Game theory is driving more and more Robots.

The Orthopedic cartel like Stryker, Zimmer Biomet, and Johnson & Johnson are players in a high-stakes Game Theory showdown.

Stryker’s MAKO robot, a precision surgical tool originally for Uni Knees, doubled as a strategic move, securing hospital contracts and boosting implant sales.

In this game, cooperation—sticking to traditional implants—could keep profits steady without costly tech investments. But Stryker shifted the payoff matrix, deploying MAKO to dominate market share and forcing rivals into a choice: market robots or lose.

Competitors now face a strategic bind. Building their own robots—like Zimmer’s Rosa or J&J’s Velys—means spending millions, escalating the game into a tech arms race. If hospitals don’t increase implant purchases, the industry overspends for the same pie, shrinking everyone’s returns.

Stryker’s play locked in hospital loyalty (MAKO users buy Stryker implants), altering the equilibrium and pushing rivals to counter with their own robots.

Game Theory reveals the tension: mutual restraint could benefit all, but distrust and competitive pressure drive costly innovation—leaving the players with flashier tools and potentially slimmer rewards.