Nintendo Sues the Company Behind Palworld

[pacman000]

Nintendo Sues the Company Behind Palworld

 

 

 

For patent infringement, not for copyright infringement. Not sure what patents Nintendo says Palworld violated; might be one covering the act of throwing a ball-like object to capture monsters.

[HatefulGravey]

You have to think the people behind Palworld knew this was coming at some point. This might be the sign that they have made it to a certain level of popularity. 

 

I'm not shocked Nintendo sued someone. I'm actually a little shocked they let other people make video games at all without a law suit.  

[Video]

Well if throwing something to catch something was a defend able mechanic, wouldn't ghost busters predate Pokemon by a lot (at least a decade) they threw that box thing to catch a ghost, and often needed one for each ghost.

[roots.genoa]

7 hours ago, pacman000 said:

For patent infringement, not for copyright infringement. Not sure what patents Nintendo says Palworld violated; might be one covering the act of throwing a ball-like object to capture monsters.

That's the theory yes. They probably use this because it's easier to prove than copyright infringement, although I'm pretty sure it's what really bothers Nintendo. The proof is there are a lot of small, Pokémon-like games these days, with a gameplay way more close to Pokémon than Palworld's, and Nintendo don't sue them (they didn't make a lot of money mind you).

[HatefulGravey]

35 minutes ago, Video said:

Well if throwing something to catch something was a defend able mechanic, wouldn't ghost busters predate Pokemon by a lot (at least a decade) they threw that box thing to catch a ghost, and often needed one for each ghost.

That's funny. I drove home thinking about other ways to catch something in a non-offensive way and using a box like this was the best I could come up with. Completely forgetting about Ghost Busters. 

 

If I'm honest, Nintendo likely has a case IMO. I assumed this was coming when this game came on my radar. At a glance it looks like Pokemon. Granted, I have not played the game, and I haven't sought out information on the game. 

[pacman000]

3 hours ago, Video said:

Well if throwing something to catch something was a defend able mechanic, wouldn't ghost busters predate Pokemon by a lot (at least a decade) they threw that box thing to catch a ghost, and often needed one for each ghost.

The patent people suspect is a recent one, modeling the act of throwing a Pokeball in real-time. I don't think the older turn based games were covered by any patent.

 

Ghostbusters wouldn't be a bad alternative; if I remember right, they put the trap out then guided the ghost into it. Someone would have to read the patent to be sure tho.

 

And I'm no lawyer, so I'm not qualified to do that. In short, this isn't legal advice. Get a lawyer for real legal advice. Etc. Etc. Etc.

[Razzie.P]

1 hour ago, pacman000 said:

And I'm no lawyer, so I'm not qualified to do that. In short, this isn't legal advice. Get a lawyer for real legal advice. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Nah, you done put it out there so you're my lawyer now.  😊

[Tanooki]

Isn't it all still assumption exactly what the problems are?  Last I looked was a day or two ago when the dumb social media trolls latched onto the easy low hanging fruit of basically Nintendo being evil and anti gamer and all the other entitled spew that always it thrown around without having any actual hard facts why what happened did happen.  From what i've seen with Palworld, it could be the throw mechanic, it could be the design of the game at large, the potential close enough copying of some pokemon out of their library of 1000 of them or whatever now, or something else entirely different.  They've learned over time how to handle a successful take down compared to the past when they'd just lash out, they're just more measured now and they took their time on Palworld given when it released.  Odds are very likely palworld crossed a line or two and before going public with it, they must has pre-created a pretty rock solid case to work.  Not that they're not above just courts, and bankrupting with legal fees, but that's not usually their thing when hitting companies vs private people they know they can just intimidate.

[roots.genoa]

The thing is even if Nintendo doesn't win the case, Palworld's developer will probably be ruined. But they had it coming...

 

It's easy to paint Nintendo as evil, but once again there are a lot of indie Pokémon-like games out there that Nintendo left alone. When Palworld released, even if the core gameplay is actually quite different, the game was clearly successful because it was sold as "Pokémon+guns", that's how most media talked about it. Even though you can't "prove" it from a legal standpoint, most of the 3D models are super similar; only a Pokémon fan can see the differences but for the mainstream audience, the game can look like an official Pokémon spin-off which is what triggers Nintendo the most (remember that when Nintendo sued two ROM hosting web sites, not only were they actually selling ROMs, but they used Nintendo assets to make them look like official sites).

 

Also, I'm pretty sure Pokémon fans are not the ones that bought Palworld, but mostly Nintendo haters that saw it as an opportunity to flip the bird to Nintendo.

I've seen this cycle many times know:

• Someone ports a Nintendo game or makes a unofficial sequel or something.
• People download it en masse while saying "FU Nintendo, you can't do anything about it".
• Nintendo does something about it.
• People cry "Damn you Nintendo, you're evil".
• Then they realize that nothing is ever completely gone from the Internet, so they keep downloading it while saying "FU Nintendo, you can't do anything about it".

And btw, one could wonder why people want to play Nintendo games that much while they claim they hate them, but whatever.

Edited September 24 by roots.genoa

[digdugnate]

My only comment is that even if Nintendo loses the case, they still have a Scrooge McDuck-esque money bin to swim around in.  I think they'll be oookayyy.  hehe

[HatefulGravey]

1 hour ago, digdugnate said:

My only comment is that even if Nintendo loses the case, they still have a Scrooge McDuck-esque money bin to swim around in.  I think they'll be oookayyy.  hehe

Nintendo really can't lose here. Either they win the case in court, or they make the defense so expensive that Palworld can't afford to win and stay in business. Large companies have a lot of legal power just based of the money they can throw around.

[Tanooki]

They do have a lot of money, sometimes a good thing for a company and sometimes not.  THe deal here is basically what roots said, could be a real legal thing we're not being told about until its in play or over, or it's playing the how they sold it, talked it up, and how consumers perceived it.  Pokemon with guns is all I remember about it, other than it looking like what people wanted in a pokemon game on Switch or PC(not that would ever happen) and Nintendo wouldn't do it, so Palworld did that and Nintendo wasn't thrilled.  But oddly they stayed quiet,  now we know why, because they knew they'd need the right angles to take them down without just some wasted time in court to bury them in fees given the other side could in theory counter sue for losses in court costs plus damages.

[HatefulGravey]

I feel like Nintendo has to have a case. After watching the video in the original post it seems like they are going to be using a shady tactic (IMO) to bring this suit. I'm sure they wouldn't risk bringing this game to everyone's attention if they didn't have something they were sure would shut Palworld down.

[CapitanClassic]

I don't know how patents work in Japan, but in the USA, you cannot patent game mechanics. 

 

Nintendo seems to be claiming the patented the throw a ball to capture a virtual monster in augmented reality. There have been previous lawsuits, Capcom vs Dats East (although it was a copyright claim), but the plaintiff lost becuase all fighting games would have similar gameplay and they didn't want to grant Capcom a monopoly on all video game fighting games (would have saved us from the fighting game glut of the early 1990s though).

[pacman000]

9 minutes ago, CapitanClassic said:

(would have saved us from the fighting game glut of the early 1990s though)

LOL.

 

10 minutes ago, CapitanClassic said:

I don't know how patents work in Japan, but in the USA, you cannot patent game mechanics. 

Are we sure about that? Monopoly was patented, as were parts of Magic: The Gathering.

[CapitanClassic]

17 minutes ago, pacman000 said:

Are we sure about that? Monopoly was patented, as were parts of Magic: The Gathering.

Not sure exactly what you think MtG patented, but their patent didn't prevent anyone from making hundreds of other TCGs from 1990s through early 2000s 

 

I have heard people say that they think they cannot create a TCG with a tap mechanic, to show that the card has been spent. Or that you cannot create a TCG at all, and you have to call it something else (that would be a trademark issue anyway, possibly confused with Fantasy Flights "Living Card Game" (LCG) trademark ). Monopoly like MtG patented the process of playing the game of Monopoly / MtG. I suppose they are arguing for a Utility patent, that would cover the unique gameplay (it would require it being unique and non-obvious). I don't think either could be argued successfully in court.

 

What exactly is unique about throwing a ball in virtual reality?

 

[HatefulGravey]

1 hour ago, CapitanClassic said:

I don't know how patents work in Japan, but in the USA, you cannot patent game mechanics. 

 

Nintendo seems to be claiming the patented the throw a ball to capture a virtual monster in augmented reality. There have been previous lawsuits, Capcom vs Dats East (although it was a copyright claim), but the plaintiff lost becuase all fighting games would have similar gameplay and they didn't want to grant Capcom a monopoly on all video game fighting games (would have saved us from the fighting game glut of the early 1990s though).

Watch the video in the original post. It lays out international patent law pretty well. I'm not lawyer, but the people working for Nintendo are and something tells me they wouldn't bring a suit that wasn't at least legal.

[CapitanClassic]

16 minutes ago, HatefulGravey said:

Watch the video in the original post. It lays out international patent law pretty well. I'm not lawyer, but the people working for Nintendo are and something tells me they wouldn't bring a suit that wasn't at least legal.

Did you even watch the video? It doesn't say what you think it does. The Japanese patent system is modeled off the USA.

 

Companies bring lawfair all the time, even when they dont have a leg to stand on. Activision knew they were going to be sued, and just budgeted for it. (Eventually other was settled out of court, with Activision reportedly just paying a flat annual royalty fee to make games for the VCS)

 

The makers of Bleem were sued by Sony, even though what they were doing was completely legal (Sony lost every case). They just wanted to bankrupt the company with legal fees.

 

 

[HatefulGravey]

5 minutes ago, CapitanClassic said:

Did you even watch the video? It doesn't say what you think it does. The Japanese patent system is modeled off the USA.

 

Companies bring lawfair all the time, even when they dont have a leg to stand on. Activision knew they were going to be sued, and just budgeted for it. (Eventually other was settled out of court, with Activision reportedly just paying a flat annual royalty fee to make games for the VCS)

 

The makers of Bleem were sued by Sony, even though what they were doing was completely legal (Sony lost every case). They just wanted to bankrupt the company with legal fees.

 

 

I don't disagree that lawfair is a thing and may be applied in this case, in fact I believe that is exactly what is going on here. You still have to have enough legal standing to get the case heard. If you simply can't patent a game mechanic this case will be thrown out long before anyone has a chance to bankrupt their opponent. 

 

My opinion on this, clearly stated, is that Nintendo wouldn't want to bring Palworld to everyone's attention with a law suit if they didn't believe they had enough to bring them to court and kill Palworld in one way or another. If the suit fails all Nintendo has done is advertise that Palworld is a lot like Pokemon. 

[CapitanClassic]

21 minutes ago, HatefulGravey said:

If you simply can't patent a game mechanic this case will be thrown out long before anyone has a chance to bankrupt their opponent. 

No. There is a process to this. Nintendo hasn't actually declared which patents have been infringed. The only clues we have so far is that they must be jointly held between Nintendo and The Pokémon Company. When we finally get the details of their lawsuit, they will probably include any crazy thing that PalWorld has that is similar. As if riding a Pokémon can be parented. (I guess they never heard of WoW mounts.)

[roots.genoa]

4 hours ago, CapitanClassic said:

I don't know how patents work in Japan, but in the USA, you cannot patent game mechanics.

You clearly can in Japan.

• SEGA patented the ability to switch between different camera view angles in 3D games, but when they sued Nintendo, Namco, and other companies, they lost because Mikito Ichikawa had done it before Virtua Racing in a Star Wars game for the X68000.
• Konami patented invisible walls when they're between the character and the camera in a 3D game as well. I don't know if they sued anyone with it, though.

So it happened before, but like your Capcom example showed as well, it's often hard to win a case with this because the defense often ends up finding a precursor, even an obscure one that probably had zero influence...

[CapitanClassic]

"Nothing is new under the sun"

 

You cannot "clearly" in Japan. I have yet to find a successful lawsuit that enforced a game patent. Someone in the Japanese patent office made a mistake.

 

Nintendo filed a related patent in the USA, but it was rejected. I suppose that is why they filed in Japan, since they don't (yet) have a legally enforceable patent. 

 

The only results appear to use computers to solve complex processing problems (ie. Animating faces, and networking comupters), and are not just game mechanics.

Edited September 24 by CapitanClassic

[JPF997]

This is corporate tyranny at it's finest, if Nintendo wins this lawsuit gaming will take a massive step backwards in terms of innovation and creativity, I really hope they lose this one.

 

[roots.genoa]

10 hours ago, CapitanClassic said:

You cannot "clearly" in Japan. I have yet to find a successful lawsuit that enforced a game patent. Someone in the Japanese patent office made a mistake.

I'm sorry but you asked if it was possible to patent a game mechanic in Japan, you didn't ask if it was possible to win a lawsuit thanks to it, which are two very different things. I'm just saying you clearly can patent a game mechanic in Japan, since several companies did it.

 

9 hours ago, JPF997 said:

This is corporate tyranny at it's finest, if Nintendo wins this lawsuit gaming will take a massive step backwards in terms of innovation and creativity, I really hope they lose this one.

If you still want to convince me you're not a Nintendo hater, you're doing it wrong. 🙂

[JPF997]

3 hours ago, roots.genoa said:

 

 

If you still want to convince me you're not a Nintendo hater, you're doing it wrong. 🙂

Remember how Namco Patented the idea of having mini games during the loading screens  in 1995 ? And how said patent only expired in 2015 when loading screens became a thing of the past?  

 

Companies Patenting ideas and game mechanics is bad for the hobby, it stifles innovation and creativity, it also means that the possibility of a new  developer coming along and dethroning the current giants in  the industry is next to impossible.

 

Calling Nintendo out for this BS patent trolling and monopolistic behavior doesn't make someone a Nintendo hater by default, it just means that you are a smart consumer that cares about the future of this hobby.

 

 

 

Edited September 25 by JPF997