upvote

points

by xxpor2 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby kube-system1 hours ago|
next
[-]
Yeah, that statement clearly is making IP claims beyond patent infringement, they just didn't elaborate. They didn't say it's patent infringement because of that.
reply
upvoteby zarzavat21 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Merely reverse engineering for interoperability is not a violation of any type of IP in the US.
reply
upvoteby kube-system3 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
I'm not saying their arguments are valid. It's a demand letter with multiple claims. There's many reasons it might be an invalid argument but listing more than one grievance and/or not explaining them in detail are not some of those reasons.
reply
upvoteby ssl-31 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
A thing can be encumbered by both patents and trade secrets, can it not?
reply
upvoteby sysguest1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
well technically, yes and no

if I patent a microwave and specify exactly how it works, that part can't be trade secret

BUT if my trade secret is on using ruby diamond for deluxe premium microwave lazor THAT isn't specified on the patent, well that be a trade secret

but trade secret CAN ONLY BE PUNISHED IF someone insider leaks the info -- not much can be done if some junk collector finds out about the ruby stuff

reply
upvoteby ssl-352 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Right.

But lawyers are prone to using scary phrasing, even if that phrasing has no bite, and are free to write strongly-worded letters.

"I see that you've been publishing the privately-held, trade secret tomato processing technique I developed -- on the Internet! Now, tomato processors everywhere can see it! I'm really pissed! I demand that you stop doing this immediately! In fact, if you want a full enumeration of whar I really think about the terrible things you're doing, then I further demand that you pay me $25,000 for that effort!"

...it's got no bite, but it's a letter. It can be drafted and sent.

(It can also be ignored upon receipt.)

reply