Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 26th Nov 2009 21:53 UTC
Legal We've got some progress in the other legal case Apple is involved in. The California case, Apple vs. Psystar, is more or less a done deal, but the Florida case, Psystar vs. Apple, is only just beginning. As it promised it would do, Apple has now asked the court in California to either dismiss the Florida case, or transfer it to California. Apple is also asking for a permanent injuction against Psystar. Through this motion, we also gain some juicy insight into Psystar's sales projections - and more interestingly, how many machines the clone maker actually sold.
Thread beginning with comment 397052
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by bongo_x
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 30th Nov 2009 09:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by bongo_x"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

I think you need to look up laches before claiming I'm wrong. Laches has nothing to do with the OP's question. You do not have to actively protect IP in order to maintain ownership of it - that is the case for trademarks.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by bongo_x
by rhavyn on Mon 30th Nov 2009 18:06 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by bongo_x"
rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

I think you need to look up laches before claiming I'm wrong. Laches has nothing to do with the OP's question. You do not have to actively protect IP in order to maintain ownership of it - that is the case for trademarks.


First, IP is generally a meaningless term. So lets talk about specifics.

Trademark law specifically requires that a trademark be vigorously defended or you can lose the mark. So far, so good. But, I'm not talking about statutory defenses.

I'm talking about laches, which is a defense which is, in fact, applicable to patents and copyright infringement. With respect to copyright, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Chirco v. Crosswinds Communities, Inc. held that, "depending on the nature of the relief sought and in compelling circumstances, the defense of laches may bar a copyright infringement claim (or certain remedies) even though that claim is brought within the three-year statute of limitations". With respect to patents, in Troxler Electronic Labs v. Pine Instrument the judge held "[A] laches defense exists precisely to prevent patentees from delaying in filing suit simply because they do not feel "motivated to do so." Accordingly, the undersigned hereby finds that Pine's unjustified five year delay was unreasonable and that Troxler is entitled to summary judgment on the unreasonable delay prong of its laches defense."

What's so comical when dealing with you, Thom, is this statement:

"I think you need to look up laches before claiming I'm wrong."

Just because you make claims with no factual backing doesn't mean others make the same mistake. And thanks for reinforcing my point that you should be ignored when talking about legal issues since you are almost certainly going to be wrong. Like in this case. Wrong again.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by bongo_x
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 30th Nov 2009 18:16 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by bongo_x"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Sigh.

You should read the OP original question. He was asking, quite plainly, whether or not Apple could lose the rights to its IP if they do not defend it. The answer to this question is NO. Apple does not lose its patents or copyrights if they do not actively defend them.

He was CLEARLY confusing this with trademarks, which you DO have to actively protect.

Your comment is entirely accurate in that laches may come into play if you f. ex. wait too long, but laches or no, you do NOT lose the IP in question. Your patent is still your patent. This is quite clearly what my comment stated, yet you felt the need to attack me for no apparent reason, just because you failed to read the OP question.

So no, I was not wrong. You just failed to read the question properly.

Edited 2009-11-30 18:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1