I said it last time I saw an article about this lawsuit posted here, but I'll say it again: The very idea that Nintendo could patent something that has zeroreal-world utility or design is absolutely disgusting. They haven't invented this technology nor created an improved design for an existing technology -- it's all fictitious -- so how the fuck could a patent be issued or justified? This is copyright territory, at best.
The issue is about patenting an invention. There has to be an abstract concept behind every invention. In this case, they are patenting the concept implemented by physical code.
It would be no different from saying "You claim you invented the windshield wiper. But your windshield wiper design uses a screw to attach the wiper bar to the motor, but Ford is using a rivet. They are identical in all other ways. Therefore, you didn't invent that windshield wiper, Ford did."
That level of material minutia can be used to effectively destroy the concept of patents altogether.
One major distinction between this patent and others that involve abstract or novel concepts is that those patents can tangibly be expressed in the real world, even if they haven't been. It's not an invention or an improvement upon an invention if it literally cannot ever exist or at least cannot ever exist according to our understanding. Anything associated with throwing balls and catching monsters is imagination and not reality. As intellectual property, it should therefore only be subject to copyright law unless specifically trademarked. Patents generally must represent a novel utility (e.g., the concepts you're talking about) or a novel design to facilitate utility with both needing at least the potential for practical application. That doesn't exist where fantasy monsters are concerned.
Also, I'm not talking about details like screws or whatever, I don't think that's analogous.
What are you talking about? Software has tangible application and real world expression. Fantasy does not. How do you not see the distinction? Digital applications actually exist and are also facilitated by the real-world application of physical laws (ie., the flow of current) to perform actual functions.
Software has utility, make-believe does not. I was pretty clear in that patents cover novel utility.
I said it last time I saw an article about this lawsuit posted here, but I'll say it again: The very idea that Nintendo could patent something that has zero real-world utility or design is absolutely disgusting. They haven't invented this technology nor created an improved design for an existing technology -- it's all fictitious -- so how the fuck could a patent be issued or justified? This is copyright territory, at best.
The issue is about patenting an invention. There has to be an abstract concept behind every invention. In this case, they are patenting the concept implemented by physical code.
It would be no different from saying "You claim you invented the windshield wiper. But your windshield wiper design uses a screw to attach the wiper bar to the motor, but Ford is using a rivet. They are identical in all other ways. Therefore, you didn't invent that windshield wiper, Ford did."
That level of material minutia can be used to effectively destroy the concept of patents altogether.
One major distinction between this patent and others that involve abstract or novel concepts is that those patents can tangibly be expressed in the real world, even if they haven't been. It's not an invention or an improvement upon an invention if it literally cannot ever exist or at least cannot ever exist according to our understanding. Anything associated with throwing balls and catching monsters is imagination and not reality. As intellectual property, it should therefore only be subject to copyright law unless specifically trademarked. Patents generally must represent a novel utility (e.g., the concepts you're talking about) or a novel design to facilitate utility with both needing at least the potential for practical application. That doesn't exist where fantasy monsters are concerned.
Also, I'm not talking about details like screws or whatever, I don't think that's analogous.
You're eliminating the concept of patenting software altogether, that's absurd. It's also not a copyright.
What are you talking about? Software has tangible application and real world expression. Fantasy does not. How do you not see the distinction? Digital applications actually exist and are also facilitated by the real-world application of physical laws (ie., the flow of current) to perform actual functions.
Software has utility, make-believe does not. I was pretty clear in that patents cover novel utility.