It takes an anti-consumer boot locker perspective while not listing a single patent. Some shitposts have more actual content than this article.
this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023
30 points (100.0% liked)
Gaming
327 readers
1 users here now
founded 2 years ago
This just ain’t how patent law works.
Nintendo has IP lawyers. They have to, at their scale, because they will constantly be bombarded by patent trolls, licensing companies etc. trying to extract profit out of Nintendo. So, like any other large business, they hire IP lawyers to protect themselves.
Most patent disagreements are resolved by cross-licensing. That’s where one business says, in response to a law suit, “oh, but you’re actually using 6 of our patents, so maybe we can come to an agreement”. A patent is both a shield and a sword. Even against trolls they can be useful, as they can be used to argue against troll arguments, if it gets to court, or pull in other business to the defense, if helpful.
IP lawyers know this. So they extract every patent they can out of everything a company does, as a way to build up the IP bank.
So, I highly doubt “Nintendo wants to prevent others” bla bla. It’s just IP lawyers doing their job.
I’ve sat in MANY discovery sessions with IP lawyers where they push and prod at software I, or my team, have written. “So, what you’ve effectively done is written a unique data structure to connect elements in memory?!”, “no, it’s a linked list, next question please”.
Here's the original article:
https://automaton-media.com/en/news/20230808-20590/
Sounds like Nintendo wants to go on a litigation spree.
A related patent defines a mechanic that prevents Link from grabbing an object he is on top of using Ultrahand, which also seems rather intuitive. The patent does, however, go into details such as the mechanic also blocking Link from using Ultrahand on objects which have been joined to an object he is on top of.
The word "obvious" comes to mind.
“a game processing method capable of enriching game presentation during a waiting period in which at least part of the game processing is interrupted” and consists of filling up the loading period that ensues after the user inputs their fast travel destination with a sequence in which an image of the starting point’s map transitions into a map of the destination. After this sequence, the character is placed into the virtual space of the destination.
So, that thing films have been doing for decades?
I hope the patent examiners have some sense in their heads when considering these.
I will say that map loading screen thing is obvious but I've never seen it before in a video game and it was a small detail I really loved.
Yes, it's nice.
Thankfully, we can appreciate things that are obvious or aren't novel without granting a society-funded monopoly on them. In fact, both those criteria generally disqualify them from patent, for good reason.
Good point. Don't get me wrong, I am definitely not in support of them getting a patent for it, and I'm against patents in general. I'm just saying I loved it more than I expected, and want to see it more.
Everytime I hear something new about nintendo I like them less. Which sucks because I know there's no chance of kirby going anywhere else without emulation.
Would these parents hold up in court?
Assuming that these patents are all granted, courts will generally treat them as though they are valid and enforceable. However, the bar for getting a patent is generally rather difficult, so it could be the case that none of these patent prosecutions are successful at all. If they get these patents, all Nintendo would have to do is file an infringement against allegedly infringing parties, and then the onus is almost entirely on the responding party to prove either that they did not violate the patent, or that the patent was invalid in the first place. Nintendo loses almost nothing in trying to enforce a patent, and has plenty to gain from the chilling effect that prolonged litigation could have.