Comment on Pocketpair reveals specific patents featured in Nintendo's lawsuit against Palworld

riskable@programming.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Or at least the bar should be much much higher. Like if you’ve invented the SHA algorithm… Fine.

  However, if you’ve just invented “a way to purchase something over the network via a phone”… That is not patent worthy.

  source

  • PenguinTD@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    You should not patent algorithms as it’s a “discovery” not an invention.

    There are 2 main category in software patents that mimics real life production, that I think is fairly acceptable.

    • ingenuity: komani patent that mini game during loading screen
    • unique concept: the nemesis system

    The throwing ball to capture creature I think is more copyright than patent.

    source

    • Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I think patents should really only apply to extremely tricky algorithmic discoveries.

      “Ingenuity patents” like that loading screen game are everything that’s wrong with software patents.

      source

      • barsoap@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Algorithmic patents amount to patenting maths which, by very longstanding precedence, is not a thing, for good reason.

        In the EU there’s only one way to patent software and that’s if you’re using it to achieve direct physical ends. E.g. you can patent washing machine firmware in so far as you patent a particular way to combine sensor data to achieve a particular washing result. Rule of thumb: If, 30 years ago, you’d have an electromechanical mechanism to do the task then you can patent the software that’s now replacing it.

        Oh: It’s also possible to patent silicon, that is, you can patent your hardware acceleration methods for video decoding. That doesn’t extend to decoders running on general-purpose hardware, though.

        If you want to monopolise your brand-new hash algorithm there’s a simple way: Don’t publish the source, use copyright to collect royalties… though that doesn’t mean that reverse engineering is outlawed, especially if necessary for interoperability. Practically speaking nope hash algorithms just can’t be protected which is fair and square because it’s academia who comes up with that kind of stuff and we paid for it with taxpayer money. Want to make money off it? Get tenure.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • DdCno1@beehaw.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        The thing is, many physical patents are also describing extremely simple mechanisms or mere ideas for them. I don’t think your criteria reflect reality, as much as I wish they did.

        source
      • PenguinTD@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        for practical physical good, some times a patent just means I did this first doesn’t mean it’s hard to do or replicate. ie. like the umbrella wedge/spring to make it open automatically. That’s the part of ingenuity. And why I think the mini game during loading screen worth the patent.

        I don’t like algorithm patent because ultimately, it was there, if original sha hash wasn’t developed, someone would come up with a different method that doing roughly the same. It’s the math and other prior foundation in computer hasing/data processing provides the idea and how you can process and get the hash fast. so your newer arrangement of faster version(like different sorting algorithm) would not be possible without those other research.

        ie. for my own example, my thesis involves doing polygon culling strategy, my base algorithm is totally base on math prediction as to what’s the optimum I can achieve minimum culling checks. BUT, that algorithm is actually slower than when you implement the checks base on how GPU is doing the render plus cache efficiency. If I did not know or not aware how computer works from prior study, I can’t figure out why my “optimum” algorithm is actually slower than sub-optimum checking strategy.

        Say, what if SHA or whatever algorithms is implemented, and is actually very impactful to other application, which can be proven that anyone can naturally come to this conclusion by doing their own research, simply grant that patent impedes future development. Another computer graphic patent is the Joe Alter hair distribution, it has nothing to do with ingenuity and just because his dad is a good patent lawyer, it blocks any healthy competition from selling CG hair grooming product in US. If you check the patent itself, that was like trying to patent a math distribution over surface.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • theangriestbird@beehaw.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Counterpoint: both of those ideas being patented meant no competitor could use them while the ideas were relevant. And in both cases, the patenting company made like one promising example of the patented idea and then barely used it after that. Wouldn’t it have been better for consumers if we could have had loading screen minigames back when long loading screens were still relevant?

      source

      • JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        For the consumer, obviously.
        Patents exist to protect the profit of the inventor, specifically because once you have spent the RnD money to make something, someone else can take your finished idea and create your thing without having to cover those costs. Their entire point is to make sure stuff stays more expensive and exclusive for longer.

        But the issue isn’t that patents or even software patents exist as a thing, they are important to protect against copying, it’s that seemingly almost anything no matter how simple, vague or universal it is can apply and get patented, and whoever owns those patents then doesn’t have to use or license them, instead they just sit on them waiting to strike with a lawsuit.

        Like one of the Nintendo ones which is the genius and detailed idea of “you can can capture animals and ride them using controller input in a vidya gaym!” - a concept entire unique and one that hasn’t been ever used before in a game I bet.

        source
      • PenguinTD@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        it’s like the first person invent a way to make the pop cap for your travel coffee mug. Like, anyone could have come up with that idea, right? compare to screw cap we used to have. We do have plenty of examples where the patent aren’t really popular until after it is expired or irrelevant.

        Like, yeah, in a heatlhy competition env, it is way better for consumer in the beginning. But because of how capital works, eventually without patent it all goes to the bigger corps.

        source