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.
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.
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.
It’s not copyright infringement… But patent infringement.
So the latter.