[basfo]

It’s strange that you can patent gameplay mechanics. After all, gameplay mechanics are what define a genre.

It’s like in literature if someone could patent the idea of a detective investigating a murder.

How could the "pokemon-like" genre even exist if you couldn’t create a game that uses “summoning and battling characters”?

Even worse, that description alone applies to multiple genres... JRPGs, or even fighting games with multiple characters (something like Marvel vs. Capcom) could fit that description.

I can understand intellectual property rights for very specific technical implementations (for example, the raycasting technique used in Wolfenstein 3D) but you shouldn’t be able to patent the concept of the first person shooter itself. That feels more like restricting freedom of expression.

[deaddodo]

The actual patent goes into specifics about the covered mechanic they are patenting and it focuses much more on the pokeball/swapping mechanics.

That being said, if they ever tried to hit anyone with the entirety of that, other than in a case of 1:1 replication of Pokemon, it would be a spurious weapon at best. There's too much prior art + alternative implementations in existence to argue for a unique and inventive mechanic.

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

It would be a powerful enough weapon if the target of the patent infringement case did not have crazy deep pockets. The costs of defending a winning case can be more than small game developer could hope to afford.

[GuB-42]

A 1:1 replication of the original Pokemon (1995) would be safe from all patent claims as it is obvious prior art and patents filed during that time would be expired. Copyright would be another story though.

It looks like here, they picked minor game mechanics introduced in a later games that Palworld also used (possibly as a coincidence) and then applied for patents. Some of them passed.

[kulahan]

I don't pay much attention to Nintendo news these days, aside from the occasional exciting game I see (my wife is crazy about Fire Emblem, so today's a good day!), but I was under the impression this was kinda specifically aimed at making life hard for Palworld, a game which is (as far as I know - I've not tried it) nearly identical to Pokemon, but with some more mature themes and more a more mature technical environment.

[default-kramer]

Hmm, maybe, but somehow Marvin Gaye's estate still pulled it off. Yes it was a copyright case, not a patent case, but Robin Thicke and Pharell Williams had a well-funded defense. Seems like Nintendo could easily bully an indie game out of existence if they wanted to.

[yepitwas]

You can't, with board games. I'm not sure why you can with video games. (maybe it's one of those things where you "can't" but actually you can, if you have enough money to keep anyone from successfully challenging it because they can't afford to)

[bbanyc]

You very much can with board and card games. Monopoly was patented and so was Magic: the Gathering.

My question is whether this patent only covers specific game mechanics introduced in the most recent Pokemon game or whether it's broad enough to monopolize the entire genre. Because if a clone of the original Pokemon from 30 years ago (has it really been that long? I feel old) is infringing, then the patent is clearly invalid due to Nintendo's own prior art.

[mort96]

> maybe it's one of those things where you "can't" but actually you can

Like how you "can't" patent stuff with prior art but then, somehow, big companies seem to be granted patents for things with plenty of prior art all the time?

[toast0]

> It’s strange that you can patent gameplay mechanics. After all, gameplay mechanics are what define a genre.

I had thought there was case law along the lines of games have no utility and thus can't have utility patents. Although, perhaps that case was too old, and the rules have changed.

Assuming that games are subject to utility patents, I don't see why you couldn't hold a patent on a genre defining mechanic... But genere defining mechanics for a Pokemon game probably were in the first games from 1996, and afaik the patent backlog isn't that long that they'd be getting a patent today from an application from back then.

[mmmlinux]

They don't want a "pokemon-like" genre to exist at all.

[mort96]

Who is "they"? Nintendo doesn't want it, sure. But why should we let Nintendo decide whether or not they want competitors? Why should the patent office not want a pokemon-like genre to exist?

It's not surprising that Nintendo wants to patent "summon creatures to fight for you" as a game mechanic, the surprising part is that the patent was granted.

[rolph]

how would a summon monster spell compare ? strict interpretation seems to include this prior, and i thought thats not supposed to happen.

when a dungeons and dragon magic user, uses summon monster, they may engage with these same described mechanics of summon and battle. [orb of monster summoning would be way out ]

[paradox460]

Imagine if id had patented fps