Originally Posted by cloudgazer
I'm not hiding behind anything- I'm defending the existing meanings of words whereas you are attempting to redefine them to suit your convenience. If you want to start a movement to have patent infringement made into a felony called patent theft go right ahead, but just be prepared to have EVERY firm in the IT business, even Apple, oppose you.
Until such time as there is a crime of patent theft, we should all accept that infringement isn't the same thing for damned good reasons.
It seems that as long as it doesn't rise to the level of criminal behavior, you don't think of it as being wrong. If it weren't wrong, the courts wouldn't address the issue. The reason it isn't criminal is because of expediency. If executives were thrown into prison every time some license was violated, there wouldn't be any executives left to run the company.
In addition, executives are protected against this because a company is treated, legally, as an entity, with certain rights. You can't throw a corporation into the pokey, but you can do the next best thing, which is to make them pay up big.
Right, the 'everybody knows' argument. Do I really need to tell you how stupid that is?
If I infringe a patent I take nothing from the patent assignee, especially if the patent turns out to be invalid. If the patent does turn out to be invalid then presumably by your 'logic' the assignee has committed fraud? Or perhaps racketeering?
Everybody knows that if I demand money for something I have no right to then it's either fraud or racketeering right?
The everybody knows, or the "I know it when I see it" arguments are a legal framework that even Supreme Court justices use. It was used in the question of what pornography is, famously.
If a patent turns out to be invalid, then, obviously, you aren't taking anything, and so it isn't a part of this discussion at all.
But if it is valid, then it just as obviously is valuable. That you fail to recognize that is amazing! Why have patents in the first place if they aren't of value? The very fact of their existence proves your argument that you aren't taking anything of value to be false.