Comment

Comment on Nintendo and Pokémon are suing Palworld maker Pocketpair

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.

source

Sort:hotnew top

AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Gameplay can be patented. Namco patented the mechanics of Katamari Damacy, for example.

source
- DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  And they continue to absolutely sweet fuck all with it in the modern age…(remasters do not count,)
  
  source
  - AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    They made some shitty tap-the-screen game with collectibles for the iPhone maybe 10 years ago, though the less said about it the better. My guess is that it was a fuck-you to Takahashi-san.
    
    source
soulsource@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.)

source
- thingsiplay@beehaw.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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!).
  
  source