• Welcome To Bounding Into Comics: Introduce Yourself!

    Tell us about yourself! Let us know where you’re from, what you’re interested in (comics, movies, games, etc.), and anything else we should know about you. Looking forward to meeting everyone!

    Introduce Yourself
  • With "Task" renewed for season 2, is it time Mark Ruffalo forgot about the MCU?

    View thread
  • Deadpool & Wolverine actually cost $533 million! Why are Superhero films so expensive?

    View Thread

Former Capcom Designer Asks Players Not To Support ‘Palworld’ Amid Legal Battle With Nintendo

I'm well aware that Nintendo is draconian when it comes to suing anyone. But it always seemed odd that so many people were jumping to the defense of Palworld. From what little I know of it, it really seemed like it was borrowing very heavily from Pokemon.
 
Upvote 0
From what little I know of it, it really seemed like it was borrowing very heavily from Pokemon.
Irrelevant. Nintendo sued for explicitly and singularly patent infringement. The patents Nintendo sued under are obviously and objectively invalid under the single most basic, fundamental, definitional principle of patent law: Patents secure discoveries for their inventors, and all of the things Nintendo claims to have invented in those patents were already in common market use ("prior art") or are a non-novel combination of existing concepts that is not eligible for a patent because it's non-novel.

Nintendo's patents in this case are junk that should never have been issued. A company that gets junk patents and tries to sue a (much smaller) competitor with them, hoping to win by starving out its competition in the courts rather than being right, is called a patent troll. Society has no respect for patent trolls.
 
Upvote 3