this post was submitted on 20 May 2026
651 points (98.9% liked)
Greentext
8236 readers
644 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Generally speaking, most game mechanics are not copyright-able, not patentable. Game mechanics themselves tend to be treated as base components, as in, like a drum beat or a bass line. It’s rare cases where those are distinct, usually in context (see Vanilla Ice & Under Pressure). Because a beat or bass line can be so basic as a component, it’s considered part of the arrangement and not the composition itself. Video game mechanics can likewise be in this configuration.
For instance, summoning heroes (Nintendo loss) is a mechanic / part of the composition of that game, but the larger video game is a particular arrangement. Specific characters (pikachu) can very much be copyrighted individually, but games themselves are typically less liable for patents / copyright, and so on.
Also, for good measure, since it’s a massive benefit to the freedom of expression. Video games would be a depressing medium if people could capitalize on mechanics like patent trolls.
To be clear, some technologies used in association with video games can be patented, but that’s when a patentable technology is combined with a game, which is much less common in the medium.
Counterpoint: Summoning characters by throwing an item and having the character appear at the position of the item has been patented by Nintendo, as has using a summoned character as a hang glider.
Japanese patent law is pretty terrible.
Its less terrible than you think, Nintendo has been suffering setback after setback in the totality of their legal battle with PalWorld, in both Japan and the US.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/amid-palworld-lawsuit-nintendo-tries-and-fails-to-secure-new-patent-on-monster-capturing-mechanics/ar-AA23uWgi
https://www.eurogamer.net/nintendos-palworld-lawsuit-suffers-another-potential-blow-as-us-takes-rare-step-of-re-examining-previously-granted-pokemon-patent
https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2025/11/it-is-ever-more-likely-that-nintendo-will-lose-firm-faces-another-setback-in-battle-against-palworld
Basically... both the US and Japanese versions of the patent battles are having things like... Japan just actually rejects a Nintendo patent as being too vague and non novel... the USPTO does a thing it almost never does and re-reviews a patent it had previously given to Nintendo as possibly being vague bullshit as well... Niintendo just completely rewrites the lawsuit in the middle of pre-trial, while also claiming violations of patents that it filed for after the lawsuit started.
...thats actually largely a bunch of bullshit, that has a decent likelihood of pissing off the judges and arbiters involved as essentially being legal misconduct.
Good to hear, although the mere presence of a bullshit lawsuit can do a lot of damage to a smaller company.
The problem remains, however, that the patents in question were granted in the first place, as were the retroactive addenda (which is a terrible "feature" of Japanese patent law).
Game mechanics are patentable both in principle and in practice. And that's a problem.
Well sure if you wanna take the angle that game mechanics being patentable is in and of itself a problem then... yeah, ok.
What is anybody gonna do about that?
Best case scenario I can possibly think of is... maybe if SKG remains an actual political entity and score some actual wins, maybe something like 5 years down the line they could draw up draft reforms for patent and copyright laws, but...
... even just assuming that you could come up with a new framework that people would actually well understand and also broadly support... not gonna be easy to balance the idea of a small upstart trying to secure a wedge of a market, vs a giant megacorp that owns all neat ideas...
...that would be an even more insane battle than going up against just video game companies.
At that point, you'd be taking on essentially all of the wealthiest and most powerful people on the planet.
People have been arguing for reforming the DMCA for decades, its never gone anywhere.
It is barely realistically concievable to me that anything could actually be done about this.
Those are litigation & therefore in an indeterminate state. They have lost recently within Japanese law just this week on their touchscreens.
Also, IANAL. Nothing I say should be considered formal legal advice.
What about that arrow in Simpsons driving game? Didn't they get in trouble for using what Sega patented in Crazy Taxi?
Huh... I had never heard of this one. I swear I've played games with the arrow like that since
Settled privately, no ruling on patent
Yeah you can tell this is not real because a) it's greentext and b) you can't copyright game mechanics.
If you could we wouldn't have video game genres, or like 99% of board games.
This is about patents. There have been plenty of game mechanics patents ever since Richard Garfield opened the floodgates by patenting the collectable card game concept.
There is one major exception where Warner Bros. holds a highly restrictive patent on the Shadow of Mordor Nemesis system. The mechanic allows non-player characters to remember past encounters with the player, dynamically changes their personalities, and rise (or fall) through enemy ranks. If you never played it, it was a unique mechanic that I've never seen in other games since. The patent prevents other studios from utilizing this system and is set to expire on August 11, 2036.
TL, DR: Fuck Warner Bros for patenting this.
the patent wasnt even granted until last yesr or 2 iirc, because it kept on getting found too general...long as you don't exactly copy their code your good.
the reason noones done something similar since is because you have to build your whole game around it
The patent went through in 2021.
and the game was released in 2014, the reason noone has done similar isnt becauss of some patent. nobody reads patents that's the whole point of patent trolling
Totally, yeah. Just wanted to highlight how long ago that whole debacle was and how old it makes me feel :(
I keep hearing this one, the system was ok but I didn't really care for it that much. It's just an eternal list of respawning orks that I will kill.
Not sure that's fair. It was the first pass at something that couple have been embraced, expanded and developed. Hell, it signposted the changed aspects and immunities of the orks as they grew.
But throw that into another harder game type where it's on you to remember who has escaped and got wiser and it has real potential. Especially with the superhero meme of catching villains but never ending them. Some real organic potential to hit the pained hero arc where this one is such a pain maybe I should just kill this one....
Yeah I remember it being underwhelming
There's been some, Bamco had the parent for minigames during loading screens until 2015.
Active Time Battle (ATB) was under patent until 2010.
Games are just software, and software patents are definitely (and unfortunately) a thing.
Mini Games during loading screens are patented which is why no one does it.