Indeed. But what most people seem to be forgetting is that Apple is duty bound to do whatever it can to protect against unreasonable infringement even if the available procedures are based on precedents that are somewhat questionable. From Apple's point of view, there is clear infringement. The question is how do they most efficiently achieve some recourse. Given the nature of the game and the rules/laws, (sometimes fallacious) that come into play, there is always going to be a level of expediency. As a business seeking to gain some temporary advantages from its own pioneering work, Apple would be silly not to explore reasonable strategies that are legally permissible.
post #121 of 143
8/24/11 at 8:15am
Quote:
Indeed. But what most people seem to be forgetting is that Apple is duty bound to do whatever it can to protect against unreasonable infringement even if the available procedures are based on precedents that are somewhat questionable. From Apple's point of view, there is clear infringement. The question is how do they most efficiently achieve some recourse. Given the nature of the game and the rules/laws, (sometimes fallacious) that come into play, there is always going to be a level of expediency. As a business seeking to gain some temporary advantages from its own pioneering work, Apple would be silly not to explore reasonable strategies that are legally permissible.









