• NineMileTower@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    2 months ago

    I don’t disagree with that, but the line that is drawn between inspiration and imitation is blurred and the courts will probably rule in favor of those with the most money, unfortunately.

    • Womble@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Nope, because Nintendo arent suing over copyright (like how the pals look) they are suing over patents, so either gameplay mechanics or under the hood processes. They are complete bullshit and involve things like a patent filed in 2024 for riding a mount in a game.

      As others have pointed out patents in Japan expire after 20 years so it cant be anything that was in the original pokemon as that has already termed out.

      • NineMileTower@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        What about the dynamic of capturing wild monsters from all different biomes in a ball? Isn’t that relatively close Pokemon? Game play is different, but the dynamics are similar.

        • Womble@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Read my edit, anything patented for the original pokemon is past the point of expiry in Japan (where the suit is filed).

    • atocci@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I think Nintendo’s lawyers must have determined it’s inspiration in this case though. Like you said, they’re suing for patent infringement and not copyright, so they must think a legal challenge on their creature designs is a lost cause.