undefined | Better HN

0 pointsGuB-426mo ago0 comments

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.

0 comments

deaddodo6mo ago

Clearly using the term “Pokémon” on its own refers to the series in general. If not from the obvious context, but from the sheer fact that there was never a game in the series titled simply “Pokémon”.

hdjriudjjd6mo ago

If they did come up with it and spent significant R&D on it only to be copied by another, they probably should have applied for the patent before they released it?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsGuB-426mo ago0 comments

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.

0 comments

deaddodo6mo ago

hdjriudjjd6mo ago

If they did come up with it and spent significant R&D on it only to be copied by another, they probably should have applied for the patent before they released it?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse