[fso301]

Smells like a BS story to me. There are numerous defenses a kit maker could use to invalidate such a patent, copyright or trademark suddenly being asserted against them after decades of unchallenged royalty free use.

[orionblamblam]

> There are numerous defenses a kit maker could use ...

What makes you think kit makers have the moolah to afford the lawyers required for the court challenge?

[azcap]

Yes, there are numerous defenses kit makers could make, but copyright law is not about who is right and wrong it is about nothing more than who has the most money to spend on lawyers. Copyrights are violated everyday by people who have enough money to defend there action and false copyrights are maintained everyday by large corporations with limitless legal budgets.

[okie01]

There are numerous defenses a kit maker could use to invalidate such a patent, copyright or trademark suddenly being asserted against them after decades of unchallenged royalty free use.

Of course, there are. But the price of asserting them in a court of law -- that's the rub. Boeing, Lockheed, et al are lawyered-up and can pursue legal action in perpetuity. For their part, kit makers are looking at legal fees that would dwarf their profit margin.

[Poohbah]

Smells like a BS story to me. There are numerous defenses a kit maker could use to invalidate such a patent, copyright or trademark suddenly being asserted against them after decades of unchallenged royalty free use.

Not BS. The model kit companies can't afford the teams of lawyers the aerospace companies can. The litigation costs will crush the model kit manufacturers, even if they win. This is a major argument for loser-pays litigation.