this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2026
229 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

83222 readers
4534 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
229
AV1’s open, royalty-free promise in question as Dolby sues Snapchat over codec (arstechnica.com)
submitted 3 days ago by JohnWorks@sh.itjust.works to c/technology@lemmy.world
51 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 days ago

Trademarks I think are the most commonplace for this to happen, but I believe it applies to all IP. I don’t believe that any laws are written with specific timeframes but if the court feels that a right holder knew about and didn’t take action against an infringer within a “reasonable” time (as to be determined by the count based on the circumstances surrounding the case), then an implicit license is inferred.

If this was not done, it would encourage right holders to wait out infringement in order to achieve larger settlements.