Re:I don't get it... (Score 5, Insightful)

Close, Lemelson had to do with something called "prosecution laches," and dealt with a patent strategy of keeping a patent from even issueing until the underlying technology becomes widespread. This practice is less problematic now than when Lemelson was originally filed due to changes in the length of a patent term (now a patent term is 20 years from the date of filing, when Lemelson was filed a patent term was 17 years from the date of issue). However, the broader concept of "laches" is relevant. In property law in general, "laches" is the doctrine that requires that a property owner must actively guard their property rights or they will lose them. For example (and this is a simplified example that is not 100% technically accurate), if your neighbor builds a fence that slops over onto your property and you do not make them remove it, after a long enough time period has passed your neighbors will legally own the property encompassed by the fence. The problem is that the application of laches in the IP realm is still an undeveloped concept and the courts have not adequately set out guidelines for determining when a patent holder has forfeited her rights.