113
Nintendo reportedly gets even more obnoxious about patent law by taking a 'mods aren't real games' stance against a Dark Souls 3 mod that could invalidate its Palworld lawsuit (www.pcgamer.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 17 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Free legal advise to Nintendo:

A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.

https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2141.html

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    US patent law doesn’t apply to Japan, where this case is ongoing

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    They have applied for and received Patents in the US recently that pertain to their case against pocketpair

    Nintendo obtained yet another just last week, it seems, as reported by Games Fray – and one yesterday. The new US patents include one related to a "smooth switching of riding objects" mechanism, and another that's far more concerning, as it could change the way that non-Pokemon creature collectors work forever: a patent covering the summoning of a "character" (in Palworld's case, that would be a Pal) and using it in combat against others.<

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    True, thanks. WIPO has made sure differences between national patent laws, if any, are minor.

    What the Law requires for an inventive step?

    a patent shall not be granted for an invention where a person ordinarily skilled in the art could have been easily make the invention based on the prior art at the time of filing. Thus, the law requires that a patentable invention should involve such an inventive step that the skilled person could not have made the invention based on the prior art at the time of filing.

    https://www.jpaa.or.jp/en/ip-information/patent-others/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •