Nintendo’s Lawsuit Against Palworld: A Symptom of a Bigger Problem

[Crimson]

When I heard about Palworld facing a lawsuit from Nintendo, I was frustrated. I love Palworld and think the game has implemented ideas that Pokémon should have explored a long time ago.

What really bothers me, though, isn’t just this particular cast it’s the concept of patenting game mechanics. This practice should never have been allowed for developers or publishers.

One of the most notable examples of this issue came with Shadow of War and its Nemesis system, which was an innovative and brilliant mechanic deserving of praise. However, once it was patented, no other developer dared to create something similar for fear of legal repercussions.

This kind of restriction stifles creativity and innovation in gaming. If more companies follow suit and start patenting game mechanics, the industry will suffer. Developers will constantly risk stepping on legal landmines, making it harder to create new experiences.

In the long run, this practice will harm the gaming industry. Growth and progress depend on iteration and inspiration, and patents on mechanics threaten to snuff that out.

While I respect Nintendo’s contributions to gaming history, this approach is deeply disappointing. I hope the industry can move toward more openness and collaboration, which benefits both developers and players alike.

[aSoulBelow]

we can't have nice things since corpos are greedy asf

[tikiman572]

If I recall correctly, there IS a bit of a mischievous move that Pocket Pair COULD employ though the logistics of it all would be a fair bit daunting. The patents in question aren't international; they're Japanese. Ergo, if Pocket Pair were to, say, move house entirely OUT of Japan and set up shop elsewhere, like in the States, as well as cease sales of Palworld but JUST in Japan? Well, that makes things a LOT more difficult for Nintendo. Trying to enforce a patent internationally means having to take the case to court in different countries, all of whom have different laws in regards to patents. Some of those countries also have laws in place to prevent such blatant patent trolling like what we see here and just ONE of those courts ruling against Nintendo can cause a domino effect against them.

Like I said, the logistics behind such a maneuver would be pretty extreme and I would wager this is probably the nuclear option for Pocket Pair in case Nintendo steps things up even more so than they already have. But, as mentioned, Pocket Pair also has the backing of Sony AND Microsoft so it isn't as though they aren't completely helpless against Nintendo either.

Plus? Nintendo kinda made the game more popular with this move too what with invoking the Streisand Effect and all. In retrospect, they should've just done nothing save for taking the lessons of Palworld's popularity to heart alongside telling TPCI to give GameFreak a proper dev cycle for their games in order to win back lost trust in Pokemon.

But, no. Instead, they decided to throw a legal temper tantrum instead and further highlight the cracks in Pokemon's foundation. Good job, Nintendo. Good job.

[Crimson]

Originally posted by Omega Battle:

And he deleted his comments

Yeah they are so quick to throw their opinions without even reading what the person said. When they get backed into a corner they immediately delete their comments, they do this all the time.

[Crimson]

Originally posted by amok:

Originally posted by Crimson:

[...]
What really bothers me, though, isn’t just this particular cast it’s the concept of patenting game mechanics. This practice should never have been allowed for developers or publishers.
[...]

Good news, then. You generally can't patent broad game mechanics, only specific technical implementations of them. This is why other games that feature creature capture and battle are not being sued by Nintendo - because the core game mechanic itself is not patentable in a broad sense.

Patents only cover specific implementations and must be novel and non-obvious. A game mechanic, in its conceptual form, is usually too abstract to be patented. What Nintendo is claiming here is not that they own the general idea of for example creature capture and battle, but that PocketPair has allegedly infringed on specific patents related to how those mechanics are implemented in practice.

If I remember correctly, there are three different patents in question. Nintendo needs to prove that PocketPair’s implementation is similar enough to their patented systems to constitute infringement and that the patents themselves are valid (i.e., novel and not overly broad). On the other hand, PocketPair must demonstrate that their implementations are distinct enough to avoid infringement.

In any case, this will most likely be settled out of court, meaning neither side will have to prove their case definitively.

Well put, and I agree with much of what you're saying here. However, it's worth considering how aggressive enforcement of patents even on narrow implementations can create a chilling effect on creativity in the industry. Smaller developers might self-censor or avoid innovating in certain areas for fear of expensive legal battles, even if their work is distinct.

While you're right that general mechanics aren't patentable, the real concern is how the process plays out in practice. Settlements often mean the details of such cases remain obscure, leaving devs guessing about what's 'safe.' It’s not just about legality; it’s about how such cases shape the creative ecosystem.

[Charley Prince]

The only thing caused problem is that both Nintendo and Pocketpair are in the same country.

[Flashbaxx]

I really do hope this case blows up in Nintendo and The Pokemon Company's faces, but not just for Pocketpair's sake. We're all well aware of how Pokemon games have deteriorated in quality lately. I really want to see Pokemon improve and change to escape this slump, but they sorely need competition like Palworld to incentivize it. Bullying them out in the courts isn't going to be healthy for either game.

[funewchie]

Originally posted by Flashbaxx:

I really do hope this case blows up in Nintendo and The Pokemon Company's faces, but not just for Pocketpair's sake. We're all well aware of how Pokemon games have deteriorated in quality lately. I really want to see Pokemon improve and change to escape this slump, but they sorely need competition like Palworld to incentivize it. Bullying them out in the courts isn't going to be healthy for either game.

Right now, I have a feeling Nintendo is banking on Legends ZA- winning people over.
Of course, given their track record... it'd be hilarious if it blows up in their faces.
If it falters, Pokemon would be in a lot of trouble, reputation-wise.

[tigerfestival1988]

Originally posted by krishnath.dragon:

Nintendo's patents should never have been allowed in the first place due to prior art, also some of their patents are so hilariously generic that they cover everything from image editing software to scanners, digital cameras, and smart phones.

Also, when Nintendo made the lawsuit they made two crucial mistakes. #1: Pocket Pair had Nintendo's lawyers look over the game and its mechanics two weeks prior to release and was given the go ahead, and Pocket Pair has the receipts to prove it in court, and #2: Nintendo didn't know that Sony was the money behind Pocket Pair, and Sony absolutely hates Nintendo, and have a lot more money to throw at the trial than Nintendo does.

Nintendo is going to get absolutely blasted if it ever goes to full trial.

Where'd you hear this from?

[Squishy]

Originally posted by Crimson:

Originally posted by Omega Battle:

And he deleted his comments

Yeah they are so quick to throw their opinions without even reading what the person said. When they get backed into a corner they immediately delete their comments, they do this all the time.

They do it in nearly every single topic. I wouldn't be surprised if they finally got perma-banned (I can't find them in any of the topics so far anymore) considering the only time they show up is on more controversial topics and albeit from topics they decided to make for the sake of conflict or other users'.

They're also known for straight up blocking literally anybody with a differing opinion, regardless of how outlandishly absurd their (Irene's) takes and opinions are. People have been trying to get them banned for awhile for the sheer amount of misinformation and gaslighting they do, so, I wouldn't be surprised if we finally won that war with them. God knows they spam report anybody who disagrees with them (I got nailed by them for a day already.).

[krishnath.dragon]

Originally posted by tigerfestival1988:

Originally posted by krishnath.dragon:

Nintendo's patents should never have been allowed in the first place due to prior art, also some of their patents are so hilariously generic that they cover everything from image editing software to scanners, digital cameras, and smart phones.

Also, when Nintendo made the lawsuit they made two crucial mistakes. #1: Pocket Pair had Nintendo's lawyers look over the game and its mechanics two weeks prior to release and was given the go ahead, and Pocket Pair has the receipts to prove it in court, and #2: Nintendo didn't know that Sony was the money behind Pocket Pair, and Sony absolutely hates Nintendo, and have a lot more money to throw at the trial than Nintendo does.

Nintendo is going to get absolutely blasted if it ever goes to full trial.

Where'd you hear this from?

I follow the whole thing on youtube, there are a lot of gloom and doom videos, but they don't actually cover anything about what is actually happening, much like the threads about it on forums. But I do occassionally find recent videos about it that actually have facts and sources, and one I saw just prior to xmas actually had a lot the actual publicly available info, including the public court documents, and let me tell you. Nintendo got really ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ surprised when they learned that Sony was involved.

As it is right now (still in discovery phase, trial is set to begin in May if I recall correctly), I doubt Nintendo is going to win, and they may lose their patents over this. It reeks of a bigger company trying to bully a smaller one (Nintendo trying to bully Pocket Pair), and I would not be surprised if Nintendo tries to settle out of court to avoid a trial. But I sincerely doubt that Sony will let them, because Sony has hated Nintendo ever since the latter pulled out of the Playstation deal at the last second. And as Japanese companies go, Nintendo isn't particularly big, and Sony has a lot more resources to throw at this than Nintendo does.

Do note that I do not blame Nintendo for pulling out of the Playstation deal, as if they had followed through with it, Sony would have owned 2/3rds of Nintendo. But Sony feels that Nintendo pulling out at the last second was a grave insult, and they loathe Nintendo for it.

Also note that Nintendo's patents had been rejected in the rest of the world, and shouldn't have been granted in Japan either, and the patents were filed *after* Palworld was released on Steam. So there may be a case of Patent fraud and bribery going on as well. As I said, Nintendo's patents that are allegedly infringed upon are hilariously generic and those that are more specific are patents for game mechanics that Nintendo did not create and which had existed in other games for over a decade before Nintendo used it in their games (like the ability to summon a ridable mount), which is part of why the patents were rejected in the rest of the world. The patents should be invalid due to priior art alone.

So in short, I find the panic hilarious, the lawsuit from Nintendo equally so, and Nintendo's realization that they've bit off more than they can chew due to Sony's involvement, doubly so.

[tigerfestival1988]

Originally posted by krishnath.dragon:

Originally posted by tigerfestival1988:

Where'd you hear this from?

I follow the whole thing on youtube, there are a lot of gloom and doom videos, but they don't actually cover anything about what is actually happening, much like the threads about it on forums. But I do occassionally find recent videos about it that actually have facts and sources, and one I saw just prior to xmas actually had a lot the actual publicly available info, including the public court documents, and let me tell you. Nintendo got really ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ surprised when they learned that Sony was involved.

As it is right now (still in discovery phase, trial is set to begin in May if I recall correctly), I doubt Nintendo is going to win, and they may lose their patents over this. It reeks of a bigger company trying to bully a smaller one (Nintendo trying to bully Pocket Pair), and I would not be surprised if Nintendo tries to settle out of court to avoid a trial. But I sincerely doubt that Sony will let them, because Sony has hated Nintendo ever since the latter pulled out of the Playstation deal at the last second. And as Japanese companies go, Nintendo isn't particularly big, and Sony has a lot more resources to throw at this than Nintendo does.

Do note that I do not blame Nintendo for pulling out of the Playstation deal, as if they had followed through with it, Sony would have owned 2/3rds of Nintendo. But Sony feels that Nintendo pulling out at the last second was a grave insult, and they loathe Nintendo for it.

Also note that Nintendo's patents had been rejected in the rest of the world, and shouldn't have been granted in Japan either, and the patents were filed *after* Palworld was released on Steam. So there may be a case of Patent fraud and bribery going on as well. As I said, Nintendo's patents that are allegedly infringed upon are hilariously generic and those that are more specific are patents for game mechanics that Nintendo did not create and which had existed in other games for over a decade before Nintendo used it in their games (like the ability to summon a ridable mount), which is part of why the patents were rejected in the rest of the world. The patents should be invalid due to priior art alone.

So in short, I find the panic hilarious, the lawsuit from Nintendo equally so, and Nintendo's realization that they've bit off more than they can chew due to Sony's involvement, doubly so.

I hope everything you're saying is true, because I'd like the peace of mind knowing that Palworld will be ok. Do you have any links to articles, documents or videos of any kind about all of this?

[amok]

Originally posted by Crimson:

Originally posted by amok:

Good news, then. You generally can't patent broad game mechanics, only specific technical implementations of them. This is why other games that feature creature capture and battle are not being sued by Nintendo - because the core game mechanic itself is not patentable in a broad sense.

Patents only cover specific implementations and must be novel and non-obvious. A game mechanic, in its conceptual form, is usually too abstract to be patented. What Nintendo is claiming here is not that they own the general idea of for example creature capture and battle, but that PocketPair has allegedly infringed on specific patents related to how those mechanics are implemented in practice.

If I remember correctly, there are three different patents in question. Nintendo needs to prove that PocketPair’s implementation is similar enough to their patented systems to constitute infringement and that the patents themselves are valid (i.e., novel and not overly broad). On the other hand, PocketPair must demonstrate that their implementations are distinct enough to avoid infringement.

In any case, this will most likely be settled out of court, meaning neither side will have to prove their case definitively.

Well put, and I agree with much of what you're saying here. However, it's worth considering how aggressive enforcement of patents even on narrow implementations can create a chilling effect on creativity in the industry. Smaller developers might self-censor or avoid innovating in certain areas for fear of expensive legal battles, even if their work is distinct.

While you're right that general mechanics aren't patentable, the real concern is how the process plays out in practice. Settlements often mean the details of such cases remain obscure, leaving devs guessing about what's 'safe.' It’s not just about legality; it’s about how such cases shape the creative ecosystem.

You could also argue the opposite: since patents focus on specific implementations rather than broad concepts, they encourage developers to think creatively about new ways to implement a game mechanic to avoid infringement. This, in turn, drives innovation.

Additionally, patents are public records, and almost everything creative builds upon what came before. By making patented innovations publicly accessible, patents allow future creators to study and refine past advancements rather than keeping them locked away in corporate silos. This accelerates innovation rather than stifling it.

Finally, research and development is expensive and time-consuming. Patents provide a limited period of protection (typically 10–15 years) to allow innovators to recoup their investment. Without this protection, the incentive to innovate would diminish, as competitors could simply copy an invention without bearing the cost of R&D, undercutting the original creator.

Overall, I believe patent law plays a crucial role in fostering and protecting creativity and innovation.

(And a final little footnote in brackets. A patent does not mean that no one else can implement the same idea; it simply means they need the patent holder's permission. This is usually granted through licensing. However, some patent holders choose to allow free use of their patents, either publicly or for specific individuals who ask them for permission. The issue only arises when someone infringes on a patent without authorization.)

[Crimson]

Originally posted by amok:

Originally posted by Crimson:

Well put, and I agree with much of what you're saying here. However, it's worth considering how aggressive enforcement of patents even on narrow implementations can create a chilling effect on creativity in the industry. Smaller developers might self-censor or avoid innovating in certain areas for fear of expensive legal battles, even if their work is distinct.

While you're right that general mechanics aren't patentable, the real concern is how the process plays out in practice. Settlements often mean the details of such cases remain obscure, leaving devs guessing about what's 'safe.' It’s not just about legality; it’s about how such cases shape the creative ecosystem.

You could also argue the opposite: since patents focus on specific implementations rather than broad concepts, they encourage developers to think creatively about new ways to implement a game mechanic to avoid infringement. This, in turn, drives innovation.

Additionally, patents are public records, and almost everything creative builds upon what came before. By making patented innovations publicly accessible, patents allow future creators to study and refine past advancements rather than keeping them locked away in corporate silos. This accelerates innovation rather than stifling it.

Finally, research and development is expensive and time-consuming. Patents provide a limited period of protection (typically 10–15 years) to allow innovators to recoup their investment. Without this protection, the incentive to innovate would diminish, as competitors could simply copy an invention without bearing the cost of R&D, undercutting the original creator.

Overall, I believe patent law plays a crucial role in fostering and protecting creativity and innovation.

(And a final little footnote in brackets. A patent does not mean that no one else can implement the same idea; it simply means they need the patent holder's permission. This is usually granted through licensing. However, some patent holders choose to allow free use of their patents, either publicly or for specific individuals who ask them for permission. The issue only arises when someone infringes on a patent without authorization.)

While patents can protect innovation, they often serve as tools for larger corporations to consolidate power. Smaller developers those who arguably bring some of the most original ideas to the table can find themselves priced out of legal disputes, even when their implementations are distinct. This creates a risk-averse environment where creativity is stifled, not because the ideas are bad or derivative, but because the financial or legal consequences of pushing boundaries become too high.

As for encouraging innovation through patents, in theory, you're right. But in practice, companies often patent mechanics so broad that they border on the abstract effectively discouraging competition. And while patents are public, many are written in ways that make them difficult for creators to understand or adapt without risking infringement.

Finally, while licensing is an option, it’s rarely a fair process for indie developers. Larger companies often set licensing fees that are prohibitive or simply deny access altogether to control the market. So while patents can play a constructive role, the way they're weaponized by dominant players can do just the opposite limiting creativity and suppressing the very innovation they're meant to foster.

[amok]

Originally posted by Crimson:

Originally posted by amok:

You could also argue the opposite: since patents focus on specific implementations rather than broad concepts, they encourage developers to think creatively about new ways to implement a game mechanic to avoid infringement. This, in turn, drives innovation.

Additionally, patents are public records, and almost everything creative builds upon what came before. By making patented innovations publicly accessible, patents allow future creators to study and refine past advancements rather than keeping them locked away in corporate silos. This accelerates innovation rather than stifling it.

Finally, research and development is expensive and time-consuming. Patents provide a limited period of protection (typically 10–15 years) to allow innovators to recoup their investment. Without this protection, the incentive to innovate would diminish, as competitors could simply copy an invention without bearing the cost of R&D, undercutting the original creator.

Overall, I believe patent law plays a crucial role in fostering and protecting creativity and innovation.

(And a final little footnote in brackets. A patent does not mean that no one else can implement the same idea; it simply means they need the patent holder's permission. This is usually granted through licensing. However, some patent holders choose to allow free use of their patents, either publicly or for specific individuals who ask them for permission. The issue only arises when someone infringes on a patent without authorization.)

While patents can protect innovation, they often serve as tools for larger corporations to consolidate power. Smaller developers those who arguably bring some of the most original ideas to the table can find themselves priced out of legal disputes, even when their implementations are distinct. This creates a risk-averse environment where creativity is stifled, not because the ideas are bad or derivative, but because the financial or legal consequences of pushing boundaries become too high.

As for encouraging innovation through patents, in theory, you're right. But in practice, companies often patent mechanics so broad that they border on the abstract effectively discouraging competition. And while patents are public, many are written in ways that make them difficult for creators to understand or adapt without risking infringement.

Finally, while licensing is an option, it’s rarely a fair process for indie developers. Larger companies often set licensing fees that are prohibitive or simply deny access altogether to control the market. So while patents can play a constructive role, the way they're weaponized by dominant players can do just the opposite limiting creativity and suppressing the very innovation they're meant to foster.

Patents can indeed be misused, particularly by large corporations. However, the issue lies not with the concept of patents themselves but with how they are applied and enforced. A well-structured patent system should balance the protection of inventors' rights with the promotion of innovation across industries.

As mentioned earlier, patents primarily exist to incentivize innovation by granting creators, whether individuals or companies, a limited period to benefit from their inventions before they enter the public domain. Without patents, there would be little motivation for R&D investments, as anyone could freely copy and profit from an innovation without contributing to its development.

While some companies abuse patents to suppress competition, this is a policy and enforcement issue, not an inherent flaw in patents themselves. Solutions such as stricter patent review processes, limits on overly broad patents, and measures against patent trolling could help mitigate these problems without undermining the fundamental purpose of patents. Claiming that patent law as a whole "does not work" is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If the patent system were to be abolished, an alternative mechanism would be needed to protect innovations.

Regarding indie developers, while licensing can sometimes be cost-prohibitive, patents also protect small inventors. Many startups and independent creators rely on patents to secure funding, form partnerships, and safeguard their creative work. Without patents, smaller developers might find it even harder to compete, as larger companies could freely replicate their innovations without repercussions.

Historically, patents have driven significant advancements across many industries. The key issue is ensuring fair enforcement and preventing monopolistic abuse, not eliminating patents altogether. This is, in fact, a broader challenge with all laws; the existence of abuse does not mean the system itself should be discarded.

(A final note: Patents are highly technical and difficult to read because they are intended for specialists within a given field. They are written in precise and detailed language to define the scope of an invention as clearly as possible. While this can make them difficult for non-specialists to read, this specificity helps prevent vague or overly broad patents, ensuring clarity in what is being protected.)

[krishnath.dragon]

Originally posted by tigerfestival1988:

Originally posted by krishnath.dragon:

I follow the whole thing on youtube, there are a lot of gloom and doom videos, but they don't actually cover anything about what is actually happening, much like the threads about it on forums. But I do occassionally find recent videos about it that actually have facts and sources, and one I saw just prior to xmas actually had a lot the actual publicly available info, including the public court documents, and let me tell you. Nintendo got really ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ surprised when they learned that Sony was involved.

As it is right now (still in discovery phase, trial is set to begin in May if I recall correctly), I doubt Nintendo is going to win, and they may lose their patents over this. It reeks of a bigger company trying to bully a smaller one (Nintendo trying to bully Pocket Pair), and I would not be surprised if Nintendo tries to settle out of court to avoid a trial. But I sincerely doubt that Sony will let them, because Sony has hated Nintendo ever since the latter pulled out of the Playstation deal at the last second. And as Japanese companies go, Nintendo isn't particularly big, and Sony has a lot more resources to throw at this than Nintendo does.

Do note that I do not blame Nintendo for pulling out of the Playstation deal, as if they had followed through with it, Sony would have owned 2/3rds of Nintendo. But Sony feels that Nintendo pulling out at the last second was a grave insult, and they loathe Nintendo for it.

Also note that Nintendo's patents had been rejected in the rest of the world, and shouldn't have been granted in Japan either, and the patents were filed *after* Palworld was released on Steam. So there may be a case of Patent fraud and bribery going on as well. As I said, Nintendo's patents that are allegedly infringed upon are hilariously generic and those that are more specific are patents for game mechanics that Nintendo did not create and which had existed in other games for over a decade before Nintendo used it in their games (like the ability to summon a ridable mount), which is part of why the patents were rejected in the rest of the world. The patents should be invalid due to priior art alone.

So in short, I find the panic hilarious, the lawsuit from Nintendo equally so, and Nintendo's realization that they've bit off more than they can chew due to Sony's involvement, doubly so.

I hope everything you're saying is true, because I'd like the peace of mind knowing that Palworld will be ok. Do you have any links to articles, documents or videos of any kind about all of this?

Sorry, but I never saved any of them. But they are not to hard to find on youtube. The longer ones are generally more accurate than the shorter doom and gloom ones. Those that are over an hour long in particular have good info with sources, and often go into things like copyright law, patent law, and the background between Sony and Nintendo's lawsuit. Do note that the amount that Nintendo was asking for dropped significantly after it was revealed that Sony was backing Pocket Pair.