Inventor forced by Mindef to close company over patent right

[bellboy]

@CKP, it would be alot more convincing and interesting if you can point out how is Doc Ting's invention different from that of a mobile hotdog van.

 

The argument that a patent approved by IPOS is as good as a master contract that allows one to bill anyone producing something similar is just not cutting it for me. Refer to post #93 for why.

[Jamomatt]

Haiz so many of our medical equipment in our army stolen idea one. If only the Americans knew what we stole from them and manufactured ourselves lol. Even the training videos also use theirs haha.

[Mcf777]

Another case happened many years ago.

 

If untrue, I doubt they will state all the company names involved.

 

http://therealsingapore.com/content/smc-director-govt-has-long-history-cheating-entrepreneurs-and-businesses

[Yuan]

Oh so it's yuan.

 

If it's yuan say yuan. Don't say ur friend.

 

Simi?

 

How come every time got people quote me wan? No head no tail. I don't know what you guys are talking about.

 

The last one was @Mustank quoted me in a Nov 2014 post.

[Mustank]

 

Simi?

 

How come every time got people quote me wan? No head no tail. I don't know what you guys are talking about.

 

The last one was @Mustank quoted me in a Nov 2014 post.

Simi kang Tao

[Yuan]

Simi kang Tao

 

I looking for kang tao.

 

Here, people diam diam quote nick here quote nick there. (not referring to you).

Edited January 25, 2015 by Yuan

[Joseph22]

 

Simi?

 

How come every time got people quote me wan? No head no tail. I don't know what you guys are talking about.

 

The last one was @Mustank quoted me in a Nov 2014 post.

So you got tell shellvpower u roflol about patent case?

[Yuan]

So you got tell shellvpower u roflol about patent case?

 

The two of you talked like long time lovers.

 

Please don't get me involved.

 

Thank You.

[Galantspeedz]

CKP,

 

any idea why was the patent ruled as invalid?

[Darryn]

T.O.C has published an apology for their article on this case..

 

 

[Kusje]

T.O.C has published an apology for their article on this case..

 

 

 

 

So if they didn't fax him the letter then why is the doctor claiming to do so? Wouldn't this be something easy to verify?

[Darryn]

 

So if they didn't fax him the letter then why is the doctor claiming to do so? Wouldn't this be something easy to verify?

My quick perusal and memory, I don't think it was the faxing per se - I think the faxing of the letter can be "proven" and truth is a defense right?

 

But rather implying that they were careless and negligent by faxing the letter by accident?

[CKP]

@CKP, it would be alot more convincing and interesting if you can point out how is Doc Ting's invention different from that of a mobile hotdog van.

 

The argument that a patent approved by IPOS is as good as a master contract that allows one to bill anyone producing something similar is just not cutting it for me. Refer to post #93 for why.

 

(1) Bellboy, maybe you must have missed what I posted in #144, #175 and #194 on how the swift is different from everything else.

http://youtu.be/m_EPg6jBhoc

(2) Bellboy, maybe you would like to be the second person in this thread to try to show, using drawings and illustrations, how a hotdog van or any other mobile/vehicle/tent combination is indeed similar to the swift vehicle.

I will be more than happy to explain why the specific examples that you post will be different from the swift vehicle.

[Boringchap]

 

So if they didn't fax him the letter then why is the doctor claiming to do so? Wouldn't this be something easy to verify?

 

Indeed!

 

We can all draw our conclusions about this episode.

[CKP]

@ The argument that a patent approved by IPOS is as good as a master contract that allows one to bill anyone producing something similar is just not cutting it for me. Refer to post #93 for why. "If your patent "lacks novelty and/or inventive step", you cannot enforce it. Whether it fufils the above point, its for the law to decide.

 

"The argument that a patent approved by IPOS is as good as a master contract that allows one to bill anyone

producing something similar is just not cutting it for me. "

 

(1) The strong case for an inventive step in Dr Ting's patent isn't based on only one argument

that various patent offices had granted patents for the swift.

The lack of any specific examples beyond some similarities of appearances on the surface (using parallels to hotdog vans/stands

and so forth) also tells an objective person that an inventive step is indeed contained in the swift vehicle.

The layman who continues to cite hotdog vans and so forth need to understand

that the patent wasn't granted for novelty on appearance or concept of a shelter appearing next to a set of wheels,

but are granted for the inventive step in how that shelter is installed,

which has been taking place since the late 19th century/early 20th century.

(2) The "Vuestar" example you cited is very different from the swift vehicle example on several levels:

First, Dr Ting had already enforced the rights of his patent successfully

when he received licensing fee from the manufacture of the swift vehicles for SCDF.

Second, not only did Dr Ting send invoices demanding licensing fees payment

from Mindef (like vuestar) and threaten to bring Mindef to court (like Vuestar),

Dr Ting also filed a lawsuit against Mindef in order to enforce his patent right.

Third, Vuestar claimed "Patent Breach By Virtually All Websites".

In other words, Vuestar had claimed many patent breaches by multiple parties from various companies,

websites and all the way to US giants like Yahoo, Microsoft and Google.

Vuestar claimed breaches against "everyone".

On the other hand, Dr Ting is claiming patent breach against only one single party, Mindef,

against the backdrop of patents for the swift granted in at least nine countries.

Dr Ting claimed breaches only against Mindef.

The difference is night and day.

That's why your attempt to draw equivalence with the Vuestar example is wrong and misleading.

[CKP]

People need to realise that being able to file a patent and being able to enforce the patent is 2 different matters.

 

snip

 

If your patent "lacks novelty and/or inventive step", you cannot enforce it.

Whether it fufils the above point, its for the law to decide.

 

#270, Bro @Boringchap, I cannot praise you further using the system as I need to praise many others before the system allows that. So here's my public show of support for your arguments.

 

 

You said, "If your patent "lacks novelty and/or inventive step, you cannot enforce it.

Whether it fufils the above point, its for the law to decide."

 

 

(1) Your statement is inaccurate and misleading just like your buddy boringchap's statement in #104.

I have already answered why this is so in #243, in part:

Fact 1: Once a patent is granted/issued, the patent is presumed to be valid.

Fact 2: The strength of this presumption can be challenged in court.

Fact 3: So until invalidity has been either ruled (proven) or declared by the courts,

the patent is presumed to be valid.

Facts 1 and 3 are in direct contrast to the misleading statements from you and boringchap

that erroneously suggest that "only when the courts decide",

if and only when the courts do decide, then a patent is valid.

(2) Oh, by the way, I am puzzled by the support you admit

you place (#270) on your bro boringchap when

- borinchap doesn't or refuses to show any specific knowledge on the swift or on this case.

- borinchap has already twice avoided answering the same question I posed to him in #243 and #271,

- boringchap's response to my post #243, like Hub_n_mona in #245,

was to change topic to "lowered patent standards in Singapore".

I have explained in #271 why this topic is clearly quite irrelevant to this case.

- borinchap refuses to agree or disgree with my answer #271 to his question in #264.

[CKP]

CKP,

 

any idea why was the patent ruled as invalid?

 

This has been answered and reported several times from several public sources,

including from the video in the first post.

 

Dr Ting dropped his lawsuit/claim. He cited financial issues.

 

Mindef did not drop their counter suit/counterclaim.

Dr Ting didn't show up to defend against this counter suit.

 

 

If one gets the impression that all expert witnesses were cross examined

and that the Judge had ruled on the basis of patent law

with respect to the full testimonies and full cross examinations

of all the expert witnesses scheduled to take the stand,

then I am afraid that is a wrong impression without question.

 

 

[Hub_n_mona]

 

This has been answered and reported several times from several public sources,

including from the video in the first post.

 

Dr Ting dropped his lawsuit/claim. He cited financial issues.

 

Mindef did not drop their counter suit/counterclaim.

Dr Ting didn't show up to defend against this counter suit.

 

 

If one gets the impression that all expert witnesses were cross examined

and that the Judge had ruled on the basis of patent law

with respect to the full testimonies and full cross examinations

of all the expert witnesses scheduled to take the stand,

then I am afraid that is a wrong impression without question.

 

 

 

You seem to need the final word on this. If you do, then I will say it upfront, you win

 

In any case, before the actual judgement is published, one should be careful into calling into question the courts, and also what was said in parliament, lest there be contempt.

 

https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/content/minlaw/en/news/parliamentary-speeches-and-responses/oral-answer-by-sms-on-revocation-of-patents.html

 

Of course, if you have the judgement available, please share. You seem to be in the know. If so, then you should be extra careful.

 

Referring to your last paragraph, if one litigant produced submissions and the other litigating party did not (e.g. because of funding issues), the judge still has to decide based on what's before him/her. I am not saying the above happened during Dr Ting's case but just putting forth this regarding your suggestion that the judge did not "rule on the basis of patent law". One would be very careful about implying such a thing. As mentioned, Dr Ting should have his day in court but for lack of funds. You may be correct that not "all" witnesses were cross examined but one would reserve commenting until the judgement is published.

 

In any event, you win!