It's a Palworld After All a Lawyer Explains Nintendo vs. Palworld [video] | Hacker News Reader

It's a Palworld After All a Lawyer Explains Nintendo vs. Palworld [video]

youtube.com

To me this is the clearest case of using lawfare to try and suppress honest competition. Yes Palworld borrows some creative ideas from pokemon, but it so clearly a different game there's no question to it (if that's not different enough, then what is?).

In this case, I think Nintendo realizes their biggest cash-cow is pokemon so they _have_ to make a play to suppress any competition. However, this is very bad for the market imo and should be disincentivized somehow.

If they succeed, imagine the chilling effect to game makers who have to pause and think "if I succeed, will I be destroyed because my idea shares some commonalities with other games?"

Yeah,this would be grim because this is how genres are born.

I wouldn't call it the clearest case of lawfare, any reasonable person can look at these designs and see that it's copying the core design:

https://assets-prd.ignimgs.com/2024/01/26/20-1706294568231.p... https://assets-prd.ignimgs.com/2024/01/26/21-1706294568232.p... https://assets-prd.ignimgs.com/2024/01/26/22-1706294568233.p... https://assets-prd.ignimgs.com/2024/01/26/28-1706294568242.p...

It does look bad, but this is about the core design of the creatures, not the gameplay. I think we should be concerned if this meant making a game clone like how first-person shooters originated as "Doom-clones" was off the table.

The creatures are the biggest part of the Pokémon IP. You don't sell plushies and merch of the gameplay.

The entire lawfare approach thus far has been via patent dispute from what I understand, so the gameplay is actually what's being argued.

could you imagine a world where only the first company to develop a game mechanic is allowed to use that mechanic in their games?

That would make games like iphones, only the smallest change allowed between each generation, Atari would rule the game universe, the kids would be playing jumpman in 4k resolution (Now with 256 colors and 12 unique levels!)

From what I understand their lawfare approach is using japanese software patent law, they have notably not tried to do the same using trademark or copyright infringement.

If they could get away with what you're suggesting, I imagine they would have tried it on digimon decades ago: https://digi-battle.com/Content/CardScans/CP-22.png vs https://archives.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/e/ed/0098Krabb...

There's a laundry list of these comparisons actually https://preview.redd.it/what-if-digimon-adventure-was-pokemo...

No one is looking at Digimon and going "Hey, that's Pokemon!" -- looking at Palworld's creatures for the uninitiated, it looks so very much like Pokemon creatures that most people I know have confused it for Pokemon.

There's a HUGE difference between being influenced by, and blatantly copying the inspiration and design. It took Nintendo decades to come up with creature designs, and Palworld less than a year - and they could do that because they likely went through each creature one-by-one and said, "How can we make it just so slightly different?"

No one is looking at Digimon and saying it looks like Pokemon now, but in the 90s they sure as heck were. People's mothers (ie the key demographic for "the uninitiated") commonly confused one for the other, even the TV show. This is no longer the case purely because Digimon is far less popular.

Bearing in mind pretty much all Pokemon designs follow the rule of "what if a mythical animal existed in our art style", it is in fact shockingly easy to accidentally ape a Pokemon design just by cartoonifying mythos.

This is incidentally also true of Pokemon, who were accused of ripping off Dragon Quest when the first games started coming out. Does anyone remember that at this point?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GEYrZuzXUAAjpkB?format=jpg&name=...

Agree the creatures look similar but that isn't at issue in the case, it's gameplay mechanics (catching creatures and then using them to battle).

Similarity in design is not necessarily infringement. Invincible is obviously based on the DC comics universe, with Omni-Man very similar to Superman both in appearance and background, and there are basically one-to-one equivalents of most of the Justice League (e.g. Darkwing for Batman). Yet that doesn't mean it infringes on DC's IP.

At this point Marvel and DC actually need each other in order to have a comic book market. The more readers you get at Marvel, the more potential ones you would get in DC (because they cover different social issues) and vice versa.

Invincible is actually published by Image Comics.

They probably took some inspiration but you also could argue that there's so many Pokémon nowadays that you can't create any creature from scratch which would not look like any of them.

And some of them in the Pokémon world aren't really that inspired either...

TLDW Summary: Its not about Palworld. Its a Sony vs Nintendo spat. A proxy war if you will.'t

I 100% honest to god cannot tell the difference between a Palworld creature and a Pokemon. Unless it is holding a gun? Even then it could just be a photoshop of a Pokemon for all I know. I think the vast majority of people would also be confused between the two. The company behind Palworld have done other games that are extremely close knock-offs of existing games. I do think this is wrong and can confuse potential buyers. This isn't fair use satire.

The same could be said of Pokemon vs Digimon. Put the two side-by-side and I wouldn't be able to discern which is which.

Same with Bakugan, Monsuno, Yu-Gi-Oh, Card Fight!! Vanguard, Future Card Buddyfight, Shadowverse, etc.

I don't really see what the problem is. If Nintendo was just a little less out of touch with what their fan base wanted, they could be raking in (even more) cash. But instead of doing that, they waste their resources getting butthurt over the silliest things, like people posting game play videos of humorous single player ROM hacks of games no longer being sold (they have successfully removed more YouTube videos like this than I count by sending DMCA take downs -- its ridiculous). More focus on innovating and less focus on litigation would do them (and their fan base) well.

It's not Palworld's fault that Nintendo et al choose to release horribly unoptimized, not fun Pokemon games (like Pokemon Scarlet and Violet). I think it's great that a competitor in the monster-capture game genre is providing an actually fun game, because despite the enormity of the Pokemon fan base and the massive financial incentive to deliver a compelling game to them, clearly Nintendo either can't or simply won't do it.

I understand the argument but I can tell the difference between Pokémon/Digimon/Yu-Gi-Oh. I think Palworld copies the aesthetic too much. If it was just in the same 'genre' of fighting monsters like Digimon and Pokémon then I think it would have been OK. I feel like they are trying to mislead consumers, especially young children.

Anyone care to give a summary of the summary?

The PalWorld story is more complex than how it looks at first sight, and Sony is involved in complex ways that only make sense within the company history and the cultural background.

Here's what I've been doing a lot recently.

Videos have a transcript button in the description. Click it, copy paste the text into ChatGPT or your preferred LLM and ask it to summarize it via bullet-points or whatever method you might prefer.

I haven't noticed many hallucinations when it comes to translating transcripts of videos I've actually watched start to finish (doesn't mean it can't happen), but it's a pretty decent and quick method.

The summary:

The transcript is a comprehensive video script by Mooney, a lawyer, exploring the intricate legal battle between Nintendo and Pocket Pair, the creators of Palworld, and revealing Sony’s alleged involvement behind the scenes.

The video opens with the history of Palworld, a monster-collecting game with similarities to Pokémon. Nintendo’s lawsuit, often viewed as an attempt to stifle an indie competitor, is portrayed as a complex, defensive move against a larger threat. Mooney suggests that Nintendo’s true rival is not Pocket Pair but Sony, speculating that Sony strategically backs Palworld through its subsidiary Aniplex, akin to how Nintendo operates the Pokémon franchise via The Pokémon Company.

The video dives into historical context, such as Nintendo’s early betrayal of Sony in the 1990s. This soured relationship, coupled with Sony’s recent gaming market challenges, has pushed Sony to aggressively pursue new intellectual properties. The establishment of Palworld Entertainment Inc., a joint venture with Sony, suggests Sony’s strategic interest in the Palworld franchise, potentially challenging Nintendo’s hold over the monster-collecting genre.

Mooney explains Nintendo’s reliance on patent law—rather than copyright or trademark claims—due to the complexities of international IP regulations and the potential protections for Palworld under U.S. parody law. Patent lawsuits are highlighted as high-stakes gambles in the corporate world, requiring Nintendo to leverage its patent portfolio as a deterrent. By addressing Sony’s “power play,” Nintendo aims to protect its Pokémon brand and prevent Palworld from becoming a lasting franchise capable of competing with Pokémon.

The video concludes with Mooney humorously thanking supporters, discussing charity efforts, and performing a playful parody song inspired by the ongoing rivalry between Sony, Nintendo, and Palworld.

Converting long-winded youtube videos with tons of superfluous info into summaries is my only regular use for LLMs. It's honestly really great.

Nintendo’s core strength is their IP. Sony lacks similar strength and has been performing poorly, so they backed Palworld to bring a popular Pokemon-like game to PlayStation. Nintendo wouldn’t win a copyright claim because Palworld would argue satire fair use in the US/other reasons in Japan. Nintendo doesn’t want to go to court with a trademark claim because any ruling that’s not totally in their favour would damage the value of their Pokemon IP. Going to court over patents is really about protecting the trademark, without risking a judgement against them that damages the trademark. A judgement against the patent(s) is a more acceptable risk.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com