Very interesting and highly informative (about past shenanigans)...
As has been stated suit in a patent case typically limits compensation to damages (lost revenue) and possibly reasonable licensing/royalties. The reason is that the patent process was put in place to ENCOURAGE public dissemination of information by providing some protection in the marketplace. So while it technically is within the rights of the patent holder to sue individuals its highly impractical since the awards would be minor.
Many also believe that acting like an A$$ is essential to being a successful business owner and operator. Sadly many major corporations follow this model, choosing the biggest a$$es to be their CEOs. However, there a number of privately held companies that have been extremely successful and have operated with a MUCH higher moral and ethical standard. One example is Malden Mills the makers of Polartec fleece.
Some manufacturers should consider this when deciding who to pattern their behavior after. Especially telling for me is the choice of overseas manufacturers in countries where they not only are not bound by North American intellectual property (IP) laws, but have a history of blatant disregard for it and freely use the information provided to them as part of their manufacturing. If people TRULY were concerned about maintaining their IP they wouldn't have their products made there.
Bookmarks