this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2026
278 points (99.3% liked)
Technology
85420 readers
3721 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's not how the law works. It's not a thing where this company sued another company for patents and won, therefore all future lawsuits on patents automatically win. There may be some precedent about specific details in the case, but there's no reason to assume a future judge in a future case wouldn't rule in the same way even if this case never existed. Seems to me precedence paranoia is just some internet lawyer thing.
The strangest thing about this case is that Nintendo didn't sue for trademark infringement or copyright. I assume Pikachu is trademarked and this company had a Pikachu with a machine gun on the cover of their game. Looks like an easy win for trademark infringement, given everyone referred to it as Pokeman with guns.
Beyond the black/yellow coloration it really does not resemble pikachu. If anything it looks kinda like electabuzz
There is no Pikachu in the game. While it does take inspiration from Pokémon certainly, that is perfectly legal. Imagine the shit hole the art world would be in if you couldn't take inspiration from previous works. Their argument is about mechanics, and their mechanics aren't particularly unique anyway.
After the first few paintings of humans and animals, painters would have had to get damn creative to not step on previous painters toes.
No, it's just a monster capture and battling game. Their issue most definitely losing Pokemon sales to this game but the lawsuit they went with is in relation to a patient on throwing a ball and a creature being summoned to do battle. So Palworld removed the ball throwing aspect and the creature now just appears which is why they are now focusing on older versions of the game that still contain that.
I wasn't aware that they had a ball throwing mechanic in the game. Considering the context they put a Pikachu with a machine gun on the cover, yeah they were just copying someone else's shit.
Do you really believe the similarities are coincidental? Like if Pokeman didn't exist, they would've had the character on the cover look like that and would've had players collecting creatures with balls?
They're obviously just ripping off someone else's ideas.
There's very few "original" Pokemon. Most of them come from Japanese folklore
There's a reason Nintendo didn't use the trademark angle, they would have lost very quickly
Well, I think at this point most of them come from whatever object was in a designer's field of view at any given moment. Some are from folklore, but many are just random pieces of furniture, or things like that.
by that logic pokemon is just an obvious rip of dragon quest
Shin Megami Tensei too
humans have been trapping and taming and riding animals long before electricity, let alone video games. Flying on animals isn't a thing in real life but its been in fables and myth. Cockfighting and other animal abuse is also a tale as old as time. You can't legitimise patents for any of that and nintendo can get fucked.
Actually play it and give it a shot. You'll see how unlike pokemon it actually is. And you may just have some fun.