4 ms·
If a company doesn't protect its intellectual property, it is liable to lose it. The only thing that's changed is now Apple is leading the market and is in a po
by kingnothing 14y ago
If a company doesn't protect its intellectual property, it is liable to lose it. The only thing that's changed is now Apple is leading the market and is in a position where they need to fight these battles.
- mkr-hn 14y agoI thought that only applied to trademarks.
- Sander_Marechal 14y agoIt does. The grand parent statement is exactly why folk like EFF, FSF and RMS dislike the term "Intellectual Property". It confuses thee very different types of law with each other (copyright, patents and trademark).
- danielweber 14y agoIt applies to patents, too.
- vetinari 14y agoNot true. In past, there were patented technologies (GIF, MP3) that were allowed to be used freely, until they got widespread. Then the lawyers started asking for the money. It was deliberate strategy, that would not work if the above would be true.
- danielweber 14y agoIn Troxler Electronic Labs v. Pine Instrument Pine waited 5 years before suing, saying he didn't feel motivated to pursue the claim, and the judge found that insufficient reason. Symbol v. Lemelson found that the submarine patents were invalid due to laches. It's easy to get lost in the law, though, so I'd love some specific citations that go the other way.