Simple. Best product wins. Actual competition for quality and/or value.

As for the matter of patents, is 20 years really needed? I think maybe 5 years, at most, and I'm being generous. Actually, I'd stipulate that 12 months would be plenty of exclusivity from product deployment, so that way there's no sitting. Deploy a product or don't even bother.

Keep in mind, I'm of the mindset that patents should have been adjusted the moment the telegraph was invented; the instant that fast communication was invented, should the terms have been amended to account.

That would only discourage innovation. There would be no need to take risks or spend resources on R&D when all you’d have to do is tweak what already exists. It’s always easier and less costly to improve something than to invent something new. This is a road that ultimately leads to stagnation.

(The rest is just details - 'I have already established what you are, we are now negotiating the price.')

The complete lockdown of patented stuff makes economically no sense and is in overall damaging the development. Humans historically was always learning from each others, thats how they was evolving. However, it makes as well no sense if certain companies got huge R&D cost and then their stuff is being copied right after by someone else who are making money out of it without dolng any R&D, this of course can as well damage the development. Yet, fact is... in the gaming industry many companies was copying many stuff from each others without ever "demanding any patents right after a certain invention"... it is just not a "game industry-thing", so Nintendo is now kinda "testing the waters" as they got several lawyers already which they can make use of.

However, in capitalism, which still seems our preferred economy, money can solve anything: So, anyone copying patented stuff simply will have to pay a certain patent-fee toward the patent-holder which is meant to "finance" their R&D costs for a certain period, perhaps up to 10 years.

Although, the stuff Nintendo is trying to "protect" is rather hilarious and i think the only reason they are trying to patent every single "marginal idea" is so they can profit from it the best way possible. There should be a certain limit on how much or to what extend someone is able to patent stuff, else... next time i am gonna patent "my way of walking" and as soon as someone is walking the exact same way they will become sued. Of course no use if i would be poor but it works if i already got 10 lawyers working for me full time and are seeking out some additional work for them.

Yeah... it is a brutal world but it seems the majority is still fine with.

In case of Palworld, if the lawyers may decide something is "copied" it should not wipe out this project but they will have to pay a certain "patent-fee" which is almost certainly the stuff Nintendo is looking out for. Okay... if it comes to Nintendo you never know... they could be even more evil but they should not be able to "get more" than a certain percentage of their money i predict, which is at least a win for them, just not the "final blow".

I think you did not notice the words "isn't just". I’m not denying that patent law is important for the spread and growth of knowledge, it is a cornerstone. But laws can have more than one purpose or goal in mind. The earliest formal patent law we know, the Venice Patent Statute of 1474, did emphasize public disclosure, but that focus have broadened over time. The English Statute of Monopolies of 1624, for example, tied patents to innovation and economic development, and later, the U.S. Constitution (1787) and the Patent Act of 1790 explicitly connected disclosure with a grant of exclusive rights. That meant inventors not only had to share their knowledge but also received a limited-time economic reward or protection. So, the emphasis in patent laws has almost always been a balance between disclosure and economic incentive and protection.

In a capitalist system? A couple of examples come to mind. The Dutch in the 17th century had very weak patent laws, and much of their innovation was controlled by guilds. They became famous more for reverse engineering and improving existing ideas rather than for original invention. Switzerland is another one, they had no patent laws until the 1880s, yet built industries (like chemicals and pharmaceuticals) largely by copying inventions from Germany and elsewhere.

History shows that when governments operate without patent laws, companies tend to rely on trade secrets and being first to market. These systems often see widespread copying and imitation. But once such economies expand beyond a local market and begin trading internationally, they face pressure to adopt patent laws to align with trading partners. That’s why today, as far as I know, every country has some form of patent law.

What example did you have in mind?

If they can keep it secret they still have trade secrets, not any less than game companies locking down their source code and if it goes bad even losing it. They usually only open up patents completely if there is a risk it can not become prevented from a full foreign disclosure.

Same with the ruby chocolate. It was able to become revealed that there is citric acid inside, not to hard finding it out but the exact procedure can be very hard to become revealed without its exact knowledge. So they prefer to keep it still a trade secret which is probably better because there would be many "fakes" that are hard to become detected but without the full disclosure fakes can be revealed without much issues; thus protecting the "original". In the end it simply may destroy the quality which is not in the interest for those valuing it.

Once even the Emmentaler was a "trade secret" and no one was able to copy it in any sufficient manner. So, the Americans was simply stealing its recipe using spies... thats how they was able to find out its secret and why now world wide this cheese can be created without issues for a long time already.

However, not sure the Americans can still afford genuine Swiss chocolate, not only because of the decreased value of the USD, as well because of the "trade war" with a 39% tax on Swiss products, which in the end the consumer will have to pay for. The products are in theory 50% more expensive already for Americans if no one is sacrificing their revenue, so, it is soon a trade barrier.

Anyway, yes, Nintendos approach i feel is potentially dangerous because i do not see it as an advantage to the gamers and industry in general. They use a solid bunch of lawyers, it seems... wiping out everything not tasty to them and while its roots was in order to wipe out emulators and alike it now has grown even more concerning such as even trying to "wipe out" game mechanics... which could be even more of a benefit to the gamers and industry as a whole. Of course, the true blow to preservation is done already but now it is targeting "the future" which is surely concerning. I hope it can be "solved" by money but who knows... they was already able to wipe out stuff by copyright-claims. However... patent claims are more tricky to handle, so they may not see to much gains.

In the end it already works just to "put out a threat toward others"; they do not even need to win any claim or fights... because if there is a huge company putting out a demand it can easily bankrupt anyone being "involved" by such claims. They simply can not afford taking such risks at all and even dragging them to a court is already to much of a risk. So they in general are simply trying to avoid it and in fact, some mechanics has already been removed on Palworld because of such claims. Worked the same for some creators of emulators, Nintendo just need to "warn" them and they may instantly take it down because they simply can not afford a "fight"... no matter how easily it could be won. Thats the power of money and some entities are using it toward their advantage.

https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/1hbqg2m/amid_pok%C3%A9mon_patent_lawsuit_pocket_pair_removes/

It is simply a pretty harsh way of "property rights" and in some way "protection gone bad".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M87VpBVN1g

Sorry to inform you guys, but I've just issued two patents:

1. How to play computer games with a mouse and/or a keyboard.

2. How to play video and computer games with a gamepad.

Sorry but soon I will be the only person in the whole wide world who is allowed to play games with a mouse, keyboard or a gamepad. You can still play with an analog flightstick, if you still have one.

No problem Pal...
It can be solved by a license-fee of 200 billion USD i assume. Google, MS, Valve and many more will probably pay it because else their services may stop to become accessible. They will not go bankrupt after, but surely moan very hard and perhaps are using 1000 lawyers spending 20 billion upfront, up to the point they realize it is probably cheaper just to pay the license fee until it is "running out": Because as long as not solved... they may lose several hundred billions a year.

Oh dear... there is so much money "around", i wonder how it comes that the gamers barely can "raise" their spendings while the megacorps are already hitting the sky. Obviously the resources are not shared very well.

I'll play platformers with a steering wheel, choo-choo!

Or fighting games:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_irhlVNkKM