911
Palworld confirms ‘disappointing’ game changes forced by Pokémon lawsuit
(www.videogameschronicle.com)
this post was submitted on 08 May 2025
911 points (97.9% liked)
Games
38505 readers
1361 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here and here.
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
They usually get grants, and frequently the student will get hired to follow up on that research. A lot of the research ends up unusable to the company as well, at least on its own.
I think that's a bit extreme, but I'll give you that a lot of R&D is subsidized. The COVID example, however, is an outlier, since the funding was to accelerate ending the pandemic, which was critical for the economy as a whole.
You're right that that's an aspect I forgot about, however If the patent system worked as you envision it then those students would own the parent which they would then lease to those companies. The actual situation is quite legally messy because it's usually the universities which own the IP produced, (which is then leased out via partnerships, grants etc ) and when those individuals lease themselves with the promise of producing more valuable IP they have to take cautions to not infringe on their previous work.
Not really, using Covid as an example this paper details the pre and post-epidemic funding sources that went into the discovery, testing and production of the COVID vaccine. Do you have any other examples you'd like to use to demonstrate how it's "extreme"?
Yes and no, but it is well publicized and documented which is what I was trying to communicate with that specific one as an example.
Which is totally reasonable. The student applies for a graduate program to get a degree, not get rich off a patent. Theoretically, any patent royalties retained by the university would go toward funding university activities. I don't know how much this happens in practice though.
That said, there should be limits here. If a patent makes over a certain amount, the rest should go to the student.
Right, because it's an outlier.
If you go to the patent office and look at recent patents, I doubt a significant number are the result of government funding. Most patents are mundane and created as part of private work to prevent competitors from profiting from their work. My company holds a ton of patents, and I highly doubt the government has any involvement in funding them.
Did Nintendo get government funding for its patents? I doubt it.
And what's the big selling point behind why you would want to get a degree?
Pre-pandemic public funding wasn't, which is why I linked a source that provided both so you could see how much of an outlier it was/wasn't.
They all will be to some extent. The hard part is quantifying the extent for each individual patent. I can guarantee that you're company received/has received some sort of public funding and so yes the government does have involvement directly funding them, even if it isn't as explicit as with public health funding. Indirect funding is the much harder one to suss out but is likely significantly more.
Directly? Probably not, but the whole point of bringing up universities was to show one of the indirect paths. However I don't speak Japanese in order to actually research but would be very curious to know what sort of subsidies/public assistance it receives, if there exists a thing similar to MEDIA/Creative Europe, etc.
To work on interesting problems, that's why most people get advanced degrees, no? I highly doubt most people who get a Ph.D are in it for the money...
It's also rarely directly related to R&D. For example, the company I work for produces chemical products, and innovations in that formulation is critical to our competitive advantage, but not particularly interesting from a national perspective. Our innovations merely help our products stand out from competitors, but competitor products are pretty similar.
If we get subsidies (haven't checked), it would be for producing these chemicals with less pollution, using locally produced ingredients, or to improve safety of transporting them.
If you try hard enough, yeah, you could probably find some form of government funding. But that doesn't mean the patents were produced as a direct result of public funding.
If that's people's main motivator then why does copyright exist in the first place?
If you're a large enough institution to have as many patents as you claim to then I guarantee you do. I would encourage you to dig into that as well as the why.
How many transition steps are needed for a precursor chemical to no longer be a required precursor for a product? Is a byproduct that is sold not a product because it's not the primary intended production output?
Copyright exists to create a temporary monopoly so the creator can recoup their creation costs and some profit on top, since creating a work takes a lot more resources than duplicating it. Likewise for patents, though that's more focused on sharing ideas.
We probably are. A quick search shows 100-200 patents, many of which have long since expired. Most of them are incredibly mundane, and I highly doubt a government would've been involved in funding it, and I don't really know how to find out if they were.
That depends on a variety of things, but in general, very few? Like 2-3?
Let's say my company gets funding to disseminate OSHA information to employees so they know their rights and what the company is obligated to provide. That has absolutely nothing to do w/ funding the actual production process at plants, even if those plants are subjected to OSHA safety requirements. In fact, it likely runs counter to increasing production because employees in a seminar by definition aren't producing product at the plant.
So yeah, I would say government funding has to be pretty directly related to R&D to count as "funding" R&D. Maybe there's an award for the first group to come up with something or a general subsidy to fund research in a given area.
Creation costs like the cost of an advanced degree? You're repeating talking points like nobody's heard them before and contradicting yourself every other comment.
That was a rhetorical question, let me try rephrasing that. If A+B+C=D and D+E=F is A a requirement to get F? Or is it no longer relevant because it's 2 steps removed?
I wish I got paid to avoid fines. I understand that is how your deeply corrupt system works but you really can't understand the financial incentives there can you? Imagine that illegal parking is a huge problem so instead of parking tickets they pay everyone who owns a car to sit through a parking information seminar. Do you honestly think that isn't going to factor into your decision on whether you should own/drive a car? Is it unreasonable to say that the state is paying you to drive?
No, copyright has little to do with advanced degrees. The creation costs are the time and resources needed to produce the book, movie, software project, or other work, which can be substantial.
There's a better argument for patents, but still weak.
Right, and rhetorical questions by definition don't have good answers. There needs to be a reasonable limit here, and what's reasonable depends on what specifically we're talking about.
For example, I benefitted a lot from my public education, but I can't really quantify the impact to a a dollar amount, so I don't think it's reasonable to say my career success is due to public funding.
For me to accept that an innovation came from the public sector, I'd need to see a direct link between public funding and the innovation. Just saying a company got a tax incentive to put an office somewhere doesn't mean all innovations from that office is government funded.
Yes, that's unreasonable.
Driving is heavily subsidized by the state. For example, a lot of the funding for roads comes from income taxes instead of direct use taxes like registration and gas taxes. Even so, I don't consider that to be paying me to drive, but it is an incentive to drive.
The government does pay me to have babies since I get a tax credit if I have kids. The difference is I have to do something proactive to get the benefit, whereas the roads will be funded whether I drive or not.
If a company gets a tax incentive to put an office somewhere, that doesn't mean all inventions made there are publicly funded unless that's specifically called out in the incentive deal.
You seem to be replying to someone else entirely.
In what way?
In every way
Okay.