For news, discussions and memes!
This community follows the Lemmy.zip Instance rules, with the inclusion of the following rule:
You can see Lemmy.zip's rules by going to our Code of Conduct.
What to Expect in Our Code of Conduct:
If you enjoy reading legal stuff, you can check it all out at legal.lemmy.zip.
Star Wars might as well get in on the suit.
Probably Toei animation as well.
This is about patents, not about copyrights, for anyone confused. It's not because some of the characters look like existing pokemon, it's likely about game mechanics that Nintendo holds patents on.
But why
Nintendo is one of the most litigious video game companies ever. I cannot believe it took them more than 48 hours, let alone this long.
Sure sure, I know Nintendo obviously doesn't like them, but they gotta give a reason that matters.
i mean the game is over of the most high profile blatant knockoffs I've ever seen. I believe legal evidential reasoning is "res ipsa loquitur" which is Latin for "look at this fucking thing"
I don't think Nintendo should get to own the concept. We've had dog fighting since before digital media existed.
It's actually based on Japanese kids who would catch beetles in the woods and make them fight. Why do you think some of the first enemies you fight are bug catchers?
Those Japanese kids stole the idea from the dog and chicken guys. We should sue!
it's not the concept dude; you can't copyright that (though you can patent very vague shit apparently, don't get me started). plus that's how you get genres. some their creatures look extremely similar.
notice how we're not talking about cassette beasts or ooblets.
If that's why, then why are they suing over patent infringement instead of copyright?
they haven't specified much so i don't know. but palworld steals very liberally.
"Somebody said it looks like pokemon, so sue them"
More reasons to not give AAA corporations my money? Cool, cool.
Took long enough