But if RunwayFinder intends to attack the validity of the patent by claiming obviousness or something similar, I see the analogy as more like:
me: This was no-one's apartment when I got here. There are thousands like it, in fact an infinite supply. Get your own.
burglar: Well, we'll work that out in court. In fact I own all of them.
me: No, it was public land and I just built my apartment here.
burglar: Well, how about you sign this lease. Just put your John Hancock here, and I won't give you any trouble about staying here. I won't even charge you any rent this month.
With the above dialog, doesn't the signing of the lease imply an acceptance of the burglars ownership of not only this apartment but all of these apartments?
I am not a lawyer, obviously, just someone who likes analogies.
If you have to sign something, it's probably a contract, not a license. It might turn out to be an invalid contract if you're already entitled to what the burglar offers you.
Analogies to real property are problematic because of the excludable and rival nature of real property.
me: This was no-one's apartment when I got here. There are thousands like it, in fact an infinite supply. Get your own.
burglar: Well, we'll work that out in court. In fact I own all of them.
me: No, it was public land and I just built my apartment here.
burglar: Well, how about you sign this lease. Just put your John Hancock here, and I won't give you any trouble about staying here. I won't even charge you any rent this month.
With the above dialog, doesn't the signing of the lease imply an acceptance of the burglars ownership of not only this apartment but all of these apartments?
I am not a lawyer, obviously, just someone who likes analogies.