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

51–57 of 57 posts

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

#51

Post by GuB-42 »

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…

A 1:1 replication of the original Pokemon (1995) would be safe from all patent claims as it is obvious prior art and patents filed during that time would be expired. Copyright would be another story though.

It looks like here, they picked minor game mechanics introduced in a later games that Palworld also used (possibly as a coincidence) and then applied for patents. Some of them passed.

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

#52

Post by knollimar »

Can someone clarify the patent? Most discourse I've seen outside this website regarding this focuses on parts only listed in non-limited examples (like ball throwing). I don't think that's relevant at all here (except claim 10).

The main text from what I understand is the claims in sections 37 to 41. Claim 1 is what I'm understanding the be the main claim, which can be summarized as summons that can either do manual combat or automatically battle after following a player around/being directed.

The other claims are to be taken individually, correct? If not, claim 10 (requiring attack of sub character and option for capture) would disqualify most non-capture games and would likely make this a non-issue, but if just the first claim needs to stand then this would be really broad (and from what I understand, prior art in that space would be easy to point to).

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

#53

Post by hdjriudjjd »

GuB-42 wrote: post #51
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…

A 1:1 replication of the original Pokemon (1995) would be safe from all patent claims as it is obvious prior art and patents filed during that time would be expired. Copyright would be another story though. It looks like here, they picked minor game mechanics introduced in a later games that Palworld also used (possibly as a coincidence) and then applied for patents. Some of them passed.

If they did come up with it and spent significant R&D on it only to be copied by another, they probably should have applied for the patent before they released it?

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

#54

Post by tempodox »

Atlas667 wrote: post #44
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Patents and copyright are fundamentally different things.

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

#55

Post by Atlas667 »

tempodox wrote: post #54
Atlas667 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Patents and copyright are fundamentally different things.

Errr my bad, you're right.

IP*

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

#56

Post by deaddodo »

GuB-42 wrote: post #51
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…

A 1:1 replication of the original Pokemon (1995) would be safe from all patent claims as it is obvious prior art and patents filed during that time would be expired. Copyright would be another story though. It looks like here, they picked minor game mechanics introduced in a later games that Palworld also used (possibly as a coincidence) and then applied for patents. Some of them passed.

Clearly using the term “Pokémon” on its own refers to the series in general. If not from the obvious context, but from the sheer fact that there was never a game in the series titled simply “Pokémon”.
Post reply on HN