[deaddodo]

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 mechanic.

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

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.

[Atlas667]

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.

[tempodox]

Patents and copyright are fundamentally different things.

[Atlas667]

Errr my bad, you're right.

IP*

[GuB-42]

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.

[deaddodo]

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”.

[hdjriudjjd]

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?

[kulahan]

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.

[roblabla]

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.

[sporedro]

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.

[default-kramer]

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.