3 ms·
I think you're confusing patent with trademark: "As a trademark must be used to maintain rights in relation to that mark, a trademark can be 'abandoned' or its
by nano81 16y ago
I think you're confusing patent with trademark:
"As a trademark must be used to maintain rights in relation to that mark, a trademark can be 'abandoned' or its registration can be cancelled or revoked if the mark is not continuously used. By comparison, patents and copyrights cannot be 'abandoned' and a patent holder or copyright owner can generally enforce their rights without taking any particular action to maintain the patent or copyright."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Comparison_with_patents.2C_designs_and_copyright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Comparison_with_paten...
- JabavuAdams 16y agoAre you an IP lawyer, 'cause if not ... I can easily see how choosing not to enforce a patent might make it harder to claim infringement in a later case. It's not that the patent would expire, but that there would be a precedent of not caring about infringers.
- nano81 16y agoIANAL, but does that make what I said wrong? He didn't say anything about setting precedent, he said they risk "losing" the patent if they do not enforce it, which is just not true. If you have a source saying otherwise, I'd love to see it.
- JabavuAdams 16y agoIANAL, but I have a vague memory from a patent talk. So, I can't disprove you, but I can remain more skeptical of your claim, unless you're an IP lawyer -- in which case I'd assume you know something I don't. Regarding the semantics of "lose" -- why does it matter in any discussion of real-world actions or motivations? Even if I don't lose something, if I do things to erode its usefulness, I've essentially lost its functionality. Therefore regardless of whether I legally lose the thing or not, I'm going to resist doing things that (possibly) reduce its effectiveness -- the result (in terms of my actions) is the same.