Laches applies to actions in equity, e.g. injunctions, specific performance, disgorgement, equitable compensation, etc. Actions at law, such as an action for damages arising from patent infringement, are governed exclusively by the statute of limitations.
Um, no. The patent can be rendered unenforceable by laches, preventing the patent owner from recovering any damages for infringement.
Actually, there is - a legal doctrine called "laches." Essentially, you can get bounced out of court if the delay in filing suit (1) is unreasonable, based on the totality of the circumstances, and (2) creates material prejudice (e.g., the company being sued has invested millions in marketing the product and has built a substantial customer base). Furthermore, a delay of 6+ years is presumptively unreasonable, shifting the burden to the plaintiff to show a legitimate excuse for the delay in filing suit.
So why are those claims put in?... If they're never upheld in the courts, why bother?
Licensing, my friend, licensing. With a patent this broad, they can merely threaten every company that uses cookies on their website, and offer them licensing terms that are cheaper than the cost of litigation.
Most companies would rather pay the license fee than risk the enormous exposure and substantial legal fees of fighting the validity and/or enforceability of the patent, so Microsoft stands to make a fortune off all the companies that get caught with their hand in the cookie jar, so to speak...
Slashdot Mirror
Laches applies to actions in equity, e.g. injunctions, specific performance, disgorgement, equitable compensation, etc. Actions at law, such as an action for damages arising from patent infringement, are governed exclusively by the statute of limitations.
Um, no. The patent can be rendered unenforceable by laches, preventing the patent owner from recovering any damages for infringement.
Actually, there is - a legal doctrine called "laches." Essentially, you can get bounced out of court if the delay in filing suit (1) is unreasonable, based on the totality of the circumstances, and (2) creates material prejudice (e.g., the company being sued has invested millions in marketing the product and has built a substantial customer base). Furthermore, a delay of 6+ years is presumptively unreasonable, shifting the burden to the plaintiff to show a legitimate excuse for the delay in filing suit.
server side scanning
If the server-side scanning program peeks inside the encrypted file without Microsoft's consent, it'll be in violation of the DMCA.
Sounds like a great "market" opportunity for Bill Gates' next masterpiece, Microsoft's own anti-virus software...
So why are those claims put in? ... If they're never upheld in the courts, why bother?
Licensing, my friend, licensing. With a patent this broad, they can merely threaten every company that uses cookies on their website, and offer them licensing terms that are cheaper than the cost of litigation.
Most companies would rather pay the license fee than risk the enormous exposure and substantial legal fees of fighting the validity and/or enforceability of the patent, so Microsoft stands to make a fortune off all the companies that get caught with their hand in the cookie jar, so to speak...