913
Palworld confirms ‘disappointing’ game changes forced by Pokémon lawsuit
(www.videogameschronicle.com)
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Submissions have to be related to games
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No excessive self-promotion
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here and here.
The courts ruled it isn't plagerism. So... You're looking pretty stupid here.
The patents in question have nothing to do with creature designs. And neither would patent law be covering the design of creatures. That would be copyright law.
Weird how they are overhauling their game if the courts ruled in favour of them eh?
Buddy, quit while you're ~~ahead~~ not too far behind. You're just proving what @Tattorack@lemmy.world said: you don't understand the difference between patents, copyright, and trademarks.
You really are that stupid, huh?
OK, let's do a little exercise; how many of their creature designs have been changed since launch?