this post was submitted on 08 May 2025
937 points (98.0% liked)

Games

38467 readers
1788 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:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here and here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world 1 points 6 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.