PC Gaming

10799 readers

532 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

Be Respectful.
No Spam or Porn.
No Advertising.
No Memes.
No Tech Support.
No questions about buying/building computers.
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

EXiLExJD

UncleBadTouch

[email protected]

Pocketpair’s defenses against Nintendo’s patent lawsuit unpacked: ARK, Craftopia, Zelda, FF14 etc. may render asserted patents invalid – games fray (gamesfray.com)

submitted 16 hours ago by alessandro to c/pcgaming

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 7 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 16 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Would be great if the patents were invalided, but the bigger issue would be them being accepted in the first place. That shouldn't even work.

If this does go to court because the patents are considered valid and they can successfully argue that they don't apply, I'm afraid Nintendo could just hand-craft another patent. They would have been given instructions the recipe during the court proceedings.

But I do wonder if PocketPair could just default on the lawsuit in the US. What kind of effect would that have?

Anti Commercial-AI license

[–] lemmyng 8 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

NAL, but as it was explained to me by a lawyer: Part of a patent remaining valid is demonstrating that they put consistent effort into enforcing it. Nintendo not having filed suit against the other companies (if the games are indeed found to be violating the same patent) lays groundwork for invalidation. This is for example the reason Pepsico sued farmers in India for cultivating their patented potato - not because it would harm their business, but because it would harm the validity of their patent if they didn't.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 hours ago

How is that relevant when this patents are new, just backdated, and clearly filed primarily for this lawsuit?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

They have a patent on a damn potato?

[–] lemmyng 5 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, and it sucks that plants can be patented. Monsanto in particular can go die in a fire.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I like the idea of GMOs, being able to engineer plants to survive in harsher conditions and have a greater yield. I do agree with you about the patenting though. Something that benefits man shouldn't be gatekeeped.

[–] Sturgist 1 points 3 hours ago

I like the idea of GMOs, being able to engineer plants to survive in harsher conditions and have a greater yield.

Unfortunately, they also like to engineer them to not produce viable seed. Roundup Ready canola/rapeseed can only be reseeded once, if I remember correctly, forcing farmers to purchase more seed to keep farming. And if there's cross-pollination in a neighbouring farm, Monsanto likes to sue the neighbour for illegally planting their crops, despite it being the result of plants doing plant stuff.