So nintendo and palworld are based in Japan which has no fair use on copyright.
If this became a copyright case in Japan and palworld won it could change the law on copyright fair use in, which Nintendo and other corps don’t want as it would open up new games based on their products under fair use.
The only way Nintendo can attack palworld is via patent infringement.
If this became a copyright case in Japan and palworld won it could change the law on copyright fair use
not every country has case law. most of Europe is eg using “code law”, which means a precedent doesn’t change the law, but only applies to the one specific case with all its specific context and circumstances taken into account. under slightly different circumstances, a judge may rule differently
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Rules
1. Submissions have to be related to games
Video games, tabletop, or otherwise. Posts not related to games will be deleted.
This community is focused on games, of all kinds. Any news item or discussion should be related to gaming in some way.
2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No bigotry, hardline stance. Try not to get too heated when entering into a discussion or debate.
We are here to talk and discuss about one of our passions, not fight or be exposed to hate. Posts or responses that are hateful will be deleted to keep the atmosphere good. If repeatedly violated, not only will the comment be deleted but a ban will be handed out as well. We judge each case individually.
3. No excessive self-promotion
Try to keep it to 10% self-promotion / 90% other stuff in your post history.
This is to prevent people from posting for the sole purpose of promoting their own website or social media account.
4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
This community is mostly for discussion and news. Remember to search for the thing you’re submitting before posting to see if it’s already been posted.
We want to keep the quality of posts high. Therefore, memes, funny videos, low-effort posts and reposts are not allowed. We prohibit giveaways because we cannot be sure that the person holding the giveaway will actually do what they promise.
5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW
Make sure to mark your stuff or it may be removed.
No one wants to be spoiled. Therefore, always mark spoilers. Similarly mark NSFW, in case anyone is browsing in a public space or at work.
6. No linking to piracy
Don’t share it here, there are other places to find it. Discussion of piracy is fine.
We don’t want us moderators or the admins of lemmy.world to get in trouble for linking to piracy. Therefore, any link to piracy will be removed. Discussion of it is of course allowed.
Except this isn’t a copyright case. They’re claiming patent infringement.
deleted by creator
What patent are you referring to?
Not disagreeing, just pointing out it’s not a traditional copyright claim like so many others we see.
Hard to know if the patent is expired when they haven’t even officially announced which ones they plan to bring forward in the suit.
The only info I was aware of so far is that there were multiple claims they were making.
So nintendo and palworld are based in Japan which has no fair use on copyright.
If this became a copyright case in Japan and palworld won it could change the law on copyright fair use in, which Nintendo and other corps don’t want as it would open up new games based on their products under fair use.
The only way Nintendo can attack palworld is via patent infringement.
not every country has case law. most of Europe is eg using “code law”, which means a precedent doesn’t change the law, but only applies to the one specific case with all its specific context and circumstances taken into account. under slightly different circumstances, a judge may rule differently