Not to nit-pic, but it's a Trademark cancellation - not a patent. The confusion probably came from the fact it's before the US Patent and Trademark Office.
to nitpick, short of holding evidence of a literal internal memoradum stating it, $100,000 or $100,000,000,000 won't be able to prove that a company has no intention to resume the use of a trademark at some point. the entire affair is pointless fantasy
Very serious "whataboitism" here. People can care about more than one thing. Different people in societies can care and want to work on different things.
I've called my representative on several issues. State, local and federal. Called the local news on school COVID coverup too. They actually went to the school to check it out. What do you do to actually try to solve things as a citizen? Snark?
I don't think many users are particularly interested in posts saying that the topic of the discussion thread is not worth discussing because there are so many other topics.
Maybe go find the threads where your comments are more on-topic.
Do you not recognize the moral panic / righteousness undertone of this article and what it's designed to do? I feel my comments are very much on topic. This is a modern "D&D might be Satanism" article.
I mean the NYT can publish stuff like this and still claim it's, "all the news that's fit to print." But I can disagree.
I certainly recognize your attempt to reframe your previous comments as actually addressing the content of the article, even though they were mostly "sure there's [this], but what about [not this]?".
Talking about an article's "undertone" and "what it's designed to do" as though those things are not completely subjective simply does not convince.
And thank you very much for the laugh you gave me when you compared D&D scaremongering to the literal exploitation of children.
State your conclusion. Not doing so forces us to guess what you mean and is just poor communication. You're forcing me (and everyone that reads this comment) to guess what you mean.
Based on what _I think_ you're trying to say, I think this is a terrible take and I hate everything about it. People aren't trees. Society, people, and children especially shouldn't be forced to be exposed to anxiety inducing, depressing, and stress inducing situations. (But that's what I'm guessing what you're saying, since you have not put a real conclusion or clear statement there.)
I think even if it wasn't trademarked, they'd likely look into Passing Off (or whatever equivalent laws are present in the country they would decide to proceed with legal action is available), given the exact same name and style of a Nintendo product is being used.
There is also copyright in the design and layout of the NES interface, which has obviously been copied (it's the whole point of the project!), there's likely another option there.
There is no “NES interface”. It’s all just code written by each individual dev team, using assets created by their art teams. I don’t really think there’s anything that actually exists that could legally be called “the NES interface” when it comes to design rights
Copyright only protects against actual copying. It's quite a limited right in comparison to patents. A patent can prevent others from implementing/selling/making/importing/exploiting the same invention independently created.
Copyright pales in comparison to the protection afforded by a patent.
I work in the tech transfer office for a medium sized university (a non practicing entity! shockhorror) and patents are a very key tool for us.
Many players we license technology to are only interested in licensing a technology if it's protected by a patent. If there isn't any patent protection, then any third party willing to put enough in can simply read some journal articles published by the researchers (because they do publish everything they can for prestige and more government money) and implement the software themselves and the licensee has no way to stop them (other than through their own execution).
I haven't work at the tech transfer office for very long, but I think I have only seen software related inventions be licensed that had patent protection. When we do license a patent, the licensee most often receives worldwide exclusive rights to exploit the technology in their field. (well, I guess it's not quite worldwide monopoly, it's only a monopoly in the regions the patent is filed in, we do give them worldwide rights to use other stuff like copyright and trade secrets though).
Oddly enough that's what they're aiming to claim a monopoly over.
Here's[1] a patent they have filed towards the system. Claims 1-18 and 20 are focused on the training of the neural network. Looks like Claims 1-18 are going to be granted soon largely in that form also from looking at PAIR[2].
