• pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 hours ago

    i mean the game is over of the most high profile blatant knockoffs I’ve ever seen. I believe legal evidential reasoning is “res ipsa loquitur” which is Latin for “look at this fucking thing”

    • Mango@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I don’t think Nintendo should get to own the concept. We’ve had dog fighting since before digital media existed.

      • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        It’s actually based on Japanese kids who would catch beetles in the woods and make them fight. Why do you think some of the first enemies you fight are bug catchers?

      • pyre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 hours ago

        it’s not the concept dude; you can’t copyright that (though you can patent very vague shit apparently, don’t get me started). plus that’s how you get genres. some their creatures look extremely similar.

        notice how we’re not talking about cassette beasts or ooblets.

        • Mango@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 hours ago

          If that’s why, then why are they suing over patent infringement instead of copyright?

          • pyre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 hours ago

            they haven’t specified much so i don’t know. but palworld steals very liberally.