Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2012 @ 08:47 AM EDT |
As it would come down to a court interpretation of similarly
(I assume)
Encouraging an (allegedly) infringing company to be careful
about redesigns is probably part of the point of the
injunction.
"We'd better err on the side of caution to avoid being held
in contempt. Better make sure we don't come close to the
line. Let's go into the umbrella business instead."
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2012 @ 09:19 AM EDT |
Just what the design patent says: "substantially" like the
drawings on the patent show.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2012 @ 09:25 AM EDT |
I agree that your assessment shines a light on a real problem. It goes along the
"I'll know it when I see it" porn analogy. Over all, it seems to
define something if you squint and don't focus. When one starts picking out
elements to compare then the colorable (or uncolorable?) parts become
problematic.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2012 @ 10:16 AM EDT |
Maybe that's legalese for "You might be in a hole, you should be sure you
have
stopped digging."[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|