Looking up those patents, the first alludes to a system where a player aims and fires an “item” toward a character in a field, and in doing so triggers combat, and then dives into extraordinary intricacies about switching between modes within this. The second is very similar, but seems more directly focused on tweaking previous patents to including being able to capture Pokémon in the wild, rather than only during battle. The third, rather wildly, seems to be trying to claim a modification to the invention of riding creatures in an open world and being able to transition between them easily.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

A shitty solution for a shitty situation is not a good solution

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

A shitty solution for a shitty situation is not a good solution

Feel free to share your revolutionary idea that will still incentivize people to create without creating a "shitty situation".

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I don't need to come up with any revolutionary ideas, the open source folks are already creating without patenting their creations

Here's a revolutionary idea: universal basic income. No need to prevent other people from monetizing your idea if you don't need to monetize your idea in the first place

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

I don’t need to come up with any revolutionary ideas, the open source folks are already creating without patenting their creations

The largest contributors to Open Source make their money from patents and other IP. As in, they can afford to give away lots of time and effort because they make their money with IP. If IP were to be eradicated as you're proposing, all those contributions to Open Source by those largest contributors would evaporate. Here's the largest Open Source contributors from 2017-2020.

source