Inventor forced by Mindef to close company over patent right

[CKP]

 

 

this is hard to swallow,

 

if a pirated cd copier sell pirated cd and the buyer become guilty, that i agree cos the seller knowingly running a illegal business and the buyer knowingly bought it.

 

if an established, reputable, well know, one of the biggest player in the world, company that sell an IP infringement product, i do not think the buyer is liable. Cos it is their responsibility to ensure what they sell is legal as they have the resources to do so.

 

Apple only claimed damages from Samsung.

 

Yes, Apple didn't claim damages from consumers in the US

 

because the US legal standard is "willfully infringed/stole",

 

that is, no intention to steal.

 

What I said just now was a hypothetical scenario --

 

IF Samsung continues to sell those phones to US

 

after the losing verdict and then consumers continue to buy.

 

which specs infringe the patent, if any?

 

See post #144.

 

Although some people say it's not new etc,

but how many of those people can show a picture of another vehicle

that uses telescopic extension panels?

 

What is the reason nobody is able to show

even one picture of telescopic extension panels

working in conjunction with side panels that extend,

if the claim that it is common, and nothing is new?

 

Even the Mindef magazine was unable to point out any specific vehicle.

It only tells you to google and watch youtube.

 

Some people won't understand the novel mechanism

unless they see the vehicle open and close with their own eyes.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 21, 2015 by CKP

[Galantspeedz]

actually when I watch shark tank, when they see a good thing... first question is has it been patented?

 

but when they reject something with patent, usually is because they think the patent can't hold...

 

so quite obvious, having a patent does not mean bao jiak... and the only way is to contest in court.... sadly anything to do with lawyers... you need money many many....

[Little_prince]

Dumb move in my opinion .

 

Patent should sue the manufacturer . Not the end user.

 

Imagine if apple sues the Samsung end user for patebt infringement rather than Samsung ?

[Galantspeedz]

 

Apple only claimed damages from Samsung.

 

Yes, Apple didn't claim damages from consumers in the US

 

because the US legal standard is "willfully infringed/stole",

 

that is, no intention to steal.

 

What I said just now was a hypothetical scenario --

 

IF Samsung continues to sell those phones to US

 

after the losing verdict and then consumers continue to buy.

 

See post #144.

 

Although some people say it's not new etc,

but how many of those people can show a picture of another vehicle

that uses telescopic extension panels?

 

What is the reason nobody is able to show

even one picture of telescopic extension working in conjunction with side panels?

 

this i not so sure leh... maybe those in army or hospital will know

 

 

Dumb move in my opinion .

 

Patent should sue the manufacturer . Not the end user.

 

Imagine if apple sues the Samsung end user for patebt infringement rather than Samsung ?

 

not necessarily dumb... if what he wants is exposure

[Little_prince]

 

this i not so sure leh... maybe those in army or hospital will know

 

 

 

not necessarily dumb... if what he wants is exposure

 

there are better ways to get exposure than to sue the 1. the wrong party 2. a govt body which is backed by the unlimited resources of the sg govt and the AGC

[Galantspeedz]

 

there are better ways to get exposure than to sue the 1. the wrong party 2. a govt body which is backed by the unlimited resources of the sg govt and the AGC

 

i may do it if i intend to join an opposition party but that's just me... lol

[Little_prince]

 

i may do it if i intend to join an opposition party but that's just me... lol

lol

 

you more likely to join PAP than join opposition lah.

[Ender]

 

Apple only claimed damages from Samsung.

 

Yes, Apple didn't claim damages from consumers in the US

 

because the US legal standard is "willfully infringed/stole",

 

that is, no intention to steal.

 

What I said just now was a hypothetical scenario --

 

IF Samsung continues to sell those phones to US

 

after the losing verdict and then consumers continue to buy.

 

 

They infringe wilfully becoz they feel the patent is not innovative. If some IP trolls go and patent some standard op-amp schematic or the wheel, I will definitely heck care them and use it and challenge them if I have the resources of Samsung, or mindef.. So infringement cannot be compare to piracy. Piracy is criminal, no question, but infringement is open to challenge, and be tried in civil suit.

 

E

[Maxus-MIFA9]

 

Apple only claimed damages from Samsung.

 

Yes, Apple didn't claim damages from consumers in the US

 

because the US legal standard is "willfully infringed/stole",

 

that is, no intention to steal.

 

What I said just now was a hypothetical scenario --

 

IF Samsung continues to sell those phones to US

 

after the losing verdict and then consumers continue to buy.

 

See post #144.

 

Although some people say it's not new etc,

but how many of those people can show a picture of another vehicle

that uses telescopic extension panels?

 

What is the reason nobody is able to show

even one picture of telescopic extension panels

working in conjunction with side panels that extend,

if the claim that it is common, and nothing is new?

 

Even the Mindef magazine was unable to point out any specific vehicle.

It only tells you to google and watch youtube.

 

Some people won't understand the novel mechanism

unless they see the vehicle open and close with their own eyes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The concept is there all this time since the 70's.

 

It just that back then, there are no such invention of telescopic extension or any other equipment and as years gone by, someone will design something to be added to make easier & faster to set up an emergency post.

 

Just like those shop houses in HDB areas. Shop owners installed shade outside their shops to protect the goods from rain or heat. Every morning & evening, manually open and close them (always help my friend father's shop to climb up a ladder and roll the shade. Me one side and my friend on another side). Now is all push of a 'button' and the shade open & close mechanically.

 

My take is that the concept is there all this while and only new/latest equipment added togther to make it better and presentable.

 

If that Dr insist that his vehicle design (2006 or 2007) is his only concept & patent, then Mitsubishi can also sue him cos back in the 70's (maybe that Dr just graduated) movies starred by Jackie Chan and Yuen Biao, "Meal On Wheels". A Mitsubishi van was designed with side open up to serve fast food to customers and there are cooking equipment inside.

 

My knowledge of 'patent' is that there are no other design in this world and your design must be the one & only one. Design base on concept and modification is not original.

 

Just my 2 cents worth of input ...

[Galantspeedz]

lol

 

you more likely to join PAP than join opposition lah.

 

both also won't join.... imagine get paid 15k a month but cannot go ktv or spa......... pay me so much, cannot spend also no use...lol

[ShellVpower]

 

I went to do some research and ask lawyer friends.

 

Patent protection is very complex. The fact that patent is granted by a certain country doesn't mean patent is valid. In patent fights, they always try to invalidate the patent.

 

Patent invalidation by Court of Law is not uncommon, in many countries.

 

In USA and European countries, the patent regime is very long-standing and advanced. If you search online, you can find many examples of patents granted by the US Patent Office, yet overturned by the Courts. Same situation in Europe.

 

E.g.

 

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news-stories/press-release/two-people-living-hivaids-overturn-aids-drug-patent

 

http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2013/11/u.s.-court-invalidates-patent-down-syndrome-test

 

In this ruling, the German Courts invalidated Apple's 'slide-to-unlock' patent.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/04/apples-slide-to-unlock-patent.html

 

IMHO, the fact that a patent has been granted in one country, or many countries, does not automatically assume that the patent is valid. You have to wait till it gets challenged in Court!

 

Bro,

 

You are very cynical. Maybe you want to study patent law and how patents work before making such allegations? Not funny leh, your allegations. If I work for IPOS, I'd be very angry. But I'm just a by-stander, so don't flame me.

 

In this case Ting vs Mindef,

Mindef disregarded the existence of the patent and went on to produce something that was innovated before Mindef was able to make their own version of the part.

 

The story would have been very different if Mindef had first challenged the patent and invalidated it before going on to produce the vehicle. But they choose to disregard it and went on to bully its way through. This is a matter of respect for innovation, mindef didn't have a right to decide if a patent is valid or not and thus taking it the way it took was simply a contempt. That's why it drew the response from Ting and many who took his side.

[CKP]

 

The concept is there all this time since the 70's.

 

It just that back then, there are no such invention of telescopic extension or any other equipment and as years gone by, someone will design something to be added to make easier & faster to set up an emergency post.

 

Just like those shop houses in HDB areas. Shop owners installed shade outside their shops to protect the goods from rain or heat. Every morning & evening, manually open and close them (always help my friend father's shop to climb up a ladder and roll the shade. Me one side and my friend on another side). Now is all push of a 'button' and the shade open & close mechanically.

 

My take is that the concept is there all this while and only new/latest equipment added togther to make it better and presentable.

 

If that Dr insist that his vehicle design (2006 or 2007) is his only concept & patent, then Mitsubishi can also sue him cos back in the 70's (maybe that Dr just graduated) movies starred by Jackie Chan and Yuen Biao, "Meal On Wheels". A Mitsubishi van was designed with side open up to serve fast food to customers and there are cooking equipment inside.

 

My knowledge of 'patent' is that there are no other design in this world and your design must be the one & only one. Design base on concept and modification is not original.

 

Just my 2 cents worth of input ...

 

If Dr Ting's patent is comparable like hotdog stands, meals on wheels type of vehicles,

 

then police/fire/military forces would have made and used it since the 70s.

 

The only explanation why it's not used since back then is because it's not the same.

 

 

 

 

SEPT 7, 2004

Mini hospital on wheels all set to roll

Called Swift, the 10-tonne truck equipped with surgical devices can be used for life-saving operations at disaster sites

By Chang Ai-Lien

TWO doctors here have designed and built a mini-emergency room (ER) on wheels that can be driven to disaster sites to give immediate help to victims - a breakthrough that has been praised by international teams, including the United States Army.

Called a 'Station With Immediate First-Aid Treatment' vehicle, or Swift for short, the 10-tonne truck has a resuscitation area with surgical devices and lights, a built-in suction system for removing blood, fluids and debris, and medical equipment for emergency life-saving operations.

The two doctors, both national service medical platoon commanders with the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF), started work in earnest after the Sept 11 terrorist attacks in the US.

They are Dr Mak Koon Hou, 43, a senior consultant cardiologist at the National Heart Centre, and Dr Ting Choon Meng, 45, a general practitioner who owns the medical devices company, HealthSTATS International.

It worked so well during tests that one vehicle is already on stand-by at the SCDF, which has requisitioned four more.

Said Captain Ithnin Ahmid, head of the SCDF's medical vocation branch: 'The time to set up shop may be critical to the first wave of casualties, particularly during the first five minutes, which may mean life or death for some. And this is also the time when the sheer numbers tend to overwhelm the resources available.'

Conventional First Aid Points set up at such scenes, which comprise tents and medical equipment, take about 20 minutes to be set up by 20 people - with others treating the casualties while the set-up is being done.

With Swift, two people can to set it up in just five minutes, he said.

'We need something where we can immediately stabilise severe casualties, prioritise treatment for victims and send them to the right place for treatments. This is what can be done with Swift.'

So far, about 170 SCDF paramedics have been trained to use Swift. Over 600 doctors and medical orderlies - the SCDF NSmen on stand-by in case of a national disaster - will also be trained.

Dr Ting explained: 'After Sept 11, we started thinking seriously about this. We felt that there was some way to refine procedures to allow doctors to be ready to treat people almost immediately.'

Added Dr Mak: 'The key issue in managing mass casualty situations is the need for rapid deployment and easy availability of life-saving equipment, and Swift is designed to meet these needs.'

Swift has also generated interest from other parties here and abroad.

Mr Dennis Wend, the executive vice-president for technology transfer at the National Automotive Center of the US Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command, was here recently to see it.

'We are very impressed with the Swift vehicle and its designers and are very interested in evaluating the vehicle,' he said.

At home, Singapore Technologies Kinetics - the land systems arm of ST Engineering - said Swift was 'unique in its ability to provide immediate medical facilities at a mass casualty site'.

SCDF Commissioner James Tan cited the SCDF's various successful innovations over the years, and a range of emergency vehicles 'custom-built for use in the new security landscape'.

'I'm very glad this creative momentum has even permeated our NSmen as well,' he said. 'Swift is a testimony to that.'

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/topstories/story/0,4386,271322,00.html?

 

 

And all the people who praised and are impressed about the swift vehicle

all don't know about hotdogs stands and other vehicles, tents, containers of the 1970s?

 

And those patent examiners who are technical experts by the way

all don't know about hotdog stands?

 

 

Which is a more logical and probable answer?

 

(1) All these people who are technical experts don't know what is hotdog stands

and are mistaken that the swift vehicle is innovative

 

(2) Some layman not in the relevant field

see some similarities between the swift and hotdog stands

and conclude there is little to no novelty.

 

You decide.

 

Edited January 21, 2015 by CKP

[Galantspeedz]

 

In this case Ting vs Mindef,

Mindef disregarded the existence of the patent and went on to produce something that was innovated before Mindef was able to make their own version of the part.

 

The story would have been very different if Mindef had first challenged the patent and invalidated it before going on to produce the vehicle. But they choose to disregard it and went on to bully its way through. This is a matter of respect for innovation, mindef didn't have a right to decide if a patent is valid or not and thus taking it the way it took was simply a contempt. That's why it drew the response from Ting and many who took his side.

 

why not the supplier since the supplier already say that the patent does not hold...

 

still cannot understand why the onus is on Mindef and not the supplier...

 

mindef ask got problem anot

supplier say no problem

mindef say ok go ahead.. onus is on supplier liao

 

BUT if

 

mindef ask got problem anot

supplier say i think got problem leh

mindef to decide if to go ahead anot.. then i agree onus on Mindef

[Maxus-MIFA9]

 

If Dr Ting's patent is comparable like hotdog stands, meals on wheels type of vehicles,

 

then police/fire/military forces would have made and used it since the 70s.

 

The only explanation why it's not used since back then is because it's not the same.

 

 

 

Back then, there was no much threats of using chemical weapons except in war between countries.

 

Then the terror of extremist attack using chemical which started in early 80's came with the attack on Japan Sub-way train where nerve gas was used.

 

From there onward, immediate treatment by washing with plain water and such treatment are require in the field or ground zero. So thats starts their mind thinking...

[Kusje]

 

why not the supplier since the supplier already say that the patent does not hold...

 

still cannot understand why the onus is on Mindef and not the supplier...

 

mindef ask got problem anot

supplier say no problem

mindef say ok go ahead.. onus is on supplier liao

 

BUT if

 

mindef ask got problem anot

supplier say i think got problem leh

mindef to decide if to go ahead anot.. then i agree onus on Mindef

 

But this is not what happened.

 

What most probably happened was this:

 

1. Mindef thought there would be a problem with the patents and that is why they asked the supplier (shown in the "wrong fax" received)

2. Supplier says there is no problem as there is no infringement (did they properly explain to mindef why there is no patent other than general reassurances that the design is not innovative). They must have then promised to indemnify mindef.

3. Mindef decided to proceed.

 

So the real question on whether there is any bullying lies with whether the information given to the supply was convincing to mindef. If it was not and they decided to proceed because the supplier indemnified them for the alleged infringement then I would consider it bullying.

[ShellVpower]

 

why not the supplier since the supplier already say that the patent does not hold...

 

still cannot understand why the onus is on Mindef and not the supplier...

 

mindef ask got problem anot

supplier say no problem

mindef say ok go ahead.. onus is on supplier liao

 

BUT if

 

mindef ask got problem anot

supplier say i think got problem leh

mindef to decide if to go ahead anot.. then i agree onus on Mindef

 

Ultimately, you have to understand this. The vehicles are 'sold' to the public as a 'Mindef brand 'product.' And being the main benefit reaper, Mindef has the responsibilities to ensure the 'product' they 'sell' conforms to all requirements.

 

Let us put ourselves in the same perspectives with a different scenario.

VW buys the dry clutch DSG7 transmission from a supplier and the transmission fails spectacularly. The public goes after VW and not the supplier.

 

Mindef had the option of consulting Dr Ting, seek a second opinion elsewhere, but instead decided to disregard the patent even though alarm bells were clearly ringing. Therefore in this case, Mindef has failed to ensure their responsibilities were met and instead of carrying out corrective action, they went on to bully their way through against the other party who has significantly lesser resources.

 

But this is not what happened.

 

What most probably happened was this:

 

1. Mindef thought there would be a problem with the patents and that is why they asked the supplier (shown in the "wrong fax" received)

2. Supplier says there is no problem as there is no infringement (did they properly explain to mindef why there is no patent other than general reassurances that the design is not innovative). They must have then promised to indemnify mindef.

3. Mindef decided to proceed.

 

So the real question on whether there is any bullying lies with whether the information given to the supply was convincing to mindef. If it was not and they decided to proceed because the supplier indemnified them for the alleged infringement then I would consider it bullying.

 

Indemnification is unlikely. But of course this is between the supplier and mindef. And mindef has to sort it out with their supplier. However, the vehicles in question are presented as a mindef vehicle and thus, the onus now lies on Mindef. They cannot simply push it to the supplier and said that the supplier indemnified them or that they acted on the supplier's information.

[Kusje]

 

Indemnification is unlikely. But of course this is between the supplier and mindef. And mindef has to sort it out with their supplier. However, the vehicles in question are presented as a mindef vehicle and thus, the onus now lies on Mindef. They cannot simply push it to the supplier and said that the supplier indemnified them or that they acted on the supplier's information.

 

Based on mindef's response, there was some sort of indemnification. Whether this was given during the initial tender submission or the subsequent clarifications about the patent is not clear to me.

 

 

#3 Is MINDEF out to destroy MobileStats with the prolonged court case and the demand for the payment of $580K?

 

 

This is false. MINDEF did not initiate the legal action. It was MobileStats who inexplicably chose to sue MINDEF instead of the manufacturer. In defending ourselves, MINDEF’s conduct was in full compliance with court regulations and never found lacking.

 

$580K was the amount that the court decided MobileStats should reimburse MINDEF for our legal fees. Not a single cent will be kept by MINDEF. The money will go to Syntech, the BCS vendor, who honoured their legal obligation to MINDEF and bore the cost of the legal proceedings.

[Boringchap]

This guy's patent has been invalidated by the Court. Non-valid patent - how can there be infringement in the first place? It does not follow.

 

Anyway, inventors like to patent all sorts of things. After patenting, they like to think that their patent covers everything. There are even 'experts' out there whose job is to assert patent rights against companies, hoping to make a quick buck.

 

There is no obligation to try to get a patent invalidated before you produce something that may infringe a patent. Otherwise, businesses will spent too much time trying to invalidate all the possible patents that they may encounter and have little time putting new products and services onto the market.

 

The question is why patents that are subsequently found invalid were granted a patent in the first place. I am also not sure. At first I also thought maybe our local patent authority not very good. But you have seen in the links I dug up that in many other countries, their long-established patent authorities also grant patents that were subsequently overturned by their Courts. So, same-same.

 

Edited January 21, 2015 by Boringchap