Mac and Cheese Maze Mystery Resolved

It's far from clear that the maze was subject to copyright in the first place, so it's easy for him to be forgiving.

In the author's words:

In my mind, [a substantially larger settlement] would not have been just. It would have been a reverse form of theft, taking advantage of one person’s mistake for my personal gain. While it’s tempting to blame the “big corporation” for this kind of thing, ultimately these kinds of mistakes are made by people who are prone to the same kinds of errors that you and I make every day.

>If someone stole my IP

They didn't steal anything. They only infringed on the exclusive right granted under copyright law.

Actually stealing IP is near impossible to do.

It's probably in a contract they have with the design company. I would think it's very common, kind of like a software vendor indmnifying purchasers of their software against patent lawsuits.

Indemnification clauses have been enforceable in contract law for a very long time. (And contract law never takes one's assets into account when determining whether a clause is enforceable, unless the agreement is deemed unconscionable or contrary to public policy, which to my knowledge an indemnification clause never has been.)

The clause in the contract doesn't mean that Kraft is immune to suit. But it does give Kraft the ability to file a cross-claim against the design firm if it is sued so that damages can be assigned to the design firm if necessary. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 13(g).