Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc
Soooo... you you call my source wrong then use a source from mine to make your argument? Brilliant.....
Even though we aren't talking about patents, which may never be a monopoly, I'll go with it anyway.
Here, your article says: "Just because an inventor has been granted a patent does not mean that there will be a market for the patent product, and without a market there can be no monopoly."
And part of my quote said: "a monopoly can only exist in the presence of a market and the ability of an actor to manipulate the market"
Looks like it was correct after all... looks like the courts did agree with the wiki article I shared. And you're still using the term incorrectly.
|
no moron i was pointing out the bias of the quote
the courts define a copyright/patent a "limited monopoly" for the cases they hear
this biased lawyer is deliberately ignoring scope to make his bullshit arguement
he is saying it can't be a monopoly at all because if you patent a crappy invention that no one would ever want you have no monopoly control.
but if you patent a crappy invention that no one would ever want, there not going to be anyone ripping it off either
therefore there would not be any infringement
therefore the courts could not /would not be involved.
the situation he is using to justify disqualifying the court declaration CAN"T exist for anything the courts would be involved in.