Strypey
@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz  ·  activity timestamp yesterday
@rayckeith IANAL but ...

I think the usual excuse is that failing to enforce an intangible monopoly (copyright, patent, trademark, etc) can be cited as precedent to weaken future claims. But surely they could issue an irrevocable license for a narrow set of cases like pico-mac-nano, granting necessary copyright and patent usage permissions. It would probably even be cheaper than suing them all.

They could, but they don't. They're just being dicks.

#PicoMacNano#RetroComputing#IP#CopyWars
Strypey
@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz replied  ·  activity timestamp yesterday
@rayckeith
> no one requested a license

Again, IANAL, but that's not how it works. It's for the monopoly-holder to decide they think there's infringement. They can either issue a cease-and-desist or a license. In either case, a lawyer has to draft something official and legally binding, and send it to the alleged infringer.

Issuing a license is a one-off cost. Sueing someone is not. So why send a cease-and-desist for a harmless hobby use of obsolete tech?