• Fubarberry
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    In Japan, the patents they filed for were “extensions” of existing older patents. The new patents “updated” the old patents and could be used as if they filed when the original patent was. So they were able to file patents after Palworld came out, and then sue as if the patents existed before Palworld. Seems like bullshit to me, but I’m not a lawyer.

    I don’t know if a similar mechanic can be used in the US patent system or not.

    • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Seems like bullshit to me, but I’m not a lawyer.

      The Japanese patent system is so, so much worse than the US one. Where things like what you just described are possible. Honestly, Palworld is probably hosed over there. Palworld made a system years ago, Nintendo then patented it, and Nintendo is going to beat them over the head with their Japanese patent.

      In the US, a solid defense to a patent claim is to show prior art. In this case, Palworld’s dev can point to Palworld as the prior art if Nintendo sues them; Nintendo’s patent existed after Palworld did. Palworld’s dev can also point to a giant mountain of prior art of other games that allow one to throw an object to capture a monster.

      • lunarul@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 days ago

        that allow one to throw an object to capture a monster

        Like throwing a net to catch a fish?