"Don't innovate, litigate!"

-Nintendo

Like what? I can't think of one off the top of my head.

That's the weird thing. It doesn't seem to matter. The patent was filed after PalWorld was released. I'm guessing this is some quirk of Japan's patent system I'm unfamiliar with.

That's because it is, Pokemon didn't come up with it, they just made it popular.

It isn't in the US but is in Japan where the companies are based.

*Patenting

This is the answer right here. There’s even a few late game items for this. The just need to readjust the costs for those launchers. Make them available early mid game.

Nintendo could afford to release 10 failed consoles in a row and still keep going, that was the case back when the Wii U released as well

I do wonder if the steam deck exists in this alternate timeline you propose

We got Tears of the Kingdom, but at what cost?

They probably just learned to pay judges, not lawyers.

You already do that eventually anyway.

This sounds awesome; requesting permission to use it if Palworld doesn't? It's for a book.

These patents were granted to Nintendo this year.

You wouldn't patent the "game" you'd patent the various forms of utility or designs within that game. So throwing a sphere at a life form to then capture it could be one patent, but maybe then you'd also file another patent to cover keeping it alive and caring for it inside the ball habitat. You might file the second off of what is called a continuation filling and in combination, as you need both actions to get the full effect, you might get a bit of extended coverage in practice.

But the bigger thing here would probably be trademark law, which is a whole different beast.

The game itself isn't ripping off anything. Pokémon is such a direct "rip off" of digimon, too, then. Except it doesn't matter, cause that's what stuff is. Stuff is made up of other stuff and oftentimes there will be similarities!

Pokemon is a rip off of Dragon Quest and Shin Megami Tensei.

You mean like Pokémon “ripping off” Dragon Quest?

You can’t patent an art style.

I'd be more willing to agree if Nintendo was going after them for similar art styles. They went after them for fucking throwing balls of all things. This is going to set a horrible precedent for the game industry.

So either Nintendo didn't believe the monster designs were rip offs, or they didn't feel it was a proper violation because they've shown themselves as willing to litigate.

I disagree with your premise but even if I agreed that any IP theft has occurred, why do you care? surely you're aware that nintendo aggressively invests in IP lawyers and lawsuits?

They're both based on the same source material - various mythological creatures and real animals with a twist

I used to think Pokemon was super original - but a lot of it just seems they way because we don't learn much about Japanese or asian folklore overseas.

Like take Magikarp. There's a Chinese proverb about a carp leaping through the dragons gate (an actual waterfall) turning into a dragon (meant to describe how with diligence a common person could become powerful through the civil official exams)... The weak magic carp, if diligently leveled, can become a Chinese dragon that looks exactly like the ones they use in parades.

Meouth - a wealth giving cat, many asian shops have a cat figure with a gold coin for luck. And Persian is just a lioness (a bigger cat) with the same design.

Vulpix/Ninetails - nine tailed fox

Ekans - snakE. Arbok - kobrA. Pidgey - pigeon. Pigiotto, pigeot? Reminds me of fire, fira, firaga, firaja naming scheme from final fantasy

Hitmonlee and Hitmonchan - Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan

Noticably, most of these puns and references to actual people are not copied, instead it is things like wolves and mythological creatures

If anything, it's the style of the art that makes them so similar - but copying aesthetics is how art grows and develops. It's not like they were the first or only ones to copy the style either