2 ms·

From what I understand their lawfare approach is using japanese software patent law, they have notably not tried to do the same using trademark or copyright inf

From what I understand their lawfare approach is using japanese software patent law, they have notably not tried to do the same using trademark or copyright infringement. If they could get away with what you're suggesting, I imagine they would have tried it on digimon decades ago: https://digi-battle.com/Content/CardScans/CP-22.png https://digi-battle.com/Content/CardScans/CP-22.png vs https://archives.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/e/ed/0098Krabby.png https://archives.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/e/ed/0098Krabb... There's a laundry list of these comparisons actually https://preview.redd.it/what-if-digimon-adventure-was-pokemon-v0-h1p7br2liwea1.png?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=30039e9d75d652c66d390b3323b8faec48b0f578 https://preview.redd.it/what-if-digimon-adventure-was-pokemo...

deafpolygon 2y ago
No one is looking at Digimon and going "Hey, that's Pokemon!" -- looking at Palworld's creatures for the uninitiated, it looks so very much like Pokemon creatures that most people I know have confused it for Pokemon. There's a HUGE difference between being influenced by, and blatantly copying the inspiration and design. It took Nintendo decades to come up with creature designs, and Palworld less than a year - and they could do that because they likely went through each creature one-by-one and said, "How can we make it just so slightly different?"
- chownie 2y ago
  No one is looking at Digimon and saying it looks like Pokemon now, but in the 90s they sure as heck were. People's mothers (ie the key demographic for "the uninitiated") commonly confused one for the other, even the TV show. This is no longer the case purely because Digimon is far less popular. Bearing in mind pretty much all Pokemon designs follow the rule of "what if a mythical animal existed in our art style", it is in fact shockingly easy to accidentally ape a Pokemon design just by cartoonifying mythos. This is incidentally also true of Pokemon, who were accused of ripping off Dragon Quest when the first games started coming out. Does anyone remember that at this point? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GEYrZuzXUAAjpkB?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GEYrZuzXUAAjpkB?format=jpg&name=...

deafpolygon 2y ago

No one is looking at Digimon and going "Hey, that's Pokemon!" -- looking at Palworld's creatures for the uninitiated, it looks so very much like Pokemon creatures that most people I know have confused it for Pokemon. There's a HUGE difference between being influenced by, and blatantly copying the inspiration and design. It took Nintendo decades to come up with creature designs, and Palworld less than a year - and they could do that because they likely went through each creature one-by-one and said, "How can we make it just so slightly different?"

chownie 2y ago
No one is looking at Digimon and saying it looks like Pokemon now, but in the 90s they sure as heck were. People's mothers (ie the key demographic for "the uninitiated") commonly confused one for the other, even the TV show. This is no longer the case purely because Digimon is far less popular. Bearing in mind pretty much all Pokemon designs follow the rule of "what if a mythical animal existed in our art style", it is in fact shockingly easy to accidentally ape a Pokemon design just by cartoonifying mythos. This is incidentally also true of Pokemon, who were accused of ripping off Dragon Quest when the first games started coming out. Does anyone remember that at this point? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GEYrZuzXUAAjpkB?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GEYrZuzXUAAjpkB?format=jpg&name=...