You could almost say… Parodied 😯
Comment on Nintendo and Pokémon are suing Palworld maker Pocketpair
soulsource@discuss.tchncs.de 19 hours agoI’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…
Zoot@reddthat.com 18 hours ago
MoogleMaestro@lemmy.zip 6 hours ago
You could almost say… Parodied 😯
Right, legally speaking that would be covered in the US.
But Japanese law is completely different and IIRC parodies are not covered which is why anime always sensors their parody references to other anime. It’s stupid, but it’s the society that both developers are from.
Only time will tell what they’re actually accusing Pocket Pair of doing though.
Zoot@reddthat.com 5 hours ago
Good to know, I had not realized it wasn’t covered in Japanese law
thingsiplay@beehaw.org 19 hours ago
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.
AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 11 hours ago
Gameplay can be patented. Namco patented the mechanics of Katamari Damacy, for example.
soulsource@discuss.tchncs.de 12 hours ago
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: 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.)
thingsiplay@beehaw.org 12 hours ago
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!).