Lawyers are paid to make cases. Here, it's quite simple. The author of this code saw the Skype code, indeed he admits it. Then he wrote new code. Same person. Your honor, it is unreasonable for him to claim that his new code was not heavily influenced by what he had seen. It is like me listening to a song and then writing a new one "heavily inspired by it", and then claiming I'm not committing copyright infringement.
Lawyers make such arguments all the time and it comes down to who has the time & money to take them to court, and defend against them, and then the judge is a human who decides, and is heavily influenceable.
I have exploited several products that align closely with protocols and/or brand names used by large companies. For every single product, I have received a request to take down my product. And in every single case, after my (kickass, I must add) IP lawyer wrote them a reply, they went away.
What are you saying here, that you are good at skirting the law without breaking it, that all takedown claims are bogus, or that your lawyer is so good one letter can chase away even determined legal action by deep pocketed firms?
Only the first one makes sense, and it has no relevance to the project we're discussing, so it's unclear why you say it.
No disrespect, just trying to understand your point here.
Indeed. Copyright law is more often than not abused (instead of used) by large companies. If you are careful + understand the law and what you're doing, 99% of claims turn out to be bullshit.
Lawyers make such arguments all the time and it comes down to who has the time & money to take them to court, and defend against them, and then the judge is a human who decides, and is heavily influenceable.