be appear next year or next month
Last edited:
SweetTooth
Gold Member
Herbspiceguy
Member
I have no stake in this, but I'm very interested to see how this turns out.
DanielG165
Member
I sure can’t wait for the lawyers of Gaf to rise up and dissect this case bit by bit.
SF Kosmo
Al Jazeera Special Reporter
Curious and telling that this is a patent case and not copyright or trademark based.
I don't think even Nintendo fans want to live in a world of enforcable parents on broad gameplay concepts like "catching creatures."
I think the goal here is probably to get them to settle for a relatively small amount (less than the cost of fighting them) in the hopes that it will strengthen those patent claims.
I don't think even Nintendo fans want to live in a world of enforcable parents on broad gameplay concepts like "catching creatures."
I think the goal here is probably to get them to settle for a relatively small amount (less than the cost of fighting them) in the hopes that it will strengthen those patent claims.
Robb
Gold Member
Apparently it’s a patent case not a copyright case, I.e. not about the designs of the monsters at all but rather infringement on gameplay mechanics.
Which is a bit unexpected.
Natsuko
Member
I'm not surprised. When the game came out, we played it with the kids. They kept saying Pokémon all the time. And the balls were Pokeballs for the kids. I doubt it's just the monsters. There are quite a few monster collection games that have not been sued by Nintendo. TemTem, Nexomon, Coromon, Casette Beasts ... Palworld was comparatively close to Pokemon after all.
And companies don't have patents, copyrights etc. to hang it framed on the wall. Even much smaller companies take action against infringements. You don't have to be a large corporation for that. Back when I was self-employed, I even reported a similar matter to the police and the case went to the prosecutor. Why? Because I was advised to do so, for my own protection.
And companies don't have patents, copyrights etc. to hang it framed on the wall. Even much smaller companies take action against infringements. You don't have to be a large corporation for that. Back when I was self-employed, I even reported a similar matter to the police and the case went to the prosecutor. Why? Because I was advised to do so, for my own protection.
(THE BOLDED) They do have a patent on a specific kind of monster catching, particularly, to weaken a monster and imprison the monster in a ball, for which there is X% chance for them to escape(I think anyway, can't 100% confirm). Which is why, while there have been numerous Pokemon clones over the decades, no one actually used this method.Not really
It’s not a copyright infringement, so it has nothing to do with how the characters look like.
It’s a patent infringement. Can anyone figure that one out? Surely Nintendo does not have a patent on monster catching.
Patents Assigned to THE POKEMON COMPANY - Justia Patents Search
Justia - Patents - Patents and Patent Application Resources
I haven’t played palworld nor pokemon, ever, so those patents don’t say much to me, but they patent sleep rewards such as a breeding event? There’s a bunch of shit about waking up, storage, etc.
I really hate patents like these, vague as fuck
The suit claims 'MULTIPLE' patent infringments though, so I don't doubt that while Palworld casually copied Pokemon designs and changed them enough and thought they were in the clear, they also casually copied Pokemon gameplay patents as well.
I'm interested to see how Japanese courts handle this though and what those 'MULTIPLE' patent infringements actually are.
SF Kosmo
Al Jazeera Special Reporter
The substance of it isn't. They aren't suing over similar looking creatures or names, this is a patent case, which means it's almost certainly about a gameplay mechanic.
Companies patent gameplay mechanics all the time; you can file a patent for almost anything, there's really no review process unless it gets challenged in court. But I'm not aware of anyone ever successfully defending such a patent in court. So we're kind of in uncharted territory here and a win for Nintendo could have terrifying implications for the industry at large and lead to a patent trolling arms race.
Buggy Loop
Gold Member
Yea
The nemesis system patent for example is a hinderance to the rest of gaming. How the fuck do you patent that you make enemies and they'll come hunt you down? Its evolution of believable AI. Same for the patent of being able to play a mini-game during a loading screen.. thankfully loading screens are almost a thing of the past. But I find patents sometimes they need a kick in the balls.
chromhound
Member
Did they patented the catching ball mechanism?
Evil Calvin
Afraid of Boobs
Nintendo is just salty that they made a better 'Pokemon' game
Topher
Gold Member
ManaByte
Gold Member
I believe it's about using a ball to capture a creature.
cash_longfellow
Member
Wrong poster to say this to
SF Kosmo
Al Jazeera Special Reporter
Pure speculation at this point. Regardless, the outcome of Nintendo winning (or even settling) any kind of suit over gameplay mechanics like this is an inevitable arms race of patent trolls trying to lay claim to everything from mini-maps to mission waypoint arrows, to fireball motions. It's not good.
Last edited:
ReyBrujo
Gold Member
That is trademark and copyright-related, not patent related.
We developers know the patent system in US is completely fucked up, you can patent ideas without existing implementations (or impossible to implement at this moment) in the hopes that eventually they will become implemented. Until you fix the system you will continue having these clashes. The only way to make someone lose a patent is to determine existing prior art, in other words that another game (or software) has implemented similar mechanisms before and didn't patent it. It doesn't need to be a big game, it could be a indie, shareware or demoware game that came before the patent being filed.
Last edited:
Reizo Ryuu
Member
SF Kosmo
Al Jazeera Special Reporter
You can patent basically anything. I could file a patent today for rubbing my dick until stuff comes out and it would get filed and I would get a patent number and a little certificate showing my patent, but it doesn't mean I could actually successfully sue anyone for jerking off.Not really
It’s not a copyright infringement, so it has nothing to do with how the characters look like.
It’s a patent infringement. Can anyone figure that one out? Surely Nintendo does not have a patent on monster catching.
Patents Assigned to THE POKEMON COMPANY - Justia Patents Search
Justia - Patents - Patents and Patent Application Resources
I haven’t played palworld nor pokemon, ever, so those patents don’t say much to me, but they patent sleep rewards such as a breeding event? There’s a bunch of shit about waking up, storage, etc.
I really hate patents like these, vague as fuck
Patents don't get reviewed and scrutinized until someone litigates them. Then it's up to a judge to determine if the idea being patented is novel and enforceable. This is why a big thing in patent suits is judge shopping, with a lot of patent trolls trying to file their case in Texas where all the dumbest judges are.
One of the things they often consider is whether or not a patent has been defended sufficiently. Like if Palworld Inc can show that 10 other games have used this mechanic and Nintendo never bothered to sue, that would help their case.
But likewise, if Nintendo pressures Palworld to settle the case, that will strengthen their claim, as will successfully licensing the patent to other companies. So Nintendo might consider it a win to settle this suit cheaply just to strengthen the patent.
Last edited:
Zacfoldor
Member
I think they are mainly salty that a non-Nintendo game made(as you say) a "Pokemon" game without permission.
If you are copying something but change it just enough so that it isn't technically an exact copy, you are not following the spirit of the law.
If you know somebody is using your stuff and you don't stop them within a reasonable amount of time, that goes against you in court. You have to act or you are condoning it and everyday that passes diminishes your argument and allows other companies to move into the same space since you already condoned one other company making money selling copies of your product.
Zacfoldor
Member
Nintendo have to either act against them or condone the behavior.
If they condone the behavior other companies will move in and do the same thing with no hope for recourse.
Nintendo has no choice but to stand up for their IP. Otherwise they will lose it to cheap copies and ripoffs, no?
Little Chicken
Member
Can you sue someone for creating a better game than your own?
nordique
Member
It’s not because of the game play
You need to look at the designs. It’s astonishingly blatant.
nordique
Member
Touché
exhibit A, your honor
BlackTron
Member
I massively appreciate this post just for getting what it's really about.
Azelover
Titanic was called the Ship of Dreams, and it was. It really was.
I think everybody should be free to create whatever they want. As long as it's not copy and paste of someone else's work, which is not the case with Palworld.
That said, lets face it, Palworld became popular because of similarities to Pokemon. It was that whole controversy that made it a success. So I understand where Nintendo is coming from..
That said, lets face it, Palworld became popular because of similarities to Pokemon. It was that whole controversy that made it a success. So I understand where Nintendo is coming from..
SF Kosmo
Al Jazeera Special Reporter
It's not, it's a patent case. Which means all bets are off and it really depends on the judge.
BlackTron
Member
Who decides in a look and feel case?