Not sure if I agree. I rarely hear people hacking the Switch compared to a 3DS or the PSP. Vita? I forgot which one. The 3DS is notorious for the "surprisingly easy to hack a 3DS" meme.  While I see more people talking about emulating a Switch game although it's most likely the effect of certain content creators.

Well, a lot of things are in the gray area, even emulation although commonly seen to be completely legal by the community. Nowhere does it clearly state whether emulation is completely legal or not. Also, I would say your comparison wouldn't work here because a TV and the content on it coexist, whereas Yuzu and Switch do not. The correct comparison would be more like a streamer mirroring something like the Olympics, which would get them banned. However, I think it would be fine if Yuzu benefits the Switch or Nintendo in some way. Like content creators. Content creation is also a gray area legally speaking, even with "fair use" but it's brushed aside because it benefits the original content most of the time. I just don't see that with emulation. In fact, it usually hurts the original content because emulating is associated with pirating. 

Or a bunch of people who have money, but instead of buying the actual product, they would rather spend it on the emulation because they are PC enthusiasts who hate console exclusives as seen from their attitude. People that can't stand the fact that things are not equal. Ironically, PC has the most exclusives out of any console in existence but nobody talks about that. More than likely people donating are either what you said or what I said. 

I love emulation, especially in a world where legacy support and access is absurdly limited. I find it laughably retroarch has better and more options for N64 games than the Switch. Having said that, emulation of current titles that are readily available seems wrong to me. I'm a bit with Nintendo on this one, especially if the S2 is BC.

Didn't Nintendo sue over some N64 emulator back in 90s and lost, and nobody sues over emulators since?

it was Sony suing Bleem.

I don't think that is winnable, I seem to recall Sony previously suing an emulator maker and losing, with the court deciding emulators are fair use. Considering the judge has that precedent to call on, I just don't see Nintendo winning. They'd be better off suing the sites that host Switch game files to use on said emulators, without first verifying that the user owns a copy of the Switch game.

Edit: Looking into it more, Sony seemingly had a much stronger case against Bleem than Nintendo has against the makers of Yuzu emulator. Bleem was not only selling their emulator (Yuzu is free as far as I can tell), but Bleem themselves were planning on selling Playstation game packs to use on the Dreamcast version of the emulator, hurting both Sony and other game publishers by stripping them of possible software sales, and still Sony lost in court. Sony only defeated Bleem via attrition, fighting off the Sony lawsuits caused them so many legal fees they went bankrupt.

Yuzu by comparison to Bleem is a free emulator and their FAQ says that the only legal way to get Switch games to use on Yuzu emulator is to own a digital or physical copy on Switch and then dump your Switch's memory files onto your PC's hard drive.

Maybe Nintendo's goal, much like Sony, is not to win, but to put Yuzu out of business with legal fees. But in an age of crowdfunding, that could be difficult, I'm sure there are plenty of Yuzu users who will contribute to Yuzu's legal defense fund if Yuzu sets one up. And even if Nintendo does stop Yuzu, there is always the other Switch emulator, Ryujinx.

It's going to depend on how new features in the Switch work.  They would have known about prior legal reviews in the past.

It could be as simple as "Yazu is knowingly infringing the following patents...", which would be pretty hard to defend as to emulate the Switch you have to copy the features, and *probably* implement features that require patent licenses.  

Patents expire after 20 years, but until then you are talking about an unlicensed clone...  They probably screwed up legally by taking financial donations.

Yeah, got that mixed up. Nintendo was only threatening with lawsuit against UltraHLE (which was enough).

It is strange they've singled out Yuzu, especially since TotK was not playable on Yuzu until official release date, unlike on Ryujinx.

I don't see how nintendo will win, yuzu tells you to dump your legally owned games.

Even if Nintendo wins, this emulator is on so many computers. It will be back up online with a week. Not sure companies can fight emulation, even if the law is on their side.

Good luck with that Nintendo... Very much doubt you will win this.

Emulators themselves aren't illegal.

In-fact... Many companies use emulators for commercial and industrial purposes.
For example, some industrial sites I have visited have custom software that interfaces with a plants contactors via DOS to operate equipment, so they use DOSBox on a modern Windows 11 PC to keep that interface going without re-writing the software.

Nintendo has even used Emulators themselves to get games like Super Mario 3D All-Stars running on Switch, Virtual Console, NES and SNES Classic etc'.
And the NES classic in particular, Nintendo leveraged the INES emulator file formats, which shows that Nintendo at the very least- studied the open source work to build their emulator.

And then we have this confuffle...
https://www.eurogamer.net/did-nintendo-download-a-mario-rom-and-sell-it-back-to-us

Sony used the open source PCSX for the Playstation Classic.

Microsoft uses emulation for backwards compat.

The illegal part is the ROMS/ISO dumps.