TWeaK
@TWeaK@lemm.ee
- Comment on As the Canada "tax holiday" starts, Walmart increased the price of an item by the amount I would have saved 6 days ago:
That’s probably illegal.
- Comment on Palworld Developer Reveals The Pokémon Patents Nintendo Claims It's Violating 4 weeks ago:
Looking it up, Palworld was announced in 2021, but not released (under early access) until 2024. However they were apparently designing the game back in 2020, if not earlier.
- Comment on Palworld Developer Reveals The Pokémon Patents Nintendo Claims It's Violating 4 weeks ago:
Obviously this depends on the exact details of the patents, which are all in Japanese, as well as the specifics of Japanese patent laws.
However, patents only last for 20 years, and they are undermined by public disclosure before filing. The first Pokemon game came out more than 20 years ago. However^2 not all of the features in the patents were present in the original games. All 3 patents were first filed in 2021, well after many of these features were established.
The first patent is about aiming something and entering into a fight mode. This wasn’t in the original game. Aiming at enemies and entering a fight mode almost certainly existed before Pokemon (Final Fantasy perhaps). Furthermore, Palworld doesn’t really have a fight mode - it isn’t a turn based game but real time. Throwing a sphere is just one way to start a “battle” but there is no mode change between “explore” and “battle” modes because they are functionally the same in Palworld. Pokemon Go and Pokemon Let’s Go Pikachu/Eevee, which were all around in 2018, would seem to amount to public disclosure that undermines this patent.
The second patent has more detail about catching Pokemon outside of battles. This might have some elements of Palworld gameplay in it. However, again we have prior art that predates the patent.
The third patent is about riding characters. This has certainly existed in other games before Pokemon and before this patent. Off the top of my head, World of Warcraft had you riding mounts, Final Fantasy had you riding Chocobos, and Mega Man let you ride Rush.
However the big issue with all of these is that these challenges are always better off done before the patent is granted. With the patents established it is a massive uphill struggle trying to get them withdrawn. Given that each charge is only for $33,000, so about $100,000 total, I expect a settlement will be reached instead of going on this fight.
- Comment on Currently happening 4 weeks ago:
I was referring to fewer people lol.
Really though the jury is kind of out with fewer/less in a lot of situations, but a strict rule would probably say “fewer people, less drama”. The real contradiction is “15 items or less”, which should really be “15 items or fewer” but the former is so well established now it won’t go away.
- Comment on Currently happening 4 weeks ago:
Perfect lmao
- Comment on Currently happening 4 weeks ago:
*fewer
- Comment on Half-Life 2 Anniversary Update 4 weeks ago:
I sure hope they don’t plan on having more than 2 anniversaries.
- Comment on wild seals 5 weeks ago:
- Comment on Here are the patents Nintendo and The Pokémon Company are suing Palworld over 5 weeks ago:
Yeah the newer they are, the more frivolous they are - especially since you could argue the release of games using those patents amounts to public disclosure.
However, you’re still left in the situation where an established patent is very solid and difficult to challenge, even when it should never have been granted in the first place.
- Comment on Here are the patents Nintendo and The Pokémon Company are suing Palworld over 5 weeks ago:
5 mil yen is about $32k. In total they’re suing for about $100k.
I would imagine the 3rd patent at the very least should be invalidated - riding characters in video games predates Pokemon (MegaMan riding Rush comes to mind, as well as World of Warcraft [although I don’t know if the patent predates WOW mounts]). However the nature of patents is that once they’re granted they are very difficult to dismiss.
The other two are more tricky. Throwing balls at something us a uniquely Pokémon idea, I think, and the aiming one would come down to the technicalities of the patent itself, which is all Japanese to me.
- Comment on wild seals 1 month ago:
- Comment on Altered the timeline 2 months ago:
Pretty sure this podcast stays on topic throughout. There’s a chunk of background, of course, because it basically has to explain the joke every time so the discussion can happen.
- Comment on Altered the timeline 2 months ago:
Links that aren’t region locked:
Sixteenth Minute (of Fame): suck my dick and balls i work for nasa: the naomi h story
Episode webpage: omny.fm/…/suck-my-dick-and-balls-i-work-for-nasa-…
Media file: chtbl.com/track/5899E/podtrac.com/…/audio.mp3?utm…
- Comment on Altered the timeline 2 months ago:
No, she didn’t. However she did end up in aerospace anyway.
There was a 16th Minute of Fame podcast episode about it, including a recent interview:
Sixteenth Minute (of Fame): suck my dick and balls i work for nasa: the naomi h story
Episode webpage: omny.fm/…/suck-my-dick-and-balls-i-work-for-nasa-…
Media file: chtbl.com/track/5899E/podtrac.com/…/audio.mp3?utm…
- Comment on Altered the timeline 2 months ago:
Homer didn’t deny anything, he wasn’t even involved in that decision. He even put in a good word for her. However she basically lied when she was asked about it and that dug her in deeper, also leaving the post up didn’t help.
NASA basically wanted her to not draw controversy to the agency over social media, per their rules, and they normally have a reasonable amount of leeway. But there were a couple concerning things during the process, mistakes she made (that she has probably since grown from) that led to NASA passing on her internship.
- Comment on Anon makes their own edibles 2 months ago:
Yep that sounds like the story!
- Comment on Anon makes their own edibles 2 months ago:
Yeah I suspect this was filmed at the original version, from memory they toured around a bit and then cheaped out and fucked it all up. Like, the new Shrek costume was really bad and just looked like a green man had been shopping at the Gap.
- Comment on Anon makes their own edibles 2 months ago:
Didn’t they like stop paying the actors or something and then cheap out with the costumes?
- Comment on [deleted] 3 months ago:
Thanks, yet another reason why my example was a bit off hah.
- Comment on [deleted] 3 months ago:
I said you came in to correct me but didn’t actually deliver any corrections. You just talked about the things you know.
I didn’t say the same thing you said, I provided the correction that you left out.
- Comment on [deleted] 3 months ago:
I dunno, allegedly people actually vote for a man named “Trump”.
- Comment on Anon has a mental block 3 months ago:
Wait, spiderman has a pizza theme??
Lol, so it does. Technically not a Spiderman tune, but the Accelerando is probably unique to Spoiderman.
Also I swear part of that tune was ripped off and used in Mario 7 Stars, in one of the cloud areas maybe.
- Comment on [deleted] 3 months ago:
Because of enshittification lol
- Comment on [deleted] 3 months ago:
It looks like you haven’t really digested anything of the conversation here before you came in to reply with corrections.
Previous rulings are a precedent in Common Law systems like the US, UK, Canada, or Australia.
Only Supreme Court rulings become a precedent in Civil Law systems like the EU, Russia,most of the rest of America.
Sure, but we’re talking about Brazil. You haven’t established whether Brazil is common or civil law. Also, we’re talking about a Supreme Court ruling.
Not all of the EU is civil law. Ireland and Cyprus both use common law systems.
While common law countries often have roots connected with the UK and are very similar, civil law countries are far more varied. Many civil law countries are distinctly different and arguably should be a separate class of legal structure - even ones with French roots (perhaps the most prominent civil law country).
Ultimately, though, the differences between civil and common law structures are almost entirely technical in nature. The end result is largely the same - in a common law country, case law can continue to be challenged until a Supreme Court ruling, and as such it isn’t really proper case law until such a ruling, just like in civil law countries.
guides.library.harvard.edu/law/brazil
Brazil is, in fact, a civil law country. However, they do follow case law from Supreme Court, which would make this ruling about requiring a representative valid case law. Which is what I said to OP.
The EU at its top level creates “Directives”
This is exactly what I said.
The EU made GDPR law (well, strictly speaking they made a directive, then member states make laws that must meet or exceed that directive)
The EU made a directive, this directive led to GDPR laws made by member states. However I was apparently mistaken, it wasn’t an EU Tribunal court case that led to cookie splash screens through case law, it was Recital 66 (lol Order 66), essentially a 2009 modification to the 2002 ePrivacy Directive, followed by roundtable discussions that heavily favoured the advertising industry over civil interest groups leading to its formal implementation into the directive in 2012.
linkedin.com/…/truth-behind-cookie-banners-alexan…
To summarise:
- What I said at the start was right - Brazil’s Supreme Court ruling requiring social media companies to have representatives is valid case law.
- My example of cookie splash screens wasn’t ideal, but you did not give the right reasoning, or any reasoning - it was a poor analogy because it wasn’t a judge’s rulinig that modified the law but legal discussions that were prompted by public interest groups.
Like I say, it really feels like you didn’t read very far before you made your reply. Your comment reads more as a statement of tangentially related things you know with a thin veil disguising it as a correction. If you’d just made those statements without the veil, or if you’d followed through with the corrections and actually explained what was wrong, I don’t think I would have found your reply so objectionable (although I may also have woken up on the wrong side of the bed to your comment, sorry about that).
But then, I also wouldn’t have looked into the specifics of Brazilian law or the full origins of cookie splash screens, so thanks for the motivation lol.
- Comment on Anon entertains himself at work 3 months ago:
I wonder if he’s levelled out now that he’s finally old enough to drink?
- Comment on Stupid ass star 3 months ago:
It’s one of the OG ones, ass-car: xkcd.com/37/
- Comment on [deleted] 3 months ago:
Yes and no. It only really applies to Twitter/X and Twitter clones. You wouldn’t call a Facebook post a tweet, no matter how short, nor would you call a reddit or lemmy post/comment that.
And even then, Mastadon has its own term, toots, and BlueSky calls them skeets.
Until Twitter comes up with a new name in line with their new branding, I think the business should still be referred to as Twitter. But the business should go bankrupt before that happens, hopefully, the lenders need to call in their debts already.
- Comment on [deleted] 3 months ago:
They have at least moved away from the twitter.com URL, up until then it was hard to argue that it wasn’t still Twitter. However, until they come up with a new name for “tweets” I think the original name should still stand.
- Comment on [deleted] 3 months ago:
Law isn’t defined just by legislation, it is also defined by case law. A judge’s ruling on a previous case makes that ruling law.
Now, I’m not saying this ruling is appropriate - I simply don’t know enough about how it came to be. But if Brazil made laws about social media companies and then a judge made a ruling based on that law requiring social media companies have a representative, then that absolutely is valid law.
To draw an example, the EU never made a law about cookie splash screens. The EU made GDPR law (well, strictly speaking they made a directive, then member states make laws that must meet or exceed that directive), and then a judge interpreted that law and made it a requirement to have cookie splash screens. I would personally argue that the judge was trying to shove a square peg through a round hole there, when really he should have identified that data collection is in fact a secondary transaction hidden in the fine print (rather than an exchange of data for access to the service, this isn’t how the deal is presented to the user; the service is offered free of charge but the fine print says your data is surrendered free of charge), and he should have made it such that users get paid for the data that’s being collected. However, the judge’s ruling stands as law now.
- Comment on I'm the developer of WalkScape, the RuneScape inspired fitness MMORPG where you progress by walking IRL. We're now accepting more people to the Closed Beta! 3 months ago:
Booo, someone already stole my username :(