[linux-elitists] Copyright, loss of enforcement rights (was: MP3 patents)

Seth David Schoen schoen@loyalty.org
Fri Sep 7 12:18:54 PDT 2001

Karsten M. Self writes:

> #include ianal.h

karsten.c:1: `#include' expects "FILENAME" or <FILENAME>

> No.
> Neither copyright nor patent rights are weakened for *future* actions by
> non-enforcement, barring a few boundary cases involving estoppal and
> laches [1].

That's "estoppel".

I once tried to have a law student explain the doctrine of estoppel to
me.  It's a difficult one, with a lot of strange corners; it's not
particularly easy to relate to everyday experience.

Seth David Schoen <schoen@loyalty.org> | Its really terrible when FBI arrested
Temp.  http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | hacker, who visited USA with peacefull
down:  http://www.loyalty.org/   (CAF) | mission -- to share his knowledge with
     http://www.freesklyarov.org/      | american nation.  (Ilya V. Vasilyev)

More information about the linux-elitists mailing list