I love how this continues to crank out articles with 0 information and everyone speculating what it might be about.
Don’t get me wrong, Nintendo are dickheads, but you can clearly see how everyone greedily clicks on these articles considering how often they get rehashed.
Yes, there are going to be opinion pieces like this one filling the space for a major news story like this one, but there’s still room for proper journalism right now. I recommend folks check out PC Gamer’s interview with an IP attorney that worked in Tokyo (which was also the second link in this posted article).
Software patents are a thorny topic, and it’s worthwhile for enthusiasts of the industry or those interested in IP law to read up on the concept in general. There’s risk for Nintendo here, and I found Sigmon’s offhand comment about how Nintendo’s ramped up legal hiring to be particularly interesting.
So nintendo and palworld are based in Japan which has no fair use on copyright.
If this became a copyright case in Japan and palworld won it could change the law on copyright fair use in, which Nintendo and other corps don’t want as it would open up new games based on their products under fair use.
The only way Nintendo can attack palworld is via patent infringement.
If this became a copyright case in Japan and palworld won it could change the law on copyright fair use
not every country has case law. most of Europe is eg using “code law”, which means a precedent doesn’t change the law, but only applies to the one specific case with all its specific context and circumstances taken into account. under slightly different circumstances, a judge may rule differently
I am just curious, do you have a take on how Nintendo’s lawsuit could be legitimate? Even a high-level theory, surely if you are so concerned about speculation and “greedy clickbait”, you have some logical ideas to back this up?
I would argue we do have enough information to have a take on it. What legitimate patent infringement case do you see in context of Palworld and Nintendo’s products? Be clear and specific.
If you’re going to call for a ban on commentary, you need to have some of argument.
From my perspective, it is crazy to defend some random corporation in this way when you can’t even come up with a basic explanation of why critical commentary is not justified at this stage.
Without going through all of their patent filings no one can. So again, that is the point. Lack of info
We are both gamers (I am assuming this is true for you since you’re commenting here). I am not talking about legal understanding of Japanese patent law. Just a practical evaluation of Palworld vis-a-vis Nintendo products. What genuine technical innovation (I am not talking about bullshit patents for stuff that was implemented many decades ago) do you see in Nintendo’s products that was copied by Palworld?
This is not difficult.
Never said a ban on commentary, just hate bullshit articles.
The implication of thread OP was that articles critical of Nintendo (in the context of this case) should not be published as of today, no? Why is any commentary immediately categorized as “greedy clickbait” or “rehashed content”?
Something I agree with you on. Let them fight. This discussion is in the context of bullshit articles with zero information.
I would argue it’s not a bullshit article as I have yet to hear a single example of what legitimate (in the real sense, not related to Japanese patent law) case Nintendo has. What is this magical innovation that we see in Nintendo products that was copied by Palworld?
I am not talking about legal understanding of Japanese patent law.
But that’s what the case is about.
I would argue it’s not a bullshit article as I have yet to hear a single example of what legitimate (in the real sense, not related to Japanese patent law) case Nintendo has.
Well then the fact that we still don’t know what the case is really about is exactly why these articles are useless. No information in there.
What is your argument here? Your support the Japanese patent law irrespective of whether it reflects reality? You would be OK with Japanese patent that is de facto non-valid (i.e. the approach was already used in games 10+ years ago) just to support a random company?
I am going off memory, but one example would be one of the Japanese gaming companies patenting cross-game saves (release to sequel); an approach that was implemented by the Ultima games 10+ years before the patent was filled? Do you support this?
We have access to Palworld, we have access to Nintendo products. If commentary criticizing Nintendo is “greedy clickbait”, then what innovation has been abused by Palworld? Can you provide an example in context of gaming experiences?
Let’s go back to the start of this comment thread:
I love how this continues to crank out articles with 0 information and everyone speculating what it might be about.
Don’t get me wrong, Nintendo are dickheads, but you can clearly see how everyone greedily clicks on these articles considering how often they get rehashed.
That’s the argument: these articles add nothing to the discussion. And you responding to that with “but can you prove Nintendo is right?” isn’t the point and also isn’t adding anything to the discussion.
I love how this continues to crank out articles with 0 information and everyone speculating what it might be about.
Don’t get me wrong, Nintendo are dickheads, but you can clearly see how everyone greedily clicks on these articles considering how often they get rehashed.
Yes, there are going to be opinion pieces like this one filling the space for a major news story like this one, but there’s still room for proper journalism right now. I recommend folks check out PC Gamer’s interview with an IP attorney that worked in Tokyo (which was also the second link in this posted article).
Software patents are a thorny topic, and it’s worthwhile for enthusiasts of the industry or those interested in IP law to read up on the concept in general. There’s risk for Nintendo here, and I found Sigmon’s offhand comment about how Nintendo’s ramped up legal hiring to be particularly interesting.
deleted by creator
Except this isn’t a copyright case. They’re claiming patent infringement.
deleted by creator
Hard to know if the patent is expired when they haven’t even officially announced which ones they plan to bring forward in the suit.
The only info I was aware of so far is that there were multiple claims they were making.
Not disagreeing, just pointing out it’s not a traditional copyright claim like so many others we see.
What patent are you referring to?
So nintendo and palworld are based in Japan which has no fair use on copyright.
If this became a copyright case in Japan and palworld won it could change the law on copyright fair use in, which Nintendo and other corps don’t want as it would open up new games based on their products under fair use.
The only way Nintendo can attack palworld is via patent infringement.
not every country has case law. most of Europe is eg using “code law”, which means a precedent doesn’t change the law, but only applies to the one specific case with all its specific context and circumstances taken into account. under slightly different circumstances, a judge may rule differently
I am just curious, do you have a take on how Nintendo’s lawsuit could be legitimate? Even a high-level theory, surely if you are so concerned about speculation and “greedy clickbait”, you have some logical ideas to back this up?
There is not enough information to have a take on it. That is his point.
The total amount of information out is:
That is literally it.
I would argue we do have enough information to have a take on it. What legitimate patent infringement case do you see in context of Palworld and Nintendo’s products? Be clear and specific.
If you’re going to call for a ban on commentary, you need to have some of argument.
From my perspective, it is crazy to defend some random corporation in this way when you can’t even come up with a basic explanation of why critical commentary is not justified at this stage.
Without going through all of their patent filings no one can. So again, that is the point. Lack of info
Never said a ban on commentary, just hate bullshit articles.
Something I agree with you on. Let them fight. This discussion is in the context of bullshit articles with zero information.
We are both gamers (I am assuming this is true for you since you’re commenting here). I am not talking about legal understanding of Japanese patent law. Just a practical evaluation of Palworld vis-a-vis Nintendo products. What genuine technical innovation (I am not talking about bullshit patents for stuff that was implemented many decades ago) do you see in Nintendo’s products that was copied by Palworld?
This is not difficult.
The implication of thread OP was that articles critical of Nintendo (in the context of this case) should not be published as of today, no? Why is any commentary immediately categorized as “greedy clickbait” or “rehashed content”?
I would argue it’s not a bullshit article as I have yet to hear a single example of what legitimate (in the real sense, not related to Japanese patent law) case Nintendo has. What is this magical innovation that we see in Nintendo products that was copied by Palworld?
But that’s what the case is about.
Well then the fact that we still don’t know what the case is really about is exactly why these articles are useless. No information in there.
What is your argument here? Your support the Japanese patent law irrespective of whether it reflects reality? You would be OK with Japanese patent that is de facto non-valid (i.e. the approach was already used in games 10+ years ago) just to support a random company?
I am going off memory, but one example would be one of the Japanese gaming companies patenting cross-game saves (release to sequel); an approach that was implemented by the Ultima games 10+ years before the patent was filled? Do you support this?
We have access to Palworld, we have access to Nintendo products. If commentary criticizing Nintendo is “greedy clickbait”, then what innovation has been abused by Palworld? Can you provide an example in context of gaming experiences?
They just think the article sucks, which it does lmao
It’s not that deep, dude
Let’s go back to the start of this comment thread:
That’s the argument: these articles add nothing to the discussion. And you responding to that with “but can you prove Nintendo is right?” isn’t the point and also isn’t adding anything to the discussion.