Without going through all of their patent filings no one can. So again, that is the point. Lack of info
We are both gamers (I am assuming this is true for you since you’re commenting here). I am not talking about legal understanding of Japanese patent law. Just a practical evaluation of Palworld vis-a-vis Nintendo products. What genuine technical innovation (I am not talking about bullshit patents for stuff that was implemented many decades ago) do you see in Nintendo’s products that was copied by Palworld?
This is not difficult.
Never said a ban on commentary, just hate bullshit articles.
The implication of thread OP was that articles critical of Nintendo (in the context of this case) should not be published as of today, no? Why is any commentary immediately categorized as “greedy clickbait” or “rehashed content”?
Something I agree with you on. Let them fight. This discussion is in the context of bullshit articles with zero information.
I would argue it’s not a bullshit article as I have yet to hear a single example of what legitimate (in the real sense, not related to Japanese patent law) case Nintendo has. What is this magical innovation that we see in Nintendo products that was copied by Palworld?
I am not talking about legal understanding of Japanese patent law.
But that’s what the case is about.
I would argue it’s not a bullshit article as I have yet to hear a single example of what legitimate (in the real sense, not related to Japanese patent law) case Nintendo has.
Well then the fact that we still don’t know what the case is really about is exactly why these articles are useless. No information in there.
What is your argument here? Your support the Japanese patent law irrespective of whether it reflects reality? You would be OK with Japanese patent that is de facto non-valid (i.e. the approach was already used in games 10+ years ago) just to support a random company?
I am going off memory, but one example would be one of the Japanese gaming companies patenting cross-game saves (release to sequel); an approach that was implemented by the Ultima games 10+ years before the patent was filled? Do you support this?
We have access to Palworld, we have access to Nintendo products. If commentary criticizing Nintendo is “greedy clickbait”, then what innovation has been abused by Palworld? Can you provide an example in context of gaming experiences?
Let’s go back to the start of this comment thread:
I love how this continues to crank out articles with 0 information and everyone speculating what it might be about.
Don’t get me wrong, Nintendo are dickheads, but you can clearly see how everyone greedily clicks on these articles considering how often they get rehashed.
That’s the argument: these articles add nothing to the discussion. And you responding to that with “but can you prove Nintendo is right?” isn’t the point and also isn’t adding anything to the discussion.
Sure, I mean this is a forum discussion (in a relatively underground platform no less).
I don’t see what this has to do with what I am talking about. If the article sucks, what is this innovation in Nintendo’s products/services that was copied by Palworld? This is a very simple and straightforward question, no?
What’s wrong or “too deep” about a question like that?
We are both gamers (I am assuming this is true for you since you’re commenting here). I am not talking about legal understanding of Japanese patent law. Just a practical evaluation of Palworld vis-a-vis Nintendo products. What genuine technical innovation (I am not talking about bullshit patents for stuff that was implemented many decades ago) do you see in Nintendo’s products that was copied by Palworld?
This is not difficult.
The implication of thread OP was that articles critical of Nintendo (in the context of this case) should not be published as of today, no? Why is any commentary immediately categorized as “greedy clickbait” or “rehashed content”?
I would argue it’s not a bullshit article as I have yet to hear a single example of what legitimate (in the real sense, not related to Japanese patent law) case Nintendo has. What is this magical innovation that we see in Nintendo products that was copied by Palworld?
But that’s what the case is about.
Well then the fact that we still don’t know what the case is really about is exactly why these articles are useless. No information in there.
What is your argument here? Your support the Japanese patent law irrespective of whether it reflects reality? You would be OK with Japanese patent that is de facto non-valid (i.e. the approach was already used in games 10+ years ago) just to support a random company?
I am going off memory, but one example would be one of the Japanese gaming companies patenting cross-game saves (release to sequel); an approach that was implemented by the Ultima games 10+ years before the patent was filled? Do you support this?
We have access to Palworld, we have access to Nintendo products. If commentary criticizing Nintendo is “greedy clickbait”, then what innovation has been abused by Palworld? Can you provide an example in context of gaming experiences?
Let’s go back to the start of this comment thread:
That’s the argument: these articles add nothing to the discussion. And you responding to that with “but can you prove Nintendo is right?” isn’t the point and also isn’t adding anything to the discussion.
They just think the article sucks, which it does lmao
It’s not that deep, dude
Sure, I mean this is a forum discussion (in a relatively underground platform no less).
I don’t see what this has to do with what I am talking about. If the article sucks, what is this innovation in Nintendo’s products/services that was copied by Palworld? This is a very simple and straightforward question, no?
What’s wrong or “too deep” about a question like that?