Interesting. I challenge you to find the actual law text saying this.
My dads actually a solicitor, so I think he'd know, heh.
If I wasn't such a cynic, I might actually believe you.
OTOH, he should be able to look up the actual text for you, right?
But that doesn't really matter here...
I will merely be distributing an engine to run alongside the original data that the person must have to buy in advance, and then they can download external "add-ons", if you will, that will improve the games graphics.
...this does. I'm glad that you are still talking about the engine, because then it actually makes sense. I was just referring to the rather common notion of
"But I'm not making any money from it, that means it's okay, right?", which we have seen more than once over the years.
Or even if it is, they have made no losses, so how can I be expected to pay for losses? heh. I'm not going to give away ANY of the original material, nor am I going to create anything that can run without the requirement of the original game. Therefore they can't "sue" me at all, as suing is merely getting payment for damages. At least here it is, the word seems to be brandished quite freely in the US, heh.
Oh, I agree that engine such as that would be legal
(IMHO), but
in general I believe that the linked article explains quite clearly that you can be sued to get an injunction as well, and not just for damages - actually the entire
"protection of the author's general right to control how a work is used" would be totally hollow, if you couldn't be sued without financial damage. And if you end up paying their legal bills, it might not matter very much whether you had to pay for damages as well - those big legal teams are not cheap.
I believe that there has to be a way to sue for injunction
(or equivalent) in England as well, since they are member of the Berne-convention. There certainly is a way here in Finland.
And I doubt they'd take me to court. It would cost them money, to take an incredibly small amount, possibly nothing at all, off me. And i'm pretty certain that in England, if you're accused, you don't pay the court bills, particularly if you're found innocent.
Again; over such engine? Most likely not. But in general about IP breach that didn't cause any real financial loss...
Two words; Lik-Sang. Or is that one word?
I will bet real money that Sony's
SLAPP-campaign cost them more than Lik-Sang's imports ever did. Basically Sony just wanted to be a b*tch, because they could. I'm not making a direct comparison here, but I'm saying that you shouldn't underestimate the vengefulness of companies either. After all, Sony's decision to sue seems to make very little financial sense.
To conclude, I am arguing that
in general you can get sued for an IP breach that does not result in financial loss. Because
a) we get people claiming otherwise pretty often
(and I'm pretty damn tired of them), and
b) because at least to me your
"You can only sue for the money that you will have lost due to the violation in question." sounds lot more like a generic comment, than something specific to this engine issue.
As far as the engine is concerned, I actually agree with you.
EDIT: And of course, they could sue you just as a scare-tactic, counting on your inability or unwillingness to invest all the money, time and effort it takes to go to court. They
(talking about companies in general) surely have lot deeper pockets than you do, after all.