News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:An Open Letter to Intel by vanderZwan on Tuesday November 07, 2017 @08:14AM (#15643051)
IANAL, but assuming this is breaking the licence agreement, wouldn't suing for money only make legal sense if he could show that this infringement had cost him in some way?

Beyond the valid complaint of this being a personal insult, that is.

Re:An Open Letter to Intel by todd8 on Tuesday November 07, 2017 @08:24AM (#15643117)
It does cost him. More people would know of MINIX and more would have heard of its creator. More people would buy his books, hire him for consulting on OS design, etc.
Re:An Open Letter to Intel by scott00 on Tuesday November 07, 2017 @08:57AM (#15643347)
US copyright law lets you sue for either actual damages plus the infringer's profits OR statutory damages.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504

Re:An Open Letter to Intel by wslh on Tuesday November 07, 2017 @08:20AM (#15643084)
The first good faith claim to do is to notice Intel to add the copyright notice.
Re:An Open Letter to Intel by mcv on Tuesday November 07, 2017 @09:36AM (#15643667)
It's rather late now, though, considering it's been around for years now without anyone knowing exactly because they did not include that copyright notice.

I have no idea what copyright law says about damages in a case where the infringing party tries to keep their large-scale infringement secret.

Re:An Open Letter to Intel by jimmydddd on Tuesday November 07, 2017 @10:07AM (#15643897)
The statutory damages option discussed above does not require a showing of actualy damages. It's just x dollars times the number of instances of infringement. Also, while delay in providing notice of infringement can work against the copyright owner, in this case, because Intel is a sophisticated party (i.e., big company with many in house lawyers and outside law firms advising them), the delay in making a claim would likely not help Intel's case.