|
Not really, Stilton. Laches requires that 1) the copyright holder knew or reasonably should have known of the violation; 2) he took no action; and 3) this prejudiced the defendant/alleged infringer. The delay in question must be 'unreasonable'. In the case I cited, the harm to the defendant was that he would have lost the money from printing the books because of the unreasonable 2 year delay. The question in issue was not whether the plaintiff had abused the process, but whether the delay was reasonable in light of the fact that litigation was being persued elsewhere in the world.
Regarding ongoing infringement, Judge Posner says in Taylor v. Meirick, 712 F.2d 1112 (7th Cir.1983) that a plaintiff may recover for all copyright damages as long as the last act occurred within the statute of limitations period. In that case, there was a copyright infringer who sold maps. He allegedly stopped selling, but made no effort to retrieve his maps from retailers. The three year statute of limitations was held not to have tolled. As regards laches, however, Posner makes it clear that the burden is simply shifted to the defendent to show why laches should apply.
Hope that's clear.
-Aeolus
|