Quote:
Originally Posted by Friendly_flyer
I think the matter of "legal precedence" that Former Older mentioned is the crux of the matter here. This was explained to me by a friend of mine who study international law, so my explanation may be a bit off, but basically it goes like this:
Compared to European countries, the US have very few laws governing the minutae of civil life. This has lead to a system where "legal precedence" is very important. The basic idea is that if something has been common practice, it's legal. Courts decide in cases where there's doubt or contesting claims as to what is right. This has lead to a system where rulings are made on basis of former rulings.
This applies to this case in that a certain US company has made sure they have control of the "intellectual property" of their vintage designs. If they let it slip once, anyone with a good barrister can claim "legal precedence", and start to use the companies other (and no doubt more important) intellectual property, effectively robbing them of their design rights. I don't think a certain US company ever thought Oleg or his IL2-series to be a threat in themselves.
I have tried to explain this as neutrally as I could.
|
Petter-
as usual, you seem to easily grasp someone's meaning and maintain a level head while doing it. that is basically what I am suggesting, as absurd as the idea of using a loophole from the use of an F3F to steal some aspect of an F-18 is, I just used those as well known examples, naturally, to reinforce my point- which you seem to understand perfectly
You are one of the people I truly miss interacting with at Ubi's forums