Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Stilton · 06-05-2003, 03:11 PM

To shortcircuit a misunderstanding from poor wording in my last post:
I do agree that there is A distinction, just not THE distinction under discussion (ie, that it's OK to go ahead and use the IP)

It's certainly worse to be a violator ignoring the repeated requests of the IP holder.

BTW: Thanks, Aeolus, though isn't the case you cite a better example of what happens when the judge notices that the plaintiff is deliberately causing more trouble than necessary (by attempting to harm the defendant by deliberately not giving notice so they'll spend money, and THEN hitting them with the legal process) than a mainstream copyright infringement defence?

And I'm a bit vague on how the statute of limitations applies to an arguably continuing violation (still running a mud vs photocopying LOTR once, 10 years ago). Do you have any pointers?

Stilton

Edit: changed a synonym for donkey to "causing more trouble..."

06-05-2003, 03:11 PM	#129
Stilton Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 100	To shortcircuit a misunderstanding from poor wording in my last post: I do agree that there is A distinction, just not THE distinction under discussion (ie, that it's OK to go ahead and use the IP) It's certainly worse to be a violator ignoring the repeated requests of the IP holder. BTW: Thanks, Aeolus, though isn't the case you cite a better example of what happens when the judge notices that the plaintiff is deliberately causing more trouble than necessary (by attempting to harm the defendant by deliberately not giving notice so they'll spend money, and THEN hitting them with the legal process) than a mainstream copyright infringement defence? And I'm a bit vague on how the statute of limitations applies to an arguably continuing violation (still running a mud vs photocopying LOTR once, 10 years ago). Do you have any pointers? Stilton Edit: changed a synonym for donkey to "causing more trouble..."