936
Palworld confirms ‘disappointing’ game changes forced by Pokémon lawsuit
(www.videogameschronicle.com)
this post was submitted on 08 May 2025
936 points (97.9% liked)
Games
38498 readers
1347 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here and here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm just impressed that you managed to miss the point by so much.
Correct. Which is precisely why copyright law was established in the first place and why companies like Facebook, Google or Amazon were able to become what they were without Microsoft or Apple just copy-pasting what they did.
The copyright laws are not perfect, far from it. But they give smaller companies SOME form of defence against the corps.
Do you also believe that OSHA was created to control the poor employee into submission by their great corporate overlord?
Yes, like I said: the copyright laws are not perfect. But saying that it would better WITHOUT ANY COPYRIGHT LAWS is insanity.
Microsoft did copy and paste though: Yammer, Bing and Azure respectively. Apple tried with Ping/eWorld, Safari/Spotlight but didn't really get into the web host space. Also worth mentioning the duopoly nature of those 2 specifically.
Rather telling that all your examples are Fortune 500 companies?
That's a rather impressive hay golem you've built there.
We're not talking copyright laws, we're talking patent laws and you have yet to explain why it would be insane without changing scope or inventing fanciful scenarios.
So, you fully and honestly believe that Microsoft has stolen Google's and Amazon's code? As in: you're 100% certain that's the case here?
No. It's not worth mentioning in a topic that has nothing to do with that fact...
It amazes me how you see a company NOW being a Fortune 500, and going "waagh, IP protection only serves the massive corpos!!!" without realising how many of those companies became Fortune 500 thanks to those protections.
It equally amazes me how you see the law being used by said companies most of the time (because, you know, they're larger) and go "we can do without these laws" without blinking an eye, or a single neuron firing towards the thought that... these laws ALSO serve the smaller companies.
Mate, are you lost or something?
This is what my reply was to:
Do I need to put "copyright" in bold here?
Does a patent protect the concept or the specific code? You seemed pretty adamant that reverse engineering was theft previously, and assuming you haven't changed your definition of theft then yes, according to your definition of theft I'm 100% certain that's the case.
Thanks to those, or in spite of? You are focusing on outliers and expecting that to be a convincing argument to describe the typical.
Just because they can, doesn't mean it's something to expect. There are orders of magnitude between how often they protect, and how often the destroy. You a big lottery fan or something?
Fair, I was attempting to limit scope with only discussing patents and not getting into the rest of the weeds and didn't properly communicate that. I had assumed there would be more than a single neuron between the two of us, but that was clearly presumptive of me.
Depends on the patent.
It's not "my definition of theft", it's "theft". If you're 100% certain, hit Amazon lawyers up, I'm sure they'll love to talk to you about it - it's literally free money for them and maybe a big payout for you, right?
The hilarious thing is that you're like so many other "revolutionaries" who come in and go: "oh no, the X rules are stifling the market/competition/free exchange of information/whatever" while being completely ignorant on how these rules came to be.
It's like these capitalists of today saying that OSHA needs to go because they're losing profits to it, completely oblivious to the fact that it was the capitalists of the XIX century who created them to increase profits (because having to replace skilled labourers became a high cost factor).
You strike me as someone who thinks that copyright and other IP protection laws are something that was set up in XX (maybe XIX) century as a means to protect the wealthy. Am I wrong?
Right. So when I refused to change the scope, you decided to call me an idiot. How very gentlemanly of you.
Not how that works, stop talking out of your ass (Gottschalk v. Benson)
You keep switching between moral and legal arguments. They are not the same.
Deflection
Strawman
Literally mirroring your words back at you
It's exactly how it works. You can patent the code, the solution, the material, whatever the fuck you want. That's what a patent IS.
Oh, do elaborate!
Example of a similar thought-process.
Huh? That wasn't an argument, mate, that was an assumption and a question. Are you OK?
I still kinda' hope I'd get an answer, though.
Well, not "literally" and not quite "mirroring". I think you need some rest, mate, you seem tired and unfocused.