Paul

These companies simply saved money by not creating adequate introductions. A learning curve is verisimilitude. Nobody in real life jumps into an endeavor without training and instruction. Knowing it would be ridiculous to do so in real life makes it doubly so in entertainment. Thousands and thousands of developers have shown their players that they respect their time. There’s a reason these games are aberrations.

You really lose credibility when you cite an expert, Florian Muller, who is best known not for his expertise in intellectual property law but as an activist in intellectual property law. Don't you think it relevant when he opines on the validity of a patent to tell the reader that the man spends large amounts of time fighting the concept of software patents? Why would you consult with an attorney with biased opinions? It would have taken one or two phone calls to find a neutral and qualified expert in the US. An expert without bias might have given Nintendo a lot more credit for having valuable, properly filed, and probably sufficient patent claim. Do your work.

Nintendo’s attorneys probably make more in a year than Mueller has made in the last 10. Really. He’s from the minor leagues. They’ve all got software engineering degrees from MIT or CalTech. They all went to Harvard or Yale law school plus the Japanese equivalent. They have passed both countries patent bars. Each probably has an IQ about 160. Most have probably memorized each of the 3000 patents Nintendo holds in Japan. They don’t get paid a Million per year to lose. They didn’t put this together as deliberately as they have and leave an option to lose. That’s how it works in the real world. Nintendo is going to own Palworld.