Exactly what I thought, the lawyers found a law that allows them to make money, you can bet these law firms have a bunch of paralegals sitting in a room going through every product label and manual to see which patents are out of data.
Man I know of a few examples of products out there which I know are still being marked with patents that are over 30 yrs old. I have to go check this could make a few $ here. Better do it before these lawyers find them.
Okay, did not read the entire section, but that is a first to see the government share the fine, Usually the government get to keep it all for themselves, no wonder the lawyers are all over this one. It is pay day for them.
That is not true. For many years, people turning companies in have been able to enrich themselves and the government doesn't keep 100%.
Look up environmental enforcement actions, for example. Heck, if you turn someone in to the IRS, you can get a portion of the amount recovered.
I had a tech client sued over the same thing this year, mainly because they did keep on top of patent numbers on their web site, that when the pages were published we still in force. They have moved away from any listing of patent numbers and just state that their products are covered by patents or patents that are pending. Then it leaves the trolls to figure out which ones and they can't get sued for listing specific patents.
The other part of this is that in order to actually *win* and not just settle, you have to prove intent to deceive. That's the kicker. Can you really imagine Apple, or any of the others actually meant to deceive here? To what end?
Good point, and based on Apples past, even the government could not prove that Jobs stock options were illegal since they could not prove it was done with intent, it was based on bad advice. Apple has a hell of record of not doing things like this with intent to deceive.
Damn that ruins my chance of going after those companies I know has hold patents listed, I think the were just to stupid to know better.
That is not true. For many years, people turning companies in have been able to enrich themselves and the government doesn't keep 100%.
Look up environmental enforcement actions, for example. Heck, if you turn someone in to the IRS, you can get a portion of the amount recovered.
That appears to be a new thing, in this case it has to be over $2M for them to share with you. But this is not a fine, it is a reward, or finders fee. in the above cast they are splitting the fine with you, it would be like you turning people in for speeding you getting half the ticket fine for doing so.
I had a tech client sued over the same thing this year, mainly because they did keep on top of patent numbers on their web site, that when the pages were published we still in force. They have moved away from any listing of patent numbers and just state that their products are covered by patents or patents that are pending. Then it leaves the trolls to figure out which ones and they can't get sued for listing specific patents.
I am kind of surprise Apple was not following this method, since many tech companies have moved to this method, I never understood what some companies stopped listing their patent probably because of these lawsuits. But is a fine live since it also make it harder to sue someone for infringing upon your patents.
This is another example why lawyers are criminals.
They are suing for $500 fine? Of course not. These assholes will ask for fees in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. What a stupid legal system America has created! So ridiculous, it is shameful.
The plaintiff, Americans for Fair Patent Use, asserts that the companies have falsely marked products with expired patents, or patents that do not cover the marked products, "with the intent to deceive the public about the patent coverage for their products."
The general public doesn't care about patents, they care about products. Patents are for corporations/patent holders to deal with.
This is different from the software patent issue, which also is messed up here in the US.
This is clearly a case of the fact that anyone can search products and their associated patents, see if any of those patents expired, check to see if the products, manuals or other marketing material listed those patents and then go to court. If successful, you'd (in theory) get $250 per each item the company ever sold with the expired patent markings.
This is a new door that's opened recently for these trolls, which explains why in the past year we've seen an increase in new cases by an order of magnitude.
What really sucks about this is that it *is* pure trolling, and it's set up to be pure trolling. You don't have to prove damages or that you're a victim in order to bring the suit. Just do the searching and file the papers. There are probably tons of others who you could find. Pro-tip: look for those who place the patents on the products themselves and have been selling the products for really long time periods.
The other part of this is that in order to actually *win* and not just settle, you have to prove intent to deceive. That's the kicker. Can you really imagine Apple, or any of the others actually meant to deceive here? To what end?
The Eastern District of Texas is a thick brew of good ol' boy plaintiffs' lawyers, elected judges (who rely on them to finance their reelection at the very least) and plaintiff pleasing jurors. Even if Apple can show that Americans for Fair Patent Use was established a week before the lawsuit by the lawyer's wife and the judge's niece.....doesn't mean the case won't go against Apple. At $500 per item x iPods sold, one is talking many tens of billions of dollars - a multiple of Apple's total revenues selling the 'offending' items. Of course it would get appealed all the way, but even so, Apple is probably taking this one quite seriously.
Read the story again, it's $500 per falsely marked product. That is in the millions if not billions of dollars.
If it's per product, that might cover iPhone, iPod, iPad, the Macs, and ATV. So... maybe $4,000 total. Now if they want it per item shipped, that would be even more ludicrous.
Oh, and way to go Eastern District of Texas with yet another asinine lawsuit. I assume some judge(s) are making a pretty penny doing these lawsuits or they'd toss them out like the total garbage that they are.
OK, based on that excerpt, we have another victory of lawyers and idiots. If it's for each item sold... WTF? So even if I had a product and said it was covered by every patent in existence, in what way is that harming the consumer? I mean, aside from wasted paper if it's printed in the manual? And if I had 10 expired patents listed on a non-patented item, and if, say, someone else wanted to make something similar, that other person might start with thinking: 'Hmmm, wonder how much licensing this stuff costs?', notice they're no longer valid, and go ahead and copy whatever it is anyways.
Or does a 2 minute lookup constitute too high of a barrier for competition? It's so aggravating to see these lawsuits come by over and over. The obvious, the inane, and now lawsuits when there isn't even a patent involved anymore. Go US Courts!
Hey, I was right until he found out that the Federal Circuit Court changed their interpretation of the definition back.
I can't help it if the Federal Circuit Court judges flip-flop on their interpretation of the definition of the law. Let's just wait another few months and I may be right again!
Hey, I was right until he found out that the Federal Circuit Court changed their interpretation of the definition back.
I can't help it if the Federal Circuit Court judges flip-flop on their interpretation of the definition of the law. Let's just wait another few months and I may be right again!
Actually you were correct in that the damage of $500 is per each individual product sold.
The Federal Circuit?s decision in Forest Group held that the false patent marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 292, authorizes damages of up to $500 per product sold with a false mark. This overturned decades of precedent starting from London v. Everett H. Dunbar Corp., 179 F. 506 (1st Cir. 1910), which held that the ?$500 per offense? language of the statute defines ?offense? by each decision to mark products, rather than for each individual product sold.
So the original precedent was "$500 per offense" = "$500 per each decision to mark products".
The new decision (i.e. Forest Group) changed it to "$500 per offense" = "$500 per each individual product sold".
Now the result of the Solo Cup case was that there is a high bar for proving "intent to deceive", and Solo Cup provided rebuttal evidence to "intent to deceive" argument by providing evidence that shows "good faith reliance on the advice of counsel" (who said that Solo need-not remove the expired patent listing) and "out of a desire to reduce costs and business disruption".
As for the district court's decision that "$500 per offense" = "$500 per each decision to mark products" (this decision came out before Forest Group, so the district court was following the previous precedent), the Federal Circuit found the district court's meaning of "offense" as moot. Because there was no "intent to deceive", the Federal Circuit didn't even have to consider what the meaning of "offense" is.
Conclusion:
1) the current damage is $500 per each individual product sold.
2) there is a high bar to prove "intent to deceive".
Hmmm. "Americans" for Fair Patent Use? I think not. These aren't Americans. Someone should sue them for using "Americans" in their name. These sleezes all like hiding under that rock called "U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas". This is what happens when people can't get real jobs.
Comments
http://www.mipla.net/ricofiles/pdf/2...ngFlaherty.pdf
Exactly what I thought, the lawyers found a law that allows them to make money, you can bet these law firms have a bunch of paralegals sitting in a room going through every product label and manual to see which patents are out of data.
Man I know of a few examples of products out there which I know are still being marked with patents that are over 30 yrs old. I have to go check this could make a few $ here. Better do it before these lawyers find them.
Okay, did not read the entire section, but that is a first to see the government share the fine, Usually the government get to keep it all for themselves, no wonder the lawyers are all over this one. It is pay day for them.
That is not true. For many years, people turning companies in have been able to enrich themselves and the government doesn't keep 100%.
Look up environmental enforcement actions, for example. Heck, if you turn someone in to the IRS, you can get a portion of the amount recovered.
The other part of this is that in order to actually *win* and not just settle, you have to prove intent to deceive. That's the kicker. Can you really imagine Apple, or any of the others actually meant to deceive here? To what end?
Good point, and based on Apples past, even the government could not prove that Jobs stock options were illegal since they could not prove it was done with intent, it was based on bad advice. Apple has a hell of record of not doing things like this with intent to deceive.
Damn that ruins my chance of going after those companies I know has hold patents listed, I think the were just to stupid to know better.
That is not true. For many years, people turning companies in have been able to enrich themselves and the government doesn't keep 100%.
Look up environmental enforcement actions, for example. Heck, if you turn someone in to the IRS, you can get a portion of the amount recovered.
That appears to be a new thing, in this case it has to be over $2M for them to share with you. But this is not a fine, it is a reward, or finders fee. in the above cast they are splitting the fine with you, it would be like you turning people in for speeding you getting half the ticket fine for doing so.
http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/artic...n-tax-cheaters
I had a tech client sued over the same thing this year, mainly because they did keep on top of patent numbers on their web site, that when the pages were published we still in force. They have moved away from any listing of patent numbers and just state that their products are covered by patents or patents that are pending. Then it leaves the trolls to figure out which ones and they can't get sued for listing specific patents.
I am kind of surprise Apple was not following this method, since many tech companies have moved to this method, I never understood what some companies stopped listing their patent probably because of these lawsuits. But is a fine live since it also make it harder to sue someone for infringing upon your patents.
This is another example why lawyers are criminals.
They are suing for $500 fine? Of course not. These assholes will ask for fees in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. What a stupid legal system America has created! So ridiculous, it is shameful.
$500 PER PRODUCT. $500 per item sold? Wow.
The plaintiff, Americans for Fair Patent Use, asserts that the companies have falsely marked products with expired patents, or patents that do not cover the marked products, "with the intent to deceive the public about the patent coverage for their products."
The general public doesn't care about patents, they care about products. Patents are for corporations/patent holders to deal with.
This is different from the software patent issue, which also is messed up here in the US.
This is clearly a case of the fact that anyone can search products and their associated patents, see if any of those patents expired, check to see if the products, manuals or other marketing material listed those patents and then go to court. If successful, you'd (in theory) get $250 per each item the company ever sold with the expired patent markings.
This is a new door that's opened recently for these trolls, which explains why in the past year we've seen an increase in new cases by an order of magnitude.
What really sucks about this is that it *is* pure trolling, and it's set up to be pure trolling. You don't have to prove damages or that you're a victim in order to bring the suit. Just do the searching and file the papers. There are probably tons of others who you could find. Pro-tip: look for those who place the patents on the products themselves and have been selling the products for really long time periods.
The other part of this is that in order to actually *win* and not just settle, you have to prove intent to deceive. That's the kicker. Can you really imagine Apple, or any of the others actually meant to deceive here? To what end?
The Eastern District of Texas is a thick brew of good ol' boy plaintiffs' lawyers, elected judges (who rely on them to finance their reelection at the very least) and plaintiff pleasing jurors. Even if Apple can show that Americans for Fair Patent Use was established a week before the lawsuit by the lawyer's wife and the judge's niece.....doesn't mean the case won't go against Apple. At $500 per item x iPods sold, one is talking many tens of billions of dollars - a multiple of Apple's total revenues selling the 'offending' items. Of course it would get appealed all the way, but even so, Apple is probably taking this one quite seriously.
Read the story again, it's $500 per falsely marked product. That is in the millions if not billions of dollars.
If it's per product, that might cover iPhone, iPod, iPad, the Macs, and ATV. So... maybe $4,000 total. Now if they want it per item shipped, that would be even more ludicrous.
Oh, and way to go Eastern District of Texas with yet another asinine lawsuit. I assume some judge(s) are making a pretty penny doing these lawsuits or they'd toss them out like the total garbage that they are.
Agreed. Leonard is flat wrong.
Excerpt:
OK, based on that excerpt, we have another victory of lawyers and idiots. If it's for each item sold... WTF? So even if I had a product and said it was covered by every patent in existence, in what way is that harming the consumer? I mean, aside from wasted paper if it's printed in the manual? And if I had 10 expired patents listed on a non-patented item, and if, say, someone else wanted to make something similar, that other person might start with thinking: 'Hmmm, wonder how much licensing this stuff costs?', notice they're no longer valid, and go ahead and copy whatever it is anyways.
Or does a 2 minute lookup constitute too high of a barrier for competition? It's so aggravating to see these lawsuits come by over and over. The obvious, the inane, and now lawsuits when there isn't even a patent involved anymore. Go US Courts!
Agreed. Leonard is flat wrong.
Excerpt:
Hey, I was right until he found out that the Federal Circuit Court changed their interpretation of the definition back.
I can't help it if the Federal Circuit Court judges flip-flop on their interpretation of the definition of the law. Let's just wait another few months and I may be right again!
Hey, I was right until he found out that the Federal Circuit Court changed their interpretation of the definition back.
I can't help it if the Federal Circuit Court judges flip-flop on their interpretation of the definition of the law. Let's just wait another few months and I may be right again!
Actually you were correct in that the damage of $500 is per each individual product sold.
The Federal Circuit?s decision in Forest Group held that the false patent marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 292, authorizes damages of up to $500 per product sold with a false mark. This overturned decades of precedent starting from London v. Everett H. Dunbar Corp., 179 F. 506 (1st Cir. 1910), which held that the ?$500 per offense? language of the statute defines ?offense? by each decision to mark products, rather than for each individual product sold.
So the original precedent was "$500 per offense" = "$500 per each decision to mark products".
The new decision (i.e. Forest Group) changed it to "$500 per offense" = "$500 per each individual product sold".
Now the result of the Solo Cup case was that there is a high bar for proving "intent to deceive", and Solo Cup provided rebuttal evidence to "intent to deceive" argument by providing evidence that shows "good faith reliance on the advice of counsel" (who said that Solo need-not remove the expired patent listing) and "out of a desire to reduce costs and business disruption".
As for the district court's decision that "$500 per offense" = "$500 per each decision to mark products" (this decision came out before Forest Group, so the district court was following the previous precedent), the Federal Circuit found the district court's meaning of "offense" as moot. Because there was no "intent to deceive", the Federal Circuit didn't even have to consider what the meaning of "offense" is.
Conclusion:
1) the current damage is $500 per each individual product sold.
2) there is a high bar to prove "intent to deceive".
also, texas keeps asserting that they can secede from the union. we should let them.