Generally if someone is clearly in breach of copyright the rights holder will apply to a court to issue an injunction to order that company to cease their activities until a case can be resolved.
Given that has not happened, it seems that from a court's perspective, it's not a clear breach of copyright.
The rights holder first considers the size of the payout vs. the cost of legal fees.
Just because they haven't been sued directly for this doesn't make it infringement.
Nonsense. If this is copyright the payout will be many billions. They've had a year to think about it.
The statute of limitations is much longer than a year. It's usually around 5.
They can wait, see who's made the money, then target them for a payout.
A court wouldn't look favourably on that.
Rights couldn't have been very b important if you just let it run.
They really don't care. It can take a lot of time to put a solid case together and you're better off having a solid case than a quick trial.
Generally if someone is clearly in breach of copyright the rights holder will apply to a court to issue an injunction to order that company to cease their activities until a case can be resolved.
Given that has not happened, it seems that from a court's perspective, it's not a clear breach of copyright.
The rights holder first considers the size of the payout vs. the cost of legal fees.
Just because they haven't been sued directly for this doesn't make it infringement.
Nonsense. If this is copyright the payout will be many billions. They've had a year to think about it.
The statute of limitations is much longer than a year. It's usually around 5.
They can wait, see who's made the money, then target them for a payout.
A court wouldn't look favourably on that.
Rights couldn't have been very b important if you just let it run.
They really don't care. It can take a lot of time to put a solid case together and you're better off having a solid case than a quick trial.