They're surprisingly forgiving. If someone stole my IP and then utilised it in a commercial product I might not be so forgiving.
That being said, it is a very happy outcome, $4K to food banks and the author seems happy. Plus I'm sure Kraft's design company can write off the charitable donation anyway.
In my mind, [a substantially larger settlement] would not have been just. It would have been a reverse form of theft, taking advantage of one person’s mistake for my personal gain. While it’s tempting to blame the “big corporation” for this kind of thing, ultimately these kinds of mistakes are made by people who are prone to the same kinds of errors that you and I make every day.
I wonder how enforceable that indemnity is. It seems to me that Kraft wouldn't be able to protect their big pockets by passing off liability to a company with relatively little in the way of assets.
It's probably in a contract they have with the design company. I would think it's very common, kind of like a software vendor indmnifying purchasers of their software against patent lawsuits.
Indemnification clauses have been enforceable in contract law for a very long time. (And contract law never takes one's assets into account when determining whether a clause is enforceable, unless the agreement is deemed unconscionable or contrary to public policy, which to my knowledge an indemnification clause never has been.)
The clause in the contract doesn't mean that Kraft is immune to suit. But it does give Kraft the ability to file a cross-claim against the design firm if it is sued so that damages can be assigned to the design firm if necessary. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 13(g).
13 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 25.5 ms ] threadThat being said, it is a very happy outcome, $4K to food banks and the author seems happy. Plus I'm sure Kraft's design company can write off the charitable donation anyway.
[0] http://krazydad.com/blog/2014/07/13/hmm-this-maze-looks-fami... [1] http://krazydad.com/mazes/sfiles/KD_Mazes_IM_v1.pdf
The copyright office is clear that mechanically generated works are not copyrightable.
Read the original hn post about this if you want to see a ton of debate on this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8030439
In my mind, [a substantially larger settlement] would not have been just. It would have been a reverse form of theft, taking advantage of one person’s mistake for my personal gain. While it’s tempting to blame the “big corporation” for this kind of thing, ultimately these kinds of mistakes are made by people who are prone to the same kinds of errors that you and I make every day.
They didn't steal anything. They only infringed on the exclusive right granted under copyright law.
Actually stealing IP is near impossible to do.
The clause in the contract doesn't mean that Kraft is immune to suit. But it does give Kraft the ability to file a cross-claim against the design firm if it is sued so that damages can be assigned to the design firm if necessary. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 13(g).