I was asked about the following video re: Nintendo v. Colopl. The research quality of Thomas Game Docs varies, but this one is relatively well done and I appreciate that. A few points I’d like to add:
- The “code of honor” framing is uncommon. It was used by only one analyst in one talk, bordering on mythologizing—no wonder a YouTube video chose to go with it.
- What it really means is that most companies file VG patents as a defensive measure. They aren’t suing each other for patent infringement unless someone egregiously ignores industry norms. (It’s explained in the video what Colopl tried to pull.)
- The video failed to mention that the ¥3.3B settlement includes future patent license to use the Nintendo patents. It’s a gesture to Colopl signaling that if you follow the industry norms, there won’t be further patent lawsuits.
- While the video is overall fair, they couldn’t help themselves taking a potshot at Nintendo “abusing” its legal rights. They brought up Nintendo’s trademark enforcements as (in their mind) proofs, despite the fact trademark and patent being two different matters.
- Trademark owners MUST enforce their trademarks, or they may become “generic” or “abandoned”. For example, Capcom requested 6940 takedowns1 in FY2023, 7110 in FY2024, and 6176 in FY2025.
- It’s also unserious that the video tried to contrast Nintendo with Sega’s (in their mind) lax legal stance, even though Sega actually won a government award in 2022 for initiating “aggressive” enforcements, warnings, and lawsuits. See the shiny certificate below.
- Including trademark and other copyright infringements ↩︎
[Originally posted on 2025-11-23 Pacific Time]
