• Egg_Egg@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Half of Pokémon are heavily inspired by artist’s (who are not affiliated with Nintendo) illustrations of popular Yokai (Japanese mythological creatures). The rest are simply animals with very generic additions. “It’s a cow but bipedal” “It’s a kangaroo but with horns” “It’s a pigeon but… actually yeah it’s just a pigeon. No difference.”

    How can you copyright/patent that? It’s hardly original.

    I say this as someone who grew up loving Pokémon.

    • AdmiralRob@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s not for copyright infringement, it’s for patent infringement. Apparently when they made Legends Arceus, Nintendo patented the idea of pointing the camera at a monster and throwing stuff at it.

        • leopold@lemmy.kde.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Dunno, I think I prefer patents. Unlike copyright, patents usually last a flat twenty years. Copyright expires either after 95 years or 70 years after the death of the author, which is ludicrous. Both are constantly abused, but at least patents expire in a reasonable amount of time.

          • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            patents and copyright are pretty different though. IMO both are bad but you can at least make a case for protecting intelectual work from copying. Patents protect replication of ideas and ideas don’t have to be unique at all. If I say it was my idea to call variables a,b,c,d,e in that order that means anyone who wants to do that in their creations needs my permission which is fucking bonkers.

            I’m convinced that software patents exist purely for regulatory capture.

  • Franklin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s still identifiably distinct, I really hope Nintendo lose because allowing copyright of a concecpt is dystopian especially in the context of our lengthy time frames for copyright.

    It reminds me of when Apple wanted to patent the idea of rounded corners.

    • simple@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s not even copyright, they’re suing for using things they patented, but their patents are extremely general. I kid you not, they have a patent for MOUNTING CREATURES, something hundreds of games have done.

      Abstract: In an example of a game program, a ground boarding target object or an air boarding target objects is selected by a selection operation, and a player character is caused to board the selected boarding target object. If the player character aboard the air boarding target object moves toward the ground player character automatically changed to the state where the player character is aboard the ground boarding target object, and brought into the state where the player character can move on the ground.

      I’m no lawyer so I can’t tell you how well this would hold up in court but it’s ridiculous. See more: https://patents.justia.com/assignee/the-pokemon-company

      • troed@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        IANAL - but I’ve worked for Big Company and have gone through the patent process a few times. A patent isn’t what’s written in the supporting text and abstract. It’s only the exact thing written out in the claims.

        First claim from the patent the abstract is from:

        1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a game program causing a computer of an information processing apparatus to provide execution comprising:

          controlling a player character in a virtual space based on a first operation input;

          in association with selecting, based on a selection operation, a boarding object that the player character can board and providing a boarding instruction, causing the player character to board the boarding object and bringing the player character into a state where the player character can move, wherein the boarding object is selected among a plurality of types of objects that the player character owns;

          in association with providing a second operation input when the player character is in the air, causing the player character to board an air boarding object and bringing the player character into a state where the player character can move in the air; and

          while the player character is aboard the air boarding object, moving the player character, aboard the air boarding object, in the air based on a third operation input.

        Exactly everything described above must be done in that exact same way for there to be an infringement.

        • Petter1@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          That seems a bit more easy to get around. It is still crazy to think that you have to check your whole game design against that many patents 😅

          • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            it’s stupid. I’m convinced that people who oversee software patents don’t even know what’s a computer.