- cross-posted to:
- gaming@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- gaming@beehaw.org
With the implementation of Patch v0.5.5 this week, we must make yet another compromise. From this patch onward, gliding will be performed using a glider rather than with Pals. Pals in the player’s team will still provide passive buffs to gliding, but players will now need to have a glider in their inventory in order to glide.
How lame. Japan needs to fix its patent laws, it’s ridiculous Nintendo owns the simple concept of using an animal to fly.
First of all: very often it’s literally a 1:1 copy.
Secondly: imagine you make an innovative product. I don’t know, automatic fence painter, whatever. It sells well, but you don’t have the money to start a large-scale production, you’re doing OK with sales and are looking for investors, but things are fairly slow. In comes a Chinese dude, buys one auto-painter from you, brings it home, dismantles the thing, copies everything (potentially making some changes), and starts a massive-scale production in his factory. Due to the mass-production, worse materials, and lower labour costs, he sells the product at 20% the price of yours. The market is saturated with his knock-off, you’re left with zero money.
Is this xenophobia to you? Or someone stealing your product and killing your business?
Yeah, I’m not talking about them being acquired. What gave you that idea? I specifically used the words “steals their idea”.
Do you know why there doesn’t exist automated fencepost painters? As bad as this sort of stuff is in software world it’s soooo much worse in hardware world. The licensing fees for every single little piece of IP that go into it would nickel and dime even large businesses out of building anything like that. Sure there’s also technical difficulties with building one, but those are surmountable. However, a business model that could survive the constant threats of litigation, licensing fees and turn even a mild profit does not exist.
Yes, because you just described what businesses throughout the Western world do to your mythical small business and projected it onto some mythical far east.
You do realize that is the point of IP right? To allow legalized theft in this exact manner? In the exact article this comment chain is discussing palworld did their due diligence to verify they weren’t violating any of Nintendo’s IP and then Nintendo modified their patent filing so that they were with the express goal of stealing their product.
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.