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

41–50 of 57 posts

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

#41

Post by roblabla »

kulahan wrote: post #13
deaddodo wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 environ…

As far as gameplay goes, palworld is nothing like Pokemon. Sure, you capture monsters in an open field, but its combat is not turn based and it has a large base building emphasis, for instance.

Now, the monster design in pal world is (I think intentionally) very close to Pokemon’s, while also giving them guns, which I suspect is what triggered Nintendo’s action. You can find plenty of Pokemon likes that match its gameplay much closer (cassette beast, tented) that haven’t caused Nintendo’s ire.

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

#42

Post by mike50 »

bbanyc wrote: post #27
yepitwas wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

You very much can with board and card games. Monopoly was patented and so was Magic: the Gathering. My question is whether this patent only covers specific game mechanics introduced in the most recent Pokemon game or whether it's broad enough to monopolize the entire genre. Because if a clone of the original Pokemon from 30 years ago (has it really been that long? I feel old) is infringing, then the patent is clearly…

There are three types of patents in the United States design utility and plant. This is probably the cause of the confusion.

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

#43

Post by estimator7292 »

mort96 wrote: post #31
dmoy wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of it is that "getting a patent" isn't always a high bar, and the real bar is "successfully using a patent in a lawsuit". Patent examiners don't have the time and resources to thoroughly vet every application, so there are a lot of patents granted that are pretty much worthless. In this specific case I don't know. I would have to ask.

> Some of it is that "getting a patent" isn't always a high bar Which is a big fucking problem, to be honest. I would not want to enter a lawsuit with Nintendo to try to convince a judge that the patent I'm clearly violating is invalid. If I was making a game with capture/summon mechanics and got a call from Nintendo, I would probably take capture/summon mechanics out of my game if their lawyers were threatening enou…

Yup. The patent system has been gutted and rigged in favor of whoever has the most money. Pretty much our entire legal system (and government for that matter) simply comes down to having more money than the other guy.

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

#44

Post by Atlas667 »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #17
deaddodo wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You got it. Copyright is about defending monopolization, not just about creative rights and ensuring attribution.

Copyright is an artificial system propping up huge sections of the economy/whole industries. It's internal protectionism at best and hindering progress at worse. Nothing "free market" about it.

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

#46

Post by toast0 »

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…

> It’s strange that you can patent gameplay mechanics. After all, gameplay mechanics are what define a genre.

I had thought there was case law along the lines of games have no utility and thus can't have utility patents. Although, perhaps that case was too old, and the rules have changed.

Assuming that games are subject to utility patents, I don't see why you couldn't hold a patent on a genre defining mechanic... But genere defining mechanics for a Pokemon game probably were in the first games from 1996, and afaik the patent backlog isn't that long that they'd be getting a patent today from an application from back then.

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

#47

Post by mikestew »

transcriptase wrote: post #29
jasonhong wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And even more to enforce it if granted. You can have all the patents in the world but with without being able to file against infringing parties they’re just documents.

If what is behind the patent is granted free to use, what’s to enforce? How would I infringe on “free to use for everybody “? I believe OP’s idea is to file the patents defensively to block others from filing stupid patents as in TFA.

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

#48

Post by paradox460 »

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…

Imagine if id had patented fps

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

#49

Post by sporedro »

roblabla wrote: post #41
kulahan wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 environ…

As far as gameplay goes, palworld is nothing like Pokemon. Sure, you capture monsters in an open field, but its combat is not turn based and it has a large base building emphasis, for instance. Now, the monster design in pal world is (I think intentionally) very close to Pokemon’s, while also giving them guns, which I suspect is what triggered Nintendo’s action. You can find plenty of Pokemon likes that match its gam…

I’m honestly surprised Nintendo didn’t go after the “looks” of the pals.

Like you said besides the “balls” or “spheres” used for capture it’s a completely different game.

Sure it’s a “similar” genre, but they’re also targeting a different audience altogether.

O well guess the lawyers can duke it out in the courts.

Post reply on HN