With the implementation of Patch v0.5.5 this week, we must make yet another compromise. From this patch onward, gliding will be performed using a glider rather than with Pals. Pals in the player’s team will still provide passive buffs to gliding, but players will now need to have a glider in their inventory in order to glide.

How lame. Japan needs to fix its patent laws, it's ridiculous Nintendo owns the simple concept of using an animal to fly.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Alaknar@lemm.ee 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Microsoft did copy and paste though: Yammer, Bing and Azure respectively

So, you fully and honestly believe that Microsoft has stolen Google's and Amazon's code? As in: you're 100% certain that's the case here?

Also worth mentioning the duopoly nature of those 2 specifically.

No. It's not worth mentioning in a topic that has nothing to do with that fact...

Rather telling that all your examples are Fortune 500 companies?

It amazes me how you see a company NOW being a Fortune 500, and going "waagh, IP protection only serves the massive corpos!!!" without realising how many of those companies became Fortune 500 thanks to those protections.

It equally amazes me how you see the law being used by said companies most of the time (because, you know, they're larger) and go "we can do without these laws" without blinking an eye, or a single neuron firing towards the thought that... these laws ALSO serve the smaller companies.

We’re not talking copyright laws, we’re talking patent laws

Mate, are you lost or something?

This is what my reply was to:

Copyright and patent laws need to die.

Do I need to put "copyright" in bold here?

[–] SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

So, you fully and honestly believe that Microsoft has stolen Google's and Amazon's code?

Does a patent protect the concept or the specific code? You seemed pretty adamant that reverse engineering was theft previously, and assuming you haven't changed your definition of theft then yes, according to your definition of theft I'm 100% certain that's the case.

became Fortune 500 thanks to those protections

Thanks to those, or in spite of? You are focusing on outliers and expecting that to be a convincing argument to describe the typical.

these laws ALSO serve the smaller companies.

Just because they can, doesn't mean it's something to expect. There are orders of magnitude between how often they protect, and how often the destroy. You a big lottery fan or something?

This is what my reply was to

Fair, I was attempting to limit scope with only discussing patents and not getting into the rest of the weeds and didn't properly communicate that. I had assumed there would be more than a single neuron between the two of us, but that was clearly presumptive of me.