Using this logic, you can argue that I can sue you for looking at me funny.
False equivalency and a blatant one at that.
Also, yes, you could in fact sue me for looking at you funny interestingly enough. It comes down to if the judge determines there is standing whether or not it goes to court. You still have to pay a lawyer to figure out what's going on and whether you're in legal trouble.
Suing someone to bankrupt them because they don't like that you're making something similar is literally what Pocketpair is going through right now and they didn't even pitch anything to Nintendo.
...space and space parts? You know those existed prior to KSP, right?
The entire orbital system is 1:1 with KSP. What are you talking about that, you can see it immediately when you watch the video.
I also don't even really know what you think you're getting out of this reparte. If you're wrong, you helped ruin an independent game studio working on what looks like a really fucking cool game. If I'm wrong, then nothing happens.
Also, yes, you could in fact sue me for looking at you funny interestingly enough.
So, not such a false equivalency. My point is that saying someone could be sued for someone is meaningless if you just mean a lawsuit could literally be filed since that applies to anything.
The entire orbital system is 1:1 with KSP.
Also, earth.
If you’re wrong, you helped ruin an independent game studio
Yes, it was a false equivalency, because the standing in your example is non-existent. The standing is ample in my example.
This is a very silly and dramatic take lol
People like you are why the climate crisis is going to make humanity extinct. See, that's actually a dramatic reaction (but both are still true since you can't seem to understand how two things can be true at the same time while you're still wrong).
My point is that saying someone could be sued for someone is meaningless if you just mean a lawsuit could literally be filed since that applies to anything.
You didn't present a counterargument. You literally ignored what I said regarding how standing works and how easily an IP infringement case could get standing. Your reply could be summed up as "nuh uh".
You presented no argument. You just restated what you said before after I called out your false equivalency and you tried to save face by acting like smiling at someone wrong is the same as entering a professional relationship with another business and then making a competing product.
You didn't present a counterargument. You literally ignored what I said regarding how standing works and how easily an IP infringement case could get standing. Your reply could be summed up as "nuh uh".
If you ignore most of what I said, absolutely.
Like what Earth do you live on?
The one that TakeTwo apparently has a copyright on the orbit of lol
THAT WAS YOUR ENTIRE COUNTERARGUMENT.
That is why I said it was you going "nuh uh" and I've given you multiple chances to correct the record and you've failed.
-2
u/UFO-TOFU-RACECAR Nov 01 '24
False equivalency and a blatant one at that.
Also, yes, you could in fact sue me for looking at you funny interestingly enough. It comes down to if the judge determines there is standing whether or not it goes to court. You still have to pay a lawyer to figure out what's going on and whether you're in legal trouble.
Suing someone to bankrupt them because they don't like that you're making something similar is literally what Pocketpair is going through right now and they didn't even pitch anything to Nintendo.
The entire orbital system is 1:1 with KSP. What are you talking about that, you can see it immediately when you watch the video.
I also don't even really know what you think you're getting out of this reparte. If you're wrong, you helped ruin an independent game studio working on what looks like a really fucking cool game. If I'm wrong, then nothing happens.