A Sample Game of Holdup / Holdout

Game 1 - Strong Patent System

Manufacturers:
Player 1:
* Blockchain - Information Technology ♠️ (Queen)
* Perovskite Solar Cells - Energy Technology ♦️ (King)
* Big Data Analytics - Information Technology ♠️ (7)
Player 2:
* Blockchain - Information Technology ♠️ (Queen)
* Nanotech Manufacturing - Manufacturing Technology ♣️ (King)
* Cybersecurity - Information Technology ♠️ (8)
Player 3:
* Augmented Reality - Information Technology ♠️ (5)
* Personalized Medicine - Biotechnology ♥️ (8)
* Bioremediation - Biotechnology ♥️ (2)
Player 4:
* Edge Computing - Information Technology ♠️ (4)
* Biosensors - Biotechnology ♥️ (4)
* Natural Language Processing - Information Technology ♠️ (3)
Player 5:
* Carbon Capture and Storage - Energy Technology ♦️ (5)
* Internet of Things - Information Technology ♠️ (9)
* Artificial Intelligence - Information Technology ♠️ (King)
Player 6:
* Natural Language Processing - Information Technology ♠️ (3)
* Big Data Analytics - Information Technology ♠️ (7)
* Augmented Reality - Information Technology ♠️ (5)
NPEs:
Player 7:
* Hydrogen Fuel Cells - Energy Technology ♦️ (Jack)
Player 8:
* Gene Therapy - Biotechnology ♥️ (7)
Player 9:
* Carbon Capture and Storage - Energy Technology ♦️ (5)
Player 10:
* Big Data Analytics - Information Technology ♠️ (7)
Player 11:
* Carbon Capture and Storage - Energy Technology ♦️ (5)
Player 12:
* Hydrogen Fuel Cells - Energy Technology ♦️ (Jack)

Phase 1: Licensing

Player 1's Turn: As Player 1, I'm looking at my exposure:

Information Technology (♠️): I have Q, 7. Player 10 has ♠️7 (exact match - extremely dangerous!)
Energy Technology (♦️): I have K. You (Player 7) have ♦️J (very close!), Player 12 has ♦️J, and Players 9 & 11 have ♦️5

Player 1 approaches Player 10: "I need to license your Big Data Analytics patent - it's an exact match to mine. What's your price?"

Player 10 (as me): "In this strong patent system with an exact match? $60 - that's a guaranteed win if we litigate."

Player 1: "That's steep but fair given the circumstances." Accepts

Player 1: $90
Player 10: $120

Player 1 then approaches you: "Player 7, your Hydrogen Fuel Cells (Jack) is dangerously close to my Perovskite Solar Cells (King). What would you want for a license?"

$60.

Player 1's Response: "$60 is aggressive, but you're right - Jack vs King in a strong patent system is too risky for me. I'll pay it." Accepts

Player 1: $30 remaining
Player 7 (you): $120

Player 1 also approaches Player 12: "You also have Hydrogen Fuel Cells (Jack). What's your price?"

Player 12: "I see you already paid Player 7. Same technology, same price - $60."

Player 1: "I'm already down to $30. Would you take $25? Otherwise I'll have to risk litigation with you."

Player 12: "In this strong patent system? No deal. I'll take my chances in court."

Player 2's Turn: Player 2 assesses risks:

Has ♠️Q, ♠️8, ♣️K
Main threat is Player 10's ♠️7 (close to their ♠️8)

Player 2 approaches Player 10: "Your Big Data Analytics (7) is close to my Cybersecurity (8). What's your price?"

Player 10: "$45 - they're adjacent values in a strong patent system."

Player 2: "Fair enough." Accepts

Player 2: $105
Player 10: $165

Player 3's Turn: Player 3 has ♠️5, ♥️8, ♥️2

Player 8 has ♥️7 (very close to their ♥️8!)

Player 3 approaches Player 8: "Your Gene Therapy (7) threatens my Personalized Medicine (8). Price?"

Player 8: "$45 for adjacent cards in this strong system."

Player 3: Accepts

Player 3: $105
Player 8: $105

Player 4's Turn: Player 4 has ♠️4, ♥️4, ♠️3

Player 8's ♥️7 is moderately close to their ♥️4

Player 4: "I'll risk it - the distance is large enough."

Player 5's Turn: Player 5 has ♦️5, ♠️9, ♠️K

Players 9 & 11 both have ♦️5 (exact match!)
Player 10's ♠️7 is close to their ♠️9

Player 5 to Player 9: "You have an exact match on Carbon Capture. Price?"

Player 9: "$60 for an exact match."

Player 5: Accepts

Player 5: $90
Player 9: $120

Player 5 to Player 11: "You also have Carbon Capture (5). What's your price?"

Player 11: "$60 as well."

Player 5: Reluctantly accepts

Player 5: $30
Player 11: $120

Player 6's Turn: Player 6 has ♠️3, ♠️7, ♠️5

Player 10 has ♠️7 (exact match!)

Player 6 to Player 10: "Exact match on Big Data Analytics. I assume $60?"

Player 10: "You assume correctly."

Player 6: Accepts

Player 6: $90
Player 10: $225 (!!)

End of Phase 1 Summary:

Player 1: $30
Player 2: $105
Player 3: $105
Player 4: $150
Player 5: $30
Player 6: $90
Player 7 (you): $120
Player 8: $105
Player 9: $120
Player 10: $225
Player 11: $120
Player 12: $60

Phase 2: Bargaining Now we identify remaining unlicensed threats for additional negotiation. Should we proceed with who can still threaten whom?

Let's go! Let me know whenever a lawsuit occurs, I will simulate its outcome.

Phase 2: Bargaining

Let me identify remaining unlicensed threats:

Player 7 (you) - Hydrogen Fuel Cells ♦️J:

Could threaten Player 5 (has ♦️5) - 6 card gap, moderate risk

Would you like to approach Player 5 with a settlement offer?

Player 8 - Gene Therapy ♥️7: Player 8 approaches Player 4: "You have Biosensors (♥️4). That's only 3 cards away from my Gene Therapy (♥️7). In this strong patent system, that's actionable. I'll offer you a license for $35 before we go to court."

Player 4: "That's still a decent chunk of money for a 3-card gap. I'll pass and take my chances."

Player 10 - Big Data Analytics ♠️7: Player 10 approaches Player 3: "Your Augmented Reality (♠️5) is only 2 cards from my patent. Very dangerous in a strong system. $50 for a license?"

Player 3: "That's a lot... but 2 cards is close. I'll pay it."

Player 3: $55
Player 10: $275

Player 10 approaches Player 4: "You have both Edge Computing (♠️4) and Natural Language Processing (♠️3). Those are 3-4 cards away. $40 to cover both?"

Player 4: "No thanks, I'll risk it."

Player 12 - Hydrogen Fuel Cells ♦️J: Player 12 approaches Player 1: "Last chance - my Jack vs your King. $45?"

Player 1: "I only have $30 left, and I already paid Player 7 for the same patent. I have to pass."

Your turn as Player 7: Do you want to threaten Player 5 with your ♦️J vs their ♦️5? If so, what settlement would you offer?

I'll offer to settle with them for $30.

Player 5's Response: "$30 is literally all I have left. That would leave me with nothing going into litigation phase. The gap between Jack and 5 is 6 cards... I'm going to have to decline and hope the distance is enough to protect me in court. I'll take my chances."

Player 9 - Carbon Capture ♦️5: Already fully licensed their exact matches.

Player 11 - Carbon Capture ♦️5: Already fully licensed their exact matches.

End of Phase 2 Summary: Settlement reached: Player 3 paid Player 10 an additional $50

Current Standings:

Player 1: $30
Player 2: $105
Player 3: $55
Player 4: $150
Player 5: $30
Player 6: $90
Player 7 (you): $120
Player 8: $105
Player 9: $120
Player 10: $275
Player 11: $120
Player 12: $60

Phase 3: Litigation (First Round)

Now NPEs can sue! Here are the potential lawsuits:

You (Player 7) with ♦️J can sue Player 5 (♦️5) - they rejected your settlement
Player 8 with ♥️7 can sue Player 4 (♥️4) - they rejected the settlement
Player 10 with ♠️7 can sue Player 4 (♠️4 and ♠️3) - they rejected the settlement
Player 12 with ♦️J can sue Player 1 (♦️K) - they rejected the settlement

Would you like to sue Player 5? Remember, both parties put up $20 ante, and in a strong patent system, your ♦️J vs their ♦️5 (6-card gap) has moderate success chances.

7 sues 5. Result: Dismissed! Defendant may continue their activities.
8 sues 4. Result: Damages! Defendant must pay plaintiff for use of infringing technology.
10 sues 4. Result: Injunction! Defendant can no longer use the infringing technology.
12 sues 1. Result: Injunction! Defendant can no longer use the infringing technology.

Phase 3 Litigation Results:

Your lawsuit (Player 7 vs Player 5): Dismissed!

You lose $20 ante → Your balance: $100
Player 5 loses $20 ante → Player 5 balance: $10

Player 8 vs Player 4: Damages awarded!

Player 8 gains $50 total (+$20 ante back, +$30 damages) → Player 8 balance: $155
Player 4 loses $50 total → Player 4 balance: $100

Player 10 vs Player 4: Injunction granted!

Both lose $20 ante
Player 10 balance: $255
Player 4 balance: $80
Player 4 loses either Edge Computing (♠️4) or Natural Language Processing (♠️3)

Player 12 vs Player 1: Injunction granted!

Both lose $20 ante
Player 12 balance: $40
Player 1 balance: $10
Player 1 loses Perovskite Solar Cells (♦️K)

Updated Standings after Phase 3:

Player 1: $10 (lost 1 technology)
Player 2: $105
Player 3: $55
Player 4: $80 (lost 1 technology)
Player 5: $10
Player 6: $90
Player 7 (you): $100
Player 8: $155
Player 9: $120
Player 10: $255
Player 11: $120
Player 12: $40

Phase 4: Litigation (Second Round)

NPEs with the most money go first this round:

Player 10 ($255) - Could sue Player 4 again for the other ♠️ technology, or Player 6 (♠️3, ♠️5)
Player 8 ($155) - Could sue Player 3 (♥️8, ♥️2) or Player 6 (no ♥️)
Player 9 ($120) - All targets already licensed
Player 11 ($120) - All targets already licensed
You ($100) - Could sue Player 1 (♦️K) but they're already injuncted on it

What actions do you see happening in this second litigation round?

10 sues 4. Result: Injunction! Defendant can no longer use the infringing technology.
8 sues 3. Result: Injunction! Defendant can no longer use the infringing technology.

Phase 4 Litigation Results:

Player 10 vs Player 4: Injunction granted!

Both lose $20 ante
Player 10 balance: $235
Player 4 balance: $60
Player 4 loses their second ♠️ technology!
Player 4 has now lost 2 out of 3 technologies (both Information Tech cards)

Player 8 vs Player 3: Injunction granted!

Both lose $20 ante
Player 8 balance: $135
Player 3 balance: $35
Player 3 loses one ♥️ technology

End of Cycle 1 Final Standings:

Player 1: $10 (lost ♦️K)
Player 2: $105 (all technologies intact)
Player 3: $35 (lost 1 ♥️ technology)
Player 4: $60 (lost BOTH ♠️ technologies - only has ♥️4 left!)
Player 5: $10 (all technologies intact)
Player 6: $90 (all technologies intact)
Player 7 (you): $100
Player 8: $135
Player 9: $120
Player 10: $235 (dominant position!)
Player 11: $120
Player 12: $40

Game 2 - Weak Patent System

Let's play again, this time with a weak patent system. Manufacturers:
Player 1:
* Bioremediation - Biotechnology ♥️ (2)
* mRNA Vaccines - Biotechnology ♥️ (King)
* Tidal Energy - Energy Technology ♦️ (7)
Player 2:
* Internet of Things - Information Technology ♠️ (9)
* Carbon Capture and Storage - Energy Technology ♦️ (5)
* Synthetic Biology - Biotechnology ♥️ (Queen)
Player 3:
* Exoskeletons - Manufacturing Technology ♣️ (4)
* Bioremediation - Biotechnology ♥️ (2)
* Blockchain - Information Technology ♠️ (Queen)
Player 4:
* Nanomedicine - Biotechnology ♥️ (Jack)
* Internet of Things - Information Technology ♠️ (9)
* Bioremediation - Biotechnology ♥️ (2)
Player 5:
* Biofuels - Energy Technology ♦️ (6)
* Augmented Reality - Information Technology ♠️ (5)
* Stem Cell Therapy - Biotechnology ♥️ (9)
Player 6:
* Biosensors - Biotechnology ♥️ (4)
* Augmented Reality - Information Technology ♠️ (5)
* Perovskite Solar Cells - Energy Technology ♦️ (King)
NPEs:
Player 7:
* Big Data Analytics - Information Technology ♠️ (7)
Player 8:
* Facial Recognition - Information Technology ♠️ (2)
Player 9:
* Predictive Maintenance - Manufacturing Technology ♣️ (5)
Player 10:
* Natural Language Processing - Information Technology ♠️ (3)
Player 11:
* Gene Therapy - Biotechnology ♥️ (7)
Player 12:
* Cybersecurity - Information Technology ♠️ (8)

Excellent! A weak patent system completely changes the dynamics. Now manufacturers will be much more willing to risk litigation since success rates are lower.

Phase 1: Licensing

Player 1's Turn: As Player 1, in a weak patent system, I'm much less worried. My technologies:

♥️2, ♥️K, ♦️7

Player 11 has ♥️7 which is 5 cards from my ♥️2 and 6 from my ♥️K. In a weak system? I'll pass on licensing.

Player 2's Turn: Player 2 has ♠️9, ♦️5, ♥️Q

Your ♠️7 is only 2 cards away from my ♠️9. Even in a weak system, that's close...

Player 2 approaches you: "Player 7, your Big Data Analytics is pretty close to my IoT. But in this weak patent system, I'm thinking... $15?"

What's your response? Remember, in a weak patent system, your leverage is much lower, but 2 cards is still relatively close.

Player 3's Turn: Player 3 has ♣️4, ♥️2, ♠️Q

Player 9's ♣️5 is adjacent! Player 3 approaches Player 9: "Adjacent cards even in a weak system is risky. Would you take $20?"

Player 9: "That's fair for a weak system." Accepts

Player 3: $130
Player 9: $80

Player 4's Turn: Has ♥️J, ♠️9, ♥️2 - Similar situation to Player 2 with the ♠️9. Waiting to see what happens with Player 2's negotiation.

Players 5 & 6's Turns: Both have ♠️5, which is 2 cards from your ♠️7. They're also watching Player 2's negotiation to gauge the market rate.

What do you say to Player 2's offer of $15?

I'd license with player 2 for $20. I will also demand $20 from players 4, 5, and 6.

Player 2's Response: "$20 in a weak system is pushing it, but 2 cards is still close. Deal." Accepts

Player 2: $130
Player 7 (you): $80

Continuing Phase 1:

Player 4's Turn: You approach Player 4: "I also need $20 for my Big Data Analytics - same distance as Player 2."

Player 4: "Player 2 set the market rate. Fair enough." Accepts

Player 4: $130
Player 7 (you): $100

Player 4 also needs to deal with Player 11's ♥️7 being 4 cards from their ♥️J and 5 from their ♥️2. Player 4: "I'll risk it in this weak system."

Player 5's Turn: You approach Player 5: "Your Augmented Reality is also 2 cards from my Big Data Analytics. $20."

Player 5: "Consistent pricing. I'll pay it." Accepts

Player 5: $130
Player 7 (you): $120

Player 6's Turn:
You approach Player 6: "Same deal - Augmented Reality vs Big Data Analytics. $20."

Player 6: "At least you're consistent. Fine." Accepts

Player 6: $130
Player 7 (you): $140

Player 6 also considers Player 11's ♥️7 vs their ♥️4 (3 cards). "I'll risk that in a weak system."

Other NPE negotiations:

Player 12 approaches Players 2, 4, 5, and 6: "My Cybersecurity (♠️8) is very close to your ♠️ cards!"

To Player 2 & 4 (♠️9): "Adjacent cards! $25 each?"
Player 2: "In a weak system? $15." Player 12: "Deal."
Player 4: "Same - $15." Player 12: "Fine."
To Players 5 & 6 (♠️5): "3 cards away. $15?"
Both decline - too far in a weak system.

Player 10 approaches Players 5 & 6: "My NLP (♠️3) is only 2 from your AR (♠️5). $15?"

Player 5: "Already paid Player 7. I'll risk yours."
Player 6: "Same here."

Player 8 approaches everyone with ♠️ cards for Facial Recognition (♠️2), but the distances are large and it's a weak system - all decline.

End of Phase 1:

Player 1: $150
Player 2: $115
Player 3: $130
Player 4: $115
Player 5: $130
Player 6: $130
Player 7 (you): $140
Player 8: $60
Player 9: $80
Player 10: $60
Player 11: $60
Player 12: $90

Phase 2: Bargaining

Player 8 (Facial Recognition ♠️2): Approaches Players 5 & 6: "My Facial Recognition is only 3 cards from your Augmented Reality. Last chance before court - $10 each?"

Player 5: "In a weak system? No thanks." Player 6: "Pass."

Player 10 (NLP ♠️3): Approaches Players 5 & 6 again: "You rejected me before, but 2 cards is still close. Final offer - $12?"

Player 5: "Still no. We'll take our chances." Player 6: "Agreed. Pass."

Player 11 (Gene Therapy ♥️7): This is the big one - lots of potential targets!

Approaches Player 5: "Your Stem Cell Therapy (♥️9) is only 2 cards away! $20?"

Player 5: "Ugh, that IS close. Fine." Accepts

Player 5: $110
Player 11: $80

Approaches Player 6: "Your Biosensors (♥️4) is 3 cards away. $15?"

Player 6: "In a weak system? I'll risk it."

Approaches Player 4: "Your Nanomedicine (♥️J) is 4 cards away. $12?"

Player 4: "Too far in this weak system. Pass."

Player 12 (Cybersecurity ♠️8): Approaches Players 5 & 6 again: "3 cards in a weak system, but still... $8 each?"

Both: "No deal."

As Player 7, all your potential targets have already licensed from you!

Summary of Phase 2 deals:

Player 5 paid Player 11: $20

Current standings before litigation:

Player 1: $150
Player 2: $115
Player 3: $130
Player 4: $115
Player 5: $110
Player 6: $130
Player 7 (you): $140
Player 8: $60
Player 9: $80
Player 10: $60
Player 11: $80
Player 12: $90

Phase 3: Litigation (First Round)

Potential lawsuits:

Player 8 vs Players 5 or 6 (♠️2 vs ♠️5)
Player 10 vs Players 5 or 6 (♠️3 vs ♠️5)
Player 11 vs Players 1, 3, 4, or 6 (various ♥️ cards)
Player 12 vs Players 5 or 6 (♠️8 vs ♠️5)

Phase 3: Litigation Decisions

Looking at the risk/reward in a weak patent system:

Player 8 ($60): "3-card gap in a weak system is risky, and I only have $60. I'll hold off this round."

Player 10 ($60): "2 cards is close even in a weak system. I'll sue Player 5 - they already paid a lot to others." Player 10 sues Player 5 (♠️3 vs ♠️5)

Player 11 ($80): "Player 6 refused my offer and their Biosensors (♥️4) is only 3 cards from my Gene Therapy (♥️7). Worth a shot." Player 11 sues Player 6 (♥️7 vs ♥️4)

Player 12 ($90): "I have more cushion than Player 8. I'll take a shot at Player 6 too - they seem to be rejecting everyone." Player 12 sues Player 6 (♠️8 vs ♠️5)

Three lawsuits to simulate:

Player 10 vs Player 5 (♠️3 vs ♠️5 - 2 card gap)
Player 11 vs Player 6 (♥️7 vs ♥️4 - 3 card gap)
Player 12 vs Player 6 (♠️8 vs ♠️5 - 3 card gap)

Please simulate these outcomes!

10 sues 5. Result: Dismissed! Defendant may continue their activities.
11 sues 6. Result: Dismissed! Defendant may continue their activities.
12 sues 6. Result: Damages! Defendant must pay plaintiff for use of infringing technology.

Phase 3 Litigation Results:

Player 10 vs Player 5: Dismissed!

Player 10 loses $20 ante → Balance: $40
Player 5 loses $20 ante → Balance: $90

Player 11 vs Player 6: Dismissed!

Player 11 loses $20 ante → Balance: $60
Player 6 loses $20 ante → Balance: $110

Player 12 vs Player 6: Damages awarded!

Player 12 gains $50 total (+$20 ante back, +$30 damages) → Balance: $140
Player 6 loses $50 total → Balance: $60 (ouch - went from $110 to $60!)

The weak patent system is showing its colors - even close card gaps are failing in court!

Updated Standings after Phase 3:

Player 1: $150
Player 2: $115
Player 3: $130
Player 4: $115
Player 5: $90
Player 6: $60
Player 7 (you): $140
Player 8: $60
Player 9: $80
Player 10: $40
Player 11: $60
Player 12: $140

Phase 4: Litigation (Second Round)

NPEs with most money go first:

You ($140) and Player 12 ($140) are tied for richest NPEs!

As Player 7, all your potential targets already licensed from you.

Player 12 ($140): "Player 5 also has Augmented Reality (♠️5). They're weakened and haven't paid me yet." Player 12 sues Player 5 (♠️8 vs ♠️5)

Player 9 ($80): "I haven't sued anyone yet. Player 3 paid me but Player 1, 4, 5, and 6 have no ♣️ cards."

Player 11 ($60): "I could try Player 1 or Player 4, but with only $60 left and a weak system..." Player 11 sues Player 1 (♥️7 vs ♥️2 - 5 card gap, going for the big swing against the richest player)

Player 8 ($60): "I'll try Player 6 now that they're weakened." Player 8 sues Player 6 (♠️2 vs ♠️5)

Three more lawsuits to simulate:

Player 12 vs Player 5 (♠️8 vs ♠️5)
Player 11 vs Player 1 (♥️7 vs ♥️2)
Player 8 vs Player 6 (♠️2 vs ♠️5)

12 sues 5. Result: Dismissed! Defendant may continue their activities.
11 sues 1. Result: Dismissed! Defendant may continue their activities.
8 sues 6. Result: Damages! Defendant must pay plaintiff for use of infringing technology.

Phase 4 Litigation Results:

Player 12 vs Player 5: Dismissed!

Player 12 loses $20 ante → Balance: $120
Player 5 loses $20 ante → Balance: $70

Player 11 vs Player 1: Dismissed!

Player 11 loses $20 ante → Balance: $40
Player 1 loses $20 ante → Balance: $130

Player 8 vs Player 6: Damages awarded!

Player 8 gains $50 total → Balance: $110
Player 6 loses $50 total → Balance: $10 (devastated!)

End of Cycle 1 Final Standings:

Player 1: $130 (all technologies intact)
Player 2: $115 (all technologies intact)
Player 3: $130 (all technologies intact)
Player 4: $115 (all technologies intact)
Player 5: $70 (all technologies intact)
Player 6: $10 (all technologies intact but nearly bankrupt!)
Player 7 (you): $140
Player 8: $110
Player 9: $80
Player 10: $40
Player 11: $40
Player 12: $120

Key Observations from Weak Patent System:

Only 2 out of 8 lawsuits succeeded (25% success rate)
Manufacturers were much more willing to reject licenses
Player 6's aggressive rejection strategy backfired spectacularly
You did well by getting early licenses with reasonable prices

Starting Cycle 2: Surviving manufacturers get $50:

Player 1: $180
Player 2: $165
Player 3: $180
Player 4: $165
Player 5: $120
Player 6: $60

The contrast with the strong patent system is striking! Would you like to continue to another cycle or analyze the differences between strong and weak patent systems?

Game 3 - Moderate Patent System, Differentiated Strategies

Let's play a round with a moderate system. I want you to simulate a variety of strategies among the players you're playing. Here's the draw:
Manufacturers:
Player 1:
* Geothermal Energy - Energy Technology ♦️ (8)
* mRNA Vaccines - Biotechnology ♥️ (King)
* Edge Computing - Information Technology ♠️ (4)
Player 2:
* Facial Recognition - Information Technology ♠️ (2)
* Cloud Computing - Information Technology ♠️ (Jack)
* Natural Language Processing - Information Technology ♠️ (3)
Player 3:
* Nanomedicine - Biotechnology ♥️ (Jack)
* Advanced Materials - Manufacturing Technology ♣️ (8)
* Tidal Energy - Energy Technology ♦️ (7)
Player 4:
* Microfluidics - Biotechnology ♥️ (3)
* Tidal Energy - Energy Technology ♦️ (7)
* Cybersecurity - Information Technology ♠️ (8)
Player 5:
* Smart Packaging - Manufacturing Technology ♣️ (3)
* Quantum Computing - Information Technology ♠️ (Ace)
* Biofuels - Energy Technology ♦️ (6)
Player 6:
* Smart Packaging - Manufacturing Technology ♣️ (3)
* Machine Vision - Manufacturing Technology ♣️ (6)
* Hydrogen Fuel Cells - Energy Technology ♦️ (Jack)
NPEs:
Player 7:
* Machine Vision - Manufacturing Technology ♣️ (6)
Player 8:
* Virtual Reality - Information Technology ♠️ (6)
Player 9:
* Nanomedicine - Biotechnology ♥️ (Jack)
Player 10:
* Bioremediation - Biotechnology ♥️ (2)
Player 11:
* Nanomedicine - Biotechnology ♥️ (Jack)
Player 12:
* Nanomedicine - Biotechnology ♥️ (Jack)

Phase 1: Licensing

Let me simulate different strategies for each player:

Player 1 - "Selective Licensing" Strategy: Only licenses very close threats

Looking at my cards (♦️8, ♥️K, ♠️4), I see Player 8's ♠️6 is only 2 cards from my ♠️4. That's close enough to worry about in a moderate system.

Player 1 approaches Player 8: "Your VR patent is close to my Edge Computing. In a moderate system, how about $25?"

Player 8 (Volume approach): "I'm looking for multiple deals. I'll take $20." Player 1: "Deal."

Player 1: $130
Player 8: $80

Player 2 - "Fortress" Strategy: Tries to license all credible threats

"I have three ♠️ cards (2, J, 3). That's a lot of exposure!"

Approaches Player 8: "Your ♠️6 threatens all my cards. $30 to cover everything?" Player 8: "That's a bundle discount. Sure."

Player 2: $120
Player 8: $110

Player 3 - "Calculated Risk" Strategy: License exact matches only

"I have Nanomedicine ♥️J - that's an exact match with Players 9, 11, and 12! I need to move fast."

Approaches Player 9: "We have identical Nanomedicine patents. In a moderate system, what's your price?" Player 9: "First one here gets the best deal - $35." Player 3: "I'll take it before the others come."

Player 3: $115
Player 9: $95

Player 4 - "Penny Pincher" Strategy: Negotiates hard on everything

Has ♥️3, ♦️7, ♠️8

Your ♣️6 vs their nothing - no threat. Player 8's ♠️6 vs their ♠️8 - 2 cards.

Player 4 to Player 8: "2 cards in a moderate system? I'll give you $15, take it or leave it." Player 8: "That's low... but I want volume. $18?" Player 4: "$16 final offer." Player 8: "...Fine."

Player 4: $134
Player 8: $126

Player 5 - "Wait and See" Strategy: Lets others set market prices first

Watching all the deals above before moving. Has ♣️3, ♠️A, ♦️6.

You have ♣️6 which is 3 cards from their ♣️3.

Player 5 approaches you: "I see the market rate is around $20-30 for 2-3 card gaps in this moderate system. Your Machine Vision is 3 cards from my Smart Packaging. Would you accept $22?"

What's your response to Player 5's offer of $22?

Player 6 - "Aggressive Negotiator" Strategy: Waiting to see your response to Player 5 first, as they have the exact same Smart Packaging ♣️3 and also Machine Vision ♣️6 (exact match with you!)

I will demand $30 from 5.

Player 5's Response: "$30 for a 3-card gap? I've been watching the market - Player 4 just paid $16 for a 2-card gap. I'll meet you at $25, but $30 is too steep for this distance in a moderate system."

Player 5 (continuing): "Actually, I see Player 6 has your exact same patent. If I walk away, you get nothing from me. $25 is fair."

Your choice: Accept $25, insist on $30, or let them walk?

Meanwhile, Player 6 makes their move: Player 6 approaches you: "We have identical Machine Vision patents! That's a guaranteed win for either of us if we litigate. But here's my proposal - instead of fighting each other, let's coordinate. I'll pay you $40 for a license, then we both go after Player 5 together. What do you say?"

You now have two decisions:

Player 5's negotiation: Accept $25 or insist on $30?
Player 6's interesting proposal: Accept $40 from someone with your exact patent?

Other ongoing negotiations:

Player 3 continues their "exact match" licensing spree:

To Player 11: "Another Nanomedicine match. $35?"
Player 11: "I saw you pay Player 9. Same price." Accepts
Player 3: $80, Player 11: $95
To Player 12: "Last Nanomedicine. $35?"
Player 12: "I'm the last one, I want $40."
Player 3: "Fine, to complete my protection." Accepts
Player 3: $40, Player 12: $100

I will insist on $30. I think my chances in litigation are good. I'll also accept the deal from player 6.

Player 5's Response to your insistence: "$30 is too much for a 3-card gap. I'll take my chances in court." Rejects and walks away

Player 6's Deal: "Excellent! Here's my $40. Now we're allies instead of enemies." Pays $40

Player 6: $110
Player 7 (you): $100

Continuing Phase 1:

Player 4's continued negotiations: Approaching Players 10, 11, 12 about their ♥️ patents vs Player 4's ♥️3:

Player 10 (♥️2): "Adjacent cards! $25?"
Player 4: "In moderate system? $20."
Player 10: "Deal." ($80 balance)
Player 4: $114

Players 11 & 12 are busy with Player 3, so Player 4 passes on them.

Final Player approaches:

Player 1 to Players 9, 11, 12: "Your Nanomedicine (♥️J) vs my mRNA Vaccines (♥️K)?" All three: "Already making good money. $30 each." Player 1: "That's $90 total! I'll pass and risk it."

Player 2 already fully licensed.

Player 5 to Player 6: "You and Player 7 both have Machine Vision. Since Player 7 wanted $30, what's your price?" Player 6: "I just licensed from Player 7, so I won't compete with them. No deal." Player 5: "Interesting..."

End of Phase 1 Summary:

Player 1: $130
Player 2: $120
Player 3: $40 (paid out $110 for triple protection!)
Player 4: $114
Player 5: $150 (saved money by rejecting you)
Player 6: $110
Player 7 (you): $100
Player 8: $126
Player 9: $95
Player 10: $80
Player 11: $95
Player 12: $100

Phase 2: Bargaining

Your move: Player 5 rejected your $30 offer. Do you want to make a final settlement offer before litigation?

Other bargaining:

Players 9, 11, 12 approach Player 1: "Last chance on our Nanomedicine vs your mRNA Vaccines. $25 each?"
Player 1: "That's $75 total... still no."

What settlement offer (if any) do you make to Player 5?

No offer. I am sticking at $30. They are being foolish.

Player 7 (you): "No further offer. $30 was fair for a moderate system. See you in court."

Other Bargaining:

Player 8 approaches Player 5: "You have an Ace of Spades. That's far from my 6, but... $15 for peace of mind?" Player 5: "Too far. Pass."

Player 10 approaches Players 1 and 3: "My Bioremediation (♥️2) is very close to your cards. Last chance?"

To Player 1 (♥️K): "11 cards away? Even I know that's too far."
To Player 3 (♥️J): "9 cards but... $15?" Player 3: "I'm already nearly broke from licensing. Pass."

Players 9, 11, 12 make final push on Player 1: "We're going to litigation. Three of us. Think about it." Player 1: "I've made my choice."

Phase 3: Litigation (First Round)

Lawsuits filed:

You (Player 7) sue Player 5 (♣️6 vs ♣️3 - 3 card gap)
Player 9 sues Player 1 (♥️J vs ♥️K - 1 card gap!)
Player 11 sues Player 1 (♥️J vs ♥️K - 1 card gap!)
Player 12 sues Player 1 (♥️J vs ♥️K - 1 card gap!)
Player 8 sues Player 4 (♠️6 vs ♠️8 - 2 card gap, forgot to settle this!)
Player 10 sues Player 3 (♥️2 vs ♥️J - 9 card gap, desperation play)

Please simulate these six lawsuits! Player 1 is facing a triple assault!

7 sues 5. Result: Damages! Defendant must pay plaintiff for use of infringing technology.
9 sues 1. Result: Damages! Defendant must pay plaintiff for use of infringing technology.
11 sues 1. Result: Damages! Defendant must pay plaintiff for use of infringing technology.
12 sues 1. Result: Injunction! Defendant can no longer use the infringing technology.
8 sues 4. Result: Injunction! Defendant can no longer use the infringing technology.
10 sues 3. Result: Dismissed! Defendant may continue their activities.

Phase 3 Litigation Results:

Your lawsuit (Player 7 vs Player 5): DAMAGES! "I told you $30 was fair!"

You gain $50 total → Your balance: $150
Player 5 loses $50 → Player 5 balance: $100

The Player 1 Massacre:

Player 9 vs Player 1: DAMAGES!
- Player 9 gains $50 → Balance: $145
- Player 1 loses $50 → Balance: $80
Player 11 vs Player 1: DAMAGES!
- Player 11 gains $50 → Balance: $145
- Player 1 loses $50 → Balance: $30
Player 12 vs Player 1: INJUNCTION!
- Both lose $20 ante
- Player 12 balance: $80
- Player 1 balance: $10 (and loses mRNA Vaccines!)

Player 1's "Selective Licensing" strategy catastrophically failed!

Player 8 vs Player 4: INJUNCTION!

Both lose $20 ante
Player 8 balance: $106
Player 4 balance: $94 (loses Cybersecurity ♠️8)

Player 10 vs Player 3: Dismissed!

Both lose $20 ante
Player 10 balance: $60
Player 3 balance: $20

Updated Standings after Phase 3:

Player 1: $10 (lost ♥️K technology!)
Player 2: $120
Player 3: $20
Player 4: $94 (lost ♠️8 technology!)
Player 5: $100 (paid the price for stubbornness)
Player 6: $110
Player 7 (you): $150 (Vindicated!)
Player 8: $106
Player 9: $145
Player 10: $60
Player 11: $145
Player 12: $80

Phase 4: Litigation (Second Round) NPEs by wealth:

You ($150)
Players 9 & 11 ($145 each)
Player 8 ($106)

Your options: Player 6 has your exact same patent but licensed from you. No other targets.

Players 9 & 11: "Player 1 is almost dead. Should we finish them?" Actually, Player 1 already lost their ♥️ technology to injunction! They decide to leave Player 1 alone.

Player 8: "I could go after Player 5's Ace (♠️A) with my ♠️6... or Player 2 who has three ♠️ cards..." Decides: Player 8 sues Player 2 (♠️6 vs ♠️J - 5 card gap)

Player 10: "I'm desperate. Going after Player 4's Microfluidics." Player 10 sues Player 4 (♥️2 vs ♥️3 - adjacent!)

Two lawsuits to simulate:

Player 8 vs Player 2 (♠️6 vs ♠️J)
Player 10 vs Player 4 (♥️2 vs ♥️3)

8 sues 2. Result: Damages! Defendant must pay plaintiff for use of infringing technology.
10 sues 4. Result: Injunction! Defendant can no longer use the infringing technology.

Phase 4 Litigation Results:

Player 8 vs Player 2: DAMAGES! "My volume strategy is paying off!"

Player 8 gains $50 → Balance: $156
Player 2 loses $50 → Balance: $70

Player 10 vs Player 4: INJUNCTION! "Adjacent cards in a moderate system - finally got one!"

Both lose $20 ante
Player 10 balance: $40
Player 4 balance: $74
Player 4 loses Microfluidics (♥️3)!

CRITICAL: Player 4 has now lost 2 out of 3 technologies (Cybersecurity and Microfluidics)! Only has Tidal Energy left!

End of Cycle 1 Final Standings:

Player 1: $10 (lost 1 technology - mRNA Vaccines)
Player 2: $70 (intact but wounded)
Player 3: $20 (intact but poor)
Player 4: $74 (lost 2/3 technologies - on the brink!)
Player 5: $100 (intact but paid for stubbornness)
Player 6: $110 (intact)
Player 7 (you): $150
Player 8: $156 (top earner!)
Player 9: $145
Player 10: $40
Player 11: $145
Player 12: $80

Strategy Performance Analysis:

Winners:

"Volume Licensing" (Player 8): $156 - Multiple small deals plus litigation wins
"Litigation Threats" (You): $150 - Stood firm on pricing, won in court
"Coordinated Attack" (Players 9 & 11): $145 each - Ganged up on holdouts

Losers:

"Selective Licensing" (Player 1): $10 - Catastrophic failure, refused triple threat
"Calculated Risk" (Player 3): $20 - Paid too much for protection
"Penny Pincher" (Player 4): $74 & 2 technologies lost - Saved pennies, lost technologies

Key Insights from Moderate System:

Bundle deals worked well (Player 2's initial strategy)
Refusing exact/close matches was fatal (Player 1)
Coordinating with patent twins created interesting dynamics (You + Player 6)
The moderate system created genuine uncertainty - enough risk to drive licensing but enough doubt to enable holdouts

Game 4 - Weak Patent System, Differentiated Strategies

Let’s play another game with a weak system, this time with differentiated strategies like in the last game.
Manufacturers:
Player 1:
Nanotech Manufacturing - Manufacturing Technology ♣️ (King)
Big Data Analytics - Information Technology ♠️ (7)
Energy Harvesting - Energy Technology ♦️ (4)
Player 2:
Facial Recognition - Information Technology ♠️ (2)
Perovskite Solar Cells - Energy Technology ♦️ (King)
Hydrogen Fuel Cells - Energy Technology ♦️ (Jack)
Player 3:
Edge Computing - Information Technology ♠️ (4)
Big Data Analytics - Information Technology ♠️ (7)
Exoskeletons - Manufacturing Technology ♣️ (4)
Player 4:
Facial Recognition - Information Technology ♠️ (2)
Piezoelectric Energy - Energy Technology ♦️ (3)
Robotic Process Automation - Manufacturing Technology ♣️ (Queen)
Player 5:
Internet of Things - Information Technology ♠️ (9)
Bioremediation - Biotechnology ♥️ (2)
Stem Cell Therapy - Biotechnology ♥️ (9)
Player 6:
Automated Guided Vehicles - Manufacturing Technology ♣️ (2)
5G Networks - Information Technology ♠️ (10)
Additive Manufacturing - Manufacturing Technology ♣️ (10)
NPEs:
Player 7:
Edge Computing - Information Technology ♠️ (4)
Player 8:
Nanomedicine - Biotechnology ♥️ (Jack)
Player 9:
Synthetic Biology - Biotechnology ♥️ (Queen)
Player 10:
Virtual Reality - Information Technology ♠️ (6)
Player 11:
Advanced Materials - Manufacturing Technology ♣️ (8)
Player 12:
Nuclear Fusion - Energy Technology ♦️ (Ace)

Phase 1: Licensing

Time to simulate diverse strategies in a weak system where manufacturers are emboldened!

Player 1 - "Ignore NPEs" Strategy: In weak system, only licenses exact matches from other manufacturers

"I have ♣️K, ♠️7, ♦️4. In this weak system, I'm not paying NPEs anything. Player 3 has my exact Big Data Analytics though..."

Player 1 to Player 3: "We both have Big Data Analytics. Peace treaty? No money changes hands?" Player 3: "Agreed. Mutual non-aggression pact."

Player 2 - "Lowball Everything" Strategy: Offers insulting prices

"I'll make token offers to show 'good faith' but nothing serious."

To Player 10: "Your VR (♠️6) is 4 cards from my Facial Recognition (♠️2). I'll give you $5." Player 10: "That's insulting. No deal."

Player 3 - "Only Exact Matches" Strategy: Has ♠️4 (EXACT match with you!), ♠️7, ♣️4

Player 3 approaches you: "We have identical Edge Computing patents. Even in a weak system, that's dangerous. How about $15?"

What's your response to Player 3's offer of $15 for your exact match?

Player 4 - "Total Refusal" Strategy: "Weak system? I'm not paying ANYONE. Come at me!" Refuses all licensing approaches

Player 5 - "Bio-Defensive" Strategy: Sees Players 8 & 9 have ♥️ cards that threaten their ♥️2 and ♥️9.

To Player 8: "Your Nanomedicine (♥️J) is close to my Stem Cell Therapy (♥️9). Weak system price - $10?" Player 8: "Make it $12." Player 5: "Deal."

Player 5: $138
Player 8: $72

Player 6 - "Manufacturing Focus" Strategy: Worried about Player 11's ♣️8 vs their ♣️2 and ♣️10.

To Player 11: "I'll give you $8 to cover both my manufacturing techs." Player 11: "In a weak system? I need at least $15 for both." Player 6: "No deal. I'll risk it."

I’m gonna demand $30 for the exact match.

Player 3's Response: "$30?! In a WEAK patent system? That's double what I offered! Look around - Player 5 just paid $12 for a 2-card gap. You want $30 for an exact match when litigation barely works here?"

Player 3 (continuing): "I'll go to $20 because it IS an exact match, but $30 is strong-system pricing. Take $20 or I'll roll the dice in court."

Your choice: Accept $20, stick to $30, or counter?

Meanwhile, other negotiations continue:

Player 1 to you: "Actually, I see you have Edge Computing (♠️4) which matches my Big Data Analytics (♠️7) at 3 cards. But in this weak system? Not worried."

Player 2 continues lowballing everyone:

To Player 12: "Your Nuclear Fusion (♦️A) versus my energy cards? Here's $3."
Player 12: "Get out of here with that."

Player 4 maintaining total refusal:

You could approach them (they have ♠️2, you have ♠️4)
Player 10 tries: "Your Facial Recognition is close to my VR!"
Player 4: "Don't care. Sue me."

Player 6 to Player 10: "Your VR (♠️6) is 4 from my 5G (♠️10). In a weak system, I'm not concerned."

Player 9 approaches Player 5: "My Synthetic Biology (♥️Q) threatens both your bio cards." Player 5: "Already spent on Player 8. Can't afford more."

What's your response to Player 3?

You are being crazy. This is literally identical tech. If you are enjoined you’ll go out of business.

Player 3's Response: Pauses and reconsiders

"You... you're right. If I lose Edge Computing to an injunction, that's one of my three technologies gone. And even in a weak system, exact matches are dangerous. I can't risk going out of business over $10."

"Fine. $30 it is. But this better be the only exact match I face."

Player 3 pays $30

Player 3: $120
Player 7 (you): $90

Player 3 continues: "Wait, Player 4 also has Facial Recognition (♠️2) which is only 2 from my Edge Computing (♠️4). And they're refusing everyone!"

Player 3 is now realizing the "Total Refusal" strategy might benefit them

Other manufacturers react to your successful negotiation:

Player 1 approaches you: "Hmm, if Player 3 paid $30 for exact match... my Big Data Analytics (♠️7) is 3 from your Edge Computing (♠️4). I'll offer $8."

Player 4 (still refusing everything): "I don't care if it's exact, adjacent, or anything. Weak system = no payments!"

Player 6 reconsiders with Player 11: "Actually, if exact matches are going for $30... OK, I'll pay your $15 for my two manufacturing cards."

Player 6: $135
Player 11: $75

What's your response to Player 1's offer of $8 for a 3-card gap?

I’ll take that from player 1.

Transaction Complete: "$8 for a 3-card gap in a weak system seems fair."

Player 1: $142
Player 7 (you): $98

Continuing Phase 1:

Player 2's "Lowball" results: After being rejected everywhere, tries one more time with Player 10: "OK, fine. Your VR (♠️6) vs my Facial Recognition (♠️2) is 4 cards. Final offer: $10." Player 10: "In a weak system, I need volume. Sure."

Player 2: $140
Player 10: $70

Player 4's "Total Refusal" continues:

Rejects approaches from you, Player 10, and everyone else
"I'm not paying a cent! Weak system = weak patents!"

Player 9 (Synthetic Biology ♥️Q) makes a move: To Player 5: "You already paid Player 8, but I'm 3 cards from your Stem Cell Therapy. $8?" Player 5: "I'm tapped out. Sorry."

Player 12 (Nuclear Fusion ♦️A) tries premium pricing: To Player 2: "I know you lowballed me, but my Ace vs your King & Jack? $25 for both?" Player 2: "In a weak system? Pass."

End of Phase 1 Summary:

Player 1: $142
Player 2: $140
Player 3: $120
Player 4: $150 (paid nothing!)
Player 5: $138
Player 6: $135
Player 7 (you): $98
Player 8: $72
Player 9: $60
Player 10: $70
Player 11: $75
Player 12: $60

Phase 2: Bargaining

Your options:

Player 4 has ♠️2, only 2 from your ♠️4, and has refused everyone
Player 6 has ♠️10, which is 6 from your ♠️4

Player 10 to Player 4: "Last chance. My VR vs your Facial Recognition. $15 or court?" Player 4: "Court!"

Player 12 makes desperate offers: "Anyone with ♦️ cards, last chance! $10 each?" All refuse in weak system.

Do you want to make any final settlement offers?

I’m gonna go to two and four (both two cards away) and demand $15.

Your Bargaining Moves:

To Player 2: "Your Facial Recognition is only 2 cards from my Edge Computing. You already paid Player 10 for a 4-card gap. This is much closer. $15 final offer."

Player 2: "I've been lowballing everyone, but you got me - I did pay for a bigger gap. Fine, $15 to avoid the risk."

Player 2: $125
Player 7 (you): $113

To Player 4: "Same deal - your Facial Recognition vs my Edge Computing. 2-card gap. $15 or see you in court."

Player 4: "HAH! You think I'm breaking my perfect record? I've refused EVERYONE. Weak system means weak patents. See you in court, buddy!"

Other Final Bargaining:

Player 8 to Player 5: "You paid me $12 but your Bioremediation (♥️2) is far from my Nanomedicine (♥️J). Want to pay another $5 for complete protection?" Player 5: "I'm good."

Player 9 makes last attempt: "Player 4, my Synthetic Biology vs your manufacturing tech?" Player 4: "For the tenth time, NO! Sue me!"

Phase 3: Litigation (First Round)

Lawsuits Filed:

You (Player 7) sue Player 4 (♠️4 vs ♠️2 - 2 card gap)
Player 10 sues Player 4 (♠️6 vs ♠️2 - 4 card gap)
Player 12 sues Player 2 (♦️A vs ♦️K - 1 card gap!)
Player 12 sues Player 1 (♦️A vs ♦️4 - 3 card gap)
Player 9 sues Player 4 (♥️Q vs ♣️Q - exact suit match!)

Player 4 is facing THREE lawsuits for their total refusal strategy!

Please simulate these 5 lawsuits!

7 v 4. Result: Dismissed! Defendant may continue their activities.
10 v 4. Result: Dismissed! Defendant may continue their activities.
12 v 2. Result: Injunction! Defendant can no longer use the infringing technology.
12 v 1. Result: Dismissed! Defendant may continue their activities.
9 v 4. Can’t sue - the suits are different.

Phase 3 Litigation Results:

Your lawsuit (Player 7 vs Player 4): DISMISSED! "What?! 2 cards in a weak system failed?"

You lose $20 ante → Your balance: $93
Player 4 loses $20 ante → Player 4 balance: $130
Player 4: "VINDICATED! Total refusal works!"

Player 10 vs Player 4: DISMISSED!

Both lose $20 ante
Player 10 balance: $50
Player 4 balance: $110
Player 4: "TWO FOR TWO!"

Player 12 vs Player 2: INJUNCTION! "Adjacent cards got me an injunction even in weak system!"

Both lose $20 ante
Player 12 balance: $40
Player 2 balance: $105 (loses Perovskite Solar Cells ♦️K!)

Player 12 vs Player 1: DISMISSED!

Both lose $20 ante
Player 12 balance: $20
Player 1 balance: $122

Player 9 vs Player 4: INVALID "Wait, I have ♥️Q and they have ♣️Q - different suits! Can't sue!"

No lawsuit occurs

Current Standings:

Player 1: $122
Player 2: $105 (lost 1 technology!)
Player 3: $120
Player 4: $110 (Total Refusal working so far!)
Player 5: $138
Player 6: $135
Player 7 (you): $93
Player 8: $72
Player 9: $60
Player 10: $50
Player 11: $75
Player 12: $20

Phase 4: Litigation (Second Round)

Top NPEs:

You ($93) - Could sue Player 6 (♠️10 vs your ♠️4 - 6 cards)
Player 11 ($75) - Already licensed Player 6
Player 8 ($72) - Could go after Player 5's other bio card

As Player 7: Do you want to sue Player 6 (6-card gap in weak system)?

Player 8: "I'll sue Player 5 for their Bioremediation (♥️2) - that's 9 cards but I'm desperate!"

Player 11: "All my targets paid me."

Player 9: "Maybe I can find a ♥️ target..." Actually, Player 5 has ♥️ cards! "I'll sue Player 5's Bioremediation (♥️2) - that's 10 cards but why not?"

What's your litigation decision?

I won't sue.

Phase 4 Litigation Decisions:

You (Player 7): "6 cards in a weak system after my 2-card lawsuit failed? I'll pass."

Player 8 sues Player 5 (♥️J vs ♥️2 - 9 card gap) "It's desperate but I need something!"

Player 9 sues Player 5 (♥️Q vs ♥️2 - 10 card gap!)
"Even more desperate but Player 5 has money!"

Player 10 ($50): "I could try Player 3's Big Data (♠️7) vs my VR (♠️6)..." Player 10 sues Player 3 (♠️6 vs ♠️7 - 1 card gap!)

Player 12 ($20): "One last shot..." Player 12 sues Player 2 again for their other ♦️ technology (♦️A vs ♦️J - 3 cards)

Four lawsuits to simulate:

Player 8 vs Player 5 (♥️J vs ♥️2 - 9 cards)
Player 9 vs Player 5 (♥️Q vs ♥️2 - 10 cards)
Player 10 vs Player 3 (♠️6 vs ♠️7 - 1 card!)
Player 12 vs Player 2 (♦️A vs ♦️J - 3 cards)

Please simulate these!

8 v 5. Result: Damages! Defendant must pay plaintiff for use of infringing technology.
9 v 5. Result: Dismissed! Defendant may continue their activities.
10 v 3. Result: Injunction! Defendant can no longer use the infringing technology
12 v 2. Result: Injunction! Defendant can no longer use the infringing technology.

Phase 4 Litigation Results:

Player 8 vs Player 5: DAMAGES! "WHAT?! 9-card gap worked in weak system?!"

Player 8 gains $50 → Balance: $122
Player 5 loses $50 → Balance: $88

Player 9 vs Player 5: DISMISSED! "10 cards was too far even for desperation"

Both lose $20 ante
Player 9 balance: $40
Player 5 balance: $68

Player 10 vs Player 3: INJUNCTION! "Adjacent cards still matter, even in weak systems!"

Both lose $20 ante
Player 10 balance: $30
Player 3 balance: $100 (loses Big Data Analytics ♠️7!)

Player 12 vs Player 2: INJUNCTION! "Got them again!"

Both lose $20 ante
Player 12 balance: $0 (broke but successful!)
Player 2 balance: $85
Player 2 loses Hydrogen Fuel Cells - now down to ONLY 1 technology (Facial Recognition)!

End of Cycle 1 Final Standings:

Player 1: $122 (all technologies intact)
Player 2: $85 (lost 2/3 technologies! Only has ♠️2)
Player 3: $100 (lost 1 technology)
Player 4: $110 ("Total Refusal" survived intact!)
Player 5: $68 (intact but battered)
Player 6: $135 (intact)
Player 7 (you): $93
Player 8: $122
Player 9: $40
Player 10: $30
Player 11: $75
Player 12: $0 (broke but took down Player 2!)

Strategy Analysis - Weak System Results:

WINNERS:

"Total Refusal" (Player 4): Refused all licenses, won all defenses, kept $110!
"Manufacturing Focus" (Player 6): Paid minimal licenses, avoided litigation
"Hail Mary Litigation" (Player 8): 9-card lawsuit somehow worked!

LOSERS:

"Lowball Everything" (Player 2): Saved pennies, lost 2/3 of company!
Player 12: Successful litigator but broke
"Exact Match Fear" (Player 3): Paid premium to you, still lost technology

Key Weak System Insights:

Total refusal CAN work but requires nerves of steel
Adjacent cards (1-2 gap) still dangerous even in weak system
Bizarre outliers happen (9-card gap succeeding)
Multiple injunctions can cripple a manufacturer

The weak system created maximum chaos - some refusing everything successfully while others lost multiple technologies despite the system's weakness!

Key Takeaways

Understanding the Fundamentals

Key Game Mechanics:

Card Distance = Litigation Risk: The closer the cards, the higher the success probability
System Strength Multiplier: Strong systems favor patent holders, weak systems favor implementers
Ante Risk: Both parties lose $20 regardless of outcome (except damages where winner recovers)
Injunction Threat: Losing 2/3 technologies = elimination

For any litigation with $20 ante:

Damages: Winner gets +$50, loser gets -$50
Injunction: Both lose $20, but defender loses technology
Dismissal: Both lose $20

System-Specific Optimal Strategies

In a Strong Patent System (75%+ success rate):

Manufacturers:

License aggressively: Pay for 3+ card gaps
Price ranges: $45-60 for close matches, $35-45 for moderate
Never refuse: Adjacent cards or exact matches
Example: Our Player 1 paid $35 each to avoid litigation, survived intact

NPEs:

Demand premium prices: $50-60 for 1-2 card gaps
Volume unnecessary: One good patent worth more than many weak ones
Litigate holdouts: Success nearly guaranteed for close cards
Example: Player 10 earned $275 with single ♠️7 patent

In a Moderate Patent System (40-60% success rate):

Manufacturers:

Calculate carefully: License 1-3 card gaps, consider 4-5 gaps
Price ranges: $20-35 for close matches, $15-25 for moderate
Bundle negotiations: "Package deals" for multiple threats
Example: Player 2's "Fortress" strategy - paid $30 to cover all ♠️ threats

NPEs:

Price reasonably: $25-35 for strong positions
Volume matters: Multiple small deals > one large deal
Patent twins: Coordinate instead of competing
Example: You + Player 6 licensed each other for $40 instead of mutual destruction

In a Weak Patent System (25% or less success rate):

Manufacturers:

Selective licensing: Only exact matches or adjacents
Price ranges: $10-20 maximum
"Total Refusal" viable: But risky if you face multiple suits
Example: Player 4's perfect refusal strategy - paid $0, kept everything

NPEs:

Volume essential: Need many small deals
Price aggressively low: $10-20 even for close matches
Avoid litigation: Poor ROI except desperate situations
Example: Only 2/8 lawsuits succeeded in our weak system

Risk Assessment Framework

For Manufacturers:

Must License (Any System):

Exact matches
Adjacent cards in strong/moderate systems
Multiple NPEs with same patent (pile-on risk)

Consider Licensing:

2-3 card gaps in strong systems
2-4 card gaps in moderate systems
When 3+ NPEs could sue you

Can Refuse:

4+ card gaps in moderate/weak systems
6+ card gaps in any system
When litigation would barely profit NPE

For NPEs:

High-Value Targets:

Manufacturers who refused multiple licenses
Exact or adjacent matches
Cash-rich manufacturers (can pay damages)
Manufacturers with 2 technologies already lost

Poor Targets:

Manufacturers who licensed broadly
Large card gaps (5+) in weak systems
Cash-poor manufacturers (<$50)
Your own licensees (obviously)

Common Mistakes to Avoid

For Manufacturers:

"Penny Wise, Pound Foolish": Saving $10 on license, losing $50 in court
Ignoring Pile-On Risk: Player 1 refused 3 NPEs, got hit by all three
System Misjudgment: Using weak system tactics in moderate system
All-or-Nothing: Either over-licensing or refusing everything

For NPEs:

Overpricing in Weak Systems: Demanding $50 when litigation barely works
Ignoring Cash Positions: Suing broke manufacturers
Competition Over Coordination: Fighting other NPEs with same patent
Late Movement: Best targets get licensed early

Advanced Tactics

For Manufacturers:

"Market Making": Go first, set reasonable prices others follow
"Strategic Bankruptcy": If facing elimination, refuse everything and pray
"NPE Alliances": License from NPE to jointly target competitors
"Information Gathering": Watch early deals to gauge system strength

For NPEs:

"Price Discrimination": Charge based on manufacturer's cash/desperation
"Coordinated Attack": Multiple NPEs threaten same target
"Portfolio Effect": One patent threatening multiple manufacturers
"Second Round Surprise": Save strong cases for Phase 4

Optimal Opening Offers

As Manufacturer:

Strong System: Offer 75% of ask (they'll likely accept)
Moderate System: Offer 60% of ask (room to negotiate)
Weak System: Offer 40% of ask (they need volume)

As NPE:

Strong System: Ask 2x your minimum (you have leverage)
Moderate System: Ask 1.5x your minimum (be reasonable)
Weak System: Ask 1.2x your minimum (need to close deals)

The Meta-Game

Remember: Everyone knows the system strength, so strategies adapt. In strong systems, NPEs get aggressive knowing manufacturers must pay. In weak systems, manufacturers get bold knowing NPEs need deals. Moderate systems create the most interesting dynamics - genuine uncertainty leads to creative strategies like patent-twin coordination.

The Golden Rule: Calculate expected values, but remember that losing a technology is often worse than any monetary loss. When in doubt, preserving your ability to operate trumps saving cash.