Slashdot Mirror
Seagate Accuses Cornice of Patent Infringement
dncsky1530 writes "Seagate's recently filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Cornice of Longmont, Colo. Now it is seeking an order from the U.S. International Trade Commission to exclude Cornice disk drives and any systems or products using or containing Cornice disc drives from entry into the United States. Seagate asserts that Cornice is infringing on seven of its U.S. patents that relate to several areas of disk drive technology."
Now it is seeking an order from the U.S. International Trade Commission to exclude Cornice disk drives and any systems or products using or containing Cornice disc drives from entry into the United States.
If Seagate is truly out to protect their revenue (which is the intention of patents), they should have no problem letting Cornice continue to sell their wares... If Cornice is really infringing on the patents, they will eventually have to pay licensing fees to Seagate, so the more they sell the more Seagate will benefit. And if there is no infringement, then there is no point in stopping their sales.
This is where the US patent system is fucked up. Any patent-holder should be forced to allow others to use the technology by paying a reasonable licensing fee. Entities should never be able to use patents as a way of stopping competitors from making sales. Yet the latter has become the US way of doing business. Sad.
-hadohk
But in this case, this is being done to protect a US-based company from being driven out of the business by a competitor that's making the same product without having to pay any of the R&D costs behind it.
Patents exist so whomever bears the R&D cost has some decent chance of profiting before everybody else rushes in and drives down the price. If you allow the patent system to fall, R&D dies with it.
If your competitor didn't innovate but instead stole your innovation while you still have patent protection, you have to litigate. Otherwise, your competitor makes profits that rightfully belong to you.
Only a terrorist would question the government.
-- John Ashcroft
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Personally, I do not believe that. Companies would still inovate. They have to otherwise they would die. What would probably not happen is that inovations that require a lot of fundemental research (read expense) would not happen. Nor would companies be in a hurry to share information.
Patents were developed to allow an individual time to develop an idea. Now adays, these have been extended to the point that they are the business. I believe that we should go back to what the framers wanted; A means to allow an individual to develop.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
" If they are violating Segates patents, then they SHOULD be sued..
Abuse of patent the system is wrong, but if you have received patent approval, you have the right ( obligation as far as im concerned ) to protect your patent."
Obtaining a patent for something that was invented before or is obvious to those skilled in the field, and choosing to sue for infringement of that patent, is itself an abuse of the patent system (regardless of the fact that the system allows such abuse by granting low-quality patents).
They should be sued only if they are violating the patents AND the patents are for legitimate non-obvious inventions. Occurrences of the latter are very uncommon these days.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
"Just curious, where did your understanding come from?Techies/Engineer from Cornice."
Cool, thanks.
"I am guessing that there will be some level of infringment ( 1 line from the patent vs. the whole thing ) and that is allowing their lawyers to take the case to court."
Yeah, that could very well be. You have to have at least a "good faith" belief that there is infringement in order to avoid sanctions.
"Interesting to hear about that penalty."
FYI, here's the relevant section of Rule 11:
"(2) Nature of Sanction; Limitations. A sanction imposed for violation of this rule shall be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. Subject to the limitations in subparagraphs (A) and (B), the sanction may consist of, or include, directives of a nonmonetary nature, an order to pay a penalty into court, or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of some or all of the reasonable attorneys' fees and other expenses incurred as a direct result of the violation.
(A) Monetary sanctions may not be awarded against a represented party for a violation of subdivision (b)(2).
(B) Monetary sanctions may not be awarded on the court's initiative unless the court issues its order to show cause before a voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party which is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned."
The scary thing (for attorneys, at least) is that the court can order that the Rule 11 sanctions be paid by the attorney and not allow the company that hired the attorney to indemnify the attorney!
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli