>>164315
>So patents don't allow you to sue someone for infringing on them?
You're not required to, which is the bullshit you keep spouting.
Copyrights and patents as your sole possession until they expire. You are not required, at any point in time, to go to court to constantly prove the you own them because the law declares that the moment you create it, it is yours without prejudice.
Trademarks, however,
DO require you to constantly have a lawyer on hand, otherwise you lose ownership of the symbol or name that you've trademarked and it becomes public domain.
<Well, when then can you be sued over infringing on someone's copyright or patent?
Because they see you making money on an idea or implementation of a concept, and think it overlaps on their own idea or implementation of a concept, so they take it to court declaring that you owe them funds for "stealing" their property (Their "idea or implementation of a concept).
But, they are never at any point in time required to do this. Henry Ford I operated much of his business without enforcing any of the patents his company filed because he didn't see a reason to. Moorcock has had his fantasy stories ripped almost wholesale in everything from
Warhammer to
The Witcher, but never saw any reason to declare that they violated his copyright.
That's also excluding that, unlike with copyright, patents actually require the actual device to exist.