Inventor forced by Mindef to close company over patent right

[Mustank]

everything in this thread is too chimp for me to understand

[Hub_n_mona]

everything in this thread is too chimp for me to understand

 

you and me bro, you and me

[Mustank]

 

you and me bro, you and me

 

i think i just go and distrub the fun threads

i really not suited for all these heavy duty threads

[Galantspeedz]

 

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.

 

 

 

so you are saying the patent was revoked due to lack of funds in defending the case?

 

But 1 can only judge based on what is present before oneself... much as saying that the revoke may be due purely based on lack of funds, it is also possible that there may be some other reasons?

 

so judgement passed already?

[Mcf777]

Saw this at TRS.

Very fast...using the NEW Protection Harassment Act law.

=============================

 

http://www.therealsingapore.com/content/mindef-threatens-sue-former-patent-owner-harassment

 

Dr Ting Choon Meng, the inventor who had his patent for a medical vehicle revoked by MINDEF, is now being threatened with legal action for harassment by MINDEF.

 

Dr Ting received a lawyers’ letter from the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) which threatened to use the new Protection from Harassment Act against Dr Ting.

 

The letter said that Dr Ting would have to say that his statements were false or he could be taken to court for harassing MINDEF.

 

Read the full legal letter, shared by Dr Ting with TOC below

 

 

 

 

Edited February 2, 2015 by Mcf777

[Ljlang]

Saw this at TRS.

Very fast...using the NEW Protection Harassment Act law.

=============================

 

http://www.therealsingapore.com/content/mindef-threatens-sue-former-patent-owner-harassment

 

Dr Ting Choon Meng, the inventor who had his patent for a medical vehicle revoked by MINDEF, is now being threatened with legal action for harassment by MINDEF.

 

Dr Ting received a lawyers’ letter from the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) which threatened to use the new Protection from Harassment Act against Dr Ting.

 

The letter said that Dr Ting would have to say that his statements were false or he could be taken to court for harassing MINDEF.

 

Read the full legal letter, shared by Dr Ting with TOC below

 

 

 

 

Wow, didn't come to see the latest posts. Saw the harassment letter that was sent to Dr Ting though. My guess is no further comments will be made on the matter?

[Ljlang]

 

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!

 

 

thanks for sharing.

learnt some things here. after reading the Xiaxue blog post on contempt of court being criminal and saw this post. She seems to say it is a criminal offence? I think you are subtlely cautioning CKP. hope he thanks you n hopefully we all be more cautious.

 

I am not a lawyer and found this wiki page through google. had a quick read to pluck out some points to add knowledge. as it is wiki, not sure how accurate it is.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offence_of_scandalizing_the_court_in_Singapore

 

"An act or statement that alleges bias, lack of impartiality, impropriety or any wrongdoing concerning a judge in the exercise of his judicial function falls within the offence."

 

"Any publication which alleges bias, lack of impartiality, impropriety or any wrongdoing concerning a judge in the exercise of his judicial function falls within the offence of scandalizing the court in Singapore."

 

"The only defence available to the offence of scandalizing the court is to prove that the allegedly contemptuous act or statement amounts to fair criticism, which involves showing that the criticism was made respectfully and in good faith."

 

"An act or statement has such an inherent tendency if it conveys to an average reasonable reader or viewer allegations of bias, lack of impartiality, impropriety or any wrongdoing concerning a judge (and a fortiori, a court) in the exercise of his judicial function."

 

"Proof of damage unnecessary. The inherent tendency test does not call for detailed proof of what in many instances will be unprovable, namely, that public confidence in the administration of justice was really impaired by the relevant publication."

 

"Allegations may scandalize the court by implication and association when contextually perceived by an average person.^[43] For printed publications, the failure to publish a fair or adequate summary of the reasons of the court and/or the omission of crucial facts may scandalize the court.^[44] The intention of the contemnor is irrelevant in establishing liability for contempt.^[45][46] Intention only becomes relevant when the court determines the appropriate sentence after having found the contemnor guilty"

 

The scary part:

"The only defence available to the offence of scandalizing the court is to prove that the allegedly contemptuous act or statement amounts to fair criticism. In order for criticism to be considered fair, it must be made in good faith and be respectful. Factors that a court will take into account to determine if the accused was acting in good faith include whether there are arguments and evidence backing up the act or statement, whether it is expressed in a temperate and dispassionate manner, the accused's attitude in court, and the number of instances of contemning conduct.^[55]

The defences of justification and fair comment are not applicable to the offence of scandalizing the court."

Quite a long page to read. Can see why you are asking for the evidence and judegement. hope all be careful here

edit: to remove linking to CKP

Edited February 6, 2015 by Ljlang

[Mustank]

Mindef so big can tio harress one meh?

[CKP]

 

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

 

[snip]

 

In any event, you win!

 

 

I'm quite surprised that someone like you will feel this way because

 

(1) I don't believe in the "need for the final word"; as a matter of fact, I never did and never will

because the merit of an argument

is based on its own relevance and rationale.

It is not based on how an argument is repeated ad nauseam

and not based on how many people support or agree with an argument,

much less on when an argument is brought up,

be it in the first post or the last post of a thread.

And who knows, maybe your entire post #289 is your not too subtle attempt

to "have a/your/the final word".

I don't see why a person who doesn't believe in the "need for the final word"

would actually bother to bring up a point about the "need for the final word"

and then ended with a tongue-in-cheek phrase, "in any event, you win!".

(2) The thread is littered with posts that "I didn't reply to" or if you will, "I didn't have the final word"

for example,

- no reply to #95 by Shadowdad,

- no reply to #167 by Galantspeedz,

- no reply to #171 by Ender,

- no reply to #177 by Picnic06,

- no reply to #211 by Galantspeedz,

So if the lack of my replies in this thread had caused you to imagine

that I may/have "a need to have the final word",

then let me suggest to you that you ought to chill,

don't be so sensitive and try to deal with and focus on the specifics of this thread.

 

(3) My most recent posts here were replies to questions to me

for example,

- my post #271 was a reply to Boringchap's #264,

"You (CKP) did not answer my question on whether you agree"

- my posts #284, #286, #287 were replies to bellboy's #272, a direct request to me,

"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."

- my post #288 was a reply to Galantspeedz's #280,

"CKP, any idea why was the patent ruled as invalid?"

So if my replies to questions had caused you to imagine

that I may/have "a need to have the final word",

then let me advise you to chill and try to deal with and focus on the specifics of this thread.

[Vid]

 

 

I'm quite surprised that someone like you will feel this way because

 

(1) I don't believe in the "need for the final word"; as a matter of fact, I never did and never will

because the merit of an argument

is based on its own relevance and rationale.

It is not based on how an argument is repeated ad nauseam

and not based on how many people support or agree with an argument,

much less on when an argument is brought up,

be it in the first post or the last post of a thread.

And who knows, maybe your entire post #289 is your not too subtle attempt

to "have a/your/the final word".

I don't see why a person who doesn't believe in the "need for the final word"

would actually bother to bring up a point about the "need for the final word"

and then ended with a tongue-in-cheek phrase, "in any event, you win!".

(2) The thread is littered with posts that "I didn't reply to" or if you will, "I didn't have the final word"

for example,

- no reply to #95 by Shadowdad,

- no reply to #167 by Galantspeedz,

- no reply to #171 by Ender,

- no reply to #177 by Picnic06,

- no reply to #211 by Galantspeedz,

So if the lack of my replies in this thread had caused you to imagine

that I may/have "a need to have the final word",

then let me suggest to you that you ought to chill,

don't be so sensitive and try to deal with and focus on the specifics of this thread.

 

(3) My most recent posts here were replies to questions to me

for example,

- my post #271 was a reply to Boringchap's #264,

"You (CKP) did not answer my question on whether you agree"

- my posts #284, #286, #287 were replies to bellboy's #272, a direct request to me,

"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."

- my post #288 was a reply to Galantspeedz's #280,

"CKP, any idea why was the patent ruled as invalid?"

So if my replies to questions had caused you to imagine

that I may/have "a need to have the final word",

then let me advise you to chill and try to deal with and focus on the specifics of this thread.

 

 

Wah... how much time you spent writing this post?

[CKP]

 

Wah... how much time you spent writing this post?

 

Quite a bit. Some more to go

 

[Vid]

 

Quite a bit. Some more to go

 

 

Not stopping you from writing but no need to take the forum so seriously. It's Valentine's Day today. Go spend some time with your love ones.

[CKP]

 

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 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."

The second point in your post is about contempt of court.

I will address your second point here.

What you did was quote a short phrase out of context from the full statement

in order to make yet another tangential point of the thread topic,

this time, regarding contempt.

The full statement was,

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

and that [the Judge had ruled on the basis of patent law] [you lifted only this short portion]

with respect to the full testimonies and full cross examinations of all the expert witnesses scheduled to take the stand' date='

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

[/quote']

The subjects of the full statement, "if one", clearly referred to persons, you, me, Galantspeedz,

any other readers or persons who are reading this thread or are interested in this topic.

The object of the full statement was the (implying inaccurate) impressions persons might get, "gets the impresson".

By the way, your statement "the Judge did not rule on the basis on patent law"

is only a loose paraphrase that happens to be in agreement with the facts as I know it.

My post #288/statement was not devoted to making the point

about "the Judge did not rule on the basis on patent law".

[CKP]

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

"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."

The second point in your post is about contempt of court.

I will contine to address your second point here.

(2) What I really said and suggested

Facts were already established via several public sources that

- Dr Ting dropped his lawsuit.

- Dr Ting did not appear in court for the counter-suit.

- this was done before the proposed 10 days of hearing from all expert witnesses.

I cited the reason for the judgment as reported by TOC is X:

that is, Dr Ting dropped his lawsuit/and then didn't turn up in court

Then, I logically followed by saying the reason for the judgment is not Y:

that is, not based on patent law

(meaning to answer questions like, is there an inventive step? Is the patent capable of industrial application?)

and ALSO patent law with respect to the FULL testimony of ALL expert witnesses

including the 10 days of proposed hearing (that did not resume/did not came to pass).

What I said in #288 wasn't a suggestion of facts

surrounding the what and why something happened,

but a suggestion to readers not to misread the facts surrounding the why.

In short, post #288 is all about advising readers against mistaking the reason X for Y

for what happened in reply a person asking for the reason of the judgment.

There is no criticism whatsoever in post #288.

Here are some examples of actual criticisms of a court decision

littered throughout a thread in this forum

that for the most part alleged bias (to the rich)

The idea of "different sets of law" for different people

The lady is "blindfoled", implying lack of impartiality

"Triple standards", "kelong"

The elite, rich and privileged "gets away with murder", in other words, bias to the rich

All of the above criticisms are presumed to be fair criticisms

because no legal action were taken against anyone of them.

Oh, by the way, how come you and Ljlang were nowhere to be seen

in this Woffles Wu $$1000 thread which is littered with criticism of the court ruling

IF you guys really cared so much about contempt and scandalizing the court?

Please point out the criticism from me alleging bias if you can

instead of lifting a short phrase from one statement of the whole post,

and then meander your way to say/suggest that this short phrase

somehow constitutes a criticism alleging bias of the court,

when I was clearly not criticizing, doubting, or questioning the judgement

after reading the full statement and full post.

If you can't point out any criticism contained in post# 288

then please try not to lift a short phrase

that didn't faithfully convey the original message of the full statement or the full post.

 

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.

 

 

 

"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."

(2) Getting the facts right or wrong on what happened and why it happened

is a separate issue from making a criticism that alleges bias/wrongdoing.

Now, is it still possible that I might be somehow wrong/inaccurate on the reasons X and Y?

Yes, but getting the facts wrong on what happened and why it happened

does not mean to say it is a criticism of what happened and why it happened.

If I am wrong, I am wrong. End of story.

It does not make sense to say/suggest that

I am wrong about what and why something happened,

therefore I am ALSO making a criticism alleging bias/wrongdoing in the same statement.

These two notions are different..

Do you mean to say you cannot tell this difference?

Here is another hypothetical example:

ASSUME there is a case where the court ruled the defendant is guilty of murder [WHAT]

based on credible witness accounts and corroborating physical evidence [WHY].

Now, if I were to say the court ruled the defendant is innocent [WHAT]

based on lack of witnesses and physical evidence [WHY],

are you also going to argue that I am in contempt of the court for alleging bias and wrongdoing?

No, because I simply got the all facts wrong in this example

You should be pointing out I got all the facts wrong regarding the what and why

instead of saying I am in contempt of the court.

Same thing for the patent example here.

If I am wrong and if the actual reason for the court verdict is based on patent law Y,

and not because Dr Ting dropped the case/didn't show up X,

then I am only guilty of getting the facts wrong on why it happened

and not guilty of making a criticism that alleges bias and wrongdoing.

Getting the facts right or wrong on what happened and why it happened

is a separate issue from making a criticism that alleges bias/wrongdoing.

 

thanks for sharing.

learnt some things here. after reading the Xiaxue blog post on contempt of court being criminal and saw this post. She seems to say it is a criminal offence? I think you are subtlely cautioning CKP. hope he thanks you n hopefully we all be more cautious.

 

I am not a lawyer and found this wiki page through google. had a quick read to pluck out some points to add knowledge. as it is wiki, not sure how accurate it is.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offence_of_scandalizing_the_court_in_Singapore

 

"An act or statement that alleges bias, lack of impartiality, impropriety or any wrongdoing concerning a judge in the exercise of his judicial function falls within the offence."

 

[snip]

Quite a long page to read. Can see why you are asking for the evidence and judegement. hope all be careful here

edit: to remove linking to CKP

 

 

(1) Your post warning others to "be careful" only instills a chilling effect

on those who buy into fear readily and those who don't think carefully before making their points grounded on facts.

It so happens I am not one of those people.

(2) Oddly enough,

your post reminds me of the previous combination of

bellboy and Boringchap

making false, misleading, tangential and irrelevant arguments

and then proclaiming support for each other.

[CKP]

 

so you are saying the patent was revoked due to lack of funds in defending the case?

 

But 1 can only judge based on what is present before oneself... much as saying that the revoke may be due purely based on lack of funds, it is also possible that there may be some other reasons?

 

so judgement passed already?

 

 

(1) Short answer

Your question has been answered many times,

but for some reason you continue to ask the same question.

The answer is going to be same.

For example, to quote TOC again in post #1 and specifically post #288,

Reason of the Court or 'why' was such a judgement given

"[emphasis: BECAUSE] As MobileStats did not turn up in court for the hearing to defend their case,"

The Judgement of the Court or 'what' was the judgement

"[emphasis: THEREFORE] the High Court granted Mindef's counterclaim to seek a court order to revoke MobileStat's patent."

(2) Long answer

The court judgements were straightforward, common and only to be expected.

So the fact you keep asking the same question tells me

either you don't understand or accept or believe

the same answer I had given many times.

- If the issue at hand is that of "understanding the answer"

There is a lot of information that is widely available

for anyone interested to have a look:

- If the issue at hand is "accepting or believing the answer"

The fact that nobody, either Mindef or defense lawyers,

have taken issue with this specific piece of information

(Dr Ting dropped his lawsuit and did not show up to defend against the counter-suit)

or are demanding that TOC take down this specific piece of information

only leads one to believe that TOC had accurately and precisely

described the reason of the court judgment.

Never mind the fact there will be always be some people

who continue to ask, genuinely or otherwise, "for the (full) judgement to be released",

as if that is required for a rational individual to arrive at an informed opinion

on "the what and why" of the judgment.

[Nolicense]

 

Quite a bit. Some more to go

 

wah you very patient to CSI so many things and format all to "Educate" readers.

 

Can you do the same foe the AHPETC thing?

 

but hor very scared you dig up all my comments to nit pick if I contradict myself...

[Joseph22]

wah you very patient to CSI so many things and format all to "Educate" readers.

 

Can you do the same foe the AHPETC thing?

 

but hor very scared you dig up all my comments to nit pick if I contradict myself...

WOT is one way to make people stop arguing with you. too much info to digest for a forum.

 

basically win by war of attribution. lots of words to read.

[Nolicense]

WOT is one way to make people stop arguing with you. too much info to digest for a forum.

 

basically win by war of attribution. lots of words to read.

TBF, he go pictures too.. lol..

 

actually it is very readable lah.. not a freaking wall.

some people WOT but got no meat in it also cannot win mah.

 

anyway how? you read @CKP post liao can understand?

now the hot trending thread is AHPETC. this one like no body want to read liao