this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
928 points (97.4% liked)

Technology

59629 readers
3105 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] BigPotato@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The ludicrousness is the point. "Capture a creature in a ball"... How close is that to Red Dead's lasso? Could Nintendo patent capturing a creature with a rope? Does anyone hold that patent yet? No, it would be silly to try to patent something like that - yet at one point I'm certain it was someone's "technique" while everyone else was jumping on the horses back like Breath of the Wild.

[โ€“] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)
  1. This thread started with a general statement about patent laws with a glaring innacuracy that it applied to noncommercial applications and in perpetuity. That is what I argued against. I fully support PalWorld.

  2. If that were Nintendo's justification they would lose instantly. You can patent and/or claim intellectual property for very specific named designs, but you cannot do so for vague narrative concepts. Example: PokeBalls in various colorschemes is a go, but "a ball that capture creatures" is not good enough to patent.