>>58361971>everyone who disagrees with me is a troondo people really
>>58361988I understand the confusion because a lot of reporters that talked about the patent are either biased (let's be honest, Nintendo articles bring views) and not too law-savvy. But if you want an explanation here you go. I'll use the "mounts" patent because that's the one I see talked about more often.
First of all, patents apply in their entirety. To infringe on a patent, you have to meet EVERY limitation in the patent. If you are missing even one limitation, or it is meaningfully different, it does not count as patent infringement.
You can find the patent here (
https://gamesfray.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/US12409387-switching-of-riding-object-25-09-09.pdf). I'd walk through everything but I'd genuinely need to write a long ass document to make sense of it all, but the summary is:
- The player owns multiple "boarding characters" (the document even specifies it has to be an air character, a ground character, and a water character). --> If your game has a character that is air AND water, it is already meaningfully different! If you have more types of characters, it is already meaningfully different.
- The player can select one of these to board it, and make it mobile. --> This is the generic part that people focus on in articles.
- If while in any of those mounts, you move towards the air/water/ground, there is a smooth switch to a different mount. --> If you are not using a "smooth switch" between mounts depending on the environment, then it does not count as patent infringement either.
- This smooth switch is direct, without dismounting, without loading screens, or any other intermediate steps. --> If you add an intermediate step, it would be considered different from the patent.
- You have to *own* the mount, too. --> If you do not own the character that you board, it could also be considered a diversion from the patent.
(Cont.)
