Support NeoGAF

[tkscz]

Just thought of something else, if Palworld used some sort of coding that Pokemon uses like the catch rate formula. That would fall under a patient rather than a copy right.

 

[Griffon]

Ugh... Nintendo are complete cunts here.

They have no ground for patent infringement. But they have infinitely more money and can grind it for years. This is scummy as fuck.

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

-Can a company patent virtual assets, like character models?

Shouldn't be possible, should fall wholly under copyright.

-Can certain game mechanics and systems be patented?

Yes, but only if they actually novel as a whole, so greater than the sum of its parts, the parts cannot be copyrighted or patented.

 

[onQ123]

Do you think this is what tipped the lawsuit into happening?



By who?



Not a lawyer, but: they're probably gonna settle out of court, and Pocketpair'll probably have to update some code and assets that were in violation or whatever.



Yeah, it being a patent lawsuit kind of flips this on its side. So many questions.

-Can a company patent virtual assets, like character models?​

​

-Can certain game mechanics and systems be patented?​

I know that way back in the day, Namco patented the "mini-game loading screen" concept they used for early PS1 games, so no one else could use mini-games to hide loading screens unless they went through Namco. That patent expired somewhat recently (well, back in 2015).

So, if THAT can be patented, them I think certain mechanics/systems programmed in a game itself could also be patented.

Really makes me wonder how deep into Pokemon code Pocketpair went digging...

Nope but it's what let me know it was guaranteed to happen even after people thought Nintendo was going to let them continue to ripoff Pokemon.

 

[Danjin44]

Metaphor is using the work of famous artists without permission or copyrights.

I dont know legal system to know how to use famous art from 1495 in video game but I'm pretty sure they took permission one way or another.

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

Metaphor is using the work of famous artists without permission or copyrights.

Do we know this to be the case, or are you just assuming that?

 

[ReyBrujo]

Fans have disassembled and figured out every algorithm used in Pokémon. You got IV / EV calculators, hatch rates, etc, etc. It's so tempting for any developer to just copy/paste code found on internet to test something and then the developer leaves or switches to another project and the code remains. Also, when suing for patent infringement they mention their patent and show data from Palworld that can only be generated with an algorithm implementing that patent, then Pocketpair will have to demonstrate (usually showing a section of their source code) that their algorithm is different and that the majority of the use cases the output doesn't match.

 

[Komatsu]

Absolutely amazing to see people here cheering Nintendo's bullshit judicial intimidation. They claim, of course, that Pocket Pair infringed their "patents".

What patents? Pokemon wasn't the first game to include collectable monsters. Megami Tensei - which early Game Freak devs recognized as an inspiration - came out in 1987. There were dozens of games with monster-taming mechanics before Pocket Monsters Red & Green.

So perhaps they are alleging that Pocket Pair copied their "battle system"? Well, video game rules are not copyrightable.

There are at least 50-something Pokemons that resemble Digimons, the Pocket Ball is quite similar to the "Digivice" (had to google this, lol) and guess what? Nintendo never sued Toei, which happens to have pretty deep pockets. Pocket Pair doesn't even have to resort to the "originality" defense, they can argue that things like "monster taming devices" are part of general gaming culture, and they'd be right. There's a reason why the Tolkien estate doesn't sue every fantasy author writing slop with "beautiful, human-sized elves" even though Tolkien basically invented the species - it's part of the cultural stew now, and it can't be clawed back.

Happy to see that Pocket Pair filed a countersuit. Hopefully they'll sue Nintendo in Japan as well, as proving plagiarism in Japanese courts is famously difficult.

TOKYO – Following Nintendo and The Pokemon Company filing a patent infringement lawsuit against Pocketpair Inc. Palworld’s parent company has responded in kind and countersued The Pokémon Company by copy-pasting the lawsuit against Pocketpair, Inc.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Same way demon in SMT based on actual mythology.

I'm pretty sure there is story reason why "humans" monsters looks like Hieronymus Bosch's painting.

I dont personally see anything wrong with that.

Belphegor sitting on a toilet in SMT and making constipated animations never gets old

 

[cash_longfellow]

They are literately using same arstyle...

You could say these look orange looking Dragon but their face, their body and their wings look very different because they both using different artstyle.

Meanwhile

You have to be blind not to see they actually trying mimic Pokemon's artsyle.

Also, let’s talk about Pokémon ripping off Dragon Quest and early Final Fantasy designs as well then, shall we?

Double also, your dragons are from the wrong games ‍♂

 

[Omnipunctual Godot]

Fuck that.

It's a shame, IMO. It's like if Capcom or SNK sued Mortal Kombat devs because it's a fighting game with assists

Capcom did sue Data East in a similar lawsuit and lost. Hopefully the same thing happens to Nintendo.

 

[Komatsu]

I personally dont fuck about both Pokemon or Palworld but maybe next time those devs should design their own fucking creatures.

You cannot "patent" things such as "brown/green quadrupedal animal with a leaf on its forehead and tsurihime eyes". This is not how patents work.

 

[Danjin44]

Belphegor sitting on a toilet in SMT and making constipated animations never gets old

 

[Komatsu]

Also, let’s talk about Pokémon ripping off Dragon Quest and early Final Fantasy designs as well then, shall we?

Double also, your dragons are from the wrong games ‍♂

It's going to be so much fun to see Pocket Pair's legal team parade hundreds of mon creatures upon which Pokemon blatantly took inspiration from.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Absolutely amazing to see people here cheering Nintendo's bullshit judicial intimidation. They claim, of course, that Pocket Pair infringed their "patents".

What patents? Pokemon wasn't the first game to include collectable monsters. Megami Tensei - which early Game Freak devs recognized as an inspiration - came out in 1987. There were dozens of games with monster-taming mechanics before Pocket Monsters Red & Green.

So perhaps they are alleging that Pocket Pair copied their "battle system"? Well, video game rules are not copyrightable.

There are at least 50-something Pokemons that resemble Digimons, the Pocket Ball is quite similar to the "Digivice" (had to google this, lol) and guess what? Nintendo never sued Toei, which happens to have pretty deep pockets. Pocket Pair doesn't even have to resort to the "originality" defense, they can argue that things like "monster taming devices" are part of general gaming culture, and they'd be right. There's a reason why the Tolkien state doesn't sue every fantasy author with "beautiful, human-sized elves" even though Tolkien basically invented the species - it's part of the cultural stew now, and it can't be clawed back.

Happy to see that Pocket Pair filed a countersuit. Hopefully they'll sue Nintendo in Japan as well, as proving plagiarism in Japanese courts is famously difficult.

where did you saw that they filled a countersuit?

 

[cash_longfellow]

It's going to be so much fun to see Pocket Pair's legal team parade hundreds of mon creatures upon which Pokemon blatantly took inspiration from.

Pokémon ripped off a bunch of everything in their games. Legitimately no original ideas. Only difference is, most other companies aren’t as petty as Nintendo.

 

[Danjin44]

Also, let’s talk about Pokémon ripping off Dragon Quest and early Final Fantasy designs as well then, shall we?

Double also, your dragons are from the wrong games ‍♂

Again look at the actual art.....art style is very much different, and only thing similar is most of them based on same animal.

How this two look similar to each other? because they both birds? Come on.

 

[near]

I dont know legal system to know how to use famous art from 1495 in video game but I'm pretty sure they took permission one way or another.

A bit of a double standard you have here. On the one hand it’s completely fine for Atlus to use almost identical artwork from another artist, and on the other hand it’s not for Pocketpair even though they’ve not crossed legal boundaries. You suggested Palworld’s character designs should be more original but you don’t want to hold Atlus accountable when they fail to do just that.

 

[cash_longfellow]

Again look at the actual art.....art style is very much different, and only thing similar is most of them based on same animal.

How this two look similar to each other? because they both birds? Come on.

You can pick one of the however many there are in that side by side…but I am not playing this game. Legitimately blatant copies in that image, and you know it.

 

[DForce]

 

[Draugoth]

Here's the patent

I think I found the patent :
STORAGE MEDIUM STORING GAME PROGRAM, GAME SYSTEM, GAME APPARATUS, AND GAME PROCESSING METHOD Publication number: 20230191255 Abstract: In a first mode, an aiming direction in a virtual space is determined based on a second operation input, and a player character is caused to launch, in the aiming direction, an item that affects a field character disposed on a field in the virtual space, based on a third operation input. In a second mode, the aiming direction is determined, based on the second operation input, and the player character is caused to launch, in the aiming direction, a fighting character that fights, based on the third operation input. Type: Application Filed: September 21, 2022
https://patents.justia.com/patent/20230191255
This was filed at an appropriate time, no doubt to coincide with Legends: Arceus, and unfortunately looks like it would cover Palworld. Specifically the accuracy and catch rate calculation stuff (not in the abstract, but it's in the main body of the patent).
Note this is the US patent, but they probably have similar claims in Japan. Also, unfortunately, the claims are probably narrow enough to stand up in court, while being broad enough to cover Palworld.

 

[Saber]

The think DQ has very different artstyle than Pokémon but Palworld is actively trying to mimic Pokémon style.

People might get triggered for saying this but I have no sympathy for Palworld devs.

They could have easily just design their own creature design but instead they chose actively copy Pokémon, they should have expected Nintendo will eventually gonna go after them.

Nah I disagree. Some differences between some monsters from DQ are minimal. Taking away that crab monster face, he is basically a clone of Krabby.
The point I was saying is that in which point something can be called copy or not. Going in favor of Pokemon generally means giving too much power over monster designs. For instance that dolphin pokemon its literally a dolphin. Anyone who tries to make a dolphin monster out of a dolphin would give Pkmn company too much legal power over other companies, specially small ones.

Doesn't look anywhere near copyright infringement by a legal standard or plagiarism by an informal standard. Only the eyes are directly derivative.

I agree. If eyes are a reason to claim copyright, then Zigzagon its a Digimon since it follow the same eye paterns of Digimons. Also Mega forms are a straight up copy of Mega forms from Digimon(mega stones represents the digivice). This is the point I was trying make.

 

[nikolino840]

If you change something even small you can avoid some legal issue

 

[nikolino840]

Here's the patent

Seems something like patent the arrow direction who was..sega?

 

[Komatsu]

Here's the patent

If the Pocket Pair legal team is savvy, they will not only win but strike this BS patent filing which goes against longstanding intellectual property law. It is settled in law that game rules cannot be copyrighted. This has happened many times, every once in a while some bullshit filing goes through and it is later challenged in court. A Patent is a registered right that gives the owner exclusive right to features and processes of inventions so unless Nintendo can prove that the whole system is an "invention" (good luck), the defendant can allege that said rules are not patentable and are matter of copyright, which, voilá!, cannot cover game rules.

Seems something like patent the arrow direction who was..sega?

And they lost.

 

[HoodWinked]

sour grapes

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

Here's the patent

That's a whole lot of words to say "throw a pokeball and have a pokemon spring forth".
I wonder if such a broad patent would stand up against the Alice test.

 

[Hero_Select]

Ugh... Nintendo are complete cunts here.

They have no ground for patent infringement. But they have infinitely more money and can grind it for years. This is scummy as fuck.

I'm sure you know the in and outs better than Nintendo lmao.

 

[Danjin44]

A bit of a double standard you have here. On the one hand it’s completely fine for Atlus to use almost identical artwork from another artist, and on the other hand it’s not for Pocketpair even though they’ve not crossed legal boundaries. You suggested Palworld’s character designs should be more original but you don’t want to hold Atlus accountable when they fail to do just that.

The art Atlus using for Metaphor big part of human history those monster in the game called "humans" and that game's world they consider our world their fantasy.

So I would say they good story reason why they are using Hieronymus Bosch's work as creature design.....same way SMT demons are based actual mythologies.

Yeah its very different than what Palworld is doing

 

[AJUMP23]

The creators of Donkey KONG suing anyone for copyright infringement is fucking rich.


Also:

Kong was public domain and their lawyer KIRBY proved it.

 

[Topher]

You mean Nintendo is actually suing someone who can fight back?

 

[Toons]

Actually super interested to see how this plays out.

Have Nintendo lawyers ever truly failed them?

 

[Oof85]

Also, let’s talk about Pokémon ripping off Dragon Quest and early Final Fantasy designs as well then, shall we?

Double also, your dragons are from the wrong games ‍♂

You can clearly see the inspirations but they were careful to not outright ape the designs.

You can't say that about Palworld and everyone in here knows it.

People just dislike Nintendo and want to see them with egg on their faces but know innately that if Pokemon and Palworld artists took an art class together, the Palworld student is getting held after class for a private discussion with the teacher/professor.

I just wish people would be honest about why they're tight.

 

[EviLore]

People just dislike Nintendo and want to see them with egg on their faces but know innately that if Pokemon and Palworld artists took an art class together, the Palworld student is getting held after class for a private discussion with the teacher/professor.

I just wish people would be honest about why they're tight.

Not everyone sees the world through a tribalistic lens when it comes to plastic entertainment boxes.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Actually super interested to see how this plays out.

Have Nintendo lawyers ever truly failed them?

In recent times? There was this case:

Nintendo Loses Court Case Over Eshop Pre-Orders

Nintendo loses a court case that went into appeal in a German court, which could affect the policies that govern the company's eShop pre-orders.

gamerant.com

They also lost patent violation lawsuits they initiated in the past (like with the wii motion controllers) so i guess history isn't on nintendo's side here.

 

[BlackTron]

Nah I disagree. Some differences between some monsters from DQ are minimal. Taking away that crab monster face, he is basically a clone of Krabby.
The point I was saying is that in which point something can be called copy or not. Going in favor of Pokemon generally means giving too much power over monster designs. For instance that dolphin pokemon its literally a dolphin. Anyone who tries to make a dolphin monster out of a dolphin would give Pkmn company too much legal power over other companies, specially small ones.

You guys are going nuts picking apart a lot of irrelevant stuff here. 1000 companies can make a game where you can catch a dolphin. When you use the same art style, such that someone can say you intentionally tried to make it look like their unique dolphin, there's a problem. Especially if your unique dolphin is very recognizable (and "monetizable").

Nintendo uses a certain style in Pokemon that goes back a long time; people recognize it and it's very established. One might get away with using the style lightly, when not in a game about catching all the Pals in the world with Palballs with a party of 6 Pals. None of that stuff alone is wrong, but damaging in creating the context in which they are using the infringing art style.

I think Palworld is a cool game. If I was in the team I think I would have advised them to change up the art style a bit, get new eye designs and stuff. They totally look like Pokemon designs by using all that and we knew this would happen. All the talk about "you can't patent a game about catching a dragon" is missing the point.

I think anyone should be able to make the game they want but the purpose of trade dress protection isn't lost on me. But everyone is making this about the right to make a similar game or similar monsters. Samsung lost a trade dress case to Apple that doesn't mean Apple decides who gets to make a phone. It means make your own style. Dragon Quest is 100% clear legally and Palworld....isn't.

Unfortunately one of the best ways to lose your rights is to not enforce them. Pocketpair pretty much begged for this to happen. Otherwise it creates a precedent and eventually anyone can copy Pokemon's trade dress. Then they can't protect it because they didn't bother to in the past. Imagine thinking Nintendo is gonna "be nice" and let it go.

 

[Wonko_C]

Fuck that.

It's a shame, IMO. It's like if Capcom or SNK sued Mortal Kombat devs because it's a fighting game with assists

Like that time Capcom sued Data East over Fighters' History.

 

[Varteras]

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

Unfortunately one of the best ways to lose your rights is to not enforce them.

For trademarks yes, but not copyright, you never lose copyright unless it expires, and the suit isn't about either, it's about patent rights; art styles fall under none of the three, though I guess you can file a patent in the US for certain tools that work together to create a certain style.

 

[Robb]

Took them long enough. Will be interesting to see how this plays out. I guess they must’ve found something.

 

[Ridicululzz]

Here's the patent

So it’s potentially the pokeball/catching mechanic that they’re going to sue over? That’s interesting. I didn’t even know they patented that

 

[GHound]

OP should have included the text from the linked page considering how many people ITT find opening it to be a herculean task.

 

[adamsapple]

Settle out of court and make Palworld 2 a Switch 2 exclusive.

 

[BlackTron]

For trademarks yes, but not copyright, you never lose copyright unless it expires, and the suit isn't about either, it's about patent rights; art styles fall under none of the three, though I guess you can file a patent in the US for certain tools that work together to create a certain style.

Right, but trade dress can either be trademarked or is enforceable through common law.

I didn't realize until now they specified they are suing over a patent, or that the patent in question appears to be the poke-ball throwing mechanic. In which case, Nintendo is just going at them with the most airtight thing they have out the gate (but they have more, and may yet pile it on).

Edit: To clarify, the elements that I think are infringing fall under trade dress. Nintendo is using a patent to attack them which (apparently) is the ball-throwing mechanic, but that doesn't mean that's specifically the only thing Nintendo/their lawyers think is infringing, it's just their current legal strategy.

In order to get them for trade dress they need to demonstrate that their distinct details/styles were borrowed such that an average person might be confused about its origin. As far as I'm concerned, one look at these character's eyes is all it takes, but it's still more subjective and risky than a patent they have already filed for throwing a Pokeball. Use the strongest ammo first...

 

[BlackTron]

Settle out of court and make Palworld 2 a Switch 2 exclusive.

Also, Nintendo keeps 99% of the money, and it's now called Pokéworld.

 

[Moses85]

But who even cares about Palworld anymore?


This is amazing

Are we talking about

?

 

[Northeastmonk]

It damages their brand because people had a better time playing Palworld than actual Pokémon games.

 

[ahtlas7]

It’s shit like this that really grinds my gears with Nintendo.

If this wins you cheerleaders will be sad with the precedent set.

 

[PandaOk]

If the Pocket Pair legal team is savvy, they will not only win but strike this BS patent filing which goes against longstanding intellectual property law. It is settled in law that game rules cannot be copyrighted. This has happened many times, every once in a while some bullshit filing goes through and it is later challenged in court. A Patent is a registered right that gives the owner exclusive right to features and processes of inventions so unless Nintendo can prove that the whole system is an "invention" (good luck), the defendant can allege that said rules are not patentable and are matter of copyright, which, voilá!, cannot cover game rules.



And they lost.

You definitely understand more than I do, maybe you could clear up a misconception I might have. Don’t copyright law and patent law differ with respect to a situation like this?

 

[diffusionx]

They can do this the easy way or the hard way