all 24 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 46 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I don't think this is the win we want. Sounds like palwprld change the game to no longer infringe on Nintendo copyright claims. So Nintendo can no longer seek an injunction. They are still seeking damages.

I really want to see the copyright claims be challenged in court so we know where we stand. Rather then the continual settling out of court because Nintendo has more money.

It doesn't sound like Nintendo are on track to win or lose this. Just Palworld changed the game to limit the impact of the lawsuit. Which is in a way a small win for Nintendo.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago*

    The 'copyright claims' (patent violations, actually) are currently being challenged in court, that is... what the lawsuits are about.

    They are also not settling out of court... they're in court already. Meaning that the eventual settlement will be that adjuctated by the courts.

    Given the total extent of damages and violations that Nintendo was originally claiming... and Nintendo's reputation as a litigious legal juggernaut...

    The common expectation, when this all started, was that Nintendo would be able to functionally sue PalWorld out of existence.

    That is not what seems likely to happen.

    Instead, it looks like PalWorld is going to walk away from this with some scrapes and bruises, but mostly intact, Nintendo is having to massively scale back the extent of violations and damages they claiming, because basically, their legal foundation for much of it was dubious.

    Yeah, not a total victory for PalWorld, but surviving at all is an incredible victory, in context.

    Part of why it is an incredible victory is that it shows that Nintendo can be successfully fought in court, and you can come out intact... as opposed to just being afraid and conceeding to their demands, assuming you would certainly lose in court.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 81 points 4 months ago

    Good. It was built on intimidation and fake claims of copyright.

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Good, maybe with this Nintendo learns their place

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (14 children)

    Can I get a tldr oh what’s palworld?

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Game where you enslave NotPokemon™

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 4 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 15 points 4 months ago

    Fun little animal capture Battler with base building and guns. Nintendo sued then for having a mechanic of being able to grow to capture and ride mounts without extra steps. Revised payments in the middle of the law suit too iirc.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    Ok. Palworld (a pocket monster style game like Digimon or Pokemon) released in 2024. Some people claimed it stole assets from Pokemon (or heavily plagiarized them). This has since been debunked but continues to be a bone of contention for some.

    Nintendo decided to sue for patent infringement based on game mechanics (not monster design), and apply for new patents on game mechanics like mounts/creature riding mechanics, and the ability to catch creatures to enable the lawsuit against the developer of Palworld, Pocketpair.

    This lawsuit has been ongoing for a couple of years now and in that time, Pocketpair have made changes to Palworld to further differentiate their game's mechanics from Pokemon games in order to mitigate the damages from the lawsuit.

    If you are so inclined you can read more about it here:

    https://www.ip-brief.com/blogs/nintendo-is-wrong-on-one-patent-claim-against-palworld

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -19 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    You can't use a search engine?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Many microblogging and aggregation platform users prefer to ask questions within a thread to keep the conversation active. You can continue scrolling through other posts while waiting for an organic reply from another user.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    I'm really glad this appears to be a popular way of thinking. Back in my day people would respond to questions like this with rude "let me Google that for you" links. I always preferred asking humans things rather than looking them up, and I think that's become really important given the AI hellscape we're experiencing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -13 points 4 months ago

    Nah, a proper question and contribution would be to ask what the lawsuit is about. It's ridiculous to expect others to explain what a high profile game is, that's what a search engine is for. It takes literally 5 second or less to Google it and look at screenshots to understand what's the point here.

    This isn't contributing anything. If your "active" conversation is nothing more than asking about widely available facts, it's nothing but noise and might as well not be there.

  • source
  • parent