LeBron James’ decision on where he will play his 24th NBA season remains the story dominating the league’s offseason, with reports suggesting an announcement could come within days even as speculation about his eventual landing spot, and the trades that could follow it, continues to shift by the hour.

James became a free agent after announcing his departure from the Los Angeles Lakers in late June, ending an eight-season run that marked his longest uninterrupted stretch with any single franchise. He is currently fielding interest from multiple teams, according to multiple reports, but has shown no urgency to finalize his choice, extending a process that has effectively frozen much of the rest of the league’s offseason activity.

Where things stand

According to ESPN’s Dave McMenamin, James was described as “truly close” to making a decision as of July 17. More recent reporting has suggested the wait may finally be nearing its end, with at least one outlet indicating James could announce his choice as soon as Monday or Tuesday of next week.

James’ agent, Rich Paul, has continued to caution against expecting a rushed timeline. Paul has previously shared a list of teams he described as “realistic” options for James, including the Golden State Warriors, Dallas Mavericks, Boston Celtics, Philadelphia 76ers, Cleveland Cavaliers, Miami Heat, Minnesota Timberwolves, Denver Nuggets and San Antonio Spurs. Since then, that list has narrowed considerably in most reporting, with the Cavaliers, Warriors, 76ers, Heat and Timberwolves most frequently cited as the group of teams still actively in the mix.

A split among league executives

Opinions around the league remain divided on where James is ultimately likely to land. According to Front Office Sports’ Alex Schiffer, several Western Conference executives expect James to choose the Warriors over Cleveland, even as the Cavaliers, Heat and 76ers have reportedly been viewed by some as holding a slight edge in the race. Schiffer also reported that teams currently in the mix for James have discussed the possibility of trading for his son, Bronny James, should the elder James ultimately sign with their organization.

The Anthony Davis wrinkle

Much of the speculation tying James to Golden State has centered on the idea that the Warriors’ path to signing him might require first acquiring Los Angeles Lakers forward Anthony Davis, a scenario that has looked somewhat less likely following recent developments involving the Washington Wizards. According to HoopsHype’s Michael Scotto, Washington plans to pursue extension talks with the 33-year-old, 10-time All-Star Davis once he becomes extension-eligible on Aug. 6, a step that could complicate any trade involving him if an agreement is reached before James finalizes his decision.

Separately, the Nuggets emerged as a late addition to the list of teams pursuing James, according to the Denver Post’s Bennett Durando, amid uncertainty surrounding star center Nikola Jokic’s future and a complicated salary cap outlook in Denver. James has previously described Nuggets president Josh Kroenke as a “very dear friend,” a relationship dating back to 2018, when Kroenke mailed James a throwback Nuggets jersey shortly before he ultimately signed with the Lakers instead.

A ripple effect across the league

James’ extended free agency has effectively placed much of the rest of the NBA’s offseason movement on hold, with reporters and team executives describing the broader trade and free agency market as waiting for his decision before the next wave of moves can take shape. Once James does sign, analysts expect a chain reaction of subsequent trades and roster moves across the league, particularly in the Eastern Conference, where several contenders have already reshaped their rosters in anticipation of James potentially joining one of them.

Golden State forward Moses Moody acknowledged the uncertainty hanging over his own situation, saying he remains “curious” about what could happen to him on the trade market if James signs with the Warriors, given his own emerging role on the roster. Beyond Golden State, potential trade candidates whose futures could be affected by James’ decision include Brooklyn’s Michael Porter Jr., who is seeking a contract extension the team may be unwilling to match, and Charlotte’s Grant Williams, whose expiring contract has drawn trade interest of its own.

Constant pitches from around the league

James’ decision has also generated a steady stream of public and private outreach from teams hoping to secure his commitment. Philadelphia 76ers owner Josh Harris reportedly held a brief private conversation with James, a development that itself became a notable data point in the ongoing coverage of his decision. Multiple players and coaches from teams in contention, and even some not seriously considered to be in the running, have publicly made their case for James to join their roster in recent weeks.

With training camps still roughly seven weeks away and no other major sporting events remaining on the calendar until the NFL season begins, attention within the league has increasingly narrowed entirely onto James’ pending decision. Once he does make his choice, likely in the coming days according to recent reporting, the deals and roster moves that follow are expected to reshape multiple franchises simultaneously, particularly among the handful of teams that have spent much of the summer positioning themselves as legitimate contenders for his services.

For now, the NBA’s offseason largely remains paused in anticipation, with front offices, rival players and fans alike continuing to watch for the moment James finally ends one of the most closely tracked free agency sagas in recent league history.

Japan’s patent office has rejected another Nintendo patent application connected to the company’s ongoing legal battle with Palworld developer Pocketpair, marking the latest in a series of setbacks for Nintendo’s intellectual property campaign against the hit survival game.

The rejected filing, application number 2024-031879, sits structurally between two Nintendo patents already granted and actively being asserted against Pocketpair in the Tokyo District Court. The Japan Patent Office found the application lacked the inventive step required for approval, citing prior art from a range of earlier titles, including ARK: Survival Evolved, Monster Hunter 4, Craftopia, Kantai Collection and Pokémon GO.

A lawsuit built on gameplay mechanics, not character designs

When Nintendo and The Pokémon Company filed their patent infringement lawsuit against Pocketpair in September 2024, many in the industry expected the case to center on copyright or trademark claims tied to the visual similarities between Palworld’s creatures and Pokémon designs. Instead, the companies pursued a narrower legal strategy, targeting specific gameplay mechanics: the act of capturing creatures by throwing an object at them, and the ability to transition between riding different creatures or items within an open-world setting.

That approach has proven contentious from the outset, given how widely those particular mechanics have appeared across the video game industry over multiple decades, spanning genres from survival games to massive multiplayer titles.

Why this rejection matters beyond a single filing

The application rejected this week is not a standalone or peripheral filing. According to reporting from legal industry outlet Games Fray and technology site Techdirt, the application descends directly from JP7505852, one of the two patents Nintendo has already been granted and is actively using in its court case against Pocketpair, while a related filing, JP7545191, branches off in a separate direction and is also being asserted in the ongoing litigation.

Because the rejected application sits within that same patent family, positioned between the two already-granted patents, the Japan Patent Office’s reasoning carries implications beyond the specific filing itself. If patent examiners determined that a structurally related application lacked sufficient originality when compared with existing games, that same logic could potentially be applied to challenge the validity of the two granted patents currently powering Nintendo’s lawsuit.

Pocketpair’s parallel defense strategy

Throughout the litigation, Pocketpair has pursued a dual approach to defending itself. The company has both patched several of the disputed gameplay mechanics out of Palworld directly, including removing the ability to throw Pal Spheres to summon creatures in a November 2024 update, while simultaneously building a broader legal case aimed at invalidating Nintendo’s patents by submitting evidence of prior art from other commercial games as well as fan-made mods, including titles like Pixelmon, a Minecraft-based mod, and Pocket Souls, a mod for Dark Souls 3.

Nintendo has pushed back on some of that evidence, arguing in filings to the Tokyo District Court that mods should not be considered valid prior art because they cannot function independently without the original game they modify. That argument remains a live point of contention in the case.

Part of a broader pattern

This is not the first time Nintendo’s patent filings tied to the Palworld dispute have run into trouble with Japanese examiners. A separate application covering touchscreen-based monster-capturing mechanics, filed by Nintendo in spring 2026 and seen by some industry observers as a potential preemptive move against a mobile version of Palworld, was also rejected by the Japan Patent Office, with an examiner citing footage from a 2013 unofficial Pokémon fan project as part of the prior art record. That rejection, like the one involving application 2024-031879, leaves Nintendo with the option to appeal before a panel of JPO administrative judges or submit a revised, narrower divisional application within a set window following the decision.

Nintendo has also faced related setbacks with patent filings in the United States tied to the same broader family of gameplay mechanics, according to industry reporting, adding to a pattern that has drawn increasing attention from legal and gaming industry observers watching how the case may shape the broader question of whether specific gameplay mechanics can be meaningfully patented at all.

What’s next in the case

Nintendo has not publicly indicated whether it intends to appeal the latest rejection or file a revised application narrowing its claims. The broader lawsuit against Pocketpair remains active in the Tokyo District Court, with additional court dates reportedly scheduled for later this year.

Legal observers following the case have noted that the pattern of rejections does not automatically invalidate the two already-granted patents Nintendo is using in its active lawsuit, since a rejection of a related application is a separate legal determination from a formal invalidation proceeding against a granted patent. However, the reasoning behind these rejections is expected to factor into Pocketpair’s ongoing efforts to challenge the validity of those granted patents directly within the litigation itself.

A closely watched case for the industry

Beyond its direct impact on Nintendo and Pocketpair, the case has become something of an industry benchmark for how far patent protections can reasonably extend over broad categories of gameplay mechanics, rather than specific implementations, visual designs or code. A ruling that meaningfully narrows or invalidates Nintendo’s patents could influence how other studios approach similar intellectual property strategies going forward, particularly for mechanics with long, well-documented histories across multiple genres and developers.

For now, the litigation remains ongoing, with no clear resolution in sight, and each new patent office ruling, whether favorable to Nintendo or Pocketpair, continues to shape the broader legal and industry conversation surrounding the case as it moves through Japan’s court system.

Capital One per-share earnings handily surpassed analysts’ expectations, in large part because it released more than $700 million in loan-loss reserves from its credit-card business. The company’s net charge-off rates and delinquency rates both fell from a year earlier and sequentially, continuing a trend for the company of improving credit metrics.

Gary Lineker has joined more than 100 British-based millionaires in calling on Andy Burnham to tax their wealth more, telling the new prime minister: “We can afford it.” For the country’s business owners, the detail behind the plea matters as much as the gesture.

On Thursday, a group of over 100 UK-based millionaires, including Lineker, screenwriter Richard Curtis, novelist Val McDermid and ex-City trader Gary Stevenson, signed a letter urging Mr Burnham to tax their wealth. It was organised by campaign group Patriotic Millionaires UK.

“We want you to tax us. We can afford it,” the letter says. “We’re not talking about higher taxes on those who get up and go to work for their income every day, but on the very richest whose income is derived from the wealth they hold.”

The signatories describe themselves as a “patriotic bunch” who “love this country and we want it to succeed”. Lineker added: “Paying your fair share is a basic British value, but so many ordinary people are already paying more than they can afford. Our richest people can do more and most want to. To live up to our national values our new government must raise taxes on extreme levels of wealth for a fairer, better, more hopeful Britain.”

The numbers are where owners of ambitious firms should pay attention. Patriotic Millionaires UK has called on the government to place a 2 per cent tax on wealth over £10m, which it says could raise £24bn a year. It also argues that reforms to capital gains tax, including equalising the rate with income tax, could raise a further £12bn.

That combination would land squarely on founders and family business owners, many of whom are already navigating pared-back reliefs on the sale of a company. A levy pegged to assets rather than income also raises the perennial question of illiquid wealth: a stake in a private business is not a bank balance you can dip into to settle a tax bill.

The campaign draws on fresh academic work. Economists Gabriel Zucman and Ben Tippet estimate that a 2 per cent charge on households with more than £100m in assets would raise £10bn a year and affect fewer than 1,000 of the wealthiest households in the UK. The tax would “raise meaningful revenues and dampen runaway inequality”, they said.

Mr Burnham has declined to rule out a wealth tax, telling Lineker earlier this month that his government may “ask for a little more”. In a separate interview he suggested there is “some room” in the Labour manifesto for “movement on tax”.

The plea lands amid a row over how the new prime minister will fund his cost-of-living blitz. Since taking office on Monday, Mr Burnham has capped most bus fares in England at £2 and promised an £850m tax cut on electricity bills. Darren Jones, an ally of Sir Keir Starmer who lost his cabinet post this week, claimed the energy bills cut was unfunded. The government says it will be paid for in part by scrapping Sir Keir’s national digital ID scheme, though the estimated £600m a year in savings falls short of the annual cost.

For the SME community, already wary of what a Burnham premiership means, that funding gap is the nub of the matter. Conservative shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride told BBC Breakfast: “And in the context of a very constrained economy at the moment, in terms of debt, debt servicing costs, and so on, and a very fragile fiscal situation, you cannot be a government that goes out there and makes lots of spending commitments without being able to explain exactly how those commitments are going to be funded.”

The signatories insist the answer sits with the very rich, not the high street. Julia Davies, a member of Patriotic Millionaires UK, said the moment could “reduce the shocking levels of wealth inequality which intensifies the cost of living crisis, and raise much-needed revenue for our public services”. The idea that wealth taxes could generate meaningful sums has gained traction. Whether that revenue helps small businesses or simply reshapes the incentives for the people who back them is the question owners will be watching.

Signatories in full

Alexander Alanine · Antonio Amaral · Susan Angoy · Cal Bailey · David Barker · Mike Barnes · Brian Basham · Sasha Bates · Gareth Bayliss · Robin Beal · Derek Bennett · Michael Berners-Lee · Andy Bilson · Jonathan Bloch · Nacim Bougheda · Andrew Bowles · Chris Brown · David Burall · Fiona Campbell · Mark Campbell · Tim Carey · William Carman · John Cossins · Richard Curtis (screenwriter and film director) · Julia Davies (investor, Patriotic Millionaires UK) · Juan Jose del Rio · Nicholas Easter · Stephen Einhorn · Nicola Elliott · Brian Eno (musician and producer) · David Farrell · Chris Frith · Dawn Gerhold · Edward Gildea · James Golding · Stephen Gosling CBE · Ian Gregg (former chairman of Greggs) · Lauren Gupta · Richard Hagan · Vivien Hallebard · Dominic Hamon · David Hands · William Hartree · Carolyn Hayman · Tom Hearn · David Heffernan · Peter Hill · Graham Hobson · Becky Holmes · Patrick Hort · Diane Isenberg · Kristina Johansson · Patricia Johnstone · Susie Jolly · Jenny Kagan · Sunil Kapur · Hussayn Kassai · Colleen Keck · Stephen Kinsella · Ramana Kumar · Jean Latenser · Barry Lea · Nick Levey · Gary Lineker (broadcaster and former England striker) · Bruce Lloyd · Harry Longman · Sam Lupton · Fred Macmillan · Louisa Mann · Doro Marden · Nick Marple · Sophie Marple · Madelyn Martinez · Samantha Mayaveram · Val McDermid (novelist) · Gemma McGough-Colin · Ben Medlock · Tim Nottidge · Lesley Omara · Charlie Orton · Roy Phillips · Nick Powell · David Pugh · Nick Razey · David Richards · Andrew Richards · Mark Robinson · Sarah Rossi · Georgios Samaras · David Seaward · Mark Seow · Susan Seymour · Anika Sharma · Lawrence Shaw · Alan Sherwell · Paul Sherwood · Akshay Singal · Adam Singer · Geetie Singh-Watson · Guy Singh-Watson · Alastair Singleton · Alan Smith · Nathan Spencer · Heather Stevens · Gary Stevenson (economist and former City trader) · John Stickley · Tim Stumpff · Peter Sundgren · Ben Tibbits · Rebecca Tinsley · Jennifer Tomkins · Willem van Hoorn · Matthew Varnham · Edward Vickery · Suzanne Wise · Phil White · Leticia White · Vicki Wilkinson

Paul Jones

Harvard alumni and former New York Times journalist. Editor of Business Matters for over 15 years, the UKs largest business magazine. I am also head of Capital Business Media’s automotive division working for clients such as Red Bull Racing, Honda, Aston Martin and Infiniti.

Advertisement

Pubs, clubs and live music venues in England will be given a 20% cut to business rates from April, which the government estimates will save firms around £1,100 next year.

In his third policy announcement since becoming prime minister, Andy Burnham said: “For too long, governments have stood by while cherished venues have disappeared from our local high streets.”

The cut will cost £100m and will be funded by a review of tax relief on firms such as vape shops which “do not make a positive contribution to local communities”, the government said.

Hospitality bosses welcomed the support, but some pub owners said the package would not go far enough to offset the impact of cost increases elsewhere.

The 20% business rates discount will not apply to the “very largest” live music venues. Details about which businesses are eligible will be announced at Chancellor John Healey’s first Budget in the autumn.

The cut is expected to benefit almost 32,000 venues, the government said.

Iain Hoskins, who owns Ma Pub Group in Liverpool, told the BBC the relief would help “chip away” at rising costs but questioned how many venues would benefit.

It could be “very meaningful”, he said, but “as always, the devil is in the detail”.

His pubs have previously missed out on government business rates support, and “the increases were so huge last year that now we’re sort of chipping away at some of those increases”.

Under previous chancellor Rachel Reeves, the government said last year it would scale back business rate discounts that had been in force since the pandemic and announced that there would be no discount at all from April this year.

That, combined with big upward adjustments to rateable values of pub premises, left landlords with the prospect of much higher rates bills.

Following criticism from the hospitality industry, the government cut business rates for pubs and music venues by 15% earlier in 2026.

The 20% discount will apply on top of the existing support.

Commenting on the cut which comes into effect next year, Steve Perez, founder of soft drinks company Global Brands and an owner of two hotels, said the announcement is “welcome… but this won’t make any material difference to any pub”.

UK Hospitality’s chief executive, Allen Simpson, said Burham’s plans are “a good start” which he said “suggests that his affection for hospitality has survived the trip down the M1”.

But he added that it is “not for everybody in hospitality”.

The change to business rates for some hospitality firms is the latest move in what Burnham hopes will provide “breathing space” for people and businesses.

On Tuesday, the government announced a cut of 5% VAT on electricity bills followed by capping bus fares at £2 in England outside London.

As well as reviewing tax relief on firms such as vape shops in order to fund the rate cut, the government also said it will “crack down” on businesses selling through online marketplaces which “do not comply with their tax obligations”.

The Night Time Industries Association’s chief executive, Michael Kill, said the tax break could provide “meaningful relief to businesses facing sustained cost pressures”.

But he said the sector is waiting for more details while questions remain about the exclusion of the largest live music venues.

The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) said Thursday’s announcement must be “a downpayment on action that reaches across the small business community”.

FSB policy chief Tina McKenzie, said the plans were encouraging and fix the damage caused by past business rates decisions which are “holding back small business growth and jobs in every postcode”.