That’s not how the law works. It’s not a thing where this company sued another company for patents and won, therefore all future lawsuits on patents automatically win. There may be some precedent about specific details in the case, but there’s no reason to assume a future judge in a future case wouldn’t rule in the same way even if this case never existed. Seems to me precedence paranoia is just some internet lawyer thing.
The strangest thing about this case is that Nintendo didn’t sue for trademark infringement or copyright. I assume Pikachu is trademarked and this company had a Pikachu with a machine gun on the cover of their game. Looks like an easy win for trademark infringement, given everyone referred to it as Pokeman with guns.
There is no Pikachu in the game. While it does take inspiration from Pokémon certainly, that is perfectly legal. Imagine the shit hole the art world would be in if you couldn’t take inspiration from previous works. Their argument is about mechanics, and their mechanics aren’t particularly unique anyway.
It’s amazing how people will pretend an image of a pikachu isn’t a pikachu because they feel like supporting one company over another is some kind of rebellious act.
It’s an electric rat, but it isn’t even close to Pikachu. Anyone who’s saying it is isn’t being honest.
Anyway, you ignored the entire point of the comment. Inspiration is perfectly legal. Making something reminiscent of existing artwork is protected. If it weren’t, making anything would be illegal.
I’m not supporting them. I played the game and I don’t really care for it. I just know that it isn’t illegal to make art that resembles someone else’s, as long as it isn’t trying to be passed off as theirs. Yeah, they’re style is similar. No one is debating that. That’s not illegal though. If it were, Nintendo would be sueing over that, but they aren’t. Either you think you’re smarter than Nintendo lawyers or you’re just trying to be obnoxious.
No, it’s just a monster capture and battling game. Their issue most definitely losing Pokemon sales to this game but the lawsuit they went with is in relation to a patient on throwing a ball and a creature being summoned to do battle. So Palworld removed the ball throwing aspect and the creature now just appears which is why they are now focusing on older versions of the game that still contain that.
I wasn’t aware that they had a ball throwing mechanic in the game. Considering the context they put a Pikachu with a machine gun on the cover, yeah they were just copying someone else’s shit.
No, it’s just a monster capture and battling game.
Do you really believe the similarities are coincidental? Like if Pokeman didn’t exist, they would’ve had the character on the cover look like that and would’ve had players collecting creatures with balls?
They’re obviously just ripping off someone else’s ideas.
That’s not how the law works. It’s not a thing where this company sued another company for patents and won, therefore all future lawsuits on patents automatically win. There may be some precedent about specific details in the case, but there’s no reason to assume a future judge in a future case wouldn’t rule in the same way even if this case never existed. Seems to me precedence paranoia is just some internet lawyer thing.
The strangest thing about this case is that Nintendo didn’t sue for trademark infringement or copyright. I assume Pikachu is trademarked and this company had a Pikachu with a machine gun on the cover of their game. Looks like an easy win for trademark infringement, given everyone referred to it as Pokeman with guns.
There is no Pikachu in the game. While it does take inspiration from Pokémon certainly, that is perfectly legal. Imagine the shit hole the art world would be in if you couldn’t take inspiration from previous works. Their argument is about mechanics, and their mechanics aren’t particularly unique anyway.
It’s amazing how people will pretend an image of a pikachu isn’t a pikachu because they feel like supporting one company over another is some kind of rebellious act.
It’s an electric rat, but it isn’t even close to Pikachu. Anyone who’s saying it is isn’t being honest.
Anyway, you ignored the entire point of the comment. Inspiration is perfectly legal. Making something reminiscent of existing artwork is protected. If it weren’t, making anything would be illegal.
I’m not supporting them. I played the game and I don’t really care for it. I just know that it isn’t illegal to make art that resembles someone else’s, as long as it isn’t trying to be passed off as theirs. Yeah, they’re style is similar. No one is debating that. That’s not illegal though. If it were, Nintendo would be sueing over that, but they aren’t. Either you think you’re smarter than Nintendo lawyers or you’re just trying to be obnoxious.
No, it’s just a monster capture and battling game. Their issue most definitely losing Pokemon sales to this game but the lawsuit they went with is in relation to a patient on throwing a ball and a creature being summoned to do battle. So Palworld removed the ball throwing aspect and the creature now just appears which is why they are now focusing on older versions of the game that still contain that.
I wasn’t aware that they had a ball throwing mechanic in the game. Considering the context they put a Pikachu with a machine gun on the cover, yeah they were just copying someone else’s shit.
Do you really believe the similarities are coincidental? Like if Pokeman didn’t exist, they would’ve had the character on the cover look like that and would’ve had players collecting creatures with balls?
They’re obviously just ripping off someone else’s ideas.
Actually play it and give it a shot. You’ll see how unlike pokemon it actually is. And you may just have some fun.