the inclusion of nothing phone in the lineup makes me unsure what op is looking for so i just assumed they was looking for general phone recommendations lol

the xiaomi 17 pro is getting a lot of hype for its display on the back, and this is the company well known for emulating an apple feel quite well on android… and being Chinese

nothing phone: are you aware that the nothing phone 3 got rid of the glyph interface?

i’m surprised that the fediverse manifestation here has not recommended the fairphone yet

I’m sorry, who the heck made the PRC stars white‽

an example is provided in the PR’s before/after

no, the banner is what you currently see on Lenny above a community’s feed. i changed the post title to hopefully clarify that

to display the banner that moderators want for their community/magazine (i just call it a commag)?

(The conversation continues… in https://kbin.melroy.org/m/games@sh.itjust.works/t/1284060/Nintendo-s-Creature-Capture-Patent-Dealt-Blow-Amid-Palworld-Lawsuit/comment/9813866#entry-comment-9813866 !)

Thanks!

Thing is, the heading says that the reason the child patent is filed is specifically to make its claim still stand even if the parent patent is invalidated. I would expect that Nintendo’s big-suit lawyers have engineered the patent to have minimal overlap with parts that may be invalidated. Child patents are not for amending the original patent’s claims but to file a new ones.

Here are the other reasons the documented said you might want to file a child patent:

1. Response to a violation of the requirement of unity of invention [(the same patent cannot contain multiple inventions)] If an Office Action (OA) is issued due to a violation of the requirements for unity of invention, it may be possible for the applicant to obtain a patent by separating claims which do not satisfy the requirements for unity of invention from the parent application by filling them as divisional applications.

3. Obtaining patents for inventions described only in the specification Patents can also be obtained for inventions that are described only in the specification of the original application, but not described in the claims, by filing one or more divisional applications for the desired inventions.
4. Issuing a warning against competitors by keeping applications pending for an extended period of time The application pendency period can be prolonged by filing divisional applications. This urges competitors to observe the status of the existence of divisional applications. It is effective to put pressure and restrictions on competitors designing their products and so forth.

Thanks, I did miss that one was a child of the rejected patent. That said, child status only means that the patent is based on the parent invention, not that a dependency tree for the patents’ validity. I’ve confirmed that this is true in Japanese law as well after searching it up:

D) Advantage of filing divisional applications 2) Providing a fallback to the parent application Filing divisional applications leaves open the possibility that applicants may obtain a patent granted partially, even though the parent application is ultimately rejected by the JPO.

https://shigapatent.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Divisonal-Application.pdf

I would wait for the patents actually used in the lawsuit being invalidated before cheering.

was published… after… Nintendo’s lawsuit began. […] insane bullshit that would piss off a judge, to me.

This is true regardless of whether or not the patents are invalidated.

Reiwa 6 began in 2019

Reiwa is the imperial era beginning in 2019, meaning Reiwa 1 is 2019 and Reiwa 6 is 2024. The name translates to “Fine Harmony”. The more you know!

As part of their ongoing lawsuit, Nintendo is claiming PalWorld has violated those… now invalid patents, so Nintendo’s overall case against PalWorld is now significantly more weak.

That directly contradicts your quote:

Since the application isn’t cited in the Palworld patent lawsuit directly, its rejection won’t have a direct impact on the ongoing case. However, as explained by Games Fray’s analyst Florian Mueller, the newly rejected application is a “key building block” in Nintendo’s strategy to capture a wide range of creature-capture system implementations. It is the child of patent JP7493117 and the parent of JP7545191, both of which are cited in Nintendo’s complaint.

IANAL, but IIRC atl in US law “child patent” just means it adds new claims to the parent patents’ technology, so this just invalidates the parts that Nintendo did not use in its lawsuit.

Slightly less true now that Pokemon Legends Z-A has very good reviews.

As part of their ongoing lawsuit, Nintendo is claiming PalWorld has violated those… now invalid patents, so Nintendo’s overall case against PalWorld is now significantly more weak.

That directly contradicts your quote:

Since the application isn’t cited in the Palworld patent lawsuit directly, its rejection won’t have a direct impact on the ongoing case. However, as explained by Games Fray’s analyst Florian Mueller, the newly rejected application is a “key building block” in Nintendo’s strategy to capture a wide range of creature-capture system implementations. It is the child of patent JP7493117 and the parent of JP7545191, both of which are cited in Nintendo’s complaint.

IANAL, but IIRC atl in US law “child patent” just means it adds new claims to the parent patents’ technology, so this just invalidates the parts that Nintendo did not use in its lawsuit.

Yeah. Sorry for implying that latchkey is of the same intensity; that was not my intention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latchkey_kid

You’re right.

In Western regions (North America and Europe) around 2009, the video game industry saw the success of Zynga and other large publishers of social-network games that offered the games for free on sites like Facebook but included microtransactions to accelerate one’s progress in the game, providing that publishers could depend on revenue from post-sale transactions rather than initial sale.[23] One of the first games to introduce loot box-like mechanics was FIFA 09, made by Electronic Arts (EA), in March 2009 which allowed players to create a team of association football players from in-game card packs they opened using in-game currency earned through regular playing of the game or via microtransactions.[26] Another early game with loot box mechanics was Team Fortress 2 in September 2010, when Valve added the ability to earn random “crates” to be opened with purchased keys.[13] Valve’s Robin Walker stated that the intent was to create “network effects” that would draw more players to the game, so that there would be more players to obtain revenue from the keys to unlock crates.[23] Valve later transitioned to a free-to-play model, reporting an increase in player count of over 12 times after the transition,[25] and hired Yanis Varoufakis to research virtual economies.[27] Over the next few years many MMOs and multiplayer online battle arena games (MOBAs) also transitioned to a free-to-play business model to help grow out their player base, many adding loot-box monetisation in the process,[25][28] with the first two being both Star Trek Online[29] and The Lord of the Rings Online[citation needed] in December 2011.

I think it’s more bad because they were the first one to introduce all those predatory mechanics

The subscription is €5 a month

There’s some good bits about Belarus.