Text / Oxtail stewed in red wine
Some time ago, Nintendo, known as the strongest legal department in the Eastern Hemisphere, finally made a move.
However, it is not a domestic mobile game that some people have in mind, but another topical work, an independent game with the aura of "players like" political correctness - "Phantom Beast Palu".
I don't think much about this game needs to be introduced.
As a hit hit in the first half of the year, "Phantom Beast Palu" has attracted a large number of players with various migrant stalks, as well as micro-innovations in the "Pokémon" series of pet grabbing gameplay. At the same time, it also brought a new round of verbal criticism against Game Freak, the developer of the "Pokémon" series, who has not wanted to make progress for many years.
But at that time, when everyone thought that "Phantom Beast Palu" was jumping under the nose of the former extreme enterprise Nintendo, and it would definitely attract the iron fist of the law, Lao Ren never made a move, but let "Phantom Beast Palu" hug Sony's thigh.
It wasn't until September this year that Nintendo finally officially filed a lawsuit against the phantom beast Palu, which seemed to confirm a rumor in China at that time - Lao Ren planned to fatten Palu and then kill him.
However, in today's world where gameplay plagiarism is so difficult to define, if Nintendo, which is known as the strongest legal department, wants to sue "Phantom Beast Palu", can it really win?
I'm going to copy your gameplay, what can you do?
First of all, we have to figure out one thing, what does Nintendo want to sue "Phantom Beast Palu"?
Unlike the war of words between fans, even if the gameplay of "Phantom Beast Palu" belongs to yes, anyone who has heard of the Pokémon series will feel like it. But plagiarism is a legal thing, can it be considered a violation?
For a long time, the legal profession, especially in Europe and the United States, where the game industry is more developed, has generally not been counted as intellectual property infringement.
This is understandable, after all, if all manufacturers are required to create their own unique gameplay and logic to make games, it is tantamount to frantically reinventing the wheel, and it can make "Thor's Hammer" and "Shenmue", which have created a certain type of gameplay, eat their old books until death in the credit book.
In 1988, developer Data East USA sued another game company, Epyx, claiming that its game International Karate had copied its own Karate Champ and was a serious copyright infringement.
As one of the first copyright lawsuits in the history of video games, the case was first heard in the District Court for the Northern District of California, where the trial judge directly issued an injunction against Epyx, finding that the company was infringing and issuing an injunction.
This is also understandable, at a time when many people didn't know about video game development, the two games were highly similar in terms of theme, action, and gameplay, and no matter how fans washed it, it was no different from plagiarism.
However, Epyx appealed after losing the case, and this time the Recall Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the first instance. They argued that the various designs of the karate movements and venues in the plaintiff's game were all derived from the real karate sport, not their own originality, so the defendant's work could not be regarded as infringement.
By the way, Data East, which was the plaintiff before, was later sued for "plagiarism" Street Fighter
In fact, the appeal is based on the "principle of confusion" and the "principle of scenario" in intellectual property precedents.
The former means that when the way to express something is limited, it is not an infringement for two works to express in the same way - for example, if I write in my essay that I roast sweet potatoes with leaves is delicious, you also write that roasted sweet potatoes with leaves are delicious, and only the sweet potatoes roasted after sweeping the fallen leaves are delicious, so that it is not plagiarized.
The latter is to express a certain idea, and when a specific element needs to be used, using the same element is not plagiarism - for example, if you are a craftsman using an ancient mythical beast to make crafts, and I am a modeler using the same mythical beast to make game equipment, it is not plagiarism. (No insinuations here)
But this is not to say that the principle of mixing up and the principle of scene have become the gold medal for game developers. In most cases, it only applies to games that are based on realistic themes, and not games that are purely abstract in terms of gameplay.
For example, "Russia Cubes".
Although this game, which was born at the end of the life of the communist Soviet Union, has several articles in its copyright confusion, it is actually the most difficult game to copy, because its gameplay is so little connected to the real world.
In 2009, Xio released a Russia block game called Mino on iOS.
Except for the replacement of the art and sound elements of the original, the game is basically copied from the rest of the game, and the only thing worth mentioning is the addition of a multiplayer mode.
See eye to eye
Therefore, not long after the game was launched, it was complained by the "Russia Block Company" and removed from the shelves at the speed of light.
However, Xio did not give up and defended Apple, and finally the two companies went to court.
In the court session, the developer Xio was ashamed to say that he copied the Russia cube as it was, but he was familiar with the laws related to intellectual property rights and only copied the part of the gameplay that was not protected by the law.
The Russia Cube Company believes that although the gameplay is not protected, many of the game rules established to achieve the gameplay should be recognized as legally protected, that is, the way the blocks fall and rotate in the game, the shape of the squares, etc.
In the end, the court ruled against Xio, and Russia won the lawsuit by virtue of its own game design with its heavy sword blade, which is also the reason why games like Russia Cubes and Pac-Man are rarely copied - you just copy their gameplay, which is basically similar to copying everything.
So "Russia Cube" like this is safe
This is also the reason why in the past few years, domestic manufacturers have held high the banner of micro-innovation/stitching monsters. At the legal level, even if you stitch together the gameplay of all the games on the market, as long as you can form a self-consistent logic and have a reasonable degree of coupling in each module, you not only have an undefeated golden body, but you can also sue others backhanded.
The most suitable example is the legal dispute between two domestic SLGs with the theme of the Three Kingdoms in the past two years, in which the defendant obtained the authorization of the glorious Three Kingdoms, and the plaintiff was completely "all-Chinese". However, in the end, the plaintiff did win, because many gameplay/elements of the latter game, such as the state of birth, the general's tactics, the pass, the grain and grass, etc., were copied.
However, the defendant said that these designs are common in other SLG online games, as well as in strategy stand-alone machines such as Mount & Blade and Warcraft, so these designs are not original and are not protected by copyright law.
In the final judgment, the court held that although many of these gameplay designs have become paradigms, they are combined to form a self-consistent logic, and the plaintiff has the originality of this combined means, and the defendant is finally ordered to modify and pay compensation.
What do you think? Doesn't it sound familiar? stitched together a bunch of gameplay and glued together with a certain set of logic, isn't it like "Phantom Beast Palu", which has a pet grabbing gameplay, a shooting gameplay, and a simulation operation?
It's just that "Pokémon" is better than it came out early, if Palu finds a few decades to go online, I'm afraid that today's offensive and defensive trends are different! (Violent Speech)
And by the way, the one in the gif with the last picture, the game "Creation Ideal Town" that sews "The Legend of Zelda" and "Minecraft", is also made by the developer of "Phantom Beast Palu"!
The copyright law is kind of clear for them
Of course, having said so much, in fact, it is mainly to explain why the "gameplay plagiarism" that everyone can see best may not be the reason why Nintendo sued "Phantom Beast Palu".
And the basis for their prosecution is still mainly two theories. One is AI creation, and the other is patent infringement.
Patent Maniac, Attack!
In fact, these two statements have not been officially recognized by Nintendo.
The statement of AI creation actually comes from a screenshot of the external network to the intranet, which basically means that an employee of the "Phantom Beast Palu" team was asked by his boss to take the Pokémon illustrated book and use Ai to run out of Palu's image when he was on the job. Now that I've left my job, I'm determined to fight this bad behavior to the end.
From my personal point of view, although the president of "Phantom Beast Palu" exploded a lot on social media in his early years, at that time, as the owner of a small company, it was nothing for him to talk about on the Internet every day. But I don't really believe in this statement, first, this kind of unfounded statement, the credibility is too low.
I went, it was a screenshot of X, and I had to believe it
Second, if you really take the image of AI running out, then it's too easy to get evidence, just like Nintendo's heavy attack on many domestic "Pokémon mobile games", it's going to be told early, so I won't expand on this.
Lawyer Kiyoshi Kurihara said in an interview with Yahoo Japan that the lawsuit is likely to be a patent lawsuit and believes that "Phantom Beast Palu" violates the "Pokémon" franchise's registered patent for catching creatures by throwing Poké balls.
In my opinion, this statement is more credible, and it is completely in line with Nintendo's image of a patent maniac, knowing that if Nintendo really competes on patents, then most of the game circle will suffer. For example, the virtual remote sensing technology that you can see in almost most mobile games, and the design of swiping the touch screen to attack, are all in the hands of Nintendo.
But fortunately, Nintendo is not a patent police, and will not take patents everywhere to eat and take cards, most of the patents are defensive registrations, and only when individual manufacturers jump faces, they are taken out as a tool for punishment, and domestic players know best that Nintendo v. COLOP, the developer of "White Cat Project", is the case.
As mentioned earlier, Nintendo registered virtual remote sensing technology through its own handheld NDS long before the smartphone era. But in most cases, both mobile game and console manufacturers can apply for authorization to use this technology.
"White Cat Project" believes that the joystick with elastic style designed by itself in the game belongs to its own exclusive patent, and it was finally hit by the iron fist of Nintendo's legal department.
By the way, the original publicity of the game's national service was also to promote this flexible control
In the end, the case was settled out of court, and Project White Cat compensated Nintendo 3.3 billion yen, including attorney fees.
But you must know that the six patents that Nintendo originally sued in the lawsuit for "Project White Cat", from the virtual joystick to the charged attack to the online system, are all highly related to the core gameplay.
I think that Nintendo's action this time is the possibility of patent litigation, in fact, there is another reason, that is, patent litigation is quite mature, and many places can apply the experience before the emergence of video games, unlike the plagiarism of gameplay, which is so troublesome to judge.
Maturity means that there will be no accidents, it means that the professional legal team has a high winning rate, and only by pursuing victory can we afford the name of the strongest legal department.
The best example of the high rate of patent infringement in the game industry is also in Japan, which is Konami that is basically not a game company.
As a well-known patent bully in the industry, even though its main business has nothing to do with games, in 2022, Konami has become the game company with the most patent applications in the world.
I guess most of it has something to do with pachinko
At the same time, after applying for so many patents, they did not forget to set up card fees.
For example, one of the most common designs in audio games, when you press a button, the corresponding sound effect design will appear in the game, and its patent is in the hands of Konami, that is, "BEMANI Special License". In 2001, Konami sued the Korea music game "EZ2DJ" on this basis, and although Konami lost the first round of the game, it also greatly affected the operation of the game.
Six years later, the South Korean side reorganized the case and ruled against EZ2DJ, requiring the operator to suspend many of its games and compensate Konami 11.7 billion won.
In 2008, Konami sued DJMAX, which ended in an out-of-court settlement.
In addition to music games, Konami has also taken a heavy hit at Cygames, suing for patent infringement of "Horse Racing Girl" last year, and there is still no verdict yet.
Fortunately, these patents have a term of 20 years, and the "BEMANI License" expired in 2018 and cannot be extended. Otherwise, it's hard to imagine how many years the gaming industry would have gone backwards if there was a copyright bully like Konami.
Write at the end
Finally, from a player's point of view, I personally still think that this lawsuit will most likely end in an out-of-court settlement, after all, the arm can't twist the thigh, and the members of the development team of "Phantom Beast Palu" (especially the president) love to talk hi, but it has not yet reached the level of the face jump of those domestic Pokémon mobile games, you must know that they lost more than 100 million yuan to Nintendo back then.
Without any authorization, it's basically stepping on Nintendo's face and
But if it really comes to the point where the verdict is announced, I am afraid it will be an even more lose-lose ending.
If Nintendo wins, it won't be able to run away from being criticized for bullying the small, after all, "Phantom Beast Palu" is really fun, and the development company is indeed an independent team. To go one step further, to be led by people with good intentions, and to be regarded as a blackened brave person preparing to be a patent bully in the discipline Lemei, I am afraid that the public relations expenses paid will not be less than the proceeds of litigation.
If "Phantom Beast Palu" wins, it will bring a bad atmosphere, well, copying mature works, and then hard stitching will be the best way for independent manufacturers to be small and broad, after having a legal gold medal for avoiding death, there will be more and more such works emerging, gradually stifling the creativity of independent games.
Therefore, my personal most hopeful ending is that the two parties settle out of court, and the appropriate compensation for "Phantom Beast Palu" should be used as a lesson for the previous hilarity and arrogance, which will also be beneficial to its future gradually becoming a mature game developer.