Japan's patent office has rejected a Nintendo application related to its Palworld lawsuit, citing a lack of originality. The decision raises questions about the validity of several Nintendo patents describing creature capture systems that are central to the company's complaint against Palworld.

...

In late October 2025, the Japan Patent Office rejected Nintendo's patent application no. 2024-031879, which is related to the family of creature-capture patents that Palworld is accused of infringing. A JPO patent examiner found that the application lacks originality to be deemed an invention, citing prior art such as Monster Hunter 4, ARK: Survival Evolved, gacha browser game Kantai Collection, Pocketpair's own Craftopia, and even Pokemon GO. All of those were released prior to the December 2021 priority date from the rejected application.

Nintendo has 60 days from the date of its rejection notice to amend its application or appeal the decision, giving it until late December 2025 to do so. Since the application isn't cited in the Palworld patent lawsuit directly, its rejection won't have a direct impact on the ongoing case. However, as explained by Games Fray's analyst Florian Mueller, the newly rejected application is a "key building block" in Nintendo's strategy to capture a wide range of creature-capture system implementations. It is the child of patent JP7493117 and the parent of JP7545191, both of which are cited in Nintendo's complaint.

tl:dr;

The Nintendo v PalWorld lawsuit is still on going, but Nintendo has been told it's attempt to patent the concept of a capturable and summonable creature is invalid, in Japan.

As part of their ongoing lawsuit, Nintendo is claiming PalWorld has violated those... now invalid patents, so Nintendo's overall case against PalWorld is now significantly more weak.

all 14 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 45 points 1 year ago

Damn that's awesome

  • source
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago

    Having it denied in Japan specifically tells you just how shitty the attempt was.

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago*

    This should be some sort of award for getting a patent denied in Japan. They grant patents on vague ill defined concepts all the time, so if it's been rejected it's really been rejected.

    Japan once granted a patent on the concept of "doing something while the game loads", Which is why we had all those tips screens for years, they weren't allowed to do anything interactive. I think this all came tumbling down when assassin's creed allowed you to wander around a blank empty void during loading. Such innovation.

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    YES!

    Even though I think some Palworld designs are questionable, I'm devastated by Pokemon's wasted potential and Nintendo's laziness surrounding the franchise. It sucks that they're the only major catch-em-all game we've got, they don't have to try because they have no competition. I tried Cassette Beasts, and while I think the fusion and type system is pretty good, the story and characters were lacking for me so I haven't finished it. I have no desire for Yo-kai watch, and I don't feel like playing Digimon.

    Even if I'll never play "Pokemon: Breath of the Fortnite" I still want Palworld to do well and flip Nintendo off for being an ass. That "riding is only allowed in our games" patent is total bullshit.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    The decision mentions ARK, which has always been one of my arguments. It's a survival builder with Dinos, but almost every creature is capturable/tamable in some way or another, aside from some bosses/special enemies. Ark has been around a while, and even added a stored in a ball like element years back, but it probably doesn't exactly come to mind as a catch em all game for most people.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 8 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    lol, I still remember being utterly baffled by how many Nintendo uberfans were just blown away by the kind of construction / physics elements of BotW.

    Like... I'd been playing Garry's mod for years before it even became a game, sold for money.

    I was doing that kind of construction silliness ... what, before Twilight Princess came out? Something like that?

    Funniest part is that learning how to fuck around in lua there, was what spurred me on to learning programming... whereas Nintendo fans kind of tend to be the Apple fans of the video game world... on average, they don't really know anything about hardware or software, compared to an Xbox or Playstation fan, if you compare people of similar ages in each of those fandoms.

    So, I remeber ending up inadvertently triggering a fair number of BotW fans when I just started to describe havok/source physics calls, as well as contraptions I'd built an actual decade prior.

    ACF is fucking bonkers, don't know if its still maintained, but yeah I basically just made my model minfigs of tanks and ifvs and such in digital, functional form, hahah!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    Did you mean TotK instead of BotW?

    I've played Gmod since probably around 2007, but IMO this is a bit disingenuous.

    EDIT: also, I'm not a Nintendo lover, actually pretty much hate them for issuing takedowns of fan games and let's plays.

    The physics in Tears of the Kingdom is way more stable than Havok. In Gmod even putting a bunch of cans inside a crate can make them start vibrating or cause them to fly out at a million miles per hour after you try picking them up. Walking around on a moving physics object is extremely jank, and can cause you to phase through it or just be killed instantly by mysterious physical forces that appear out of nowhere. In particular, the puzzles that use chains (which have collision with themselves and other objects, unlike Source engine ropes that phase through everything), are way beyond anything you could do reliably with Havok.

    In addition to that, TotK takes Gmod's mechanics and uses them as the basis for combat encounters and puzzles, inside an actual campaign with a narrative, environmental design, music, etc. That sort of thing adds a lot; just look at Portal vs Narbacular drop.

    And yeah, I know that there are community made gamemodes for Gmod that use its physics mechanics for all kinds of stuff. None of those are a 70 hour long professionally designed campaign. That's not to say that I think TotK's campaign is strictly 'superior' to that community made content, or should be viewed as a substitute for it, but I also don't think the opposite is true either. These are simply two different types of experiences, and neither replaces the other.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    No, I mean BotW.

    I very distinctly remember these real world social interactions I had with BotW players around the game's release... I very distinctly remember accidentally pissing them off by not being blown away by the construction mechanics, when I said something like 'oh that's neat, they did some Garry's mod style stuff!'

    That was apparently not enthusiastic enough for them, and they literally exiled me from their friend group after that.

    Rest of post encapsulated so as to not blow up the thread


    And uh, the specific problems you mention with GMod?

    The standing/moving while on a phys object being jank? Yeah you can fairly easily fix a good deal of that in GMod by toggling some server side settings, you can more comprehensively fix that by writing some gamemode logic in lua that moderates/alters/hooks into the source/havok phyics.

    The ropes don't act like chains? Yeah, cuz... they aren't chains, they're meant to be cheap, but good as a minor element, visual effects. They don't collide because they're basically fancy 2D sprites.

    You can make actual physical chains with actual physicaly colliding links via a series of joint connected props, pretty sure there are just tools and methods you can find now that let you automate and customize the generation of such things.

    In both of these cases, basically what you do is just clamp maximum translational and rotational acceleration magnitudes below a certain threshold... thats one main 'trick' that source/havok/gmod doesn't do by default, that BotW does, anither one is just hard limit the number of potentially active physics capable objects in any given scene down to a lower number... Gmod by default allows for a lot more than BotW does... its up to you to tune that.

    Also, Gmod had a bunch of early gamemodes that involved having to construct something, given some limitation set, to achieve some specific goal, or gamemodes that were more like some kind of other common at the time game, but made use of on the fly, but tightly regulated, snap build type construction mechanics, sort of like fortnite, but from a first person POV.

    I guess you just never played these?


    I guess people don't realize that GMod was basically a precursor to Roblox.

    Its more of a platform for making wildly different kinds of games than it is just... 'a game'.

    Gmod just didn't have a built in currency system, Gmod gamemode developers had to (and did) figure out how to tie that into some kind of out of game webserver/db to keep track of player accounts and purchases, and then tie that back to the player's in game inventory/abilities.

    ... I know everything I am saying here, because I either knew people who did all of this stuff, wrote it from scratch, or I did it myself, or I helpes them solve particular problems they were stuck on, or visa versa, etc.


    Anyway, yeah obviously BotW has a huge open world and an actual narrative storyline and all that good stuff.

    It has that, plus some simplified version of Gmod buildy stuff, neat!

    But 'neat!' wasn't 'unprecedented and my mind has been blown'.

    I'm not saying the whole BotW game was just... bad. I'm saying it was pretty neat, but... ultimately, not anything I had not seen before, many prior games had at that point had basically all the individual game mechanics in BotW, BotW was a unique combination of thing's I'd seen before, but no individual element of it... really sticks out to me as very unique.

    Which is fine! Games are almost all 'what mix and match of systems and elements do we want, to make what comprehensive, total experience?'

    In summary, no, no my account is not disingenuous, you just aren't very familiar with or have as much experience with Gmod as I do.

    And that's probably a good thing: while Gmod offers a lot of possibilities, it also has one of the worst and most toxic communities of any game I've ever played.

    I could go on about how... the comparison to Roblox also extends to massive problems with grooming and sexual predation / exploitation of children, but that would probably be fairly far from the original topic.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    catch-em-all game

    I swear, I feel like I'm the only person who doesn't give a shit about "catching them all" and just caught what I wanted and played the story.

    I couldn't imagine wasting my time going after dumb shit because the game's slogan told me to. It must be autism, or something.

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

    It has nothing to do with the slogan. In fact, it stopped being the game's slogan by gen 3 (look up Crystal's box art and then look up any game's box art after that like Sapphire). Catching them all is just a fun side objective completionists can do, similar to collecting all the achievements in a game. I've also collected all of the creatures in other creature collectors like cassette beasts or monster sanctuary because I find it fun, not because some 25 year old slogan told me to.

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

    As part of their ongoing lawsuit, Nintendo is claiming PalWorld has violated those... now invalid patents, so Nintendo's overall case against PalWorld is now significantly more weak.

    That directly contradicts your quote:

    Since the application isn't cited in the Palworld patent lawsuit directly, its rejection won't have a direct impact on the ongoing case. However, as explained by Games Fray's analyst Florian Mueller, the newly rejected application is a "key building block" in Nintendo's strategy to capture a wide range of creature-capture system implementations. It is the child of patent JP7493117 and the parent of JP7545191, both of which are cited in Nintendo's complaint.

    IANAL, but IIRC atl in US law "child patent" just means it adds new claims to the parent patents' technology, so this just invalidates the parts that Nintendo did not use in its lawsuit.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    The rejected patent is both a child, and parent of patents cited in the lawsuit.

    Read that last quoted sentence again.

    Or, preferably, the entire article, instead of just my attempt at summary.

    So, sure, it doesn't directly effect JP7493117 in the case, as it came afterward... but it does make Nintendo's use of JP7545191 in the lawsuit look less credible.

    That and the... entire fact that Nintendo is very obviously spamming the patent system.

    I'm getting this out of a translator:

    Application 2021-208275 Publication 2023-092953 Registration 7398425

    Generation 1

    (orange)

    Used against Palworld

    Application 2023-204842 Publication 2024-020611 Registration 7505852

    Generation 2

    Application 2024-016448 Publication 2024-042091 Registration 7505854

    Application 2024-026645 Publication 2024-054400 Registration 7493117

    (red)

    Newly rejected patent

    Patent Application 2024-031879 Publication 2024-059945

    Generation 3

    (orange)

    Used against Palworld

    Application 2024-123560 Publication 2024-149570 Registration 7545191

    The lawsuit against Palworld began on September 18 2024.

    Here's that last actual patent, a child of the one just rejected.

    https://www.j-platpat.inpit.go.jp/gazette_work/domestic/A/506149000/506149500/506149570/506149570/81172F8A4D01121A951168F211E11D1CE8AC3BF517A968A3D7D6F42FF3633488/JPA%202024149570-000000.pdf

    Now, I am not a lawyer, don't speak barely any Japanese, and am certainly not a Japanese lawyer... but...

    This is from the translated summary from the webportal, I am unable to directly link to that page as it is using java or wasm or something, but here's the header / part of the abstract:

    (19) Issuing country: Japan Patent Office (JP) (12) 【Publication Type】Public Patent Gazette (A) (11) [Release number] Special opening 2024-149570 (P2024-149570A) (43) 【Release Date】October 18, Reiwa 6 (2024.10.18) (54) Name of the invention: game program, game system, game device, and game processing method

    (Reiwa roughly means Imperial Era, its kind of a cultural artefact / quirk of their calendar system. Reiwa 6 began in 2019.)

    This patent (JP7545191) was published... after... Nintendo's lawsuit began.

    Meaning that Palworld is being sued, at least in part, for violating a patent that did not exist prior to the start of the lawsuit, muchless prior to PalWorld's initial release, a patent which builds off of the failed patent that this article is saying was just struck down and would need to be appealed.

    So... again not a lawyer, but that seems like insane bullshit that would piss off a judge, to me.

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

    This is why corporations charge what they do for their products and services.

    It's so they can use that money against you.

    Stop being stupid, and stop defending them.

  • source
  • 13 comments in c/games@sh.itjust.works view that post
    [–] 53 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Fucking good. They are just mad palworld is more fun than their latest pokemon launches

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Slightly less true now that Pokemon Legends Z-A has very good reviews.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    It's selling so poorly that some retailers have already begun to put it on sale / given it a price discount, and almost every single reviewer I have seen has been between "meh, it made an attempt, kind of, but clearly isn't worth the price" and "this game is a hilariously bad joke, like The Room of video games".

    MetaCrtitic currently has it at a 78 for Critic Reviews and 48 for User Reviews.

    https://www.metacritic.com/game/pokemon-legends-z-a/?pubDate=20251029

    It's the smallest mainline Pokemon title launch in EU since 2018. Meaning yes, its at the top of sales charts... the way every mainline Pokemon game usually is... but less people are buying it than previous games, if you go by the number of sales since releaae date.

    ~28% lower than Arceus in the EU.

    If you look at global sales in the first 3 days, ZA did worse than Scarlet/Violet, Arceus, Sword/Shield, Brilliant Diamond/Shining Pearl.

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

    Lets go. Finally some good news

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago
    [–] 5 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    As part of their ongoing lawsuit, Nintendo is claiming PalWorld has violated those... now invalid patents, so Nintendo's overall case against PalWorld is now significantly more weak.

    That directly contradicts your quote:

    Since the application isn't cited in the Palworld patent lawsuit directly, its rejection won't have a direct impact on the ongoing case. However, as explained by Games Fray's analyst Florian Mueller, the newly rejected application is a "key building block" in Nintendo's strategy to capture a wide range of creature-capture system implementations. It is the child of patent JP7493117 and the parent of JP7545191, both of which are cited in Nintendo's complaint.

    IANAL, but IIRC atl in US law "child patent" just means it adds new claims to the parent patents' technology, so this just invalidates the parts that Nintendo did not use in its lawsuit.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    The rejected patent is both a child, and parent of patents cited in the lawsuit.

    Read that last quoted sentence again.

    Or, preferably, the entire article instead of just my attempt at summary.

    So, sure, it doesn't directly effect JP7493117 in the case, as it came afterward... but it does make Nintendo's use of JP7545191 in the lawsuit look less credible.

    That and the... entire fact that Nintendo is very obviously spamming the patent system.

    I'm getting this out of a translator:

    Application 2021-208275 Publication 2023-092953 Registration 7398425

    Generation 1

    (orange)

    Used against Palworld

    Application 2023-204842 Publication 2024-020611 Registration 7505852

    Generation 2

    Application 2024-016448 Publication 2024-042091 Registration 7505854

    Application 2024-026645 Publication 2024-054400 Registration 7493117

    (red)

    Newly rejected patent

    Patent Application 2024-031879 Publication 2024-059945

    Generation 3

    (orange)

    Used against Palworld

    Application 2024-123560 Publication 2024-149570 Registration 7545191

    The lawsuit against Palworld began on September 18 2024.

    Here's that last actual patent, a child of the one just rejected.

    https://www.j-platpat.inpit.go.jp/gazette_work/domestic/A/506149000/506149500/506149570/506149570/81172F8A4D01121A951168F211E11D1CE8AC3BF517A968A3D7D6F42FF3633488/JPA%202024149570-000000.pdf

    Now, I am not a lawyer, don't speak barely any Japanese, and am certainly not a Japanese lawyer... but...

    This is from the translated summary from the webportal, I am unable to directly link to that page as it is using java or wasm or something, but here's the header / part of the abstract:

    (19) Issuing country: Japan Patent Office (JP) (12) 【Publication Type】Public Patent Gazette (A) (11) [Release number] Special opening 2024-149570 (P2024-149570A) (43) 【Release Date】October 18, Reiwa 6 (2024.10.18) (54) Name of the invention: game program, game system, game device, and game processing method

    (Reiwa roughly means Imperial Era, its kind of a cultural artefact / quirk of their calendar system. Reiwa 6 began in 2019.)

    This patent (JP7545191) was published... after... Nintendo's lawsuit began.

    Meaning that Palworld is being sued, at least in part, for violating a patent that did not exist prior to the start of the lawsuit, muchless prior to PalWorld's initial release, a patent which builds off of the failed patent that this article is saying was just struck down and would need to be appealed.

    So... again not a lawyer, but that seems like insane bullshit that would piss off a judge, to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Thanks, I did miss that one was a child of the rejected patent. That said, child status only means that the patent is based on the parent invention, not that a dependency tree for the patents' validity. I've confirmed that this is true in Japanese law as well after searching it up:

    D) Advantage of filing divisional applications 2) Providing a fallback to the parent application Filing divisional applications leaves open the possibility that applicants may obtain a patent granted partially, even though the parent application is ultimately rejected by the JPO.

    https://shigapatent.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Divisonal-Application.pdf

    I would wait for the patents actually used in the lawsuit being invalidated before cheering.

    was published... after... Nintendo's lawsuit began. [...] insane bullshit that would piss off a judge, to me.

    This is true regardless of whether or not the patents are invalidated.

    Reiwa 6 began in 2019

    Reiwa is the imperial era beginning in 2019, meaning Reiwa 1 is 2019 and Reiwa 6 is 2024. The name translates to "Fine Harmony". The more you know!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    So, you read:

    Filing divisional applications leaves open the possibility that applicants may obtain a patent granted partially, even though the parent application is ultimately rejected by the JPO.

    And came away with:

    That said, child status only means that the patent is based on the parent invention, not that a dependency tree for the patents' validity.

    ... I don't know what to say other than I feel you are wrong, the parts of JP545191 that are reliant on its rejected parent would or could now be rejected, possibly, rendering JP545191 only partially valid, in some regards, not its totality.

    So... that that is even a possibility now does mean that Nintendo's position in the PalWorld lawsuit is weaker.

    EDIT:

    [At least by US law... yeah, it does not always work, but sometimes, if you invalidate a parent patent, you can partially or wholly invalidate the child patent... though I am sure the precise legal procedures for doing this are incredibly esoteric to even attempt.

    So that would now be a potential legal line of attack (defense?) for PalWorld]

    But, I will thank you for the correction on how Reiwa ... uh, counting works, lol.

    So its like... "year 6 of current era", which began in 2019. Got it!

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

    Thanks!

    Thing is, the heading says that the reason the child patent is filed is specifically to make its claim still stand even if the parent patent is invalidated. I would expect that Nintendo's big-suit lawyers have engineered the patent to have minimal overlap with parts that may be invalidated. Child patents are not for amending the original patent's claims but to file a new ones.

    Here are the other reasons the documented said you might want to file a child patent:

    1. Response to a violation of the requirement of unity of invention [(the same patent cannot contain multiple inventions)] If an Office Action (OA) is issued due to a violation of the requirements for unity of invention, it may be possible for the applicant to obtain a patent by separating claims which do not satisfy the requirements for unity of invention from the parent application by filling them as divisional applications.
    1. Obtaining patents for inventions described only in the specification Patents can also be obtained for inventions that are described only in the specification of the original application, but not described in the claims, by filing one or more divisional applications for the desired inventions.
    2. Issuing a warning against competitors by keeping applications pending for an extended period of time The application pendency period can be prolonged by filing divisional applications. This urges competitors to observe the status of the existence of divisional applications. It is effective to put pressure and restrictions on competitors designing their products and so forth.
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago

    Sorry I got in qn edit after your post, but basically, PalWorld can now just directly challenge the validity of the child patent, probably in this case or as an adjoiner to it.

    It isn't guaranteed to work, but it's a clear option now.

    Beyond that:

    So, 1 makes sense from the perspective of trying to keep the entire patent system.... some level of sane.

    But, normally, you'd file all of those children patents basically all at the same time time.

    Here's my thing I invented, it does a lot of crazy new shit, heres the thing, here's crazy thing 1, 2, 3, etc.

    For point 3... I have read through some of the US patents Nintendo has been filing recently, and one thing that greatly confuses me is that they almost always literally include diagrams of and a multitude of specific references to specific Nintendo hardware.

    I am not sure if this is their US legal team just following Japanese norms and potentially giving a challenger an out, on the grounds that... they're not claiming to do some patented thing on say a Switch...

    Or, if this actually makes sense and would work within the US legal system.

    I've read a number of other US patents in my time and... I at least have not seen too many conceptual, software method concepts that can be broadly applied to nearly any hardware... be so specific with their example use case.

    And for point 4... I mean yeah, that's the 'flood the patent office' strategy where you'd do that basically just if you are iterating on something you already hold... but... that seems dubious when the parent patent fails, beyond generating more paperwork for the lawyers.

    I guess it also effectively restarts any kind of timer for patents that expire after some amount of time... if that is a thing that happens. It is in the US at least.

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

    Everyone just forgets Shin Megami Tensei exists

  • source
  • 7 comments in c/nintendo@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 30 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I break this image out a lot but:

    Meme template captioned "Man, fuck patents. All my homies hate patents."

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

    Patents are fine, if someone discovers a good new way to do something they deserve some legal protection from those with huge legal and PR bugets swooping in and taking it for themselves.

    The way the patent system is abused is not fine, the number of trivial patents granted for things which are obvious next steps from existing things, and then using those as legal ammunition in shakedowns/scare offs of competetors is the issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    The patent system is fundamentally broken. It could be fixed, but right now, in the current state, it totally fails all its good for.

    • Patents can be filed with hardly any checks in place. The point of a patent office is to issue patents, not to issue valid patents. Validity is verified in court.
    • Patents don't give you an actual claim to anything, only the right to sue, if you have enough money to afford a lawsuit. In patent court, running out of money is a common way to lose, which means that patent court strongly favours those with money.
    • Patents are really expensive. We are talking about tens of thousands of Euros.

    All that means that patents are completely unviable for the "small inventor" they were meant to protect. Patents largely function as a way for large corporations to bully smaller competitors out of the market.

    It is a totally viable strategy to get an invalid patent and use it to bully a smaller competitor off the market who can't afford to invalidate your patent.

    As a small inventor patent law becomes an absolute minefield, since there's hardly any way to find all the patents that you might accidentally violate with your invention.

    Follow-up patents (meaning, you change some minor detail when your patent runs out to artificially extend the life of your patent by getting a new patent on the slightly modified versions) also break the other goal of patents which was to force inventors to open-source their invention through the patent.

    So instead of a way to protect small inventors and making sure that ideas end up available to everyone, the current patent law does the exact opposite.

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

    Those arent universal, for example to file a patent in the UK costs £310 and includes a substantive examination where the intelectual property office examine your proposed patent for novelty and validity.

    Again, I dont disagree that patent systems generally have significant problems and are abused routinely, but the point of giving time limited legal protections for people who invent something new and useful is a good one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    The problem there is that an UK patent is practically worthless. For a patent to be somewhat worthwhile, you need an international one.

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

    I think you are a bit misinformed on this, there is no such thing as an international patent. What there is is the patent cooperation treaty, where prety much all countries in the world co-ordinate patent filings against each other and allow you to file the same patent in lots of places. The UK gets you into that system as well as anywhere else.

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

    FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florian_M%C3%BCller_%28author%29?wprov=sfla1

    (He's cited in the article)

    Florian is a paid shill. I recognized his name immediately. "That guy‽"

    Totally destroyed his reputation by working anti-FOSS propaganda for Microsoft and Oracle.

  • source