If it’s about those pretty similar character models like those linked in the article, then I can understand Nintendo better.
But if it’s just about the concept of “collecting monsters” and using them in battles somehow, then they can go fuck themselves. I’m eager to learn where they see their patents infringed.
But if it’s just about the concept of “collecting monsters” and using them in battles somehow, then they can go fuck themselves.
I don’t think it would be that because it would be unenforceable. There are plenty of games where you collect monsters, some of which existed before Pokemon’s creation and plenty that have existed after. It would be the King Kong case all over again, but inverted.
I read somewhere Palworld outright stole and used a number of Pokemon models was the majority of the case here, not just “Nintendo doesnt like that Palworld is similar because they’re overly litigious”
i mean, nintendo are overly litigious, but if this is the case it makes more sense.
I’m pretty sure I saw the same tweet from Stephen Totilllo (sp?) just to give you some credence, but I think many people called him out for it as it was below his usual reporting standards.
We’ll have to wait and see when the case developers further.
thank you, that was what i saw. I was fully expecting to find articles that would back it up, (why else would you make such a claim?) but nope. I couldnt find anything to support it.
Having played Palworld a bit, some of the monsters are distinct from Pokemon, but some of them are incredibly obvious clones.
But like, looking back at some of the knock-off toys I remember seeing in the 80s and early 90s? It definitely seems like copyright has gotten more robust in its attempted overreach.
If it’s about those pretty similar character models like those linked in the article, then I can understand Nintendo better.
But if it’s just about the concept of “collecting monsters” and using them in battles somehow, then they can go fuck themselves. I’m eager to learn where they see their patents infringed.
I don’t think it would be that because it would be unenforceable. There are plenty of games where you collect monsters, some of which existed before Pokemon’s creation and plenty that have existed after. It would be the King Kong case all over again, but inverted.
It’s not copyright infringement… But patent infringement.
So the latter.
I said “patents infringed”. Or what do you mean?
Your first comment about the character designs is copyright.
The second part you mentioned is patent.
This is patent
Ah I see. Thanks for clearing that up!
I read somewhere Palworld outright stole and used a number of Pokemon models was the majority of the case here, not just “Nintendo doesnt like that Palworld is similar because they’re overly litigious”
i mean, nintendo are overly litigious, but if this is the case it makes more sense.
read where?
it was in a discussion on Bluesky, but nothing official.
I tried finding more info but couldn’t, so theres probably nothing to it. I’ll delete my previous comment as it was just unfounded rumours
I’m pretty sure I saw the same tweet from Stephen Totilllo (sp?) just to give you some credence, but I think many people called him out for it as it was below his usual reporting standards.
We’ll have to wait and see when the case developers further.
thank you, that was what i saw. I was fully expecting to find articles that would back it up, (why else would you make such a claim?) but nope. I couldnt find anything to support it.
Having played Palworld a bit, some of the monsters are distinct from Pokemon, but some of them are incredibly obvious clones.
But like, looking back at some of the knock-off toys I remember seeing in the 80s and early 90s? It definitely seems like copyright has gotten more robust in its attempted overreach.