On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Ed Manning <etmth...@gmail.com> wrote: > Now > I'm no lawyer (do we have any on the list? would that be a good thing or > not?) but I'm pretty sure that once he'd reached a settlement with Disney, > he *obligated* himself, under the hurtful and dated system (how right that > description is!), to "vigorously defend" his patent against all other > potential infringers. That is, unless he now pursues legal action against > anyone and everyone who has a similar product that isn't *explicitly* > proven to be non-infringing,
I don't know man, I think you're confusing things with the trademark law. there is no need to defend your patent, and a "settlements: is any kind of agreement between two parties, there are no rules about they are written and how they work. most likely a settlement contains language that makes payment not depend whether the patent is valid or not, t's just an agreement to not pursue the matter in court. these things are always under NDA.
