Here is the patent if someone is interested:
Thanks. For everyone not used to reading patents - only the claims are relevant. To infringe, someone else needs to do exactly the same as they describe.
Claim 1:
What is claimed is:
- A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a game program, the game program causing a processor of an information processing apparatus to execute: performing control of moving a player character on a field in a virtual space, based on a movement operation input; performing control of causing a sub character to appear on the field, based on a first operation input, and when an enemy character is placed at a location where the sub character is caused to appear, controlling a battle between the sub character and the enemy character by a first mode in which the battle proceeds based on an operation input, and when the enemy character is not placed at the location where the sub character is caused to appear, starting automatic control of automatically moving the sub character that has appeared; and performing control of moving the sub character in a predetermined direction on the field, based on a second operation input, and, when the enemy character is placed at a location of a designation, controlling a battle between the sub character and the enemy character by a second mode in which the battle automatically proceeds.
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a game program, the game program causing a processor of an information processing apparatus to execute
A video game. Lol
I love how we as a society decided to pay people a ton of money to write like this
And other people to decipher it back into human language.
So… in more readable English, they patented how you can send a Pokemon out to run around with you, and if you throw it directly at an enemy it can start a standard battle where you control your Pokemon, otherwise it automatically paths to the enemy for an autobattle.
That’s a little more specific than just summoning characters, but still absolutely bullshit to be able to patent. I’m sure there’s prior work that should disqualify this, they just couched it in such overly technical terms they can act like it’s novel.
The technical terms are actually how all patents are written, so nothing special there. I don’t approve of things like this being patentable at all, but I actually expect this to be novel the way it’s written.
However, no one needs to infringe upon it - it’s trivial to change something ever so slightly so as to not do exactly what’s described here.
…and immediately sues every 911 dispatcher for patent infringement.
You are my hero today!
This is my comment of the day.
Your my comment of the day
First thing that comes to mind is summoning a GF in final fantasy games…
My brain: you can summon Girlfriends in final Fantasy? 🤣
Ok so…
Ridiculous, but possible loophole to this:
Stream the game over a network, from further away than your local wifi.
Or, … uh… just the… ‘PokeBattle’ part… of the game.
Make that into a client-server type architecture.
The only references to networking in the patent are for Wifi LAN and a Switch 2 directly talking to another Switch 2, and this is only done to describe really the Switch 2 itself, without reference in that section to the ‘non-transitory storage medium’ which substantially comprises the basal step of the active functioning process which is being patented.
The ‘non-transitory storage medium’ itself is specified as the microsd card that goes into a Switch 2… but it seems that generally, this would seem to (???) cover any sort of persistent storage media/medium.
So… if you throw a non local network into this process… the relevant code/concept now goes through another step, networking or netcode, does not actually exist in or on the device’s ‘non-transitory storage medium’ nor propogate throughout the rest of the computer sysyem in the manner described by the patent, which makes no reference to networking in the description of the functional process, which is based around the concept of the executed game code originating from non-transitory storage which is physically present in thr device…
… and is thus arguably a susbtantially different concept/process.
… and/or I have lost my mind.
This would be funny to try, have them fight and win? And immediately invalidate every single “familiar thing but on the internet” trash that the USPTO has been allowing for the past 30 years
I really have no idea.
And that’s saying something, because I wrote a few papers, on the DMCA in particular, as well as how the copyright/patent system works (and should probably be reformed) specifically irt to computer software, whilst getting a BSc in Econ and a BA in Poli Sci…
… and …
… just fuck all this, its so fucking obvious that the system is in so many ways just designed to work only for entities with stupendous amounts of money.
I agree with the FUCK COPYRIGHT statement, but copyright law and patent law have nothing to do with each other. please stop mixing these two concepts together. Richard Stallman has a great presentation where he discusses patent law, I think it is called “Patent law, danger to programmers” or something close to that.
persona?
this is out of line again from nintendo. why does no one push back?
Would games like Magic the Gathering and Gwent now be considered violating this patent? The wording in it seems ridiculously vague, I can barely understand what the patent is describing, and I’m not sure it means what “gamesfray” thinks it does.
I ANAL and am not a lawyer.
The verbiage on this is RIDICULOUSLY specific (as patents generally should be) to the point that I refused to even pass the PDF through an OCR system and instead will trust that site’s transcription
(1) There must be a PC, console or other computing device and the game is stored on a drive or similar storage medium. (2) You can move a character in a virtual space. (3) You must be able to summon a character. They call it a “sub character” by which they mean it’s not the player character, but, for example, a little monster such as a Pokémon that the player character has at its disposal. Then the logic branches out, with items (4) and (5) being mutually exclusive scenarios, before reuniting again in item (6): (4) This is about summoning the “sub character” in a place where there already is another character that it will then (when instructed to do so) fight. (5) This alternative scenario is about summoning the “sub character” at a position where there is no other character to fight immediately. (6) This final step is about sending the “sub character” in a direction and then letting an automatic battle ensue with another character. It is not clear whether this is even needed if one previously executed step (4) where the “sub character” will basically be thrown at another character.All of those criteria must be met for this trap card to be triggered (shit… Yugioh lawyers getting revved up now).
Step 4 specifically covers the case where you summon your little guy to fight someone else. As worded, that actually would impact a Summon in every JRPG and Final Fantasy just got sweaty. Step 5 summons a character as an assist or to replace the main character in a fight (so… Pokemon).
What I find most interesting is that step 6 specifically says “automatic battle”. Which… to my Not A Lawyer brain, means this doesn’t even cover Pokemon since you specifically give your mons battle commands. Err, aside from S01E01 Pikachu who did not give a fuck. And then Charizard. And probably a dozen more pokemons after I stopped watching The Son Of Mr Mime’s Adventures. But, from what little I saw of it, it DOES cover Palworld where you just summon your pals to do work for you or fight for you. And it potentially covers Final Fantasy and Ichiban’s Like a Dragons (the Poundmates, not the Sujimon)…
Which is probably the most interesting thing and why I think Pokemon Co is going to be ridiculously selective of who they try to sue. Because any of the big hitters can just say “Dumbfucks, we were doing this before Game Freak even existed”. Whereas indie devs are small enough they don’t want to risk it.
It might be worth keeping an eye on MinnMax as Haley MacLean IS a lawyer who actually specializes in video game IP but I suspect this is too close to her day job for her to publicly speak about it even with the “not legal advice” disclaimers. Which hopefully guarantees she actually talked about it on one of the podcasts this week and I just haven’t looked yet.
Okay, but what stops literally any MMO with a pet class from challenging the patent and getting it thrown out the door? Definitely not a lawyer, but I was under the impression that if a property from before the patent proves it has existed as the patent describes before the patent came along, it just gets thrown out.
For the exact same reason that “fair use” is still so incredibly nebulous and twitch streaming/let’s plays still exist.
NOBODY is crazy enough to want to take that to the courts. Because maybe you get a judge who has “common sense”. Maybe you get an old white guy who thinks Pong was too complicated and decides that you are wrong. At which point you have now made a bunch of legal precedent for REALLY stupid stuff.
Its also kind of why so much stuff about video games actually never gets patented. It is playing with fire.
Copyright already stifles innovation and creativity through it’s overreaching. Now we get to see that with patents as well.
If you think this is the first time tech patents have stifled innovation unfairly, you must be new to this planet.
Wait… How can they patent stuff that is ages old and exsist already?
