The studio also names the weirdly small damages Nintendo is seeking

Looking up those patents, the first alludes to a system where a player aims and fires an “item” toward a character in a field, and in doing so triggers combat, and then dives into extraordinary intricacies about switching between modes within this. The second is very similar, but seems more directly focused on tweaking previous patents to including being able to capture Pokémon in the wild, rather than only during battle. The third, rather wildly, seems to be trying to claim a modification to the invention of riding creatures in an open world and being able to transition between them easily.

    • TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      2 hours ago

      Patents are not the problem, they serve as a way to share the knowledge of a creation with everyone while protecting your company for a REASONABLE TIME to compensate for the RnD costs.

      The problem is the distortion of the concept to fit late stage capitalism delights.

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.worldEnglish
      137·
      11 hours ago

      Patents shouldn’t exist! Mostly.

      We had a history before patents/copyright were enforced. It was pretty brutal for anyone trying to make a living with their creations. Take a look and see if you want to return to that.

      • Grass@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        191·
        9 hours ago

        yeah now its brutal for anyone trying to make a living and excellent for anyone who already inherited a living and has more money than they could use in multiple lifetimes. I’d hate to go back to when it was just brutal for anyone trying to make a living.

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          5 hours ago

          yeah now its brutal for anyone trying to make a living

          What patent or copyright is preventing you from making a living?

        • otp@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          31·
          8 hours ago

          I think the problem would be similar. The rich and powerful would be the only ones to profit off of inventions and innovations.

          We still have indie game devs today. Imagine if any company could just copy an indie game and scale it up/polish a bit and get all the sales.

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.worldEnglish
          31·
          5 hours ago

          A shitty solution for a shitty situation is not a good solution

          Feel free to share your revolutionary idea that will still incentivize people to create without creating a “shitty situation”.

          • starman2112@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            32·
            5 hours ago

            I don’t need to come up with any revolutionary ideas, the open source folks are already creating without patenting their creations

            Here’s a revolutionary idea: universal basic income. No need to prevent other people from monetizing your idea if you don’t need to monetize your idea in the first place

            • partial_accumen@lemmy.worldEnglish
              31·
              4 hours ago

              I don’t need to come up with any revolutionary ideas, the open source folks are already creating without patenting their creations

              The largest contributors to Open Source make their money from patents and other IP. As in, they can afford to give away lots of time and effort because they make their money with IP. If IP were to be eradicated as you’re proposing, all those contributions to Open Source by those largest contributors would evaporate. Here’s the largest Open Source contributors from 2017-2020.

              source