Slashdot Mirror
"Patent Markings" Lawsuits Could Run Into the Trillions
bizwriter writes "The latest legal bugaboo facing manufacturers is the false patent marking suit. Using what has been until recently an obscure type of legal action, individuals and enterprising law firms have targeted large manufacturers with lawsuits that can easily run million of dollars — in a case involving a drink cup manufacturer, over $10 trillion — for incorrectly including patent numbers on products. Some companies named in such suits are 3M, Cisco, Pfizer, Monster Cable, and Merck. Even expired patent numbers can be actionable." Sounds like a perfect opportunity for some enlightened appeals court to inject some sense into the debate. What do you think the chances are? Note: if ever there were a page that cries out for the Readability bookmarklet, this is it.
I wish (US) copyright law worked this way around ... right now there's essentially no risk in tacking on a questionable copyright notice.
> The problem for companies is that they might have lost track of what patents
> cover a given product, or might have forgotten to update packaging to remove
> numbers of patents that had expired.
Don't "lose track". Don't "forget". Or don't mark (it isn't required). Problem solved.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Why is it that editors around here seem to think that laws are made by the courts? This one is a great example - saying it is an opportunity for the Federal Appeals court to do something. Like what? They get to rule based on law. If we need the law changed, the court can't do that - it needs to go to the legislative branch for that.
> Sounds like a perfect opportunity for some enlightened appeals court to
> inject some sense into the debate.
No, it's a perfect opportunity for an enlightened Congress to correct the law. Oh. Wait...
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
This is simple a case of false advertising. The companies that are being sued labelled their products wrong. "Oh I forgot". Yeah, likely story. I see they did NOT forget to put the patent claim on the product. How odd is that eh?
If it is going to cost the likes of Monster Cable a few millions or even bankrupt them to get false patent claims of products, then I am all for it, and the people bringing these cases making a fortune? Well sometimes the person who cleans up the system gets paid.
Say that someone found a way to make serious money of prosecuting companies sending fake copyright take down notices, would we be against that as well? No.
Sometimes you need to cheer on the slime to get rid of the scum.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
How about reforming the law to do away with the moronic idea of awarding "punitive damages", or whatever it is called in cases like these, to claimants? In some countries, like the one I live in, payments to claimants are pretty much limited to actual damages and legal fees, maybe with a small bit added on top for things like mental anguish or redress. That lady who sued McDonalds over scalding coffee should at most have gotten her medical and legals bills refunded, with perhaps a couple thousand thrown in for her trouble. That's what she'd get over here (and if I remember correctly, that's what she originally sued McD for). Make no mistake though, actual damages in case of severe injuries can run into millions as well... but we do not reward people for a bit of bad luck or for finding some obscure legal technicality that does not affect anyone. Slipping on the pavement in front of a fancy restaurant should not turn into a windfall, neither should this new form of patent trolling.
If a claimant can prove actual damages caused by improper patent marking, then by all means should they be able to sue for these damages. And if another company has been naughty and put incorrect markings on their products, they should received reasonable punishment. Some of these amounts sound excessive, and in any case, they should be treated as fines and go to the state, not to some random claimant.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
That's what us old-timers call fraud. It's not OK, no matter how the apologists here may try to spin it. Yes, sometimes it's not cheap or easy to comply with the law - but that doesn't make complying with the law optional no matter how much you wish it was.
Sometimes I wonder if the people who post here think about what they're saying - or if they just scan the article enough to formulate a (weak) opposing point and rush to post it. There's only one thing worse than a patent troll and that's corporations trolling with patents they don't own. If corporations can destroy people for violating their patents, what do you think should be the proper punishment for claiming patents that you don't own?
Those are the maximum damages allowable under the statute. Actual damages may be much lower; a reward of $0.01 or even $0.10 per cup might not be so unreasonable for committing a billion counts of fraud. What is interesting to note, however, is that one must prove both that either the cups were never patented, or if they were that they were manufactured after the patent expired.
It still drives me nuts when people point to that case as evidence that our legal system is broke. It is broke, I don't deny but that case is not one to use. Here are some facts about that particular case and why the jury awarded such a large fine (that was later reduced by a judge): (from http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm in case you want to look yourself).
McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.
McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.
McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.
McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.
McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)
McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.
McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.
Voting them all out of office, now that's change I can believe in.
McFact No. 9. McDonalds wouldn't make their coffee that hot if people didn't want it that hot. If its hotter than other restaurants, presumably that is their competitive advantage.
This came up in the trial. Managers were encouraged to turn the heat up because the ultra-hot coffee wouldn't cool down enough for the customers to cash in on the free refill unless they loitered long after they'd finished eating the food they'd ordered.