3 ms·
It seems like the needed change there was not to alter the scope of what they would seize, but the scope of their definition of Intellectual Property. It's a li
by GrinningFool 12y ago
It seems like the needed change there was not to alter the scope of what they would seize, but the scope of their definition of Intellectual Property. It's a little unclear from your post - is that what you got modified?
- cperciva 12y agoTheir definition of "Intellectual Property" didn't change, but it didn't matter given the ways in which the term was used.