Sony's lawsuit against Tencent

[rusty_shackleford]

Don't think we have a thread for this.
Original article: https://archive.is/Cb9fO
Tencent response: https://archive.is/5424P#selection-577. ... nre tropes.

My ten cents is: It's probably infringing just because it's so darn similar.
This is from official material:


As someone who is even aware that the game exists, I could easily confuse this for Horizon: Zero Dawn.
At some point you cross over from inspiration to copying.

[TKVNC]

Don't think we have a thread for this.
Original article: https://archive.is/Cb9fO
Tencent response: https://archive.is/5424P

My ten cents is: It's probably infringing just because it's so darn similar.
This is from official material:


As someone who is even aware that the game exists, I could easily confuse this for Horizon: Zero Dawn.
At some point you cross over from inspiration to copying.

I think there's a decently strong case. However, are they going after Sony's market? Who knows...

Sony games are only played by Reddit kidults and ******.

[Faceless_Sentinel]

Is mecha dinosaurs are sony exclusive idea? Kinda stupid lawsuit.

[logincrash]

Tencent is chinese. ****** are notorious for selling knock-offs. There is absolutely no question of "Did Tencent did a hecking copyright infringement?"
The only question is what the **** is Sony gonna do about it?

[DrSneed]

Tencent is chinese. ****** are notorious for selling knock-offs. There is absolutely no question of "Did Tencent did a hecking copyright infringement?"
The only question is what the **** is Sony gonna do about it?

Sue them obviously ya dingus

[rusty_shackleford]

The only question is what the **** is Sony gonna do about it?

for starters, block them from selling it on any major platform that isn't ***** owned

[rusty_shackleford]

Is mecha dinosaurs are sony exclusive idea? Kinda stupid lawsuit.

Making a product that is similar enough to an existing protected product and marketed at the same audience can be infringement
this is actually going to probably fall under trademark and not copyright but whatever

[rusty_shackleford]

Is mecha dinosaurs are sony exclusive idea? Kinda stupid lawsuit.

Making a product that is similar enough to an existing protected product and marketed at the same audience can be infringement
this is actually going to probably fall under trademark and not copyright but whatever

I was actually just discussing this the other day with @KnightoftheWind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K.C._Munchkin!

Atari won their lawsuit due to how similar the game was to Pacman.
Anyone know if there have been any major cases like this recently tho? I'd be interested to see how such tests hold up now that games are much harder to analyze

[KnightoftheWind]

Is mecha dinosaurs are sony exclusive idea? Kinda stupid lawsuit.

Making a product that is similar enough to an existing protected product and marketed at the same audience can be infringement
this is actually going to probably fall under trademark and not copyright but whatever

I was actually just discussing this the other day with @KnightoftheWind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K.C._Munchkin!

Atari won their lawsuit due to how similar the game was to Pacman.
Anyone know if there have been any major cases like this recently tho? I'd be interested to see how such tests hold up now that games are much harder to analyze

That whole affair seems completely ******** to me, and hasn't been applied to anything since. With how many Doom clones, Call of Duty clones, and Metroid and Mario-likes came into existence long after K.C Munchkin, and with greater similarities to their respective games, this entire ruling should be overturned. These two games were different enough to justify both of them existing at the same time. Unless Namco owned a patent to the game mechanics of Pac-Man at the time, they shouldn't have won. This is what happens when the legal system is run by boomers who don't have a clue about video games. They just get told "Oh, this game violates our rights!" and there you go.

[rusty_shackleford]

Making a product that is similar enough to an existing protected product and marketed at the same audience can be infringement
this is actually going to probably fall under trademark and not copyright but whatever

I was actually just discussing this the other day with @KnightoftheWind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K.C._Munchkin!

Atari won their lawsuit due to how similar the game was to Pacman.
Anyone know if there have been any major cases like this recently tho? I'd be interested to see how such tests hold up now that games are much harder to analyze

That whole affair seems completely ******** to me, and hasn't been applied to anything since. With how many Doom clones, Call of Duty clones, and Metroid and Mario-likes came into existence long after K.C Munchkin, and with greater similarities to their respective games, this entire ruling should be overturned. These two games were different enough to justify both of them existing at the same time. Unless Namco owned a patent to the game mechanics of Pac-Man at the time, they shouldn't have won. This is what happens when the legal system is run by boomers who don't have a clue about video games. They just get told "Oh, this game violates our rights!" and there you go.

Willingness to actually take it to court is a big factor

[KnightoftheWind]

I was actually just discussing this the other day with @KnightoftheWind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K.C._Munchkin!

Atari won their lawsuit due to how similar the game was to Pacman.
Anyone know if there have been any major cases like this recently tho? I'd be interested to see how such tests hold up now that games are much harder to analyze

That whole affair seems completely ******** to me, and hasn't been applied to anything since. With how many Doom clones, Call of Duty clones, and Metroid and Mario-likes came into existence long after K.C Munchkin, and with greater similarities to their respective games, this entire ruling should be overturned. These two games were different enough to justify both of them existing at the same time. Unless Namco owned a patent to the game mechanics of Pac-Man at the time, they shouldn't have won. This is what happens when the legal system is run by boomers who don't have a clue about video games. They just get told "Oh, this game violates our rights!" and there you go.

Willingness to actually take it to court is a big factor

This Chinese game is more similar to Horizon than K.C Munchkin was to Pac-Man, so the ****** don't really have a case here. But I do hope some company down the line will challenge this ruling, when some other corporation accuses them of being a copycat for whatever reason.

[OnTilt]

I don't believe in Intellectual Property. Its only purpose is stifle competition and is probably a large factor in studios only making remakes and sequels.

[rusty_shackleford]

I don't believe in Intellectual Property. Its only purpose is stifle competition and is probably a large factor in studios only making remakes and sequels.

It would be directly encouraging creation in this case.

[Rand]

Is mecha dinosaurs are sony exclusive idea?

There was some stupid prehistoric transformers dinosaur ******** once.
Why did they feel the need to "hide" as mecha-dinosaurs... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Rand]

Anyone know if there have been any major cases like this recently tho? I'd be interested to see how such tests hold up now that games are much harder to analyze

You know about Palworld and Nintendo acting like it's WW2 all over again, right?

[rusty_shackleford]

Anyone know if there have been any major cases like this recently tho? I'd be interested to see how such tests hold up now that games are much harder to analyze

You know about Palworld and Nintendo acting like it's WW2 all over again, right?

Neither company is American, I assume they're handling it in nipponese courts?

[OnTilt]

Anyone know if there have been any major cases like this recently tho? I'd be interested to see how such tests hold up now that games are much harder to analyze

You know about Palworld and Nintendo acting like it's WW2 all over again, right?

Which Nintendo recently acquired a patent for the game mechanic of summoning and battling monsters. They basically own a genre now.

[OnTilt]

I don't believe in Intellectual Property. Its only purpose is stifle competition and is probably a large factor in studios only making remakes and sequels.

It would be directly encouraging creation in this case.

If someone "steals" your idea and manages to drag customers away from you, it means that there was something lacking in your original implementation that your competitor is offering. It's either better, cheaper, or more accessible in some way.

[Rand]

Anyone know if there have been any major cases like this recently tho? I'd be interested to see how such tests hold up now that games are much harder to analyze

You know about Palworld and Nintendo acting like it's WW2 all over again, right?

Neither company is American, I assume they're handling it in nipponese courts?

Nope. Nintendo applied and was granted a retroactive patent in America just in the last few weeks.
For the express intent of getting American ****** courts and bureaucracy and treaty stuff involved, one must assume.
For something like "a game where monsters are summoned to fight in place of the player character"...
Someone went through Steam and other platforms and found all the games that are affected.
The Elder Scrolls may infringe, along with Baldur's Gate 3, though they can argue their summoning predates Nintendo being anything other than a playing card company.

[rusty_shackleford]

I don't believe in Intellectual Property. Its only purpose is stifle competition and is probably a large factor in studios only making remakes and sequels.

It would be directly encouraging creation in this case.

If someone "steals" your idea and manages to drag customers away from you, it means that there was something lacking in your original implementation that your competitor is offering. It's either better, cheaper, or more accessible in some way.

Your argument was about it being a large factor in remakes/sequels
This is effectively a spiritual remake, ip law would stop that

[rusty_shackleford]

You know about Palworld and Nintendo acting like it's WW2 all over again, right?

Neither company is American, I assume they're handling it in nipponese courts?

Nope. Nintendo applied and was granted a retroactive patent in America just in the last few weeks.
For the express intent of getting American ****** courts and bureaucracy and treaty stuff involved, one must assume.
For something like "a game where monsters are summoned to fight in place of the player character"...
Someone went through Steam and other platforms and found all the games that are affected.
The Elder Scrolls may infringe, along with Baldur's Gate 3, though they can argue their summoning predates Nintendo being anything other than a playing card company.

Game mechanic patents are fake and gay so who cares

[J1M]

Horizon is about a chubby boy and this is about a slender girl. Should be different enough. Throw them a bone and agree to change the hair color in a settlement.

[Rand]

Game mechanic patents are fake and gay so who cares

Lawyers and patent trolls.
Who make enormous profits, paying for yachts for human turds, while also stifilng creativity and game development, thereby lessening the available fun of you and me.

[OnTilt]

It would be directly encouraging creation in this case.

If someone "steals" your idea and manages to drag customers away from you, it means that there was something lacking in your original implementation that your competitor is offering. It's either better, cheaper, or more accessible in some way.

Your argument was about it being a large factor in remakes/sequels
This is effectively a spiritual remake, ip law would stop that

That was the other half of an argument I was making:
A) It stifles competition.
B) It results in remakes and sequels.

B isn't really related to the topic at hand, and it feels like a lot to explain, so I don't want to right now.

[rusty_shackleford]

Game mechanic patents are fake and gay so who cares

Lawyers and patent trolls.
Who make enormous profits, paying for yachts for human turds, while also stifilng creativity and game development, thereby lessening the available fun of you and me.

Video game mechanic patents are fake and gay, you can get free defense post-Alice ruling

[rusty_shackleford]

If someone "steals" your idea and manages to drag customers away from you, it means that there was something lacking in your original implementation that your competitor is offering. It's either better, cheaper, or more accessible in some way.

Your argument was about it being a large factor in remakes/sequels
This is effectively a spiritual remake, ip law would stop that

That was the other half of an argument I was making:
A) It stifles competition.
B) It results in remakes and sequels.

B isn't really related to the topic at hand, and it feels like a lot to explain, so I don't want to right now.

Stifling competitors is good, my competitors should be killed

[DecadeRiptide]

Don't think we have a thread for this.
Original article: https://archive.is/Cb9fO
Tencent response: https://archive.is/5424P#selection-577. ... nre tropes.

My ten cents is: It's probably infringing just because it's so darn similar.
This is from official material:


As someone who is even aware that the game exists, I could easily confuse this for Horizon: Zero Dawn.
At some point you cross over from inspiration to copying.

Still looks better though doesn't it? I hope Tencent wins.

[KnightoftheWind]

I believe in copyright, but not to the extent of 95 years after publication or Life of the author + 70 years. It was intended to be a temporary grace period for authors/creators to make money off of their artistic work without the risk of being copied, it's fair and makes moral sense IMO. It was not, however, intended to last an entire lifetime (or multiple lifetimes) where the creators rarely, if ever, actually benefit. Walt Disney and Ub Iwerks have been dead since the 1960s, do they care whether someone uses their cartoon mouse?. Do the long-dead, jewish creators of Batman and Superman care at this point either?. Of course not. A J.R.R Tolkien situation is rare, and even his estate gave up the rights to LOTR eventually.

It's unfortunate because it's not a simple matter of reforming copyright in the U.S. Every nation is signed onto an international treaty that dictates the minimum term of copyright, which is Life + 50 years (The term us Leafs used to have prior to 2023). The usual standard in effect now is Life + 70 years. There needs to be significant reform at a worldwide level, with hard limits set. If patents are 20 years, copyrights should be too. And trademark law should be made clearer, to avoid further corporate bullying long after a copyright expires.

[OnTilt]

Your argument was about it being a large factor in remakes/sequels
This is effectively a spiritual remake, ip law would stop that

That was the other half of an argument I was making:
A) It stifles competition.
B) It results in remakes and sequels.

B isn't really related to the topic at hand, and it feels like a lot to explain, so I don't want to right now.

Stifling competitors is good, my competitors should be killed

What can I say, except, we get the games we deserve.

[KOS-MOS]

Sony should focus on making games people want to actually buy and play instead