4 ms·

For those unaware, Pocketpair made the game Palworld, which has "pals" that look like Pokemon.

yieldcrv 2y ago
and capture balls I’m still wondering what the edge for a “patent rights” case is. I’m guessing trademarks and copyright was a nonstarter.
irjustin 2y ago
I didn't know what Pocketpair was and immediate glace made me think they were Pokemon and Nintendo was suing because Pocketpair+Nintendo were in a partnership/official-license and something had broken down in the relationship. Nope! Clearly mimicking Pokemon and even all the headlines are "Pokemon with guns". Is it okay? No idea, this seems extremely muddy.
- ehnto 2y ago
  I think the games are so clearly different in mechanics, audience and design that, all they have is character likeness infringement. But there are literally hundreds of pokemon, and I have a hard time suggesting Pokemon should be the sole rights holder for "Pokemon like character design". Given how broad the Pokemon character IP is, I am surprised Nintendo has not been sued themselves. But so different is IP law in Japan that Pokemon itself was altered at inception to avoid being in conflict with an entirely unrelated IP, Ultraman. The game was originally capsule monsters, but Ultraman has capsules, so they changed it, even though the stories and world's mechanics are otherwise entirely different.
  - 3eb7988a1663 2y ago
    It certainly raises questions about the not-Pokemon-wink-wink Digimon franchise. Or the recent Cassette Beasts[0] which has a lot more mechanical similarities to a Pokemon game than Palworld. [0] https://store.steampowered.com/app/1321440/Cassette_Beasts/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/1321440/Cassette_Beasts/
    - genewitch 2y ago
      it would be incredibly dull if only one company was allowed to make "catch things and make them fight for you" games. Or a game whereupon the player character is rendered from the point of view of the character's eyes, there are multiple other characters (player or non-player) and shooting was the point. valve being so successful with half-life, when it was just a "less alien" version of unreal, or a less "doom" version of "Quake". Yes it was a great game but the mechanics of gameplay existed for ages; prince of persia had the 3d platforming, the ones previously mentioned for FPS, i don't think the gravity gun was unique itself, but perhaps in a first person shooter, it was. Heck borderlands and rage take half life style gameplay to new places. Minecraft wasn't original (also Lego, in there too). innovation requires "remixing". Wholesale copying of assets and code should be punished. "prior art" needs to be scrutinized, because "did they actually make this, is it actually novel" is an important question. and don't get me started on movies and TV shows.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- girvo 2y ago
  > Clearly mimicking Pokemon And yet no one would confuse the two. It's not a copyright or any other case, its a patent case. And "game mechanic" patents are frankly gross, in my opinion.
- ThrowawayR2 2y ago
  It's unclear how mimicking Pokemon would be a basis for a lawsuit because Nintendo doesn't own the monster taming genre. There's a long history of others, including a couple that predate Pokemon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster-taming_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster-taming_game
  - bmitc 2y ago
    From looking at the game since I didn't know what Palworld was, most of the characters are indistinguishable from Pokemon.
    - mminer237 2y ago
      A style is not legally protectable though, so frankly, that doesn't matter.
- colordrops 2y ago
  Its very difficult to find a game that doesn't have a few dozen other nearly identical in their game play. There's a reason for that, which is that they are not legally protected. Copyrights, trademarks, and patents are very specific and narrow in their definition.
  - genewitch 2y ago
    Music is even worse, too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I&t=17s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I&t=17s
greggsy 2y ago
I watched a trailer and was constantly questioning myself whether it was Pokémon with guns, or a high-budget clone (noting that there are many b-grade clones of Digimon and Pokémon that aren’t worth litigating against). My young child was convinced it was Pokémon throughout the whole video. Even cited which Pokémon each ‘pal’ was meant to be. I know this is for the patent, not the trademark, but doesn’t it cross a line when the likeness of a product causes confusion in the market? Ignoring the guns, as a whole it looks like Pokémon. I wonder if the reason they went after the ‘mechanic’ of Pokémon is because each individual asset is distinct from it?
- HideousKojima 2y ago
  Gameplay-wise, the game is actually far more similar to Ark: Survival Evolved than any Pokemon games.
- bogtog 2y ago
  > My young child was convinced it was Pokémon throughout the whole video I figure the biggest thing causing the seeming parallels is the art style, which is pokemon-esque (cute, colorful, fluffy, polished, original). Second to that comes the balls

and capture balls I’m still wondering what the edge for a “patent rights” case is. I’m guessing trademarks and copyright was a nonstarter.

irjustin 2y ago

I didn't know what Pocketpair was and immediate glace made me think they were Pokemon and Nintendo was suing because Pocketpair+Nintendo were in a partnership/official-license and something had broken down in the relationship. Nope! Clearly mimicking Pokemon and even all the headlines are "Pokemon with guns". Is it okay? No idea, this seems extremely muddy.

ehnto 2y ago
I think the games are so clearly different in mechanics, audience and design that, all they have is character likeness infringement. But there are literally hundreds of pokemon, and I have a hard time suggesting Pokemon should be the sole rights holder for "Pokemon like character design". Given how broad the Pokemon character IP is, I am surprised Nintendo has not been sued themselves. But so different is IP law in Japan that Pokemon itself was altered at inception to avoid being in conflict with an entirely unrelated IP, Ultraman. The game was originally capsule monsters, but Ultraman has capsules, so they changed it, even though the stories and world's mechanics are otherwise entirely different.
- 3eb7988a1663 2y ago
  It certainly raises questions about the not-Pokemon-wink-wink Digimon franchise. Or the recent Cassette Beasts[0] which has a lot more mechanical similarities to a Pokemon game than Palworld. [0] https://store.steampowered.com/app/1321440/Cassette_Beasts/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/1321440/Cassette_Beasts/
  - genewitch 2y ago
    it would be incredibly dull if only one company was allowed to make "catch things and make them fight for you" games. Or a game whereupon the player character is rendered from the point of view of the character's eyes, there are multiple other characters (player or non-player) and shooting was the point. valve being so successful with half-life, when it was just a "less alien" version of unreal, or a less "doom" version of "Quake". Yes it was a great game but the mechanics of gameplay existed for ages; prince of persia had the 3d platforming, the ones previously mentioned for FPS, i don't think the gravity gun was unique itself, but perhaps in a first person shooter, it was. Heck borderlands and rage take half life style gameplay to new places. Minecraft wasn't original (also Lego, in there too). innovation requires "remixing". Wholesale copying of assets and code should be punished. "prior art" needs to be scrutinized, because "did they actually make this, is it actually novel" is an important question. and don't get me started on movies and TV shows.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
girvo 2y ago
> Clearly mimicking Pokemon And yet no one would confuse the two. It's not a copyright or any other case, its a patent case. And "game mechanic" patents are frankly gross, in my opinion.
ThrowawayR2 2y ago
It's unclear how mimicking Pokemon would be a basis for a lawsuit because Nintendo doesn't own the monster taming genre. There's a long history of others, including a couple that predate Pokemon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster-taming_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster-taming_game
- bmitc 2y ago
  From looking at the game since I didn't know what Palworld was, most of the characters are indistinguishable from Pokemon.
  - mminer237 2y ago
    A style is not legally protectable though, so frankly, that doesn't matter.
colordrops 2y ago
Its very difficult to find a game that doesn't have a few dozen other nearly identical in their game play. There's a reason for that, which is that they are not legally protected. Copyrights, trademarks, and patents are very specific and narrow in their definition.
- genewitch 2y ago
  Music is even worse, too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I&t=17s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I&t=17s

greggsy 2y ago

I watched a trailer and was constantly questioning myself whether it was Pokémon with guns, or a high-budget clone (noting that there are many b-grade clones of Digimon and Pokémon that aren’t worth litigating against). My young child was convinced it was Pokémon throughout the whole video. Even cited which Pokémon each ‘pal’ was meant to be. I know this is for the patent, not the trademark, but doesn’t it cross a line when the likeness of a product causes confusion in the market? Ignoring the guns, as a whole it looks like Pokémon. I wonder if the reason they went after the ‘mechanic’ of Pokémon is because each individual asset is distinct from it?

HideousKojima 2y ago
Gameplay-wise, the game is actually far more similar to Ark: Survival Evolved than any Pokemon games.
bogtog 2y ago
> My young child was convinced it was Pokémon throughout the whole video I figure the biggest thing causing the seeming parallels is the art style, which is pokemon-esque (cute, colorful, fluffy, polished, original). Second to that comes the balls