Comment on Palworld confirms ‘disappointing’ game changes forced by Pokémon lawsuit
Tattorack@lemmy.world 3 weeks agoThe courts ruled it isn’t plagerism. So… You’re looking pretty stupid here.
The patents in question have nothing to do with creature designs. And neither would patent law be covering the design of creatures. That would be copyright law.
Arkouda@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Weird how they are overhauling their game if the courts ruled in favour of them eh?
pivot_root@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Buddy, quit while you’re
aheadnot too far behind. You’re just proving what @Tattorack@lemmy.world said: you don’t understand the difference between patents, copyright, and trademarks.Arkouda@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
I never claimed to be an expert, and mistakes happen. Good thing the difference between the three doesn’t matter when Palworld blatantly plagiarized the Pokemon games, and I have yet to hear an actual argument how it didn’t rip off another game.
But I get it. Pokemon can pew pew now and ignoramus’ eat up gun play.
Tattorack@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
You really are that stupid, huh?
OK, let’s do a little exercise; how many of their creature designs have been changed since launch?