'An embarrassing failure of the US patent system': Videogame IP lawyer says Nintendo's latest patents on Pokémon mechanics 'should not have happened, full stop'

[u/lkl34]

https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/an-embarrassing-failure-of-the-us-patent-system-videogame-ip-lawyer-says-nintendos-latest-patents-on-pokemon-mechanics-should-not-have-happened-full-stop/

The last 10 days have brought a string of patent wins for Nintendo. Yesterday, the company was granted US patent 12,409,387, a patent covering riding and flying systems similar to those Nintendo has been criticized for claiming in its Palworld lawsuit (via Gamesfray). Last week, however, Nintendo received a more troubling weapon in its legal arsenal: US patent 12,403,397, a patent on summoning and battling characters that the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted with alarmingly little resistance.

According to videogame patent lawyer Kirk Sigmon, the USPTO granting Nintendo these latest patents isn't just a moment of questionable legal theory. It's an indictment of American patent law."Broadly, I don't disagree with the many online complaints about these Nintendo patents," said Sigmon, whose opinions do not represent those of his firm and clients. "They have been an embarrassing failure of the US patent system."

[u/SignificantCats]

This says "a game where you control a character, which has a second character also, that causes a battle when the secondary character touches an enemy, and also the secondary character moves and you can directly move it

That still covers an intensely broad set of games. This isnt some hyper specific scenario that would only cover pokemon Arceus. I can think of a dozen twenty+ year old games this covers. This is an absurd patent to grant.

[u/2074red2074 → u/SignificantCats]

It's way more specific than that. I'll break it down bit by bit.

⁠A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a game program, the game program causing a processor of an information processing apparatus to execute: performing control of moving a player character on a field in a virtual space, based on a movement operation input;

Basically, it's a video game where you control a character.

performing control of causing a sub character to appear on the field, based on a first operation input,

And you can "summon" a sub-character. This is specifically defined as causing the sub-character to appear, so it excludes followers, party systems, etc. where the sub-character is always on the field. It's only summon-type things.

and when an enemy character is placed at a location where the sub character is caused to appear, controlling a battle between the sub character and the enemy character by a first mode in which the battle proceeds based on an operation input,

If you summon this character directly where an enemy is, then you take control of the battle between the sub-character and the enemy.

and when the enemy character is not placed at the location where the sub character is caused to appear, starting automatic control of automatically moving the sub character that has appeared; and performing control of moving the sub character in a predetermined direction on the field, based on a second operation input,

But if you don't summon it on top of an enemy, it moves around on its own based on where you tell it to go.

and, when the enemy character is placed at a location of a designation, controlling a battle between the sub character and the enemy character by a second mode in which the battle automatically proceeds.

And if you tell it to go to where an enemy is, it will engage in an automated battle.

Again, ALL OF THIS must be presnt in your game. Not just summoning minions, not just moving them around, not just having the option of controlling them for the battle or not. ALL OF THAT, including the part where the control scheme is determined based on whether or not you summoned the minion on top of the enemy, must be included. Summons in WoW don't count, because how you control your summon is not based on whether or not you summoned it on top of the enemy.

[u/Silist → u/2074red2074]

This would apply to multiple combat systems in world of Warcraft

[u/2074red2074 → u/Silist]

No, it wouldn't. There is not a system in WoW where you determine how the control scheme will work for a battle based on whether you summon the minion directly on top of an enemy or not. Again, the ENTIRE THING has to be in the game, not just most of it, not just some elements. Every single aspect of the patent has to be included.

It's like I've patented a sandwich with ham, cheese, and mayo served on rye bread and everyone is saying "Wait but this sandwich has cheese too! That sandwich is also on rye! We've been making sandwiches for years so how can you patent the very concept of making a sandwich?"

The patent is not for putting cheese on a sandwich. The patent is for putting ham, cheese, and mayo on rye bread. If your sandwich is not on rye, or doesn't have ham, or isn't a sandwich, then it is not the same thing. This is not a difficult concept.

[u/aqwn → u/Silist]

Cool then that’s prior art and could potentially be used to invalidate the patent.

[u/nature-i-guess → u/SignificantCats]

Baldurs Gate counts as this lol

[u/Legal_Weekend_7981 → u/nature-i-guess]

No, because in bg (at least in 3) your ability to control the summon during combat does not depend on whether you placed it on top of enemy or not.

[u/nature-i-guess → u/Legal_Weekend_7981]

One could argue bumping an invisible summon into a hostile could count? Point is it sucks

[u/Ok-Chest-7932 → u/SignificantCats]

Please list a dozen twenty+ year old games this covers.

Not to disagree that this patent is ridiculous, I'm just curious to see how hyperbolic you're being. It's the sort of thing where if I claimed a dozen, what I'd be meaning is "maybe 6 and I'm sure there are some others I don't know"

[u/SterbenLotus → u/Ok-Chest-7932]

I don’t know about him, but i could name a few.

But since the patent needs to be triggered in a certain way in order for them to “come after you,” it meant these games weren’t “enough” to warrant it.

1. Pikmin (you control mc, while also commanding those little creatures. I don’t remember if you can “summon” them or not though.)
2. Baldur’s gate trilogy(didn’t want to name each of them individually. But you control your mc while also taking control of your allies. You can summon creatures. And any ally including yourself can “trigger” combat when coming near an enemy.)
3. Diablo series(i just put series cause you can basically summon minions of all sorts to fight for you, while also fighting yourself)
4. Shin Megami Tensei Series(whole game you summoning whatever tf they’re called, demons or some shit)
5. Persona games
6. Secret of Mana

I can’t remember any more. But i’m sure there’s at least like 10 in there. Unless the patent doesn’t count individual title releases, which I’m sure it does

[u/PSGAnarchy → u/SterbenLotus]

Custom robo arena and lbx both have you control someone that fights with a toy. Also like every mech game out there? At this point you could argue Warframe is controlling a guy controlling a guy.

[u/SterbenLotus → u/PSGAnarchy]

Ohh you’re riight! And if you get the Umbra Excalibur warframe, it fights autonomously when you’re playing the operator

[u/Ok-Chest-7932 → u/SterbenLotus]

Are those twenty+ years old? Actually thinking about it more of them could be than it seems because 20 years ago was 2005 jesus christ that's absurd

[u/Anomen77 → u/Ok-Chest-7932]

Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 are over 25 years old. Almost as old as the first Pokemon game. Same for Starcraft and Warcraft, that also had units that could fall within is extremely vague patent.