Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
So dumb.
Considering how much you don't understand how these things work, you shouldn't even be trying to follow so intently. This stuff doesn't take a day or two to blow over. It's going to be in contention for awhile. Though, explaining this to you is a waste.
I believe he is making an argument for prior use. If I have a thing I am making and selling, and you develop your own, nearly identical thing, and patent it, then you take me to court over it...
under the law, this is known as "prior use." Even if your patent is valid, the fact that someone else was already using something identical to your patent beforehand effectively grants them a license to use the patent. Japan has a very similar/near identical concept.
Because PocketPair was using a similar system in Craftopia prior to the patent application Nintendo is modifying, it would largely invalidate their claim of patent infringement. There may be some aspects of it which would still apply, but that also assumes the patent claim by Nintendo is valid in the first place.
Prior use can atually be a defense, but again it will very much depend on which patent Nintendo is suing over. I do not know much about the Japanes defense of prior use, but the American do rest on some assumptions, for example it should have been in use by the defendant for at least one year before the patent was filed, it should be proven that it was developed independent from the accuser, and that the defendant has acted in good faith.
There are some problems here with how popular Pokemon is in proving independence and good faith (if the patent they are suing over is a Pokemon patent), as it is almost impossible that Pockerpair did not know about it, or even played it. But since we do not know the patents in question, that is very much in the air still
(again a small edit in brackets - Nintendo has currently about 3000 active Japanese patents, so that is patents granted between 2009 and now. They could be using any of them for the basis of this suit)
This gets into the concept of non-obvious. One of Nintendo's patents describes a system wherein you mount a bird and fly around before landing. To me, this is simply not a valid patent claim. It's obvious. It's in nearly every form of media dating back to antiquity with someone riding on a giant bird, dragon, etc.
The example I have used, before, is something like a fishing game or simulator. Patenting a game mechanic wherein a rod is drawn back and thrown just like you would when really fishing is ... not a valid patent claim. You could maybe patent something like an underwater cutaway and sort of mini-game you play after the hook is in the water, you could patent a system which combined various controls and sensors together to form a line-casting simulator (so, a wiimote based control scheme - but it would be unlikely you could patent ANY motion control system which simulates casting a rod, just your specific amalgamation of hardware, data, and code/protocol).
Another example is the poke-walker. That is a patented system and the most accurate pedometer ever created, at least, to my knowledge (maybe someone has surpassed it). That's a valid patent. They can't patent the concept of counting your steps, but they can patent the specific system they used to make this industry leading pedometer.... so they can tie it to a specific IP, make a limited run of them, and never produce any more. The company would be so much more wealthy if they actually licensed or marketed the peripherals they meticulously develop for their games. Like the N64 analog stick.... still the best analog stick in a consumer grade product, ever. If they just licensed the process to make more of them, they'd be able to rake in tons.... there again, if they'd just retail retro games every now and then, they could make tons... Japanese culture is a bit weird. A 3ds from the U.S. costs twice to three times as much as a Japanese one... old thing is done, new thing is here, move on.
That's true, but they were recently filing for amendments to a specific patent filed in 2021 which seem to be a direct response to PalWorld. It's a practice that Nintendo used against Colopl called Divisional Patent Application, which attempts to break down a broad patent claim into a set of specific patent claims at a later date, while having the same effect as if they were filed on the date of the parent patent. There are legitimate use cases for it, but in this case, a very broad patent that should probably not have been granted was then tailored to target PalWorld. These were filed against a patent filed for and granted in 2021 while PocketPair was implementing creature capture in Craftopia as early as September of 2020, which would likely place them well within the range or prior use even of the parent.
The concept of non-obvious in not a defense against a patent breach suit, or not an easy one, as the defendant then do not try to defend that there is no breach of patent, but rather that the patent should not have been granted in the first place. And, again without knowing any details of the case, it is often easier to claim the first by just showing differences in the systems, then it is to argue that the patent office made a mistake.
In this case it seems doubtfull they have a case. It's like EA sueing Activision in the past for copying their WWII game Medal of Honor, since Call of Duty is also a WWII FPS shooter using the exact same mechanics, scenery, weapons