I don't disagree with that, but the line that is drawn between inspiration and imitation is blurred and the courts will probably rule in favor of those with the most money, unfortunately.

You can either explain your position, or you can be a pretentious ass. Like I said before, I'm often wrong. I'm willing to hear your point, but you refuse to make it and act pompous.

It was wrong for Nintendo to copy someone, but it's not wrong for Pocketpair to copy someone. That's what you are saying?

Again, this isn't a copyright lawsuit. Making a game with monsters that look similar to theirs is not what the lawsuit is about. It's about patents. Likely design patents like I mentioned before. If I made a country song with Eminem's lyrics, of course you wouldn't confuse it with Slim's music, but I would need his permission first.

So it was wrong for Nintendo to do that?

I am typically anti-capitalist and usually root for the underdog. Palworld is a blatant ripoff of Pokemon and those denying it are delusional. Reverse the situation, where Nintendo releases Pokemon after Pocketpair releases Palworld and everyone would be calling it a ripoff.

Yeah, Nintendo's legal department does some shitty stuff, but their likeness was stolen. Also, they are suing for patents, not copyright. The fact that the monsters are caught in a sphere is damning Pocketpair, while other Pokemon copies like Digimon avoid this.

It's just my opinion. I'm often wrong.