And it goes the same for videogames, big companies sell shitty games at 70$ hopping their advertisement will be suffiscient to make profit. Indie studios sell game from 5$ to 15$, asking people to freely give money if they want to support, and some of them end up creating hits played by millions of players.
For those unsure about how idiotic the regulations are and the extent that corporations think they have ownership of their ideas, look at this wonderful piece:
http://www.joystiq.com/2013/07/10/mo...lf-mogul-putt/
Vague regulations and over-entitled jackasses make for an awful combination.
This is pretty meaningless.
A cease and desist letter doesn't actually legally command anyone to do anything. It's a threat of lawsuit, and had you actually read the link you posted, it appears to be the result of a misunderstanding.
Companies are obligated to do everything they can to protect their copyright, otherwise the judicial system becomes slanted against them.
Except for the fact that most of the time companies threaten to sue for stuff that is not legally covered by their copyrights/patents and scare people with their armies of lawyers. That was an example. If you had bothered to read my other posts, you would have known this and wouldn't have posted such an ignorant thing.
Provide example that allegedly supports your point.
Have example shown to not reinforce your point.
Make passive-aggressive insults towards the opinions of others.
Welcome to discussion, you'll fit in perfectly!
To expand on what I'm trying to teach you and what you are so vigorously refusing to learn is that the burden of enforcing trademark ownership is entirely upon the owning entity. This means that they must act on every infringement they observe, however marginal or superficial. The reason this is so is that if they do not, they will lose ground in future cases where the infringing party can claim that the owning entity has given tacit permission by not pursuing other infringements.
On a rather interesting aside, you seem to be misled, describing this as a copyright or patent case. It is neither.
Certainly, companies can act outside the bounds of reason, and it is then the responsibility of the judicial system to act in the fairness of both parties. But to argue that this is the fault of "idiotic regulations" and "the extent that corporations think they have ownership of their ideas"is fundamentally misinformed. It is a necessary byproduct of a system designed to afford content creators the greatest protection.
With that logic, I am obligated to accuse you of assault with a deadly weapon for flicking me, as if I do not, I will lose ground in a future potential case.
You cannot accuse and threaten to sue people for anything you please without facing consequences for it, and this is precisely what companies like Monsanto do on a daily basis.
You sarcastically attack me
This means that they must act on every infringement they observe, however marginal or superficial. The reason this is so is that if they do not, they will lose ground in future cases where the infringing party can claim that the owning entity has given tacit permission by not pursuing other infringements.