• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    693 months ago

    Nintendo, you don’t just get to file patents after a competitor makes a better product than you, and then try to use those to shut your competitor down.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      43 months ago

      I think we all know they didn’t stop Palworld because they saw it grow and wanted them to get more money first.

      • MudMan
        link
        fedilink
        63 months ago

        It never ceases to amaze me how people will see some corporation do something shady that is already bad and still find it in themselves to come up with some crazy conspiracy theory about it anyway, even if the conspiracy isn’t any worse than the demonstrable thing that’s actually happening.

        Or how they fail to mark their sarcasm, I guess, if that’s what this is.

        • Agent Karyo
          link
          fedilink
          English
          23 months ago

          Why do you think it’s a conspiracy theory to assume the patent fraud strategy was only implemented after Palworld got big?

          I know the OG statement was a bit more provocative and sensationalist, but I think the high level logic holds.

          Genuinely curious.

          • MudMan
            link
            fedilink
            33 months ago

            The implication as I read it is that they DIDN’T stop Palworld as a deliberate ploy to let it get big. Presumably to get more money by suing them? I don’t know, it’s a bizarre statement.

            What you’re saying is the much more reasonable alternative: that Nintendo is filing patents now to try to get a legal leg to stand on to stop a meaningful, derivative competitor to Pokémon.

            Those two things aren’t the same thing. One of them is a weird conspiratorial thought that doesn’t track with reality, the other is a fairly obvious takeaway. They both stem from the fact that Nintendo only took action once Palworld got big and they’re both equally crappy corporate behavior. But one of those demands retroactive foresight, a malicious plan for something to happen a specific way as part of a grand plan and the reversal of cause and effect. The other is just plain vanilla corporate greed and brand protection from a traditionally litigious company.

            I, on my part, am saying that I find it baffling that people want/need to resort to building up these moustache-twirling overcomplicated plans hidden below the surface while simultaneously lacking the imagination to make the imaginary plans any more evil than the plain, patently obvious straightforward reality. I guess it feels good to sense that you have some sharp insight about the secrets behind the curtain whether the secrets are interesting or not.

            • Agent Karyo
              link
              fedilink
              English
              13 months ago

              That’s fair. I agree.

              I guess I was vaguely alluding to the fact that patent fraud stuff did start after Palworld got big. But what you’re saying makes a lot sense.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    723 months ago

    It should be illegal to apply for patents with the express purpose of suing someone else over what is now prior art.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      73 months ago

      Pretty sure it is. The patent office will generally give you anything you want tho and let the expensive courts settle the fallout.

      Kinda wild that they still rejected almost all of the patents tho, like holy shit that’s impressively incompetent on Nintendo’s part.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        23 months ago

        It does? Rich people or companies they own might want to produce things that infringe on patents too; not obvious that this has anything to do with “rich people” one way or the other.

    • NutWrench
      link
      fedilink
      English
      43 months ago

      This. You don’t “negotiate” with the Patent Office. The courts decide whether patent infringement has occurred. You “negotiate” with THEM.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      73 months ago

      Nah, let them file all they want, so long as they pay for them. If they’re bogus patents, they’re rejected and it’s basically just a money transfer to the patent office employees.

  • sunzu2
    link
    fedilink
    353 months ago

    Yeah… fuck you… my kid will be playing emulators on linux 🐸

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    203 months ago

    Gonna go to Nintendo land in Japan and leave a bunch of emulator software around on USBs