The statute involved is to help prevent companies/persons from claiming false or expired patents. Seems a laudable goal, right? Whether it has merit here is another story.
Idunno, the quote FineTunes made doesn't say anything about expired patents. Just claims made on other entities' patents or pat pending claims where the application was never filed.
It also makes lots of specific use of the words "for purposes of deceiving the public". Awfully hard to say that listing an expired, valid patent number is deceiving. It was valid and can be looked up and verified, nothing deceptive there. Maybe a little sloppy if you are going to get pedantic over things like that, but hardly fraudulent by any stretch of the imagination.
The U.S. patent system has become so corrupt and abused that it is little more than a cartelized-mercantilist old-boys club. It is about time someone started to act to put a stop to such abuse and to initiate reform.
And just which bought off politicians do you think are going to do this?
And make no mistake with campaigns costing upwards of millions of dollars to run now, a "real" person doesn't stand a chance of actually making it very far. Especially when the media (who incidentally is owned by the same people who benefit from exactly what you are proposing NOT happening) get to control just who and what is seen and not seen by the majority of Americans.
The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is which private interest group controls them. Obama ran and won on a message of change. Well, we got change alright. Now the Democrats are screwing the public over instead of the Republicans.
I wouldn't expect any meaningful reform in American any time soon.
I'm not exactly sure why everybody is upset about this. Companies (all companies) have been abusing software patents for the longest time. It stifles innovation. It is so bad that New Zealand is pretty much trying to do away with them completely (for software). This (the lawsuit) is suppose to be a good thing. This is something people should be happy about, not angry. I'm guessing everybody saw the world "lawsuit" and assumed it was nothing but some bottom-feeding lawyers trying to make a quick buck by suing Apple. While you'd be right to assume that 99% of the time, this is the 1% where that isn't so. I mean, I'm sure this will result in lawyers making tons of money (lol), but it isn't JUST for that reason.
Idunno, the quote FineTunes made doesn't say anything about expired patents. Just claims made on other entities' patents or pat pending claims where the application was never filed.
It also makes lots of specific use of the words "for purposes of deceiving the public". Awfully hard to say that listing an expired, valid patent number is deceiving. It was valid and can be looked up and verified, nothing deceptive there. Maybe a little sloppy if you are going to get pedantic over things like that, but hardly fraudulent by any stretch of the imagination.
Listing a patent that has expired as if it still applies is a false patent claim, no? Take a look at recent cases. An expired patent ISN'T a valid patent anymore, btw. Used to be, sure, but now that thing/process/whatever is no longer protected and others can use freely without compensating or crediting the last patentholder.
As to deceiving, I suppose it would have to be shown that the company wasn't performing due diligence to purge expired patent claims from its labeling/marketing processes. Having old product on the shelf, labled with the patents when the were valid, doesn't seem to be deceiving.
According to this site - Federal Circuit Court of Appeals holds that each article marked constitutes a separate offense.
The upside is that the false marking must carry an "intent to deceive the public" something that might be very difficult for this group to do in Apple's case.
I haven't looked to see what their claims are against the other defendants, but it sounds like this is a "Shotgun Blast" approach to see what "sticks". The payout of this is potentially huge.
I'm not exactly sure why everybody is upset about this. Companies (all companies) have been abusing software patents for the longest time. It stifles innovation. It is so bad that New Zealand is pretty much trying to do away with them completely (for software). This (the lawsuit) is suppose to be a good thing. This is something people should be happy about, not angry. I'm guessing everybody saw the world "lawsuit" and assumed it was nothing but some bottom-feeding lawyers trying to make a quick buck by suing Apple. While you'd be right to assume that 99% of the time, this is the 1% where that isn't so. I mean, I'm sure this will result in lawyers making tons of money (lol), but it isn't JUST for that reason.
You're right for the most part, though not everybody here is upset about it. Given how broken the patent system is, I'm starting to think that almost anything that puts it into the news and could help make people see that it needs to be fixed is a positive.
Well not a patent labeling experts, however, it use to be common practice for companies to list all the patent which a product was covered by even ones which were long past the expired date, especially if current patents were based off older pattens, or derivative patents. It was just a way to show how many patent covered a product or protect it.
It appears base on the face there were other similar case companies can only list the valid patents. I am not sure what the harm is if you list something that is not valid anymore, but obviously someone made case out of it and the courts are allowing it.
Even if apple is in violation of this rule they would have to pay the fine to the federal government, it would not go to the law firm, but the law firm would at least have their costs covered and they includes billable hours for each lawyer.
Even if apple is in violation of this rule they would have to pay the fine to the federal government, it would not go to the law firm, but the law firm would at least have their costs covered and they includes billable hours for each lawyer.
You misunderstand the "payment method" for this statute. Half would go to the gov, half to the paintiffs. The plaintiffs would then pay their lawyer(s) based upon whatever rate/fee they had agreed to.
According to this site - Federal Circuit Court of Appeals holds that each article marked constitutes a separate offense.
The upside is that the false marking must carry an "intent to deceive the public" something that might be very difficult for this group to do in Apple's case.
I haven't looked to see what their claims are against the other defendants, but it sounds like this is a "Shotgun Blast" approach to see what "sticks". The payout of this is potentially huge.
"On June 10, 2010, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Eastern District of Virginia’s grant of summary judgment of no liability for false patent marking in favor of defendant Solo Cup Company in Pequignot v. Solo Cup Co., No. 2009-1547 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The decision should help to limit exposure of patent owners to the flood of qui tam false marking lawsuits filed since last year’s decision in Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Co., 590 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 28, 2009)."
...." The possibility of obscenely high damages combined with the fact that a false patent marking action is a qui tam action that can be brought by any person in the United States led to a flood of false marking lawsuits. Through the first four months of 2010, over 130 new false marking cases were filed; only 10 false marking cases were filed in all of 2009."
According to this site - Federal Circuit Court of Appeals holds that each article marked constitutes a separate offense.
The upside is that the false marking must carry an "intent to deceive the public" something that might be very difficult for this group to do in Apple's case.
I haven't looked to see what their claims are against the other defendants, but it sounds like this is a "Shotgun Blast" approach to see what "sticks". The payout of this is potentially huge.
Nice fine, it does explain what this case could be about, it sounds like what they call a drive by lawsuit. Law firms found ways to go after someone or companies based on so federal law that most people have no clue they are in violation of, and the sue them in hopes they will be paid to go away.
So Law Firms like this all they do is is spend their day finding every example they can where someone might be in violation of this law and drag them in court in hope they companies pays them off to go away or at least get their legal fees covered.
You misunderstand the "payment method" for this statute. Half would go to the gov, half to the paintiffs. The plaintiffs would then pay their lawyer(s) based upon whatever rate/fee they had agreed to.
You misunderstand the "payment method" for this statute. Half would go to the gov, half to the paintiffs. The plaintiffs would then pay their lawyer(s) based upon whatever rate/fee they had agreed to.
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.
However, like the do not call lists companies can be fined $500 for each incident or call they place to you and I, however, you and I are not eligible for any of the at money. I made a number of claims to my state about being continuously call by a couple companies and asked the state to fine them and I would like to be reimbursed. They first laugh and explained I do not get a thing other than a thank you for bring it to their attention and they would collect and keep the money.
I'm not exactly sure why everybody is upset about this. Companies (all companies) have been abusing software patents for the longest time. It stifles innovation. It is so bad that New Zealand is pretty much trying to do away with them completely (for software). This (the lawsuit) is suppose to be a good thing. This is something people should be happy about, not angry. I'm guessing everybody saw the world "lawsuit" and assumed it was nothing but some bottom-feeding lawyers trying to make a quick buck by suing Apple. While you'd be right to assume that 99% of the time, this is the 1% where that isn't so. I mean, I'm sure this will result in lawyers making tons of money (lol), but it isn't JUST for that reason.
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 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. For example, a company might make a mold for an assembly line that falsely stamps a product with a patent number, and then make a million products. Prior to Forest Group, that company would have faced up to $500 in damages; after Forest Group, that company could face up to $500 million in damages. The possibility of obscenely high damages combined with the fact that a false patent marking action is a qui tam action that can be brought by any person in the United States led to a flood of false marking lawsuits. Through the first four months of 2010, over 130 new false marking cases were filed; only 10 false marking cases were filed in all of 2009.
Comments
The statute involved is to help prevent companies/persons from claiming false or expired patents. Seems a laudable goal, right? Whether it has merit here is another story.
Idunno, the quote FineTunes made doesn't say anything about expired patents. Just claims made on other entities' patents or pat pending claims where the application was never filed.
It also makes lots of specific use of the words "for purposes of deceiving the public". Awfully hard to say that listing an expired, valid patent number is deceiving. It was valid and can be looked up and verified, nothing deceptive there. Maybe a little sloppy if you are going to get pedantic over things like that, but hardly fraudulent by any stretch of the imagination.
It is not for each product sold, just for each type of device.
That's not what this says:
Different case, but some of the info here helps shed some light on the issue, at least from a legal perspective.
http://www.lexology.com/library/deta...3-9c45664c411a
That seems to imply it's on each item sold.
The U.S. patent system has become so corrupt and abused that it is little more than a cartelized-mercantilist old-boys club. It is about time someone started to act to put a stop to such abuse and to initiate reform.
And just which bought off politicians do you think are going to do this?
And make no mistake with campaigns costing upwards of millions of dollars to run now, a "real" person doesn't stand a chance of actually making it very far. Especially when the media (who incidentally is owned by the same people who benefit from exactly what you are proposing NOT happening) get to control just who and what is seen and not seen by the majority of Americans.
The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is which private interest group controls them. Obama ran and won on a message of change. Well, we got change alright. Now the Democrats are screwing the public over instead of the Republicans.
I wouldn't expect any meaningful reform in American any time soon.
Idunno, the quote FineTunes made doesn't say anything about expired patents. Just claims made on other entities' patents or pat pending claims where the application was never filed.
It also makes lots of specific use of the words "for purposes of deceiving the public". Awfully hard to say that listing an expired, valid patent number is deceiving. It was valid and can be looked up and verified, nothing deceptive there. Maybe a little sloppy if you are going to get pedantic over things like that, but hardly fraudulent by any stretch of the imagination.
Listing a patent that has expired as if it still applies is a false patent claim, no? Take a look at recent cases. An expired patent ISN'T a valid patent anymore, btw. Used to be, sure, but now that thing/process/whatever is no longer protected and others can use freely without compensating or crediting the last patentholder.
As to deceiving, I suppose it would have to be shown that the company wasn't performing due diligence to purge expired patent claims from its labeling/marketing processes. Having old product on the shelf, labled with the patents when the were valid, doesn't seem to be deceiving.
http://www.ipfrontline.com/printtemplate.asp?id=24329
Update:
According to this site - Federal Circuit Court of Appeals holds that each article marked constitutes a separate offense.
The upside is that the false marking must carry an "intent to deceive the public" something that might be very difficult for this group to do in Apple's case.
I haven't looked to see what their claims are against the other defendants, but it sounds like this is a "Shotgun Blast" approach to see what "sticks". The payout of this is potentially huge.
I'm not exactly sure why everybody is upset about this. Companies (all companies) have been abusing software patents for the longest time. It stifles innovation. It is so bad that New Zealand is pretty much trying to do away with them completely (for software). This (the lawsuit) is suppose to be a good thing. This is something people should be happy about, not angry. I'm guessing everybody saw the world "lawsuit" and assumed it was nothing but some bottom-feeding lawyers trying to make a quick buck by suing Apple. While you'd be right to assume that 99% of the time, this is the 1% where that isn't so. I mean, I'm sure this will result in lawyers making tons of money (lol), but it isn't JUST for that reason.
You're right for the most part, though not everybody here is upset about it. Given how broken the patent system is, I'm starting to think that almost anything that puts it into the news and could help make people see that it needs to be fixed is a positive.
It appears base on the face there were other similar case companies can only list the valid patents. I am not sure what the harm is if you list something that is not valid anymore, but obviously someone made case out of it and the courts are allowing it.
Even if apple is in violation of this rule they would have to pay the fine to the federal government, it would not go to the law firm, but the law firm would at least have their costs covered and they includes billable hours for each lawyer.
That's not what this says:
That seems to imply it's on each item sold.
This should settle the argument.
http://www.kenyon.com/newspublicatio...2010/6-21.aspx
Even if apple is in violation of this rule they would have to pay the fine to the federal government, it would not go to the law firm, but the law firm would at least have their costs covered and they includes billable hours for each lawyer.
You misunderstand the "payment method" for this statute. Half would go to the gov, half to the paintiffs. The plaintiffs would then pay their lawyer(s) based upon whatever rate/fee they had agreed to.
I can't believe it, but I registered just to share this link:
http://www.ipfrontline.com/printtemplate.asp?id=24329
Update:
According to this site - Federal Circuit Court of Appeals holds that each article marked constitutes a separate offense.
The upside is that the false marking must carry an "intent to deceive the public" something that might be very difficult for this group to do in Apple's case.
I haven't looked to see what their claims are against the other defendants, but it sounds like this is a "Shotgun Blast" approach to see what "sticks". The payout of this is potentially huge.
"On June 10, 2010, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Eastern District of Virginia’s grant of summary judgment of no liability for false patent marking in favor of defendant Solo Cup Company in Pequignot v. Solo Cup Co., No. 2009-1547 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The decision should help to limit exposure of patent owners to the flood of qui tam false marking lawsuits filed since last year’s decision in Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Co., 590 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 28, 2009)."
...." The possibility of obscenely high damages combined with the fact that a false patent marking action is a qui tam action that can be brought by any person in the United States led to a flood of false marking lawsuits. Through the first four months of 2010, over 130 new false marking cases were filed; only 10 false marking cases were filed in all of 2009."
http://www.kenyon.com/newspublicatio...2010/6-21.aspx
Title: Court found in favor of Sols Cup---$500/Cup would be excessive
I can't believe it, but I registered just to share this link:
http://www.ipfrontline.com/printtemplate.asp?id=24329
Update:
According to this site - Federal Circuit Court of Appeals holds that each article marked constitutes a separate offense.
The upside is that the false marking must carry an "intent to deceive the public" something that might be very difficult for this group to do in Apple's case.
I haven't looked to see what their claims are against the other defendants, but it sounds like this is a "Shotgun Blast" approach to see what "sticks". The payout of this is potentially huge.
Nice fine, it does explain what this case could be about, it sounds like what they call a drive by lawsuit. Law firms found ways to go after someone or companies based on so federal law that most people have no clue they are in violation of, and the sue them in hopes they will be paid to go away.
So Law Firms like this all they do is is spend their day finding every example they can where someone might be in violation of this law and drag them in court in hope they companies pays them off to go away or at least get their legal fees covered.
You misunderstand the "payment method" for this statute. Half would go to the gov, half to the paintiffs. The plaintiffs would then pay their lawyer(s) based upon whatever rate/fee they had agreed to.
And we know how much that will be.
And we know how much that will be.
The word "plenty" comes to mind for some reason.
You misunderstand the "payment method" for this statute. Half would go to the gov, half to the paintiffs. The plaintiffs would then pay their lawyer(s) based upon whatever rate/fee they had agreed to.
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.
However, like the do not call lists companies can be fined $500 for each incident or call they place to you and I, however, you and I are not eligible for any of the at money. I made a number of claims to my state about being continuously call by a couple companies and asked the state to fine them and I would like to be reimbursed. They first laugh and explained I do not get a thing other than a thank you for bring it to their attention and they would collect and keep the money.
I'm not exactly sure why everybody is upset about this. Companies (all companies) have been abusing software patents for the longest time. It stifles innovation. It is so bad that New Zealand is pretty much trying to do away with them completely (for software). This (the lawsuit) is suppose to be a good thing. This is something people should be happy about, not angry. I'm guessing everybody saw the world "lawsuit" and assumed it was nothing but some bottom-feeding lawyers trying to make a quick buck by suing Apple. While you'd be right to assume that 99% of the time, this is the 1% where that isn't so. I mean, I'm sure this will result in lawyers making tons of money (lol), but it isn't JUST for that reason.
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?
This should settle the argument.
http://www.kenyon.com/newspublicatio...2010/6-21.aspx
Agreed. Leonard is flat wrong.
Excerpt:
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. For example, a company might make a mold for an assembly line that falsely stamps a product with a patent number, and then make a million products. Prior to Forest Group, that company would have faced up to $500 in damages; after Forest Group, that company could face up to $500 million in damages. The possibility of obscenely high damages combined with the fact that a false patent marking action is a qui tam action that can be brought by any person in the United States led to a flood of false marking lawsuits. Through the first four months of 2010, over 130 new false marking cases were filed; only 10 false marking cases were filed in all of 2009.