Main > Main Forum
More Foley News...
<< < (6/7) > >>
Patent Doc:
Well, I'm curious how the legal concept of laches applies in this case.  If the plaintiffs were aware of the ultracade machines (and given their presence at trade shows...they should have been) then typically there is a window of opportunity to assert a claim against someone.  If you wait to long you give up the right to sue.  So the defendant asserts laches.  In the patent world its a 6 year window...I'm not sure about copyright.


--- Quote ---I do agree though, that it is a simple matter to produce documentation and money/paper trails for licensing. It is not something done with a handshake.
--- End quote ---

You'd be surprised (or not)  how tricky some licenses are?  Dave may have had a really good attorney who crafted language in license giving the right to sell the game.  It is also possible his attorney misinterpreted the license and gave an opinion that it was ok when it really wasn't.  It is also possible one of the parties didn't have an attorney at all (which sadly happens...and that is how you really get screwed).

Aceldamor:

--- Quote from: Patent Doc on August 14, 2009, 01:51:52 pm ---Well, I'm curious how the legal concept of laches applies in this case.  If the plaintiffs were aware of the ultracade machines (and given their presence at trade shows...they should have been) then typically there is a window of opportunity to assert a claim against someone.  If you wait to long you give up the right to sue.  So the defendant asserts laches.  In the patent world its a 6 year window...I'm not sure about copyright.


--- Quote ---I do agree though, that it is a simple matter to produce documentation and money/paper trails for licensing. It is not something done with a handshake.
--- End quote ---

You'd be surprised (or not)  how tricky some licenses are?  Dave may have had a really good attorney who crafted language in license giving the right to sell the game.  It is also possible his attorney misinterpreted the license and gave an opinion that it was ok when it really wasn't.  It is also possible one of the parties didn't have an attorney at all (which sadly happens...and that is how you really get screwed).



--- End quote ---

Looks like it could still be a valid claim.

http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

I'm not sure which domain this would apply, but it still looks like quite a bit of time to own the copyright.
Patent Doc:

--- Quote ---Looks like it could still be a valid claim.

http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

I'm not sure which domain this would apply, but it still looks like quite a bit of time to own the copyright.

--- End quote ---

The question isn't how long a copyright is valid for purposes of enforcing infringement, the question laches addresses is how long the infringed waits once they are aware that infringement has occurred.  For example, in patent law, a patent is valid 20yrs from the earliest filing date.  If a patent issued and say had 19yrs of pendency left when the infringed party became aware of infringing activity, but then they waited 7yrs to assert a claim, the infringing party could say the plaintiff (the infringed) was barred from asserting the claim due to laches (ie the delay in asserting the claim was unreasonable).  So I'm questioning whether those asserting the claim waited too long to file suit once they became aware of the infringement.  This is similar to a statute of limitations situation if that helps.
Beretta:
ya i see what you're saying. like squatters rights.. if someone squats on your land for like 10 years or something that area becomes legally theirs.. or something like that.

dunno if that applies to copy rights, even so that means he was doing it with all the assumption that they would'nt do anything before the limitations expired?

huge huge balls to try that.
Patent Doc:
Yeah, you got it.  Laches definitely applies to copyrights....I've just been to lazy to look up the relevant rules for how long one has to wait to bring a suit before it applies.  Even so, it if it did apply it wouldn't kill the suit...just create a defense...shift the burden of proof...and create some hurdles for the plaintiff...but you can definitely win if you assert it.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page

Go to full version