[mort96]

> maybe it's one of those things where you "can't" but actually you can

Like how you "can't" patent stuff with prior art but then, somehow, big companies seem to be granted patents for things with plenty of prior art all the time?

[dmoy]

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.

[mort96]

> 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 enough. That's the value in unenforceable patents.

[estimator7292]

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.

[dmoy]

I mean yea, you're not exactly wrong, but the cost to fully investigate every application would be incredibly high. Maybe the answer is to make patents cost $20k (fee) + $20k (your patent lawyer's fee) instead of $1k (fee) + $20k (your patent lawyer's fee). But that's gonna be a lot of extra cost to file.

> 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 enough. That's the value in unenforceable patents.

It really depends? If you could hire a good patent lawyer for say $5k-$10k to dig up a reasonably correct answer for you, and that answer was "lol this patent is a joke, Nintendo will get quickly smacked out of court and all your attorney fees will get paid for by Nintendo", then maybe that would be sufficient if the cost to you to rework the mechanic would be order(s) of magnitude higher than $5k.

You're definitely right in that before you actually call their bluff and enter litigation, you'd want to be damn sure what you're getting in to.

[mort96]

It doesn't seem like such a bad idea for a patent grant to be a long and expensive process... Why should Nintendo getting a 20 year state-mandated monopoly on an idea be treated lightly? Why is it a goal to make that process go quickly and cheaply?

[dmoy]

Seems reasonable to me, yea

It's probably a nonstarter for the current year, given that you'd need to pay for substantially more patent examiners, and better trained patent examiners (even if it does ultimately come a lot from increased fees). Or maybe fewer patent examiners but much more highly trained ones? I'm not sure how that would pan out.

But it would be very cool if the gap between "granted patent" and "proven useful patent" was closed substantially.

[Kranar]

Being granted a patent does not make it enforceable. Prior art is a defense against patent litigation.

[mort96]

People without infinitely deep wallets must assume that all granted patents are enforceable when threatened by Nintendo's legal team.