The implication as I read it is that they DIDN’T stop Palworld as a deliberate ploy to let it get big. Presumably to get more money by suing them? I don’t know, it’s a bizarre statement.
What you’re saying is the much more reasonable alternative: that Nintendo is filing patents now to try to get a legal leg to stand on to stop a meaningful, derivative competitor to Pokémon.
Those two things aren’t the same thing. One of them is a weird conspiratorial thought that doesn’t track with reality, the other is a fairly obvious takeaway. They both stem from the fact that Nintendo only took action once Palworld got big and they’re both equally crappy corporate behavior. But one of those demands retroactive foresight, a malicious plan for something to happen a specific way as part of a grand plan and the reversal of cause and effect. The other is just plain vanilla corporate greed and brand protection from a traditionally litigious company.
I, on my part, am saying that I find it baffling that people want/need to resort to building up these moustache-twirling overcomplicated plans hidden below the surface while simultaneously lacking the imagination to make the imaginary plans any more evil than the plain, patently obvious straightforward reality. I guess it feels good to sense that you have some sharp insight about the secrets behind the curtain whether the secrets are interesting or not.
The implication as I read it is that they DIDN’T stop Palworld as a deliberate ploy to let it get big. Presumably to get more money by suing them? I don’t know, it’s a bizarre statement.
What you’re saying is the much more reasonable alternative: that Nintendo is filing patents now to try to get a legal leg to stand on to stop a meaningful, derivative competitor to Pokémon.
Those two things aren’t the same thing. One of them is a weird conspiratorial thought that doesn’t track with reality, the other is a fairly obvious takeaway. They both stem from the fact that Nintendo only took action once Palworld got big and they’re both equally crappy corporate behavior. But one of those demands retroactive foresight, a malicious plan for something to happen a specific way as part of a grand plan and the reversal of cause and effect. The other is just plain vanilla corporate greed and brand protection from a traditionally litigious company.
I, on my part, am saying that I find it baffling that people want/need to resort to building up these moustache-twirling overcomplicated plans hidden below the surface while simultaneously lacking the imagination to make the imaginary plans any more evil than the plain, patently obvious straightforward reality. I guess it feels good to sense that you have some sharp insight about the secrets behind the curtain whether the secrets are interesting or not.
That’s fair. I agree.
I guess I was vaguely alluding to the fact that patent fraud stuff did start after Palworld got big. But what you’re saying makes a lot sense.