Is MagSafe patented such that no one else can make magnetic power supplies? I'm talking about MagSafe, the connector used on some Apple power adapters that pops out of the socket easily, and snaps into place using a magnet, so that both the cable and the socket are unlikely to be damaged in the event of an unexpected disconnection. Is this patented in such a way that only Apple can legally make a similar connector? I don't mean off-brand clones of MagSafe itself, but rather another style of connector which uses the same principle. If so, when does the patent expire?
The connector is patented, as you see here. It contains 57 claims which define what is protected, and 35 USC 116 spells out the logic of claims (which, in a nutshell, says "this can get really complicated"). The set of claims defines what it patented, and infringement is defined in 35 USC 271 as whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent that is, there isn't anything statutorily more specific about how similar similar is. Since the claims define what is protected, this generally is taken to refer to things that are the same w.r.t. to all of the claims. "Generally" means that there is a doctrine of equivalents, exemplified by Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co. 520 U.S. 17, whereby a court may find infringement when there is an insubstantial difference between the allegedly infringing thing and the protected invention. The Apple patent does not specify a specific number of millimeters between the contacts, so making a connector that is exactly the same as the Apple device (as marketed) but with different spacing on the connectors would be an infringement, because that spacing is not specified in a claim. A similar device that uses chewing gum rather than magnets to keep it together would not likely be found to be infringing since that is a substantial divergence from what Apple claims it has invented.
However, this uses the text "rights in an invention"; does that cover copyright? Yes. (Is this the correct law?) It certainly seems to be. Does "Relate … to the employer's business" cover the entirety of software engineering, or just the particular software engineering my employer does? Imagine that you work for a company that writes trading software. In your spare time, you develop a photo editing tool. Do you think a court would find that your project "related to the employer's business"? I do not. Or does my employer own copyright on everything down to the love letters I write? Google does not own everything their employees create; they only claim to. If someone challenged them on it, a court would decide, and probably not in their favor.
The whole purpose of a patent is that the contents of the patent becomes public knowledge, in exchange for a time limited monopoly. Therefore you are allowed to do anything, since you are not just allowed but expected to examine the patent in order to improve on it, except that you need a license to sell or give away products implementing the patent as long as it is valid. The only thing to be careful about is that by publishing source code, you might be enticing others to infringe on the patent, so I'd recommend not to do that without advice of a lawyer. PS. With software, the interpretation of "making" software in patent law may be a bit surprising. There was a major case between Microsoft and AT&amp;T about that. The software developer isn't "making" the software. The build engineer putting everything together isn't "making" the software. The CD manufacturer making a million copies isn't "making" the software. The person installing it on their computer is the one who makes it.
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.
A person can only patent their own original invention. If the technology which is the subject of the patent existed before it was filed, then the patent is not enforceable. This is called prior art. Note that the rights to a patent can always be placed in the public domain. Patent just means "make obvious" in Latin. So, if you obtain a patent, that does not necessarily mean you are blocking other people from using the technology. There are also various established ways for publishing your technology to guarantee that it is in the public domain.
There is currently no direct limit. First, under the Space Liability Convention, a nation bears responsibility for an object launched from its territory. Accordingly, the Soviet Union was billed for $3M because of the crash of Kosmos 954 in Canada. A thing is not "space junk" initially, so "space junk" is not a thing that is produced in the normal sense (cars and computers are produced). Any restrictions on space debris would therefore have to be either in terms of the number of items a country could launch (there is no provision for such a limit), or requirements regarding what must be done when something becomes "space junk". The existing liability law is a country-to-country liability law, and if a Virgin Moon ship lands on your house or on Russia, neither you nor Russia can sue Virgin Moon. Russia might sue the US, if it was launched from the US. In the case of such a suit, the respondent nation has to have been negligent, and there are no standards for determining negligence. Also, actually proving the origin of a bolt is not trivial, plus, the recourse is via damage caused by the bolt, not the simple fact of there being a bolt. There is some law in the US (SPACE Act of 2015) which addresses private launches (the bill is here).
Marks are to denominate the origin of goods. Nintendo built Gameboys for decades. Some GameBoys have aftermarket parts like the NAKI Action Light, a peripheral never made by Nintendo but was nothing but a light and a 1.5 magnification lens. It was advertised as &quot;Fitting a Game Boy TM&quot; and didn't use Nintendo marks. That is nominative use and allowed. Then, Nintendo actually had stocks of spare parts that ended on the open market by now. those are genuine Nintendo parts, made for Nintendo, with the marks on it. Those are proper marks. Some people bought up tons of old Game Boys and took them apart for spares. Those are still genuine parts, even if used, and the mark is proper. Nintendo didn't make all the parts for Gameboy themselves. They had contracted OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) that created parts for construction of the toys. These were in part branded and marked in the OEM factory still, the OEMs had a license to make and mark parts. Parts produced till the lapse of the license would be most likely proper as for most intents and purposes Nintendo did endorse the manufacturing in this fashion. However after the licensee lapsed or if it doesn't contain a &quot;put the markings on it&quot; clause, marking would not be allowed (anymore). Finally, there are spare parts that were just made to Nintendo specs, that are not originating with Nintendo, and are marked with Nintendo marks. Such copy parts infringe on the Trademark of Nintendo. There is legal space in the aftermarket spare part market: Parts that are to specs but not marked with the marks denominating the origin. Those can be advertised akin to the NAKI Action Light &quot;fitting a Game Boy TM&quot; without infringing on marks.
The answer to the question "can so-and-so sue me?" is almost always "yes", regardless of context. Such a suit might be baseless, and it might get settled in your favor, but you still have to spend the time and money to defend yourself. This can be disastrous for a start-up that's trying to get off the ground, and it's how patent trolls make their money. (I'm not accusing SnapChat of engaging in such tactics as a rule, of course; I'm just pointing out that the legal system does allow for them.) Whether or not you are likely to be sued is a separate question, and one that can really only be effectively addressed by a trademark attorney with full knowledge of the particularities of your situation.