this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2025
209 points (99.1% liked)

PC Gaming

9544 readers
1965 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
209
Nintendo applying for anti-Palworld patents in the US with a whopping 22 out of 23 rejected, but "they are fighting" (www.windowscentral.com)
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] x00z 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think we all know they didn't stop Palworld because they saw it grow and wanted them to get more money first.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It never ceases to amaze me how people will see some corporation do something shady that is already bad and still find it in themselves to come up with some crazy conspiracy theory about it anyway, even if the conspiracy isn't any worse than the demonstrable thing that's actually happening.

Or how they fail to mark their sarcasm, I guess, if that's what this is.

[–] Agent_Karyo 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Why do you think it's a conspiracy theory to assume the patent fraud strategy was only implemented after Palworld got big?

I know the OG statement was a bit more provocative and sensationalist, but I think the high level logic holds.

Genuinely curious.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The implication as I read it is that they DIDN'T stop Palworld as a deliberate ploy to let it get big. Presumably to get more money by suing them? I don't know, it's a bizarre statement.

What you're saying is the much more reasonable alternative: that Nintendo is filing patents now to try to get a legal leg to stand on to stop a meaningful, derivative competitor to Pokémon.

Those two things aren't the same thing. One of them is a weird conspiratorial thought that doesn't track with reality, the other is a fairly obvious takeaway. They both stem from the fact that Nintendo only took action once Palworld got big and they're both equally crappy corporate behavior. But one of those demands retroactive foresight, a malicious plan for something to happen a specific way as part of a grand plan and the reversal of cause and effect. The other is just plain vanilla corporate greed and brand protection from a traditionally litigious company.

I, on my part, am saying that I find it baffling that people want/need to resort to building up these moustache-twirling overcomplicated plans hidden below the surface while simultaneously lacking the imagination to make the imaginary plans any more evil than the plain, patently obvious straightforward reality. I guess it feels good to sense that you have some sharp insight about the secrets behind the curtain whether the secrets are interesting or not.

[–] Agent_Karyo 1 points 5 days ago

That's fair. I agree.

I guess I was vaguely alluding to the fact that patent fraud stuff did start after Palworld got big. But what you're saying makes a lot sense.