Acme Safe Company owns a patent on a particular type of electronic locking mechanism for safes. Acme discovered that Notso Safe Company had begun using a mechanism that is identical to the patented mechanism, and obtained a finding from the courts that Notso had infringed on Acme's patent. Which of the following is most correct? A. Acme cannot win unless it can prove that Notso's design was actually stolen from Acme. What counts is whether it was wrongfully taken, because two companies could design the same mechanism independently of each other. B. Acme can obtain an injunction to prevent Notso from manufacturing any more safes that use Acme's patented design, but only if it proves that without an injunction, there would be irreparable damage to Acme, that money damages would not be an adequate remedy, that a comparison of hardships on the two parties demonstrates that an injunction would be appropriate, OR that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. C. Acme can obtain an injunction to prevent Notso from manufacturing any more safes that use Acme's patented design, but only if it proves that without an injunction, there would be irreparable damage to Acme, that money damages would not be an adequate remedy, that a comparison of hardships on the two parties demonstrates that an injunction would be appropriate, AND that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. D. Acme will win the infringement issue, but will not be able to obtain an injunction against Notso because that would abrogate Notso's property rights.