all 37 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 142 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Counter-Strike being the most popular PC game in the planet must be a figment of my own imagination, then.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 61 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Didn't Nintendo c&d a Pokémon mod for palword like super early on in release? cough cough they did / https://www.reddit.com/r/Steam/comments/19f7929/pokemons_team_released_a_statement_about/

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 52 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Every day I am more convinced that someone made a wish to the monkey paw for Nintendo to do something about Palworld, and now we are where we are.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I truly don't understand why anyone gave a fuck about Nintendo caring about Palworld.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    There's a group of citizens of a nation that supports what Nintendo doing to Palworld devs. Back when I read the noise on Xitter when Nintendo first filed against Palworld, lots of Japanese support it because something something disrespect or some bullshit. It sickens me that they are just lying belly up drinking the shit Nintendo puts out and trying to snuff competition

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    the monkey paw in question is intellectual property law. everytime a case is ruled in favor of ip law it becomes slightly more restrictive, which generally benefits corporations more than the public. every time you cheer for ip law to be enforced in some big landmark case, you're invariably rooting for the noose around our necks to get just a bit tighter.
    it's for this reason that, despite really not liking ai stuff, i think openai and meta being fined for training on "stolen" work will inevitably do more harm than good

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    The issue is game mechanics, not the game. If a games mechanic that existed as prior art can't be used, then neither should they be able to sue about it.

  • source
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    So if someone created a mod for palworld that put Pokemon in the game that would be fine?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    It's basically a non-sequitur.

    A mod isn't a standalone game, sure. It requires the base game to have meaning. Unitl it gets spinned off and becomes a "real" (standalone) game.

    However, that has no connection with the original problem: Did anyone who isn't Nintendo ever animate a cartoony person throwing a ball that does something, before Nintendo filed for a patent?

    Of course they have. That's prior art, and the patent itself is under serious question - whether the animation was in a "real" game, a "fake" one or in a Blender animation has very little influence on that fact.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    A mod isn't a standalone game, sure. It requires the base game to have meaning. Unitl it gets spinned off and becomes a "real" (standalone) game.

    Many standalone games are nothing without the game engine, which many developers have bought/licensed.

    In this case the "standalone game" can be considered the game engine, which allows the modder to create their own game, within the limits of that engine.

    From the point of the player, they need to pay for the game engine and the game/mod in any case, either by paying with one transaction, or, incase of payed mods, in two.

    To play a specific DLC, you also have to pay twice. And I am pretty sure that Nintendo will argue that game mechanics in DLCs developed by them can be patented as well...

    What I mean is Nintendos argument hat mods aren't 'real games' is flawed...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Sure. It's just that the user doesn't install Unity (or any other engine) themselves when installing a game. They install the game and "it just works".

    For a mod, you have to either have the game, or go get it before you can play a mod.

    I know what a game engine is. A court clerk or judge most likely - doesn't.

    And it's in Nintendo's interests to paint mods as something lesser - that's why they take this strawman angle to mods. They couldn't care less about "games" or "mods". They care about protecting their IP with any groin punches and baby mario noises they can get their divorced-from-reality hands on.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago

    "I want to control an idea I came up with, but that person who came up with that idea first doesn't count"

    Is an insane argument

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago

    I honestly think it's absurd you can be doing something for nearly 30 years (longer than a patent lasts) and then try to get a patent on it retroactively. That seems like a completely insane cheat code for the patent process.

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago

    If mods aren't real games, can we reverse the cease and desists for all the fan mods they've killed? After all, if they aren't real games and aren't to be considered legally for patent/trademark/copyright then they aren't violating anything?

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So game mechanics in DLCs cannot be patented, because they are just mods?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    Source games

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    Well well well.

    Looks like Shin Megami Tensei is able to make a patent for catching and training monsters.

    Game in question: Shin Megami Tensei: Digital Devil Saga 11 September 1987

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Team Fortress was a quake mod

    Half Life used a modded version of the quake engine

    Counter Strike was a Half Life mod

    L4D was a Counter Strike mod

    Gary's Mod is literally just a game revolving around you modding the Source Game Engine

    Seems legit Nintendo.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Here's one that'll hit them closer to home: The original Donkey Kong is literally a mod for the earlier Radar Scope cabinets. Nintendo had better hope they don't wind up with any video game nerds in any juries or they're going to open a can of worms on themselves that they really don't want to have wriggling all over their lap.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    a videogame isn't a big mod out of an engine? Like, GTA V, is a mod of RAGE engine?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It depends how mod is made. If it depends on a base content of a game, it's generally a mod for that game. That's what Counter-Strike and DOTA for example was at first (they required Half-Life, and Warcraft 3 base files respectively).

    If you make a game for a specific engine, it's generally considered as a standalone game, not a mod. Also in olden days code for the engine and the game wasn't separated so you couldn't easily reuse the game engine. AFAIK Id Software was one of the first companies that made reusable game engines that were also licensed to other companies, and even made map editor available for free.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Yeah, games are not real either, they require compilation/interpretation of source code /s

  • source
  • Im not even mad at Nintendo, they’re a mega corporation, they constantly fuck around like this. I blame the horrible laws and geriatric lawmakers who won’t stand up to these corporations and put in laws to stop all this fuckery. These mega corps will always take the loopholes and play these games

  • source
  • 9 comments in c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca view that post
    [–] 59 points 1 year ago

    So create a game that does nothing but move around.

    Create a mod that duplicates Pokémon exactly.

    Mods aren’t real games. Are you gonna sue?

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (1 child)
    load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 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

  • 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

  • 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.<

  • 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/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment