The Lawbringer: Gotta sue 'em all over the Pet Battle system?

Remember in the last edition of Lawbringer, when I wrote that the majority of the questions post-BlizzCon 2011 were questions about panda people, whether Kung Fu Panda would sue, and how Pandaren are possible in China? Well, there was a third question: How can the Pet Battle system exist in World of Warcraft when it is so spiritually and mechanically similar to the underlying game mechanics of the Pokémon franchise? The truth is that it is and it isn't as similar as you might suspect, and the key factors in any copyright fight don't hold up a potential cause of action.
From the BlizzCon presentation, we gleaned a good bit of information about the WoW Pet Battle system coming with Mists of Pandaria. Players have been collecting companion (or vanity) pets for years, little dudes and dudettes who follow your characters around looking cool, performing cute emotes, and acting as the occasional status symbol. Companion pets even became the first foray into Blizzard-accepted real-money gold buying with the Guardian Cub as an experiment in fighting gray-market gold selling. Companion pets have become their own meta-game in WoW despite the introduction of the actual meta-game Pet Battle system.
Companion pets will now be at the center of a minigame of their own. After years of collecting and coveting, finally these pets will serve a purpose beyond looking adorable or annoying Dalaran with chilling screams of "NEW TOYS, FOR ME?!" Many players have noticed that the Pet Battle system bears a striking resemblance to the biggest pet battle system franchise ever created, Pokémon. Do you know what Pokémon is? I'm sure you know what Pokémon is.
What is Pokémon?
Pokémon was the brainchild of Satoshi Tajiri, a video game developer and founder of Game Freak, the development company that originally made Pokémon. After hitting it huge in Japan, the series hit it huge all over the world, creating a multi-billion dollar industry of toys, games, movies, television shows, clothing, accessories, and everything else under the sun. There are Pokémon airplanes, cars, trains, and probably a blimp. I think I remember a blimp ...
Pokémon was and is still huge. The basic gameplay is what we are concerned about, however. In Pokémon, your character -- the trainer -- finds and captures wild Pokémon creatures and uses them to do battle against other trainers and their Pokémon creatures. Mix in some RPG elements, experience, leveling up, turn-based battles, and evolution, and you've got the basic Pokémon formula -- an extremely profitable formula, at that.
The pet battle system as copyrightable?
When readers emailed me asking about whether Pokémon and Nintendo could sue Activision Blizzard over the Pet Battle system, most of the inqueries were couched in intellectual property or copyright lawsuit concerns. "Doesn't the Pet Battle system infringe on Nintendo's copyrights?" Most likely not, because the idea of the Pet Battle system is not something that is actually copyrightable. The systems, code, characters, and very specific mechanics are all potentially copyrightable, but not the overarching idea or theme of a pet battle system.
Remember how last week I brought up three factors that we should look at for Kung Fu Panda and Mists of Pandaria? While those are not the most complete understanding of the topic, it helps frame the question and the answer, so let's bring those three factors back:
- Is the work in the same medium?
- Could a consumer get confused as to which brand is being represented?
- Can you even own the concept of a kung-fu-fighting, anthropomorphic, panda man, two-player-controlled pets fighting each other in a turn-based battle system?
One could argue that Pokémon and the Pet Battle system are in the same medium, computer video games, but the platform of choice makes this a hard sell for me. PC gaming is a vastly different beast than console or handheld gaming, and while Pokémon has a presence on the PC in terms of online games, its nexus doesn't really live on your computer.
As for whether you can own the concept of pet battles and RPG elements, you can't. You can own everything about them outside of the basic concept or ideas, sure. If I wanted to call my skill advancement system "Materia," Square Enix might have a problem with that, but since it just means "substance" in Latin, there might be an issue of broadness. Conversely, if the Pet Battle system in WoW had a character called Charizard, Nintendo's lawyers might turn their heads, because Charizard is a very specific character in the franchise.
The truth is that many, many games out there have had the base RPG elements that Pokémon did long before the first Pikachu ever popped out of a designer's head. Even the concept of pet battles came long before Pokémon, and the concept of pet battles has lived on after the release of the super-franchise in loads of other games. The most famous Pokémon counter-franchise was Digimon, an entire series of games, television shows, and more that closely resembled the Pokémon universe in terms of mechanics. This was about as close as you could get to totally apeing the franchise, and it still lived on parallel to Pokémon. Pokémon just outlasted and outprofited everyone else.

I asked on Twitter what other games had a pet battle system that people could think of. It wasn't so much to make a list of games, per se, but to prove the point that a ton of games out there already have Pokémon-like systems in place. Monster Rancher, Dragon Quest, Neo Pets, Dragon Warrior Monsters, and more all have pet battle systems and RPG elements. And in a hilarious coincidence, while writing this article, I received an email from a game company announcing a new iOS monster battle and trading card game. I think that gives you a good about whether the concept of pet battle systems are copyrightable.
As usual, the most important factor is consumer confusion. At this point, the only way to confuse the consumer at large about Pokémon would be to steal its trademark, copy the logo, and make some awful knock-off products, but that's a whole different form of trademark infringement and fraud. The Pet Battle system being included in WoW is strapping itself to an already-established brand, not some new product too closely resembling the Pokémon franchise. Suffice to say, I think Blizzard is safe.
So, no. The Pet Battle system in WoW does not seem like it's too similar to Pokémon's. Conceptually, sure, it's a turn-based pet battle system with RPG elements, but a bunch of games already have those characteristics. Leveling up your character or a pet in a game is not a concept that can be protected, until you start getting too close to the characters and code itself. After all its hard-fought success and brand bolstering, do you really think that Blizzard would head into something like the Pet Battle system without knowing clearly what the line is in terms of similarity and conceptual boundaries for a core feature in its new, highly anticipated expansion?
Meowth, that's right.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, The Lawbringer






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
xvkarbear Nov 4th 2011 4:09PM
I have no idea what pokemon is.
*Stuffs her copies of White, SoulSilver, Platinium, Diamond, LeafGreen, Sapphire, Silver, and Blue in a box*
What pokemon games, I don't see any pokemon games. You must be seeing things.
Haden Nov 4th 2011 7:28PM
Poka Whata?
Noah Nov 4th 2011 7:38PM
Nice. I never got around to getting SoulSilver or Heartgold, or black or white. I've only got them for DS and Gameboy, and I've got FireRed, LeafGreen, Sapphire, Ruby, Emerald, Diamond, Pearl and Platinum.
...sigh. Okay, now that I got that out...
musicchan Nov 5th 2011 9:59PM
But.....do you have yellow? :D
xvkarbear Nov 5th 2011 11:03PM
@musicchan I do! I also have crystal, ruby, emerald, and pearl. With plans to eventually buy heartgold and black. (Plus Gray, or whatever the special edition of white/black will be)
Those I always buy used or discounted, because I rarely play through them all the way.
I also played the hell out of the first couple of stadium games.
I'm a gamer girl through and through, but I just suck at most games where there's competition between players (ie. fighting and racing games). My boyfriend just pwns me every time (to the point where I quit playing with him!). Pokemon and Mario Party are really the only games where I feel like I have some actual skill.
That's one of the reasons I really look forward to pet battles. I am looking forward to trouncing my boyfriend and his singing sunflower into the ground!
Marolas Nov 6th 2011 6:10PM
Honestly, if Pokémon didn't have a problem with Robopon then I see no reason why they'd have a problem with a Pet Battle System in WoW.
Here, read this and tell me that this isn't just Pokémon with robots:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robopon_Sun,_Star,_and_Moon_Versions
Grock Nov 4th 2011 4:11PM
Copyright is for IP, trademark is for branding, patents are for mechanics. These are not interchangable terms. You are right about the concept though. Game mechanics can't really be patented.
Therosh Nov 4th 2011 5:35PM
Well, actually, game mechanics can be patented. Nintendo has a patent on a way of measuring the fear or insanity level in the player-character through fairly vague terms. The patent was for the Gamecube Game "Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem". Nintendo could, ostenisbly, have patented the specific pet-battle mechanics, (Things like PP and the idea of certain abilities being "Super Effective"), which means that no one else could have used those things without licensing them from Nintendo.
emberdione Nov 4th 2011 6:42PM
Silicon Knights and Nintendo share that patent actually.
The problem with "game mechanics" as patented ideas is though that you can almost always argue prior art and also the patent holder has to viciously defend the patent.
So let's run with the Sanity Meter patent. If they ever tried to defend it, they would fail miserably. Why?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Cthulhu_%28role-playing_game%29
Boom. It's a game. it's prior art. And it uses a Sanity meter.
Add to this things like the Call of Cthulhu video game (again, sanity meter, but that one is Bethesda), and popular movies like Frighteners, and they have a very hard time proving that they "created" the idea.
Even worse, they haven't defended it. If you look at the CoC game by Bethesda, they use the sanity meter in MANY of the same ways Eternal Darkness did. They didn't license it. Nintendo didn't do a thing. Add to this that Blizzard even used the mechanic (Yogg) and again, nothing happened.
If you don't defend it, then when you eventually try, everyone you didn't defend it against gets to step up and add to the argument. And I am pretty sure Activision's bored lawyers would love to fight that fight.
On the "Super Effective" you can just rename them to Elemental Weaknesses or Critical Hits. They just came up with a phrase that made more sense to younger kids as to why it did more damage. The mechanic alone is nothing special.
Nandini Nov 4th 2011 10:29PM
I was also confused to see an article talking about copyright, which applies to the visible or audible content of a published creative work.
Game companies own tons of patents, which cover the various technical and logical processes behind their games, and they constantly fight about them. This column would have been an excellent opportunity to talk about patent litigation and how it affects some of our favorite games.
Persephanie Nov 4th 2011 4:15PM
personally i'm stoked to see that there is no underlying sew going to be happening here. I don't want anything to dissuade blizzard from implementing this new pet battle system.
"Stinker I choose you!" = ^ . ^ =
Fooms Nov 4th 2011 4:18PM
As another example what about Rift and its uncanny resemblances to WoW?
madfigs Nov 4th 2011 4:33PM
Somewhere at Games Workshop, a single tear rolls down the cheek of a developer.
djsuursoo Nov 4th 2011 5:07PM
or wow and its uncanny resembelence to everquest, dark age of camelot, ultima online...
Brett Porter Nov 4th 2011 5:08PM
Same deal. An MMO that has quests and your character levels and uses spells and abilities. There are other products out there with the same underpinnings, and indeed even before WoW.
The big question: would someone confuse Rift for WoW? No.
Randomize Nov 4th 2011 5:54PM
Or what about the resemblance between wow and pong? The wow pvp system is a total knock-off of pvp in pong with a few mild twists.
Nopunin10did Nov 4th 2011 7:08PM
@madfigs
Games Workshop has only itself to blame for that. They turned down Blizzard's original plan to build a game based on the Warhammer IP. They will go into the ranks of those companies that undervalued a later-successful intellectual commodity...
HP - the apple computer
Xerox - the mouse and graphical user interface
Games Workshop - the quintessential orcs v. humans computer game
Oteo Nov 4th 2011 4:18PM
I would still play Pokemon if I wanted to drop the money for one of the new handheld systems. I remember how proud I was when I completed my Pokedex in Pokemon Yellow, including Mew (no cheats!). My brothers and I waited in line for hours to get our official Mews. Good memories.
VSUReaper Nov 4th 2011 4:21PM
As long as we dont see pokeballs or pokeball icons (outside of Uldum - you know what I'm talking about), our toons dont don a red and white ballcap, or we have a small, yellow rodent (with a lighting bolt shaped tail!) as a pet that shoots lightning bolts from it's cheeks, then wow is safe from copyright infingement.
Nintendo knows, we know, and Blizzard knows where this idea came from, Nintendo just can't act on it.
VSUReaper Nov 4th 2011 4:25PM
Ulduar, not Uldum! >.>
WTB edit! I hate this commenting system!