• simple@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    135
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 hours ago

    It’s not even copyright, they’re suing for using things they patented, but their patents are extremely general. I kid you not, they have a patent for MOUNTING CREATURES, something hundreds of games have done.

    Abstract: In an example of a game program, a ground boarding target object or an air boarding target objects is selected by a selection operation, and a player character is caused to board the selected boarding target object. If the player character aboard the air boarding target object moves toward the ground player character automatically changed to the state where the player character is aboard the ground boarding target object, and brought into the state where the player character can move on the ground.

    I’m no lawyer so I can’t tell you how well this would hold up in court but it’s ridiculous. See more: https://patents.justia.com/assignee/the-pokemon-company

    • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      It’s a little more specific, I think the patent is about:

      • mounting either an air or ground mount
      • when riding the air mount, going close to the ground transforms it into the ground mount and you keep riding it

      But that’s still something multiple games have done in some way I think.

    • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      76
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      I am positive prior art could be claimed for most if not all of those. Square Enix could cry afoul of the “mounting creatures” one as well as I’m sure many, many other earlier games on a plethora of platforms.

      You could mount and ride Chocobos in Final Fantasy 2, i.e. the real “2,” the JDM only one on Famicom, which was released in 1988. The aforementioned patent was only filed on Nintendo’s part in 2024.

      They can, to use a technical legal term, get fucked.

      • Cypher@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Blizzard should be paying attention to this, as it perfectly describes their flying mounts.

        I really hope Nintendo just picked a fight with Blizzard/Microsoft lol

        • A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          Bullies tend to pick victims who can’t fight back too effectively, so I doubt they’d go after Microsoft.

          All the big tech companies have a bunch of vague patents than in a just world would never exist, and they seldom go after each other, because they know then they’ll be hit with a counter-suit alleging they violate multiple patents too, and in the end everyone except the lawyers will be worse off. It’s sort of like mutually assured destruction. They don’t generally preemptively invalidate each other’s patents, so if Microsoft is not a party to the suit, they’ll likely stay out of it entirely.

          However, newer and smaller companies are less likely to be able to counter-sue as effectively, so if they pose a threat of taking revenue from the big companies (e.g. by launching on competitor platforms only), they are ripe targets for patent-based harassment.

          • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            While Microsoft is not a target right now, if that patent for ground-flying mounts is used (which I doubt it will, given it’s too recent and widely used by older games), Palworld can just point at World of Warcraft Burning Crusade as prior art and it suddenly becomes MS vs Nintendo.

      • Pennomi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        39
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Yes but it’s fucking expensive to invalidate a patent. Possibly in the millions of dollars. That’s how patent trolls succeed - it’s far cheaper to own a bad patent than to fight one.

    • troed@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 hours ago

      IANAL - but I’ve worked for Big Company and have gone through the patent process a few times. A patent isn’t what’s written in the supporting text and abstract. It’s only the exact thing written out in the claims.

      First claim from the patent the abstract is from:

      1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a game program causing a computer of an information processing apparatus to provide execution comprising:

        controlling a player character in a virtual space based on a first operation input;

        in association with selecting, based on a selection operation, a boarding object that the player character can board and providing a boarding instruction, causing the player character to board the boarding object and bringing the player character into a state where the player character can move, wherein the boarding object is selected among a plurality of types of objects that the player character owns;

        in association with providing a second operation input when the player character is in the air, causing the player character to board an air boarding object and bringing the player character into a state where the player character can move in the air; and

        while the player character is aboard the air boarding object, moving the player character, aboard the air boarding object, in the air based on a third operation input.

      Exactly everything described above must be done in that exact same way for there to be an infringement.

      • TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        20 minutes ago

        Which sounds like mount selection based on if onland==True: landmountlist, else: airmountlist. ??? Can you really patent “I used an if statement to change what the mount button does based on a condition”

        Boy, better fucking patent that fucking pure genius there’s no way anyone could program that without having copied us.

        Like I fucking hope I misread that.

      • Petter1@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 hours ago

        That seems a bit more easy to get around. It is still crazy to think that you have to check your whole game design against that many patents 😅

        • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          4 hours ago

          it’s stupid. I’m convinced that people who oversee software patents don’t even know what’s a computer.