Nintendo Lawsuit Against Pocketpair
It seems that Nintendo and TPC have filed their lawsuit against Pocketpair, the makers of Palworld, on the grounds of patent infringement.
Many speculated that any lawsuit would be on the grounds of copyright infringement, for things such as the design of the pals. It seems that is not the case, at least based on the language used in this English version of the press release and my layman's understanding of legal literature.
People were willing to condemn Palworld for apparent copyright infringement simply due to its resemblance to Pokémon. And there seem to be those who genuinely believe that Pokémon created and own the concept of catching and raising monsters, despite earlier examples and sources of inspiration cited by Pokémon creators themselves that pre-date Pokémon.
The discussion was further muddied by one of the creators of Palworld seemingly endorsing the use of AI. I do not believe that the use of AI in Palworld was ever proven (though I am happy to consider any evidence you may provide) but the mere association was enough for some to condemn the game and its creators.
Of course, if Nintendo have legal grounds to sue Pocketpair, they are within their rights to do so.
But it is also possible that this is an intimidation tactic to scare off any potential competitors while eliminating a current competitor by litigating them into the ground. Few companies can stand up to Nintendo's legal team for long before the sheer financial burden of legal proceedings will force them to submit. A lot of large corporations know this and will use it to their advantage.
Regardless of whether Pocketpair actually infringed on patents or not, I do not think this is good for gamers or the industry.
If Pokémon can threaten to sue any Pokémon competitor out of existence, they will strongly disincentivise any company from attempting to compete. Even if their product legitimately does not infringe on any legal rights. If there is no competition, you get a monopoly. And monopoly holders rarely feel compelled to improve the quality of their products or give consumers good value for money.
What do you think? I have my own opinions on the matter, but I have tried to address both sides of the discussion in this post.
Comments
-
@clasingla They are citing patent rights, not copyright.
0 -
Patents are designs for inventions. This could be a specific device or a method of making or doing something.
Patents, copyright and trademarks are all different things under the broad umbrella of intellectual property.
0 -
@clasingla It is harder to prove, perhaps. Again, Pokémon doesn't own yellow mice or blue penguins. You need to prove that Pocketpair put Pikachu and Piplup in their game.
We don't know what patents they are citing, but if TPC owns "capturing animals in balls" for example (no idea if they actually do, not sure you could patent that) is firmer legal ground than "your penguin looks like Piplup".
Again, I am not a lawyer. I cannot speak definitively or authoritatively on these matters. It's just my understanding.
@MonstaDash Dragon Quest, Digimon and SMT all exhibit similar concepts and pre-date Pokémon, in the case of Dragon Quest being cited as specific inspiration for Pokémon, so they definitely cannot win on those grounds, nor do they seem to be trying.
It depends what patents they claim and whether Pocketpair actually used them.
0 -
I'm pretty sure that Palworld actually took some of the primarina model and edited it, as well as most of the designs looking like a.i. Pokemon.
Also some of the biggest competitors are allied with nintendo, like Yo kai watch and Dragon quest monsters.
2 -
Again: This is not about the designs.
Nor do I think this is about the concept of catching monsters in a ball. That was just an example of a mechanic that might be patented.
We do not know what this lawsuit is about. But it is not about Pals looking like Pokémon at this stage.
That might become part of it if Nintendo lawyers believe they can prove it in court.
But that hasn't publically become part of the case yet.
0
