To springboard off of what
@gavin stated, copyright and patent laws are complicated no matter what country one is in. To file a patent, one must have a
new and unique technology, feature, or process. For example, I can't just go off and submit a patent disclosure for my computer's keyboard because a generic keyboard is dime a dozen. If I modified my keyboard to have sentence prediction built into it, THEN I could file a patent IF somebody else didn't already file a patent for this idea (one must conduct a search first).
Roller coasters are tricky because they're large, complex products. B&M can't really patent a dive machine, nor could they patent a wing coaster's wing over dive element (thinking about the Swarm vs X Flight hullabaloo from years back), but they CAN patent a unique feature or technology. B&M may have filed a patent for the holding brake, where their patent disclosure would have stated something like so:
a roller coaster with a feature comprised of a motorized loop of chain attached to the track system and a hook attached to the rolling stock that acts as a holding feature at the top of a track element
I can't recall if anything has been posted in this thread to confirm if Golden Horse uses the same system, but if they do, and B&M knew that, they would have the option to sue and enforce their patent if they wanted to do so (patent owners are responsible for enforcing their own patents). Golden Horse could then counter by presenting evidence that clearly and explicitly shows that their holding feature is a new and unique technology.
Another point worth adding is that B&M's dive machine product has been in production for almost 30 years. If I remember correctly, patents only last a max of 20 years so there probably isn't much that they can do about this.
Finally, I want to add a reminder that this industry is weird. In some cases, the parks know exactly what they want with their new product and impose a ton of constraints on the manufacturer. In some cases, the parks basically let the manufacturer have free reign of design. We've seen bizarre partnerships, like with Arrow and Vekoma, and we've seen IP sharing. There have been instances where we've seen manufacturers file patents for rides and instances where we've seen parks file patents for rides. Regarding Vekoma's SFC model, it is entirely possible that B&M bought the IP per request of the parks that built the ride, or maybe B&M traded IP in return or helped with consulting on Vekoma's new technologies. I'm not saying all this necessarily happened, but this industry tends to be fairly nimble with regard to contracts and partnerships.
