Nintendo Is Trying To Patent Some Really Broad Tears of the Kingdom Mechanics (kotaku.com) 32
Loading screen maps and movement physics are just some of the elements from The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom that Nintendo is trying to patent. Kotaku reports: Automaton, a gaming website that focuses on Japanese games like Zelda, has a roundup of the 32 patents Nintendo put forth. Some of them are specific to Link's latest adventure, including things like Riju's lightning ability, which lets the player target enemies with a bow and bring down a lighting strike wherever the arrow lands. The weirder ones are related to baseline game design and coding that applies to plenty of other video games on the market. One of the hopeful patents relates to the physics of a character riding on top of a moving vehicle and reacting dynamically to it in a realistic manner.
The distinction, according to Automaton's translation of Japanese site Hatena Blog user nayoa2k's post on the matter, is down to how Tears of the Kingdom codes these interactions. Link and the objects he rides on move together at the same speed, rather than Link being technically stationary on top of a moving object as is common in the physics of other games. The two are functionally the same, but given that plenty of video games displayed characters who can walk around on top of moving vehicles, it's highly unlikely this kind of approach hasn't been utilized before.
On top of trying to patent the tech, Nintendo seeks to patent the loading screen that shows up when the player is fast-traveling across Hyrule. This specifically refers to the screen that shows the map transition from the player's starting point to their destination. Sure, that's pretty specific and not something every game utilizes, but it's still such a general concept that it feels almost petty to patent it when it's hardly an iconic draw of Tears of the Kingdom.
The distinction, according to Automaton's translation of Japanese site Hatena Blog user nayoa2k's post on the matter, is down to how Tears of the Kingdom codes these interactions. Link and the objects he rides on move together at the same speed, rather than Link being technically stationary on top of a moving object as is common in the physics of other games. The two are functionally the same, but given that plenty of video games displayed characters who can walk around on top of moving vehicles, it's highly unlikely this kind of approach hasn't been utilized before.
On top of trying to patent the tech, Nintendo seeks to patent the loading screen that shows up when the player is fast-traveling across Hyrule. This specifically refers to the screen that shows the map transition from the player's starting point to their destination. Sure, that's pretty specific and not something every game utilizes, but it's still such a general concept that it feels almost petty to patent it when it's hardly an iconic draw of Tears of the Kingdom.
Prior Art (Score:1)
Link and the objects he rides on move together at the same speed, rather than Link being technically stationary on top of a moving object
I was doing this in Klik & Play 20 years ago. Fuck outta here with this shit.
Re: (Score:3)
Ig one of the difficulties here is that for "Prior art" the patent office looks at other Patents mainly -- in that case the mere fact that the same can be found in another Game might not be enough..
It is very possible "Klik and Play" has no narrative written that describes the invention and everything about how it works in enough detail to understand that it's the same thing as this new "invention".
Well, therefore, it might not count as prior art, Despite the game being on the market -- If the infor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
since that would almost certainly require the source code for the game, and you would have to hope that the company that made the game still has the source
Eh? Pretty sure that can't be right. To begin with, there are plenty of games written in the machine language. For example, every game written for older game consoles such as the Atari 2600, NES, and Super NES - is coded directly for the chip, therefore, No source code ever existed - just the binary.
If you actually had to have source code to c
Re: (Score:2)
To begin with, there are plenty of games written in the machine language. For example, every game written for older game consoles such as the Atari 2600, NES, and Super NES - is coded directly for the chip, therefore, No source code ever existed - just the binary.
Technically, if the games were written in the machine language, then that is the source code (i.e. the original form of the code).
If you actually had to have source code to check exercise of a patent claim, then Developers could simply make themselves Unsue-able by destroying the sources after finishing every product, which surely mustn't be the case...
They could do that, but products are pretty much never finished these days, and the lost productivity would probably cost more than settling a couple patent lawsuits. Also, if you tell a judge that you've destroyed all copies of the source code, and the judge finds out that you didn't (such as if you have backups), the judge will be Very Unhappy (TM).
there must be some other way to formally establish whether a finished product Uses a certain invention or not, besides requiring an original document from its creator.
It depends on the patent. A p
Re:Prior Art (Score:5, Informative)
Riju's lightning ability, which lets the player target enemies with a bow and bring down a lighting strike wherever the arrow lands.
Prior Art: Euclid's C-Finder, from Fallout: New Vegas [fandom.com]. As just ONE example of many.
Nintendo needs to have several game companies rip them a new asshole for pulling crap like this.
Re:Prior Art (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Prior Art (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Prior Art (Score:4, Interesting)
No kidding. The summary even says:
Some of them are specific to Link's latest adventure, including things like Riju's lightning ability, which lets the player target enemies with a bow and bring down a lighting strike wherever the arrow lands.
I remember doing essentially this in Heretic II over 20 years ago with the storm bow. Also, there are various forms of lightning arrow that show up in mythology. Notably in some cases belonging to Raijin, the Shinto god of thunder, so this seems pretty derivative. There's also the bow of Indra (which is a rainbow) in Hindu mythology. The exact mechanic those would work by is a little fuzzy though. Still, in video games in general, the basic mechanic of targeting something with a projectile weapon that then calls down some other kind of strike is a mechanic that has been used over and over. There's no way it should be patentable.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no way it should be patentable.
When has that ever stopped the USPTO?
Re: (Score:2)
No kidding. The summary even says:
Some of them are specific to Link's latest adventure, including things like Riju's lightning ability, which lets the player target enemies with a bow and bring down a lighting strike wherever the arrow lands.
I remember doing essentially this in Heretic II over 20 years ago with the storm bow. Also, there are various forms of lightning arrow that show up in mythology. Notably in some cases belonging to Raijin, the Shinto god of thunder, so this seems pretty derivative. There's also the bow of Indra (which is a rainbow) in Hindu mythology. The exact mechanic those would work by is a little fuzzy though. Still, in video games in general, the basic mechanic of targeting something with a projectile weapon that then calls down some other kind of strike is a mechanic that has been used over and over. There's no way it should be patentable.
So it's basically a laser-guided missile, only with a bow and arrow instead of a laser? *rolls eyes*
The sad part about it is that the USPTO is so bad at reviewing things and so eager to approve things (presumably so that companies won't be more careful about the patents that they file and thus deprive them of income from filing fees) that they'll probably quickly issue all of these patents even for game mechanics that go back for decades, forcing the rest of the industry to file lawsuits to invalidate them
Re: Prior Art (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didnâ(TM)t even know the USPTO even had the authority to issue patents in Japan. But yea the patents being written in Japanese will probably confuse them and they will rubber stamp it.
Ah, I just automatically assumed that junk patents would be filed in the U.S. through one of their U.S. subsidiaries. :-D But you're probably right that they'll submit it in Japan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It also doesn't matter if Nintendo bought rights to or reverse engineered any other games. Previous implementations either are or are not prior art. As I said elsewhere, proving that any previous games are prior art would require analyzing the source code for those games. One or more of them might be prior art, but you'd have no way of knowing without the source code.
Re: (Score:2)
Welp, here's to the next 20 years of not being able to put a fucking animated loading screen in your game. Or having a character walk around on a moving object. (What you think Nintendo won't get these patents? Buddy, have I got a deal for you......)
This situation (Score:1)
Companies now days are looking like the trolls that they are trying to stop.
Bud Light (Score:3)
Bold of Nintendo to bite the hand that feeds.
Re: (Score:2)
Map ain't new (Score:5, Funny)
"... Nintendo seeks to patent the loading screen that shows up when the player is fast-traveling across Hyrule. This specifically refers to the screen that shows the map transition from the player's starting point to their destination."
Heck, I saw that in Raiders of the Lost Ark 42 years ago. And it wasn't new then, either.
PTW (Score:2)
Can't Nintendo simply stick to milking money from those pay-to-win TotK Amiibo toys?
Someone please patent patenting obvious things (Score:2)
Can someone please patent the method and process of patenting obvious things. Here is the outline:
Step 1. Observe something in the real world. For example, walking on top of a bus, begging, tying boy scout knots, herbal medicines
Step 2. Map the object or behaviour into another domain. For example, to video games, the internet, virtual reality, pharmaceuticals, surgical stiches.
Step 3. Patent the said object or behaviour in the domain.
Did they learn nothing from Namco? (Score:1)
I'm old enough to remember backlash against Namco for patenting loading screen mini games back when more time was needed on those screens.
Prior art for most of these claims (Score:3)
On top of trying to patent the tech, Nintendo seeks to patent the loading screen that shows up when the player is fast-traveling across Hyrule. This specifically refers to the screen that shows the map transition from the player's starting point to their destination. Sure, that's pretty specific and not something every game utilizes, but it's still such a general concept that it feels almost petty to patent it when it's hardly an iconic draw of Tears of the Kingdom.
Something similar has been in The Division games for many years already.