This patent was first submitted in late July 2024 and granted the following month, after Nintendo and The Pokemon Company asked for an accelerated review process.
What the fuck - so, they’re claiming infringement on a work that was released before they ever submitted their patent? How is that allowed? Are you telling me a company can wait until another company releases a similar product, then apply for a patent for something they used, then claim infringement? I knew patents were fucked, but I didn’t realize they were that fucked.
just don’t patent anything, other companies build a product around an unpatented idea, then you patent it and sue them? now their entire product is ruined??
this makes no sense, that would mean the optimal play is to not patent anything until someone else starts doing it
It’s not. In fact you know how this kind of patent gets invalidated, by pointing out what’s know as prior art. Things that did “this” before that patent was filed. So Palworlds and any other game that involves capturing a creature. This “killer patent” won’t stand up in Court unless the Japanese Court is entirely different than the US and German Courts.
What the fuck - so, they’re claiming infringement on a work that was released before they ever submitted their patent? How is that allowed? Are you telling me a company can wait until another company releases a similar product, then apply for a patent for something they used, then claim infringement? I knew patents were fucked, but I didn’t realize they were that fucked.
I found this but found after reading it a bit I didn’t want ti out in the effort to understand it lol
https://patentbaristas.com/archives/2013/05/09/the-scope-of-prior-art-by-others-under-aia-and-a-comparison-with-european-and-japanese-patent-law-what-every-scientist-and-corporate-executive-needs-to-know/
yea that sounds nasty
just don’t patent anything, other companies build a product around an unpatented idea, then you patent it and sue them? now their entire product is ruined??
this makes no sense, that would mean the optimal play is to not patent anything until someone else starts doing it
Not in tbe US it’s not.
An existing implementation would be prior art and make it EXTREMELY easy to get the patent invalidated.
Well it’s not, you aren’t supposed to be able to get a patent for something that already exists. But you know, corruption
It’s not. In fact you know how this kind of patent gets invalidated, by pointing out what’s know as prior art. Things that did “this” before that patent was filed. So Palworlds and any other game that involves capturing a creature. This “killer patent” won’t stand up in Court unless the Japanese Court is entirely different than the US and German Courts.
JP courts are corpo jokes and their IP laws are even big clown shoe than US.
I take extra pleasure pirating JP product, fuck the corporate trash