Samantha develops a new type of comb that effectively removes loose dog hair and eliminates problems with shedding. samantha had never seen such a comb on the market and was very surprised when she received notification that she was being sued for patent infringement by the holder of a patent on a similar type of comb. samantha investigates and determines that the earlier patent was valid. her friend harry, a first year law student told her that she could not be guilty of patent infringement because she was not aware of the earlier patent, and that she should proceed to at least sell the rest of her inventory. assuming the validity of the earlier patent, which of the following is true regarding harry's statement that samantha could not be guilty of patent infringement because she was unaware of the earlier patent when she began marketing her combs?

Harry was incorrect, and Samantha can be held liable for direct patent infringement

Explanation:

In the court of law it is difficult to prove that Samantha did not know that the earlier patent existed. As, far as the court knows she made a comb which was identical to the one of the patent.

She would not be able to sell the rest of her inventory she would be held guilty of infringing the patent whether she had known or not known.

So, Harry's statement was wrong.

what is the other part to the question

it is a part of john locke's natural rights popular during the age of enlightenment that people had inalienable rights to life, liberty and property. this was reflected by thomas jefferson in his declaration of independence as rights to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

another line in the declaration of independence is that people have certain rights just because they are human. humans are capable of obeying the three natural rights john locke mentioned making them governable by these laws and therefore entitled to these rights as well.