this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
142 points (100.0% liked)
Gaming
30555 readers
132 users here now
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What exactly is infringed here? I don't see Palworld infringing anything Nintendo does (no its not sarcasm).
I'm not sure how the term "patent" is to be interpreted here. It could be used like back in the days when Apple sued Samsung because their phone had rounded edges too...
Like a "design patent" (sorry, I'm not a native English speaker, so I'm unsure if this is the correct translation).
A lot of the pals in the game look quite close to Pokémon. Not identical, of course, but so similar that one just has to wonder if the design has been "inspired" by Pokémon...
Pokemon design isn't patented, they are secured by copyright. As long as they do not copy a Pokemon design directly, they are safe. Being inspired is not a copyright infringement. Patents usually are about hardware and other mechanical solutions, in example a certain dialog system. And it needs to be patented and all patents are open to see, I think.
It depends on what kind of patent. I just googled the term I had used before, and it is indeed what I expected it to be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent
And yes, that name is stupid. That's why I am happy that my native language, German, has a better distinction between "Patent" (what you described) and "Geschmacksmuster" (design patent).
About patents being public: They are. That's because the idea behind patents is that after they expire, anyone can use them to build the technology they describe. The temporary exclusive usage rights that they offer are meant as an incentive for inventors to publish their findings. The only problem is that the legal situation did not keep up with the creativity of patent lawyers... (I will stop now, otherwise this will turn into an endless rant about how broken the patent system is.)
Just to add to the fuel: Apple has a patent for the swipe unlock on iPhones.
I'm from Germany too BTW, Hallo. :D My point was to distinguish copyrighted creative work from specific patented ideas. Patents are usually not about how it looks, but solving a specific (mechanical) problem. And they need to be paid and approved manually. While Copyright is automatically active on creation and is about creative work and or art in example. Copyright can can be licensed to any form like MIT. Patents cannot have a specific license like this to make derivatives.
You cannot put a dent into your tv and give it an MIT license. But you can go and patent this specific "Design Patent" (the name is not that bad actually!).