4 ms·
>Trademark? Why would you need to violate trademarks? This is a straw man argument. I didn't say violate trademarks. I said trademark enforcement. A small comp
by danjoc 10y ago
>Trademark? Why would you need to violate trademarks?
This is a straw man argument. I didn't say violate trademarks. I said trademark enforcement. A small competitor can be wiped out easily with legal costs associated with an extended trademark battle in court.
>Build your own system or come up with your own great idea.
Same straw man. I don't have to violate patents to be sued out of existence.
>There's no patent on social networking.
This statement is categorically false. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=social+network+patent http://lmgtfy.com/?q=social+network+patent
- Dylan16807 10y ago> I said trademark enforcement. A small competitor can be wiped out easily with legal costs associated with an extended trademark battle in court. Has anything like that ever happened? Someone starts a business and a competitor with a completely unrelated name wipes them out with a trademark battle?
- danjoc 10y agoIt's going to be hard to point to examples by definition because they were wiped out and nobody ever heard from them again. An example of this you may have heard of, but did not wipe out the company, was AstraZenica's suit against Dr. Reddy's over the purple color of a heartburn pill. http://www.wsj.com/articles/dr-reddys-blocked-from-selling-purple-heartburn-pill-after-astrazeneca-objections-1447162056 http://www.wsj.com/articles/dr-reddys-blocked-from-selling-p...