Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An embarrassing failure of the US patent system: Nintendo's latest patents

pcgamer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 57 posts

Re: An embarrassing failure of the US patent system: Nintendo's latest patents

#11

Post by rolph »

basfo wrote: post #3

It’s strange that you can patent gameplay mechanics. After all, gameplay mechanics are what define a genre. It’s like in literature if someone could patent the idea of a detective investigating a murder. How could the "pokemon-like" genre even exist if you couldn’t create a game that uses “summoning and battling characters”? Even worse, that description alone applies to multiple genres... JRPGs, or even fighting game…

how would a summon monster spell compare ? strict interpretation seems to include this prior, and i thought thats not supposed to happen.

when a dungeons and dragon magic user, uses summon monster, they may engage with these same described mechanics of summon and battle. [orb of monster summoning would be way out ]

Re: An embarrassing failure of the US patent system: Nintendo's latest patents

#12

Post by _aavaa_ »

robotnikman wrote: post #9
tracker1 wrote: post #7

I'm sorry but the default USPTO position should be to deny process/algorithm/software patents without true innovation. In this case, their own game/show was first released in 1996 in which the patent itself would be invalid from that position, even if they had completely invented the mechanics/idea with no other prior art, their own art is well longer than the term a Patent can/should protect.

It makes me wonder, what's stopping someone from flooding the patent office with thousands of AI generated process/algorithm/software patents, and declaring them free to use for anybody? That's one way I could think of to protect games from being stifled by future patents.

The hefty application fee

Re: An embarrassing failure of the US patent system: Nintendo's latest patents

#13

Post by kulahan »

deaddodo wrote: post #10
basfo wrote: post #3

It’s strange that you can patent gameplay mechanics. After all, gameplay mechanics are what define a genre. It’s like in literature if someone could patent the idea of a detective investigating a murder. How could the "pokemon-like" genre even exist if you couldn’t create a game that uses “summoning and battling characters”? Even worse, that description alone applies to multiple genres... JRPGs, or even fighting game…

The actual patent goes into specifics about the covered mechanic they are patenting and it focuses much more on the pokeball/swapping mechanics. That being said, if they ever tried to hit anyone with the entirety of that, other than in a case of 1:1 replication of Pokemon, it would be a spurious weapon at best. There's too much prior art + alternative implementations in existence to argue for a unique and inventive m…

I don't pay much attention to Nintendo news these days, aside from the occasional exciting game I see (my wife is crazy about Fire Emblem, so today's a good day!), but I was under the impression this was kinda specifically aimed at making life hard for Palworld, a game which is (as far as I know - I've not tried it) nearly identical to Pokemon, but with some more mature themes and more a more mature technical environment.

Re: An embarrassing failure of the US patent system: Nintendo's latest patents

#14

Post by jasonhong »

robotnikman wrote: post #9
tracker1 wrote: post #7

I'm sorry but the default USPTO position should be to deny process/algorithm/software patents without true innovation. In this case, their own game/show was first released in 1996 in which the patent itself would be invalid from that position, even if they had completely invented the mechanics/idea with no other prior art, their own art is well longer than the term a Patent can/should protect.

It makes me wonder, what's stopping someone from flooding the patent office with thousands of AI generated process/algorithm/software patents, and declaring them free to use for anybody? That's one way I could think of to protect games from being stifled by future patents.

It costs a non-trivial amount of money to file a patent in the USA

Re: An embarrassing failure of the US patent system: Nintendo's latest patents

#15

Post by mmmlinux »

basfo wrote: post #3

It’s strange that you can patent gameplay mechanics. After all, gameplay mechanics are what define a genre. It’s like in literature if someone could patent the idea of a detective investigating a murder. How could the "pokemon-like" genre even exist if you couldn’t create a game that uses “summoning and battling characters”? Even worse, that description alone applies to multiple genres... JRPGs, or even fighting game…

They don't want a "pokemon-like" genre to exist at all.

Re: An embarrassing failure of the US patent system: Nintendo's latest patents

#17

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

deaddodo wrote: post #10
basfo wrote: post #3

It’s strange that you can patent gameplay mechanics. After all, gameplay mechanics are what define a genre. It’s like in literature if someone could patent the idea of a detective investigating a murder. How could the "pokemon-like" genre even exist if you couldn’t create a game that uses “summoning and battling characters”? Even worse, that description alone applies to multiple genres... JRPGs, or even fighting game…

The actual patent goes into specifics about the covered mechanic they are patenting and it focuses much more on the pokeball/swapping mechanics. That being said, if they ever tried to hit anyone with the entirety of that, other than in a case of 1:1 replication of Pokemon, it would be a spurious weapon at best. There's too much prior art + alternative implementations in existence to argue for a unique and inventive m…

It would be a powerful enough weapon if the target of the patent infringement case did not have crazy deep pockets. The costs of defending a winning case can be more than small game developer could hope to afford.

Re: An embarrassing failure of the US patent system: Nintendo's latest patents

#18

Post by MattPalmer1086 »

silexia wrote: post #16

Patents themselves are anti-innovator and the entire system should be abolished. The work is what matters, not the idea.

If I come up with a much better way of doing something that is relatively easy to reimplement, there's no great incentive to come up with those ideas then.

I'm not suggesting that the current patent system works well, but you are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Re: An embarrassing failure of the US patent system: Nintendo's latest patents

#19

Post by yepitwas »

basfo wrote: post #3

It’s strange that you can patent gameplay mechanics. After all, gameplay mechanics are what define a genre. It’s like in literature if someone could patent the idea of a detective investigating a murder. How could the "pokemon-like" genre even exist if you couldn’t create a game that uses “summoning and battling characters”? Even worse, that description alone applies to multiple genres... JRPGs, or even fighting game…

You can't, with board games. I'm not sure why you can with video games. (maybe it's one of those things where you "can't" but actually you can, if you have enough money to keep anyone from successfully challenging it because they can't afford to)

Re: An embarrassing failure of the US patent system: Nintendo's latest patents

#20

Post by default-kramer »

deaddodo wrote: post #10
basfo wrote: post #3

It’s strange that you can patent gameplay mechanics. After all, gameplay mechanics are what define a genre. It’s like in literature if someone could patent the idea of a detective investigating a murder. How could the "pokemon-like" genre even exist if you couldn’t create a game that uses “summoning and battling characters”? Even worse, that description alone applies to multiple genres... JRPGs, or even fighting game…

The actual patent goes into specifics about the covered mechanic they are patenting and it focuses much more on the pokeball/swapping mechanics. That being said, if they ever tried to hit anyone with the entirety of that, other than in a case of 1:1 replication of Pokemon, it would be a spurious weapon at best. There's too much prior art + alternative implementations in existence to argue for a unique and inventive m…

Hmm, maybe, but somehow Marvin Gaye's estate still pulled it off. Yes it was a copyright case, not a patent case, but Robin Thicke and Pharell Williams had a well-funded defense. Seems like Nintendo could easily bully an indie game out of existence if they wanted to.
Post reply on HN