Inventor forced by Mindef to close company over patent right

[Watwheels]

So many days had past and nothing from Mindef. What do you think?

[Kangadrool]

Looking for model answers in the 10-year series lah.

 

So many days had past and nothing from Mindef. What do you think?

 

[Mustank]

Mindef response liao!!!!! First to post!!!!!!

 

https://m.facebook.com/notes/cyberpioneer/false-allegations-against-mindef-in-the-patent-infringement-suit-by-mobilestats/10153559226104535

False Allegations against MINDEF in the patent infringement suit by MobileStats

 

Some of you may have come across online articles alleging that the mobile battalion casualty station (BCS) bought by MINDEF had infringed MobileStats Technologies' (MobileStats) patent for its "Mobile First Aid Post". On top of that, the articles suggest that MINDEF is forcing MobileStats to close down, so as take over the patent rights.

 

It sounds like a great story, but all these accusations are false and baseless. We spoke to MINDEF’s legal team to find out more, and decided to put out some facts so that you know the truth.

 

 

First, the false allegations of patent infringement are not new. Since 2011, the owner of MobileStats has repeatedly turned to the media to accuse MINDEF of infringing its patent. Second, these accusations have been deliberated by the High Court and found to be untrue. In January 2014, the Court declared the patent invalid and revoked it. The Court also found that MINDEF had not committed any Intellectual Property infringement. We are disappointed that the owner of MobileStats has disrespected the Court’s decision, and continues to make false and unsubstantiated accusations against MINDEF. MINDEF regards these allegations very seriously and is referring them to the Attorney-General's Chambers for advice.

 

If you still have burning questions, read on.

 

#1 Did MINDEF infringe MobileStats' patent and try to get away with it?

 

 

The Court has considered all factors and ruled that the patent is invalid. MINDEF did not infringe any patent as you can't infringe a patent that was never valid in the first place. MobileStats had patented an idea that has existed since the 1970s (just Google the "mobile medical unit" concept, or see http://youtu.be/evcI-KcZw5E). Just as there are many smartphone designs and manufacturers who do not infringe each other's patents, there are also many ways to design and produce military equipment like the BCS. MINDEF respects Intellectual Property laws and honours patents that are valid. When there are disputes over the validity of patents, parties can bring the matter to court. Just as you can file patents to prevent unauthorised copying of your inventions, so can others challenge your patents if they do not involve new ideas. Most importantly, MINDEF is just a buyer, not the manufacturer. If MobileStats believes it has a valid case, it should pursue the matter with the manufacturer, not the user.

 

#2 Did MINDEF engage in unfair procurement practices?

 

 

The case was actually a commercial dispute between MobileStats Technologies and Syntech Engineers, which supplied the mobile BCS to MINDEF. As the manufacturer of the mobile BCS, the supplier, not the consumer, is responsible for honouring valid patents. MINDEF's actions were correct and above board. All of MINDEF's suppliers are required to uphold Intellectual Property laws and obtain the necessary licenses so that MINDEF is free to use the products that we have paid for. MINDEF simply wants the freedom to deploy our mobile BCS for training and operations and has no interest in acquiring MobileStats' alleged patents. It is unclear why the owners of MobileStats chose to take legal actions against the consumer, instead of the manufacturer. Imagine if Apple sued Samsung handphone users - instead of Samsung Electronics - for allegedly infringing Apple's Intellectual Property rights.

 

#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.

 

When legal actions are initiated against government agencies like MINDEF, these agencies need to respond. Public resources and monies are expended needlessly if such lawsuits are without merit. As a government organisation, MINDEF has a duty to protect our public monies. We regard such lawsuits taken against MINDEF with the utmost seriousness.

 

 

 

The cyberpioneer team

 

 

Pete Teo

 

why was the patent granted in the first place? it could have prevented all these ruckus

 

Weng Chuan Teng

 

To be fair, patent has to be proprietary design which has distinguish features. In this case there are makers from all over the world with ability to implement this concept. So it is not unique features to mobilestat. Unless MobileStat can proved mindef copied parts to parts of its designs.

[Volvobrick]

So now the real question is, why was patent granted for an unoriginal idea like this Jackie Chan movie 快餐车？

 

 

Anyone gave undue pressure?

Edited January 20, 2015 by Volvobrick

[Ender]

Lucky no one patent the wheel or the curry sauce.. Since the idea had existed in the 70's, therefore it's right to invalid such idea, and to prevent profiteering from non-innovative idea.

So now the real question is, why was patent granted for an unoriginal idea like this Jackie Chan movie 快餐车？

 

images.jpg

 

Anyone gave undue pressure?

One of the picture in Ting's patent really like the pic you posted.

 

 

http://www.google.com/patents/US20060087151

 

Edited January 20, 2015 by Ender

[Mustank]

Hopefully nobody go and patent this

 

 

A innovative invention of a bus converted into a bus of many bangs

Not cheeky cheeky bang bang though

[Mustank]

Edmw got people ask:

If this is a common idea and therefore cannot be patented, why mindef go ask for all overseas patent on this to be surrendered to mindef? Issit mindef scared Lose in foreign courts?

 

In the first place, did mindef really ask for that?

[Kangadrool]

mindef aoredi konged liao, mindef si consumer, not maker. midef ai buay chia, zhoon, perki, tua poa, etc etc, all conspermed swee swee state in tender conkract one - that is mindef si consumer niah. It is the maker's responsible (responsibility lah) to make sure long zhong swee swee, cannot come and disturb me later.

 

As already suspected, this invention is nothing new.

 

Edmw got people ask:
If this is a common idea and therefore cannot be patented, why mindef go ask for all overseas patent on this to be surrendered to mindef? Issit mindef scared Lose in foreign courts?

In the first place, did mindef really ask for that?

 

Edited January 20, 2015 by Kangadrool

[CKP]

mindef aoredi konged liao, mindef si consumer, not maker. midef ai buay chia, zhoon, perki, tua poa, etc etc, all conspermed swee swee state in tender conkract one - that is mindef si consumer niah. It is the maker's responsible (responsibility lah) to make sure long zhong swee swee, cannot come and disturb me later.

 

As already suspected, this invention is nothing new.

 

 

 

 

Actually, I strongly disagree with that because:

 

 

1. First, the schematic drawing isn't detailed enough to see novel part of the patent. Please refer to SCDF picture.

 

2. Second, when explaining why the patent isn't novel, the magazine didn't tell

the readers exactly and specifically what about this particular patent is or is not novel,

it merely tells you "to google" and "watch youtube".

 

For example, the video is littered with many different kinds of containers, tents, hospitals and so forth.

(which by the way, none of them resemble the SCDF swift vehicle and the key novel part of the patent)

 

How is the layman whom the mindef magazine is obviously trying to convince,

who has no knowledge about the case,

going to figure out exactly which of the many examples that is being "googled out" or in the "youtube"

is the magazine trying to point out? Even the magazine is afraid to point this out.

 

In other words, there was actually "no meat" if you think about it.

 

In other words, telling you to google and watch youtube is meant to obfuscate the key point,

"which part or parts of the patent are being contested in court"?

Edited January 20, 2015 by CKP

[Yewheng]

 

 

Actually, I strongly disagree with that because:

 

 

1. First, the schematic drawing isn't detailed enough to see novel part of the patent. Please refer to SCDF picture.

 

2. Second, when explaining why the patent isn't novel, the magazine didn't tell

the readers exactly and specifically what about this particular patent is or is not novel,

it merely tells you "to google" and "watch youtube".

 

For example, the video is littered with many different kinds of containers, tents, hospitals and so forth.

(which by the way, none of them resemble the SCDF swift vehicle and the key novel part of the patent)

 

How is the layman whom the mindef magazine is obviously trying to convince,

who has no knowledge about the case,

going to figure out exactly which of the many examples that is being "googled out" or in the "youtube"

is the magazine trying to point out? Even the magazine is afraid to point this out.

 

In other words, there was actually "no meat" if you think about it.

 

In other words, telling you to google and watch youtube is meant to obfuscate the key point,

"which part or parts of the patent are being contested in court"?

But the key question is, he should sue manufacture instead of consumer.. It's a waste of resources with no much ending.

[Darryn]

How many countries was he granted a patent in?

 

Are you suggesting ALL of them are soft and sleeping on the job?

So now the real question is, why was patent granted for an unoriginal idea like this Jackie Chan movie 快餐车？

 

images.jpg

 

Anyone gave undue pressure?

But the key question is, he should sue manufacture instead of consumer.. It's a waste of resources with no much ending.

if you get caught with pirate DID sue manufacturer also?

But the key question is, he should sue manufacture instead of consumer.. It's a waste of resources with no much ending.

if you get caught with pirate DID sue manufacturer also?

[Mustank]

mindef aoredi konged liao, mindef si consumer, not maker. midef ai buay chia, zhoon, perki, tua poa, etc etc, all conspermed swee swee state in tender conkract one - that is mindef si consumer niah. It is the maker's responsible (responsibility lah) to make sure long zhong swee swee, cannot come and disturb me later.

 

As already suspected, this invention is nothing new.

 

 

I think key point is invention nothing new

[PointyEwe]

But the key question is, he should sue manufacture instead of consumer.. It's a waste of resources with no much ending.

 

Even if the TCS in the supply contract explicitly stated that the manufacturer is required to indemnify the buyer in case of IP disputes, the patent rights holder can still go after the buyer.

 

For e.g., by law you can be charged if you found having a fake LV bag. Can you simply go tell the officer that I'm just a consumer and please go after the fake LV bag manufacturer? The same rules applies.

[StefanK]

 

Even if the TCS in the supply contract explicitly stated that the manufacturer is required to indemnify the buyer in case of IP disputes, the patent rights holder can still go after the buyer.

 

For e.g., by law you can be charged if you found having a fake LV bag. Can you simply go tell the officer that I'm just a consumer and please go after the fake LV bag manufacturer? The same rules applies.

 

Yeah! Just like I like to climb Bkt Timah Hill, please go and catch the one who created the Bkt Timah Hill!

[Mustank]

 

Yeah! Just like I like to climb Bkt Timah Hill, please go and catch the one who created the Bkt Timah Hill!

That time got what Japan cartoon, the local distributor ask Singtel give subscriber details, then say want to sue, then ask for money, then got people pay

End up is actually cannot sue one? I not sure of this point

People ask how come no sue the pirate?

[Joseph22]

why no one question the viability of this patent? its something we see in war movies before his patent even started. meaning it is something that had all along exist

 

okay I am late to the party.

 

Anyway for those questioning the ability of out IP community. this is pretty much happening world wide.

 

you are seeing daily patents file years ago are been invalid daily and stupid patents are been pass daily. so its nothing new actually.

Edited January 20, 2015 by Joseph22

[CKP]

I think key point is invention nothing new

 

It's going to be hard for some people to visualize or conceptualize what is "new"

because on the surface it appears the same.

 

One way to see the novelty is to look at more illustrations:

 

 

 

 

 

(FAP = first aid post)

[CKP]

But the key question is, he should sue manufacture instead of consumer.. It's a waste of resources with no much ending.

 

There you go,