The only references to networking in the patent are for Wifi LAN and a Switch 2 directly talking to another Switch 2, and this is only done to describe really the Switch 2 itself, without reference in that section to the 'non-transitory storage medium' which substantially comprises the basal step of the active functioning process which is being patented.

The 'non-transitory storage medium' itself is specified as the microsd card that goes into a Switch 2... but it seems that generally, this would seem to (???) cover any sort of persistent storage media/medium.

So... if you throw a non local network into this process... the relevant code/concept now goes through another step, networking or netcode, does not actually exist in or on the device's 'non-transitory storage medium' nor propogate throughout the rest of the computer sysyem in the manner described by the patent, which makes no reference to networking in the description of the functional process, which is based around the concept of the executed game code originating from non-transitory storage which is physically present in thr device...

... and is thus arguably a susbtantially different concept/process.

... and/or I have lost my mind.

[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 3 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

This would be funny to try, have them fight and win? And immediately invalidate every single “familiar thing but on the internet” trash that the USPTO has been allowing for the past 30 years

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

I really have no idea.

And that's saying something, because I wrote a few papers, on the DMCA in particular, as well as how the copyright/patent system works (and should probably be reformed) specifically irt to computer software, whilst getting a BSc in Econ and a BA in Poli Sci...

... and ...

... just fuck all this, its so fucking obvious that the system is in so many ways just designed to work only for entities with stupendous amounts of money.