it's like the first person invent a way to make the pop cap for your travel coffee mug. Like, anyone could have come up with that idea, right? compare to screw cap we used to have. We do have plenty of examples where the patent aren't really popular until after it is expired or irrelevant.
Like, yeah, in a heatlhy competition env, it is way better for consumer in the beginning. But because of how capital works, eventually without patent it all goes to the bigger corps.
for practical physical good, some times a patent just means I did this first doesn't mean it's hard to do or replicate. ie. like the umbrella wedge/spring to make it open automatically. That's the part of ingenuity. And why I think the mini game during loading screen worth the patent.
I don't like algorithm patent because ultimately, it was there, if original sha hash wasn't developed, someone would come up with a different method that doing roughly the same. It's the math and other prior foundation in computer hasing/data processing provides the idea and how you can process and get the hash fast. so your newer arrangement of faster version(like different sorting algorithm) would not be possible without those other research.
ie. for my own example, my thesis involves doing polygon culling strategy, my base algorithm is totally base on math prediction as to what's the optimum I can achieve minimum culling checks. BUT, that algorithm is actually slower than when you implement the checks base on how GPU is doing the render plus cache efficiency. If I did not know or not aware how computer works from prior study, I can't figure out why my "optimum" algorithm is actually slower than sub-optimum checking strategy.
Say, what if SHA or whatever algorithms is implemented, and is actually very impactful to other application, which can be proven that anyone can naturally come to this conclusion by doing their own research, simply grant that patent impedes future development. Another computer graphic patent is the Joe Alter hair distribution, it has nothing to do with ingenuity and just because his dad is a good patent lawyer, it blocks any healthy competition from selling CG hair grooming product in US. If you check the patent itself, that was like trying to patent a math distribution over surface.
You should not patent algorithms as it's a "discovery" not an invention.
There are 2 main category in software patents that mimics real life production, that I think is fairly acceptable.
The throwing ball to capture creature I think is more copyright than patent.
it's not the first GPU.
If you are a software company, like valve, but to publish phone app. They have to go through Google store since that's how you get that "verified" thing and you don't have to enable developer mode. And for user that's a peace of mind.
Is there a phishing website on PC, yeah, and how do you know? Usually it's going through search engine or your bookmark and then check the HTTPS icons on your browser. There are also signed cert if you download and the windows exe launcher will check that with 3rd party cert. These alternative methods are not readily available on a phone, and that's intentionally implemented so software developer will funnel back to the play store.
You can't really open a android store unless you make phone and ship with your own store. Like Samsung one, it's listed in the play store contract, almost all forms of paying developer directly is not allowed. There are many conditions/steps and warnings if you tried to install apps off the play store, some of them waive your warranty. You also open the phones to potential scammer to have identical looking website and instruct users to install app that steal identity.
If gameplay itself is dependant on online servers, the game has to release a working version of the server code so it at least could be run by fans, or be refunded.
I replied to one of it a while ago and basically, this part is impossible since developer also "license" 3rd party backend/plugins/software solutions to make their server working. The developer do not have the right to release licensed code/api etc.
meaning, say if a backend have the free learning version of license, the developer are bound to the commercial license, which dictates if they can release code that involve 3rd party code/api.
I am fine with electric car that have software to monitor battery/motor efficiency and gives feedback for the driver/owner. But have it controls almost everything and can remote brick your vehicle is like you never really own the car.
so they embeded a separate launcher?? welp, it's also not necessary, the EOS backend does not need the Epic launcher. As far as I know, the only cross platform/cross play back end is EOS. Sony have their own PC/PSN cross play in example of Helldivers 2. Capcom have their backend and the up coming Monster Hunter Wild is their first title to support cross play. (it was always separated in their past games.) Some big Chinese/Korean dev have their proprietary cross platform backend to support their mobile/console/PC games. (like Genshin)
If you do know any 3rd party cross play back end service please let me know.
Steam backend are not cross play ready for consoles, EOS backend can.
The Namco(which I wrongly attribute to Konami) thing "is" very specific. Remember during that time there are not a lot multi core processors. It requires clever scheduling to allow running both the mini-game AND checking loading status to seamlessly transition into game. It's really not just a simple "concept" but ingenuity to arrange your loading I/O wait time into running their past game at the same time. That's in PS1 era where loading wait time because of CD-ROM and later DVD was very significant.