Inventor forced by Mindef to close company over patent right

[Shadowdad]

 

There you go,

 

This Ting guy is another one with bad personal experience with MINDEF. If what he say is correct, we have to check everything we buy to make sure we are not infringe IP sound stupid. I remember sometime back, some company brought notebook from some IT shop that sold illegal window OS using decommission license sticker. The court only fault the one who sold and not the one who buy.

[Mustank]

This Ting guy is another one with bad personal experience with MINDEF. If what he say is correct, we have to check everything we buy to make sure we are not infringe IP sound stupid. I remember sometime back, some company brought notebook from some IT shop that sold illegal window OS using decommission license sticker. The court only fault the one who sold and not the one who buy.

I think last time newspaper got say don't anyhow download music, wait can kena catch one

Long time ago, that time no bit torrent

[CKP]

This Ting guy is another one with bad personal experience with MINDEF. If what he say is correct, we have to check everything we buy to make sure we are not infringe IP sound stupid. I remember sometime back, some company brought notebook from some IT shop that sold illegal window OS using decommission license sticker. The court only fault the one who sold and not the one who buy.

 

This "ting guy" that you referred to was appointed to the board of directors of IPOS under the Ministry of Law.

What do you think are the chances that Dr Ting knows more about IP Laws than you?

 

And besides, if the Judge agrees with your reasoning that only the manufacturer (vendor) is subject to IP Law

and not the buyer Mindef

then why did the Judge allow Dr Ting's suit against Mindef to proceed for over 20 days,

let alone proceed from the outset at all?

The Judge would have thrown out the case right away.

 

Do you mean to say that, Shadowdad,

who has demonstrated in his earlier posts that he dislikes and distrusts Dr Ting,

somehow knows more about IP Laws than the Judge -- who allowed the suit to go ahead --

and also know more than the former director of IPOS Dr Ting?

Edited January 20, 2015 by CKP

[CKP]

I think last time newspaper got say don't anyhow download music, wait can kena catch one

Long time ago, that time no bit torrent

 

There many examples including the more well known one here involving Odex:

 

Odex's actions against file sharing were legal actions against Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and their subscribers in Singapore by Odex, a Singapore-based company that virtually distributes sub-licensed Japanese anime. From early 2007 to January 2008 Odex took action against anyone who had downloaded anime through BitTorrent for alleged copyright infringement.^[1] Odex tracked their IP addresses without their consent and sought subpoenas to compel the ISPs to disclose the personal details of these subscribers. After rulings from the Subordinate Courts, Odex took personal data from affected ISPs and sent letters demanding payment in place of litigation. More than a third of the individuals contacted by Odex opted to settle out of court for at least S$3,000 (US$2,000) to S$5,000 (US$4,000) each.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odex%27s_actions_against_file-sharing

[Zyklon]

It all boils down to whether you are able to prove that you had knowingly broke the law, or if you knew you were breaking the law and still proceeded because you f**k care.

[Ender]

 

There you go,

 

Like that how, I buy samsung handphone that infringe Apple's patent.. I'm liable to pay Apple damage?

 

I don't think piracy is a good analogy of IP infringement.

[CKP]

Like that how, I buy samsung handphone that infringe Apple's patent.. I'm liable to pay Apple damage?

 

I don't think piracy is a good analogy of IP infringement.

 

Let me offer you a possible answer,

 

IF after the Court has ruled in its decision that Samsung has infringed on Apple's patent,

 

and Samsung continues to make, sell, distribute

 

and you continue to buy from Samsung the model ruled to be guilty of infringement,

 

then yes, you as the end user are also subjected to patent law infringement.

[Mustank]

 

There many examples including the more well known one here involving Odex:

 

Odex's actions against file sharing were legal actions against Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and their subscribers in Singapore by Odex, a Singapore-based company that virtually distributes sub-licensed Japanese anime. From early 2007 to January 2008 Odex took action against anyone who had downloaded anime through BitTorrent for alleged copyright infringement.^[1] Odex tracked their IP addresses without their consent and sought subpoenas to compel the ISPs to disclose the personal details of these subscribers. After rulings from the Subordinate Courts, Odex took personal data from affected ISPs and sent letters demanding payment in place of litigation. More than a third of the individuals contacted by Odex opted to settle out of court for at least S$3,000 (US$2,000) to S$5,000 (US$4,000) each.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odex%27s_actions_against_file-sharing

Since got example, how come still got people say end user won't kena?

Issit because end user is mindef?

 

Let me offer you a possible answer,

 

IF after the Court has ruled in its decision that Samsung has infringed on Apple's patent,

 

and Samsung continues to make, sell, distribute

 

and you continue to buy from Samsung the model ruled to be guilty of infringement,

 

then yes, you as the end user are also subjected to patent law infringement.

I think the difference is end user knows yet continue to download

Donno is no count one

[Ender]

Since got example, how come still got people say end user won't kena?

Issit because end user is mindef?

 

I think the difference is end user knows yet continue to download

Donno is no count one

Thing is many gahment make piracy of copyright material illegal...

 

As for IP infringement, it's not clear, to me at least, And so far those 'guilty' of infringement are usually tried in the civil suit unlike piracy which are tried in a criminal suit. Even in the end Samsunglost and has to pay Apple, but it hardly define Samsung as a Pirate and the executive going to jail.

[Kangadrool]

When a court ruled that Co A has infringed Co B's IP, it does not mean that Co A needs to stop making their devices.

 

It can mean, Co A needs to pay back royalties and continue to pay royalties if it still wants to continue going forward.

 

So, consumers still can have a choice.

[Galantspeedz]

wonder why is the harp on MINDEF and not the supplier

 

based on the letter wrongly forwarded, the supplier has already said they looked through the patent and deem that it is contestable or no grounds for infringement...thus Mindef continued as per normal... would it not be easier to take the supplier to court instead since they already say the patent itself is contestable?

 

And based on Samsung vs Apple scenario.... Apple say infringe, Samsung say no infringe.... I buy Samsung.... becomes my fault?

 

So where can I check if infringe or no infringe......... I must check my kitchen sink, my toilet bowl, my dustbin etc , the design all got infringement bo.... I no money fight legal case leh

Edited January 21, 2015 by Galantspeedz

[Maxus-MIFA9]

This concept is nothing new .....

 

Back in the late 70's (whilst I was in the army), SAF converted some of the M113 into "Mobile Field Hospital" where sliding tent attached to side of the M113. When the tent open, it was used as registrations & communication counters, tail gate of M113 lowered and inside converted to make-shift beds using 'stretchers' hooked onto chains (can place 4 injured persons inside) and all the medical equipment inside.

 

Now that it is using a converted containers or trucks or even buses thats all. Bigger, more equipment and more beds added niah.....

What patent ?

 

[Kusje]

Bear in mind that when you use BT, you are most likely not just downloading the offending materials but also uploading it at the same time.

 

When you share the materials, the punishment is more severe.

[Galantspeedz]

 

Let me offer you a possible answer,

 

IF after the Court has ruled in its decision that Samsung has infringed on Apple's patent,

 

and Samsung continues to make, sell, distribute

 

and you continue to buy from Samsung the model ruled to be guilty of infringement,

 

then yes, you as the end user are also subjected to patent law infringement.

 

how to know ar?

[Kangadrool]

It has also limited jurisdiction. That means, can only be enforced in that particular country only unless Co A goes around the courts over the world to sue and WIN.

 

Then again, it will loose in some courts too. So, there the merry go around starts again.

 

 

how to know ar?

 

[CKP]

wonder why is the harp on MINDEF and not the supplier

 

based on the letter wrongly forwarded, the supplier has already said they looked through the patent and deem that it is contestable or no grounds for infringement...thus Mindef continued as per normal... would it not be easier to take the supplier to court instead since they already say the patent itself is contestable?

 

And based on Samsung vs Apple scenario.... Apple say infringe, Samsung say no infringe.... I buy Samsung.... becomes my fault?

 

So when can I check if infringe or no infringe......... I must check my kitchen sink, my toilet bowl, my dustbin etc , the design all got infringement bo.... I no money fight legal case leh

 

 

Like that how, I buy samsung handphone that infringe Apple's patent.. I'm liable to pay Apple damage?

 

I don't think piracy is a good analogy of IP infringement.

 

 

The analogy with Apple/Samsung handphones doesn't really fit this case either.

You are only the buyer of phone but didn't set out any specifications to Samsung on how to manufacture the phone.

 

In addition to being just the buyer of the vehicle,

Mindef also set out the specifications to the engineering vendor to manufacture the vehicle,

including a signing contract with a clause that indemnifies IP infringement.

 

how to know ar?

 

When the decision is out?

 

Read news or Samsung inform you?

[Jman888]

 

Let me offer you a possible answer,

 

IF after the Court has ruled in its decision that Samsung has infringed on Apple's patent,

 

and Samsung continues to make, sell, distribute

 

and you continue to buy from Samsung the model ruled to be guilty of infringement,

 

then yes, you as the end user are also subjected to patent law infringement.

 

 

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.

[Galantspeedz]

 

 

In addition to being just the buyer of the vehicle,

Mindef also set out the specifications to the engineering vendor to manufacture the vehicle,

including a signing contract with a clause that indemnifies IP infringement.

 

When the decision is out?

 

Read news or Samsung inform you?

 

which specs infringe the patent, if any? And the vendor also mentioned that they deemed the patent as not very useful.. so why still mindef fault?

 

Read news abit hard.. usually the news appear for that particular day nia... then if Samsung fail to inform me? how must they inform me to ensure I know about it. I doubt Samsung has my contact details. Still my fault anot?

 

 

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.

 

if an established, reputable, well know, one of the biggest play 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.

 

ask zoe tay teach you

It has also limited jurisdiction. That means, can only be enforced in that particular country only unless Co A goes around the courts over the world to sue and WIN.

 

Then again, it will loose in some courts too. So, there the merry go around starts again.

 

 

 

then how? I buy quite a few things from taobao leh...