The dispute was settled because Pear agreed to slightly alter its logo, instead of continuing full litigation (maybe because of resources / dollars it would consume)
If that’s going to happen with a small fish then it was certainly going to happen against a big fish. Cheaper, faster, and easier to attack a smaller business first. There is literally no reason to go after a big dog unless they did something particularly egregious and/or distinct that you can anchor your argument with. Unless your goal is just to waste their time and that of their lawyers I guess, though I think we would all assume the goal is to win ultimately.
Even the legal filing and motions can help shape a case since they get rulings and such back. If a judge rejects a motion, maybe they need to approach it a different way when they go after big fish.
Only way this is not beneficial is if software company settle or gets dismissed right away.
ashu1461|5 months ago
https://www.entrepreneur.com/business-news/apple-sues-small-...
The dispute was settled because Pear agreed to slightly alter its logo, instead of continuing full litigation (maybe because of resources / dollars it would consume)
imglorp|5 months ago
https://www.fbm.com/publications/what-recent-rulings-in-hiq-...
deepsun|5 months ago
If they settle, or the case got dismissed -- no precedent is set.
Forgeties79|5 months ago
stackskipton|5 months ago
Only way this is not beneficial is if software company settle or gets dismissed right away.
RobRivera|5 months ago
And there's always a bigger fish.
PratikDani|4 months ago
[deleted]