Treet Stacos

Saco Talad

Tai Chea

Bothered Smurrito

Mry Dartini

St-Bone Teak

Steef Broganoff

Panilla Vudding

Cocolate Chake

Tinnamon Coast

You are correct, I missed that it was still under speculation.

Pocketpair has a pretty good case against Nintendo here, I think, because other games have used these things before.

I know it was never actually released, but Scalebound had a mechanic that would have allowed a player to tell their dragon to perform a task, albeit, usually destructively.

Guild Wars 2 Added a mechanic years ago that let players traverse water and land by automatically a switching between mounts.

‘Releasing’ a creature into a 3d environment has been done by every minion-mancer class in an MMO since the dawn of the genre.

Looks like it’s over the game mechanics of ‘releasing a creature into a 3d environment and having it perform a contextual task’ & ‘having a rideable mount switch to a different rideable mount depending on terrain’

I don’t think either of these would work in the US, because you can’t protect game mechanics here, but I’m not sure about Japan’s take.

Edit: I missed that this was still under speculation at the time of the post:

https://bulbagarden.net/threads/nintendo-and-the-pokemon-company-jointly-file-lawsuit-for-patent-infringement-against-palworld-creator-pocketpair-inc-in-the-tokyo-district-court.303354/

Based on searching of Japanese patent databases, initial speculation is that these may include (but is not necessarily limited to) patents relating to game mechanics and gameplay features from Pokémon: Legends Arceus, and may include patents such as one for throwing and using Poké Balls in a 3D space (JP,2023-092953,A); and one for automatically switching between ride Pokémon as a player transitions between different terrain, such as between air and the ground (JP,2023-092954,A).

https://rudokemper.github.io/google-maps-places-to-organic-maps/

It doesn’t need to be an animated visual to be distracting or NSFW…

That’s a lot of faith that the ads would be SFW, let alone not distracting.

Not only that, but then they go and blow half of their budget on adverts instead of R&D.

While, yes it is not copy and paste in the literal sense, it does still have the capacity to outright copy the style of an artist’s work that was used to train it.

If teaching another artist’s work is already frowned upon when trying to pass the trace off as one’s own work, then there’s little difference when a computer does it more convincingly.

Maybe a bit off tangent here, since I’m not even sure if this is strictly possible, but if a generative system was only trained off of, say, only Picasso’s work, would you be able to pass the outputs off as Picasso pieces? Or would they be considered the work of the person writing a prompt or built the AI? What if the artist wasn’t Picasso but someone still alive, would they get a cut of the profits?

The art isn’t being made btw so much as being copy and pasted in a way that might convince you it was new.

Since the AI cannot create a new style or genre on its own, without source material that already exists to train it, and that source material is often scraped up off of databases, often against the will and intent of the original creators, it is seen as theft.

Especially if the artists were in no way compensated.