• SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 hours ago

    That’s not how the law works. It’s not a thing where this company sued another company for patents and won, therefore all future lawsuits on patents automatically win. There may be some precedent about specific details in the case, but there’s no reason to assume a future judge in a future case wouldn’t rule in the same way even if this case never existed. Seems to me precedence paranoia is just some internet lawyer thing.

    The strangest thing about this case is that Nintendo didn’t sue for trademark infringement or copyright. I assume Pikachu is trademarked and this company had a Pikachu with a machine gun on the cover of their game. Looks like an easy win for trademark infringement, given everyone referred to it as Pokeman with guns.

    • PyroVK@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 hours ago

      No, it’s just a monster capture and battling game. Their issue most definitely losing Pokemon sales to this game but the lawsuit they went with is in relation to a patient on throwing a ball and a creature being summoned to do battle. So Palworld removed the ball throwing aspect and the creature now just appears which is why they are now focusing on older versions of the game that still contain that.

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        6 hours ago

        I wasn’t aware that they had a ball throwing mechanic in the game. Considering the context they put a Pikachu with a machine gun on the cover, yeah they were just copying someone else’s shit.

        No, it’s just a monster capture and battling game.

        Do you really believe the similarities are coincidental? Like if Pokeman didn’t exist, they would’ve had the character on the cover look like that and would’ve had players collecting creatures with balls?

        They’re obviously just ripping off someone else’s ideas.

        • theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 hours ago

          There’s very few “original” Pokemon. Most of them come from Japanese folklore

          There’s a reason Nintendo didn’t use the trademark angle, they would have lost very quickly

        • Grass@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 hours ago

          humans have been trapping and taming and riding animals long before electricity, let alone video games. Flying on animals isn’t a thing in real life but its been in fables and myth. Cockfighting and other animal abuse is also a tale as old as time. You can’t legitimise patents for any of that and nintendo can get fucked.

        • Zahille7@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Actually play it and give it a shot. You’ll see how unlike pokemon it actually is. And you may just have some fun.