Does modifying/improving a patented device extend the rights of the original patent in any way? Let's say that I invent and patent something, a computer chip for example. Then over the next 15 years I add a whole bunch of new features to that invention and patent each of the modified designs. Now my chip runs faster, handles new functions, etc. All of these modifications expand the chip's abilities but are useless without the underlying chip's original design. So what happens to my rights in the original design -- which is central and essential to the new designs -- when the original patent expires? Does that mean that as soon as the original patent expires everyone who wants to can start using my old design in unlimited ways without licensing (except of course for any uses that would run afoul of duplicating my newer devices)? Could they manufacture and sell chips identical to my first design even though that design is the core integrated into my newer designs? Would I have any rights to sue them for infringement of any kind?
Patenting a new invention doesn't extend the term of the patent on the old invention. The later patent covers the new parts of the new invention, but not the parts that were in the old patent. The whole point of patents is to provide protection against even independent reinvention for a limited time, after which the invention becomes free to use for everyone (and since you disclose how it works in the patent, other people actually can use it themselves).
Well, actually, fair use is maximally relevant. Copyright means, put simply, DO NOT COPY. Citing or not is irrelevant (plagiarism is a whole other non-legal kettle of fish). Technically, what you describe is violation of copyright. However, under section 107 of Title 17 (the copyright law), you could attempt to defend yourself against an infringement suit on the basis that your action was "fair use". See this LSE q&amp;a for the essentials of fair use.
There are basically two kinds of things one could do. One could assign or transfer intellectual property rights and contracts related to the app to the entity, or one could license the intellectual property rights to the entity. Generally speaking, in a related party transaction, everything should be in a signed writing, and a notice of the transfer of an intellectual property right that has been registered or filed with a government agency should be provided to the government agency in question. Since there are potentially copyright, patent, trademark, publicity, and contractual rights that might be associated with the app, each aspect which exists should be transferred or licensed, as the case may be. While the forms to do this aren't particular long, the concepts involved and correct terminology are subtle, so this would not be a wise undertaking to attempt on a do it yourself basis.
Copyright requires originality Your infinity hard drive appears to be a machine designed to violate copyright by immediately copying anything presented to it. Damien Riehl and Noah Rubin were creating original melodies. These do not have copyright until they are fixed in a tangible medium. That's what the hard drive is for. This is insurance against them being sued if they release a song and someone claims it violates that person's copyright - they can produce in court the melody with a date stamp of 2015 (or whatever). GitHub or similar would be even better evidence. In this context there is a specific allegation that melody X infringes copyright. Riehl &amp; Rubin can then go to their records (including metadata) and say no, here is melody X version 1 through n and they all predate your release so we didn’t violate your copyright.
The reason why I could not find the patent is that there are several different kinds of patents. Mechanical patents, for example, are &quot;utility&quot; patents. The cut glass pattern referenced in the question is not a utility patent, it is a design patent. Each patent type has its own numbering system. To search for a design patent, typically a &quot;D&quot; is inserted before the patent number, like &quot;D63795&quot;. This results in the correct patent being discovered:
The Right to Repair generally talks about hardware, not firmware or software, and only to the point of restoring &quot;original&quot; functionality. For example, RTR would make it prohibited to have Apple require that they fix your phone battery for hundreds of dollars and make it impossible for you, or a third-party shop, to do the repair instead. In Sonos case, RTR would imply that if your speaker blew a fuse (or capacitor, etc), you should have the right to fix that yourself, and they should provide you with reasonable instructions and hardware to do so. That said, if you look at the Sonos OSS references, at least a few of the licenses suggest that you can't release derivatives under more restrictive languages. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any case law that establishes this would work, and it would be really expensive to try and find out. There's also the problem of Intellectual Property and Copyright that they could try to argue as reasons why they can't release the proprietary bits that make their hardware run. Any other options would be, unfortunately, illegal, in part because of the DMCA. Edit: Looking further into this, I found that there is H.R.4006 - Fair Repair Act, which, if passed, would require manufacturers of some hardware to offer diagnostic tools and public copies of firmware. In addition, there are also actions being taken by iFixit at the Copyright Office to allow an exception to DMCA violations for the purposes of patching firmware. Also, the President of the United States issued an Executive Order that, among other things, instructs the FTC to set rules against anticompetitive repair policies. Much of this has moved forward in just the last year, so it's relatively new to me, but it sounds like an even stronger indicator that Sonos is probably not going to have that defense much longer, unless they totally abandon their old hardware, in which case, it may become legal to hack your own firmware.
You almost certainly can't (successfully) sue Apple because the license agreement that is part of the product you purchased almost surely gives it permission to do so. A tech support based solution would be a better alternative to litigation.
is contract text itself subject to copyright? What are my options? It largely depends on the originality of your contract. C &amp; J Management Corp. v. Anderson, 707 F.Supp.2d 858, 862 (2009) points to multiple references against preclusion of "a copyrightable interest in a contract". But you would need to prove that your competitor copied "original elements" of your contract including "a minimum degree of creativity and originality required to support a valid copyright". See Donald v. Uarco Business Forms, 478 F.2d 764, 766 (1973). Your post provides no information that would help identifying or ruling out this issue in your matter. Without realizing, you might have paid dearly for boilerplate language that your lawyer copied from somewhere else. Indeed, there is so much regurgitation and copy/pasting in the legal "profession" (judges included, as is notorious in judicial opinions they release and in the similarities --verbatim-- among the procedure law of many, many U.S. jurisdictions). That regurgitation is not bad in and of itself, though, since what matters is the expeditious administration of justice and the protection of your rights, rather than obtaining creative expressions authored by some lawyer. You might end up wasting valuable energy and money if you went after the competitor for something like this without first assessing the extent of originality in your contract. Focus instead on the much more detrimental fact that your competitor "plays dirty in general".