I'm saying that there is no valid principle to support your position.
By being an innovator you naturally get the first crack at doing something no one else can do yet. How does that grant you the extra right to send thugs out to attack anyone who copies what you are doing?
Persuasion is a perfectly acceptable way to attempt to get consumers to support you above others, but violence isn't.
Anyone claiming they have the right to beat people up for copying them (like an angry fucking 5 year old) is a scammer.
I'm sure your stance of no intellectual property extends to trademarks as well. What if someone starts producing "Coca Cola" in their garage and includes antifreeze as one of the ingredients? Do you think the actual Coca Cola company has a right to stop them? It will surely kill anyone who drinks it, and it would greatly erode the brand value of Coca Cola causing them to lose substantial amounts of revenue. Or would Coca Cola company be considered "an angry fucking 5 year old scammer" in your eyes?
No different than when people claimed bitcoin cash was bitcoin, it's buyer beware + plus improved education.
If a company is killing people while also commiting the fraud of claiming to be another company in an act of defamation, then they are guilty of a great many crimes, for which they should be pursued, & IP is irrelevant.
IP is relevant when a competitor produces a cola product for less money & Coke wants to attack them. In that case I think Coke would be in the wrong.
trademarks are not the same as copyright. they are protection against counterfeiting.
