Nah, but they’re both forms of intellectual property.
In this case, it seems like they decided Zynga was infringing on patent US7072849B1. They managed to convince the court that Zynga’s advertising methods were too similar to what was described in that patent. Which is bullshit, as software patents shouldn’t exist, but oh well.
Nah, but they’re both forms of intellectual property.
In this case, it seems like they decided Zynga was infringing on patent US7072849B1. They managed to convince the court that Zynga’s advertising methods were too similar to what was described in that patent. Which is bullshit, as software patents shouldn’t exist, but oh well.