MyMomLovesMe wrote:
View Post
Patents aren't about ownership; they're about exclusive rights to something for a period of time, which is not that unlike an employment contract for someone with unique skills. Anyhow, the patent example was just to show the public policy that influences U.S. law and why the U.S. courts revolve around expectation damages.
Where is this gentleman's agreement coming from? I'd like to see one iota of proof that this isn't just an opinion.
You're entitled to your opinion re: the abuse of power, as long as you understand what I was saying about U.S. contract law being about expectation damages and not mere reliance damages, which applies when no contract exists. (Reliance damages = how much was actually invested; Expectation damages = how much they would have gained.)
Comment