Slashdot Mirror
A New Species of Patent Troll
Geoffrey.landis writes "According to the Wall Street Journal, there's a new species of patent troll out there. These new trolls sue companies that sell products with an expired patent number on them. That's right, it's against the law to sell a product that's marked with an expired patent number. The potential fine? $500. Per violation. And some of the companies have patent numbers on old plastic molds that have made literally billions of copies. Using whistle-blower laws, 'anyone can file a claim on behalf of the government, and plaintiffs must split any fine award evenly with it.' You've been warned."
Who's the troll?
The company that invented the product, got their rightful patent, but their patent rights expired as they should, and is still using old packaging/molds/etc. that display the patent number and are now falsely claiming protection they don't have...
OR...
The lawyer who finds out about this violation of the law, and gets a finder's fee of $250 per product in violation distributed, and raises $250 per product in money for the government who definitely could use some help collecting this fine.
False patent claims can FUD a business away... but we also hate most lawyers here. Editors, please define which side to hate in all arguments. We /. commentators will crash if you execute Story.Comment without the required argument variable "$side".
Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Co. in 2009 paved the way (rocket docket Eastern Texas, of course) for big fat jerkfaces to go nuts. The AP told citizens it's okay to sue, hell even on Slashdot I submitted an article way back in Feb of Activision's problems with an incorrectly marked patent and because of precedent on incorrect markings we found out in March that this could cost some companies trillions. Expired or wrongly marked could cost you $500 per item sold.
My work here is dung.
Why is this a problem? So what if the patent is expired, it still EXISTS. In fact, the patent numbers are helpful because it leads you right to the source that tells you whether its expired or not, and indirectly, how long you have to wait before you can cash in by making a cheap knockoff.
See topic.
Because the market is going to come down on them like a Tsunami once they do.
Boredom is bliss.
You could start by reading the Summary where it clearly states that the Troll is the company suing the holder of the expired patent.
dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
This is not new. Sure, the WSJ article is dated today(/yesterday depending on where you are), but the Solo Cup case they reference is from last year at the most recent and maybe older than that.
their patent rights expired as they should, and is still using old packaging/molds/etc. that display the patent number and are now falsely claiming protection they don't have...
Most of these companies are undoubtedly committing these violations unknowingly, but GP does have a point that the law exists for a reason: otherwise people could go on falsely claiming patent protection indefinitely. Don't why the gov't has to split the money with random third parties, though, that's just asking for abuse.
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
Anyone that can help this idiotic patent system implode upon itself is alright by me.
Some greedy lawyer tricked Gomer or Goober or someone into suing the city or county for a minor trip hazard.
The moral of the episode was courts are not always the best way to solve problems, and they frequently cause more problems than they solve.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Increasingly, our "core competence" seems to concentrate on legal maneuvers, marketing, "social medias", financial jigaboo.
In short, weaseling in general.
It's pathetic to see the mighty empire decline. We'll go out with a whimper.
This should also be extended to copyright and clearly unenforceable license terms: companies should not be allowed to claim "intellectual property" that they don't have the rights to.
overlawyered.com has been tracking this kind of patent troll for more than a year...
http://overlawyered.com/tag/patent-marking/
It's about time there was some risk of negative consequences for abusing the patent system. There should be more.
It sure sounds to me like this is an infringement on the freedom of speech/press. Sure, it's just a bunch of numbers, but don't those deserve protection, too? I fail to see what serious harm it causes to have this text out there, so I don't see how it can stand.
...That, and the fact that any country who's patent office would allow patents on DNA sequences might as well issue a patent for Oxygen. Employees in a Patent office aren't often trained in the thousands of different technical specialties needed to understand most patent applications. Many patents are given out for nonsensical ideas, or worse common practices that have existed for years...
Imagine if this (stupid IMO) law also applied to copyright: once a copyrighted work expired (e.g., a book), the original owner would have to pay a fine.
What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
They should simply pay $250 one time. Quickly you would see these "well intentioned" lawyers disappear.
Anything that exposes the absurdity of our current and antiquated patent law needs to be done.
The emerging case law on this kind of action is putting the damper on a lot of get-rich-quick schemes. First, the potential damages are up to $500 per violation. Courts are not handing down massive damage awards; quite the opposite, in fact. It's likely that most of these cases will end up with damages assessed at some fractions of a dollar or even fractions of a cent per violation. $500 per violation is a cap on damages, not a target.
Second, the courts are setting a fairly high bar for the 'intent to deceive the public' element of false marking. The majority of these cases are the result of typos or failing to retool an assembly line the moment a patent expires.
As others have noted, incorrect patent marking stifles innovation.
Letting the public enforce this is efficient. It reminds me of how certain forms of illegal stock trading were discouraged. Certain stockholders are not allowed to engage in something called "short swing trading". If they do, and are caught, they have to give all their profits from the trade to the company. The brilliant way Congress and the SEC came up with to enforce this was to make it so any shareholder can sue on behalf of the corporation. If the shareholder wins (and he always does, because the people who aren't allowed to do these trades are the same set of people that have to report all their trades to the SEC, and so their illegal short swing trades will quickly come to light), the illegal trader has to pay the shareholder's attorney fees. Finally, in the most brilliant part of all, the shareholder only has to be one at the time of filing the suit--not at the time of the illegal trade.
Net result: law firms get the SEC data, run programs to identify short swing traders, go out and buy one share of stock in the company, and sue.
To make it worse, profits are calculated in a way that is very unfavorable to the defendant. Suppose you bought stock at 100/share, later sold that all at 90/share, then later bought the same amount at 80/share, and then sold that at 70/share. You've had a net loss of 20/share, right? That's what you bank account reflects--but that's not how the court calculates it. The court finds the lowest you paid and the highest you sold for and matches them. Repeat until as much is matched as possible. So, the court would just look at that 90/share sale and the later 80/share purchase, and order you to pay 10/share to the company. The remaining 100/share purchase and 70/share sale are ignored. So in addition to losing in reality 20/share on your transactions, and having to pay plaintiff's attorney fees, you also have to pay 10/share to the company!
This has made short swing trading so scary that among those who have to report their trades it virtually stopped shortly after these rules went into effect.
They should simply pay $250 one time. Quickly you would see these "well intentioned" lawyers disappear.
That sort of fine means nothing to someone who makes MILLIONS of packages for their products and it may well lead to then knowingly using old patent information to both ward off other potential competitors - and in the worst case, pay a one off $250 fine. The whole concept of the $250 PER OFFENCE (meaning per item showing the false patent information) was to ensure that once it expired, you did no longer actually use it - opening the avenue for competition.
These "well intentioned" lawyers as you so callously put it are in fact doing what the patent offices/government should be doing to encourage diverse competition.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Once your patents expire I'm gonna sue you for this post.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Live by the Sword, Die by the Sword.
You could start by reading the Summary where it clearly states that the Troll is the company suing the holder of the expired patent.
We know who's suing whom. The question is whether it's fair to call the plaintiffs "trolls" when what they're doing is nothing like the type of behavior that usually gets called "patent trolling." GPP seems to believe, and I agree, that it's not trolling at all, but in fact providing a useful service to help prevent abuse of the patent system.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Bullshit.
/seriously/ interested in a product would simply look at it and give up. The company would certainly look up the patent to try to "get around it" and see that it had expired.
If a company was really interested in making a product, they'd check the relevant patent numbers online (which is pretty easy to do) and see that they had expired. No company that is
Stop making up scenarios that make no sense.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Most of these companies are undoubtedly committing these violations unknowingly,
Well, it's possible to infringe on a patent unknowingly, so I have no real sympathies there.
Don't why the gov't has to split the money with random third parties, though, that's just asking for abuse.
The government really can't be bothered to investigate this, much less sue over it. It's easier to provide a bounty to get third parties to do it.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
OK - exactly what do these new type of trolls contribute to the economy???
So if you want to protect your shit you just designed, the government encourages you to put a patent number on the device, often formed into the very metal or plastic comprising the casing or body of your thingamajig.
Then, at some time in the future, when the patent expires, you can't use that mold or casting tool anymore and have to build a new one, because otherwise it's false advertising?
Even if the mold says "This item is covered by patent #xxxxxxx," isn't it useful for further innovation that anyone can just type in that number and find the patent that describes the item?
For example: I just bought a weird kitchen tool at the thrift store the other day and was puzzled as to its precise use until I typed in the patent number on it and found out that it was an ice cube chunker (it works pretty well, too -- no, I'm sorry, I forget the patent # off the top of my head). Had it not had a patent number on it, I'd probably still be trying to squeeze citrus with it or something!
So here's the tradeoff as I see it:
A) Keeping the numbers in place, with the big benefit to identifying items AND giving new innovators an easy starting point for further progress in the Useful Arts, versus
B) Mandating removal so that a small handful of people who can't enter a number into Google or do basic subtraction can determine if a patent has expired.
Good job, congress, the law's really protecting us what good!
*shakes head*
coding is life
I actually blame the company. Packaging should have an expiry date built-in at a minimum. It's not like this is difficult to do: there are expiry dates on all dairy foods, and for good reason. Society benefits when people don't eat or drink food that's past expiry on a regular basis. Similarly, society benefits when the expiry date of a patent monopoly is clearly marked.
Companies still using an old mold which doesn't have an expiry date is just greedy. They should have put the date in when they went to the trouble of putting the patent number in, or they should bear the cost of a new mold if they're still selling new products from it.
I agree it doesn't make a lot of sense to make the patent claim illegal, but a possible compromise is to have products also list the year the patent will expire, and remove all ambiguity.
My webcomic
An expired patent number on a product has positive social benefit. If anything, we should require the manufacturer to continue affixing the patent number to the product for a period after the patent expires. This lets you know how to reproduce the product, which you now have the right to do.
I don't know about the rest of you, but whenever I see a patent number on something interesting, I think, "OK, I can look that up and see when it expires". If they aren't allowed to keep putting the number there, the answer will always be "sometime in the future" as opposed to "x number of years ago".
In other words, if they aren't allowed to put the expired number there, it'll be harder to get the good news.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Stop making up scenarios that make no sense.
I am making a simplistic scenario.
/. are frothing at the mouth when companies use false DMCA takedown notices but apparently have no such anger directed at other companies using false patent information, we even defend them because of the "evil lawyers"?.
Why is it that we here at
Hypocrisy. You can't have your cake and eat it with this argument.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Better check any patent numbers in those .C files and .H files for expiration.
I know i've seen patent numbers mentioned in source code before.
I'm not quite sure how the courts would deal with "possibly unlimited numbers" (of copies distributed), uncounted free downloads.
Perhaps it could be the first time a patent troll gets an unlimited damage award? "The court finds in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant is hereby order to hand over all their money, worldly possessions, and all money and worldly possessions they obtain for the rest of their natural live(s)?"
Easy, die grinder to the rescue. Sure word will get on and just remove the number from the mold then keep on selling.
General Kenobi, Who's the more trollish? The troll, or the troll who follows him?
An expired patent number on a product has positive social benefit. If anything, we should require the manufacturer to continue affixing the patent number to the product for a period after the patent expires. This lets you know how to reproduce the product, which you now have the right to do.
Yes. I think the law should be changed, so it's OK to affix an expired patent number, as long as you print the expiration by the number, for example "Pat No 1,234,567. Expires XX/YY/ZZ
Should not incur a fine, as long as the expiration date is included and truthful.
Stop making up scenarios that make no sense.
Why is it that we here at /. are frothing at the mouth when companies use false DMCA takedown notices but apparently have no such anger directed at other companies using false patent information
Because the first causes real damage in practice, whereas the second causes none.
Nobody cares about a company's lying if it causes no actual harm.
We live, as we dream -- alone....
Trolls need lawyers. Lawyers need yachts. Yachts need someone to build, dock, and staff them. It's a cozy little ecosystem.
This is a silly question.
An IP troll is someone who leverages the power of IP law as a means to turn a profit. IP laws are intended to protect creativity in Arts and foster ingenuity in Science and Engineering. The ideal is to protect and nurture those who seek the betterment of all Humanity through the enrichment of our culture or expansion of our knowledge. Anyone who profits from patents and copyrights solely as a consequence of the laws that back the IP and not because of their own creativity and ingenuity of the creation itself is a parasitic troll engaging in abuse of tort.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
Whats legal is not necessarily ethical. In fact more often then not ethics are not of concern to people trying to score an easy buck.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
" possible compromise is to have products also list the year the patent will expire, and remove all ambiguity."
Until Congress extends or otherwise changes patent terms, as is its wont.
Also, from the summary:"it's against the law to sell a product that's marked with an expired patent number."
Do I smell legislatively forced obsolescence? Does this mean I can't sell old tools in a garage sale, without the mentioned patent trolls coming after me?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I almost thought you were a troll. You honestly don't see his point? Your continued argument is that we should be outraged because of a false patent claim. However, the vast majority of slashdot can see that using old molds with old patent numbers on them hurts no one and is in no way an abuse of power. False DMCA takedowns can hurt internet traffic that hurts revenue, and it is a complete abuse of power.
Also note that displaying an expired patent number on an invention would only confuse someone without internet access or even a phone to call the USPTO, such as someone living in the 1800's.
Even simpler solution, have the patent number include the issue date as part of it.
Is 96-1234-5678-9 that bad?
Not really.
Not greedy, lazy. Most companies don't realize just how inexpensive it can be to get old molds modified.
Depending on whether the patent number is a boss or not determines how easily it can be corrected. In some cases, a skilled machinist can remove the patent markings from the mold with nothing more than a file and a polishing stone set. And yet, most mold shops buy their molds from someone else and don't have the skilled person to do the work.
It's a conundrum to be sure. Companies need to stop marking products as patented when the patent expires, but what these "trolls" are doing isn't socially beneficial.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
The solution to the trolls is for the government to settle for $1 and split the settlement with the fine ambulance chaser after taking his filing fee =) Wasting everyones time like this produces nothing of value and nets society nothing, the bright individual should go use his brainpower elsewhere to actually help advance society in some way.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
They aren't profiting from patents, they are profiting from abuse of patents, although you could argue that this abuse is generally small. There is some degree of public benefit from this and the only thing this discourages is improper patent labeling, which isn't really a good thing. This could make printing expiration dates the standard, which would actually be beneficial to the public.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
What happens when a company builds a quantity of units with a current patent number, that then sit in a warehouse for a few years before being sold?
How's that any different than any other government contract? The government gets work done, someone else does the work, government pays said other person for the value of their work (not necessarily the same as the cost of the work). Heck, remove "government" from this, and it's still true.
Some private companies also reward their employees with finder's fees for reducing costs ("reduce costs by $1m per year, and we'll give you a $10,000 bonus!"), hiring ("Recommend someone to hire, and if we do, and they accept, and they're still around after x months, we'll give you $5,000"), valuable ideas ("Submit a patentable idea, we'll give you $2,000, with a $3,000 bonus if the USPTO accepts it") or really valuable ideas ("If we license that patent for over $10m, we'll give you $50,000"). Heck, they even give out bonuses if you increase the corporate income (i.e., SALES). Why should the government lose out on it?
Besides, by getting the general public involved, they even get to add a buzzword to their job descriptions: Crowdsourcing.
Probably because most of us realize that those companies aren't using 'false patent information' that we know of. When I look at some product with its patent info.. I dunno, this DVD case from Amaray (surprisingly few items in my immediate vicinity even have patent info on them)... all it says is "US Pat No. 5788068". It doesn't say that the patent will be valid forever and ever and ever. It's a simple piece of information that they voluntarily (I presume, as otherwise.. why are all these other items around me missing that information?) stamped on there so that others - manufacturers - can look up the patent and reference it directly if they want to license it or build on it or whatever, and so that it is clear that a patent for it -does- exist. Want to know if it's active or expired? Look it up; That number doesn't magically disappear or get re-assigned to something else. Patent #0000001 is still the same patent covering the same invention it did well over 200 years ago. So there is nothing -false- about that information.
The law that says that a patent number is not allowed to be used on the products that are described in that patent as soon as it expires is the real 'troll' here.
Actually, US patent numbering has changed in the last 200 years.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Why is it that we here at /. are frothing at the mouth when companies use false DMCA takedown notices but apparently have no such anger directed at other companies using false patent information, we even defend them because of the "evil lawyers"?
Filing a false DMCA takedown notice is intentionally committing perjury. In order to avoid committing such a crime, you only have to do nothing.
Selling a product that's marked as being covered by a patent that expired a month ago is probably just a retail store selling existing stock. In order to avoid committing a crime, the manufacturer would have to recall every store's stock on the day the patent expires and destroy every piece, potentially costing a large amount of money and wasting a large amount of resources.
If a manufacturer continues to produce items marked with patents that expired 5 years earlier, then sure, they should be fined, since it's pretty reasonable to check the production lines once per year, but going after them the day after the patent expires would be ridiculous.
A very simple solution is a sticker with all the patents. Since a bunch of stickers are usually applied to some product anyways, it's trivial to apply another sticker with the current patents that are still valid. Those that aren't valid anymore are either inked out, or a new set of stickers are commissioned (cheap).
The question is, though, at what point does it it count to be invalid? If I made a product, and it sits on a shelf for 5 years before it sells, at which point the patent expired, am I infringing? The patents in question were valid when it was manufactured, just it sat in some warehouse for an extended period of time (my warehouse, retailer warehouse, etc). Or what happens if it's the day before the patent expires? Technically it's still patented, but it won't be tomorrow...
Often these patents are for just a part of the product - and it's generally easier to figure out how to make it for yourself by looking carefully at the actual product, than to try to learn it from the patents. Patents tend to be quite obfuscated.
Your average product has 50 patents listed on it, do you expect them to replace their packaging whenever one of those 50 expires?
You are. You are indeed a master of the art. You have achieved the highest level of trolling, the seemingly impossible task of crafting highminded-sounding rubbish that creates a frenzy of incensed response, while at the same time sounding insightful to modders who can no more recognize a good troll than a patent inspector prior art. Bravissimo!
In the case of a mold used to make plastics, stamp metal, ect., its incredibly expensive for a company to get a new mold made. I used to work at a CNC shop as a lowly peon preparing and finishing parts for military contracts, movie cameras and manufacturing molds. The company I worked for routinely charged big bucks for molds simply because it takes a large amount of skilled and unskilled man hours to produce it. An engineer typically did the initial design in some sort of CAD or other program, then the CNC machines were programmed to prepare the part. Then the part typically went through several CNC machines before being finished. After this the part's measurements were rigorously checked to see if there were within specifications. Then little turds like myself (I was a freshman in college) de-burred the sharp edges, put it through various chemical baths and polished the shit out of it before cleaning it one final time. The aforementioned is still a simplification of the process. Generally manufacturing molds were ordered only once. Suppose a patent expires. If a manufacturer chooses to have the patent number included in the mold at the get go, then they need to either modify the mold without decreasing the functionality of their product or they need to get a whole new mold made. A lot of times a company may only have one mold for a particular part, so the cost of any mistake in modification is large since it may mean totally replacing the mold. The point is that the company is not doing anything inherently wrong in using the mold to produce a product that they have been selling under a patent they either owned or licensed if the patent expired. It still references a patent number that can be looked up online to determine if its expired or not if someone chooses to spend the time. My point is ethical considerations need to be taken into account in enforcing this law, because the lawyers are only looking to score some cash at someone else's expense. To be unfair and use a logical fallacy, "Do you think this law is unjust or do you hate small businesses?".
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
I'm pretty sure they mean "new" products...
I'm telling you for the last time, the cake is a lie!
Hey, live by the patent, die by the patent. You could always just not patent, not put the number, etc, but you want the force of the US government behind you. Well, then, you need to obey the rules. This is but one cost of that force, and it's still small compared to the cost to society.
I modded you up, but I think the answer is quite simple -- "a plague on both your houses." We don't like the companies leaving the labels with expired patents and we don't like the lawyers exploiting the system. Watching them fight each other is a bonus -- whoever wins, we win.
[Responding AC so my mods don't go away.]
Why not? "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," according to Emerson. Life is not a computer program. It is not necessarily important to get identical output when given the same sets of input, much less only similar sets of input.
Why is it wrong to denounce people who claim to own your work when they know they do not, who remove it from the public consumption you have decided for it and threaten to cost you thousands of dollars in legal fees to defend your own property? Why is it wrong to be unconcerned when a product has an expired patent number that hurts no one and may actually be a public benefit in that it allows you to look up the patent information, see it is expired and duplicate it if you so desire--an outcome that seems perfectly in line with the original vision of patents?
A product unmarked with patent information is not protected by patent (probably--is it a legal requirement to display patent numbers? I'm not sure). If you want to duplicate it, you're left to reverse engineer it. Displaying an expired number allows them to look the patent up and see exactly how it works. Which do you find a greater public benefit? How do you see an illegal or erroneous DMCA takedown as a public benefit of any kind, by any stretch of the imagination?
Both things are technically illegal; no one disputes that. One is best-case beneficial and worst-case indifferent, the other is best-case disruptive (they take it down, you put it back up and nothing more comes of it) and worst-case outright harmful (they take it down and, despite being in the right you leave it down for fear of the consequences of fighting). We're supposed to be ashamed to treat them differently? Because you say so? No, I don't think so.
I don't find it hypocritical at all but if it is, I'm perfectly content to be so on this one.
TFA mentions 50 years, about 49 years and 364 days short of your "day after". Additionally, the law is on the manufacture of goods with incorrect patent labels, not the sale, so it doesn't matter how long it was in the store. What matters is if you are still making them.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Note that the law only specifies that the penalty is a maximum of $500 per violation, with the government getting half and the relator (a member of the general public suing on behalf of the government) getting the other half.
It's not really clear whether a "violation" is per product or per some larger unit of production. It's also not clear what the appropriate damages are for these cases. The courts have wide discretion to assign damages between the maximum of $500 per violation and an infinitesimal amount of money per violation. So, if the court says so, some company that manufactures a billion units of a product could end up paying out a billionth of a dollar each for a grand total of a dollar.
There are very few of these laws - called "qui tam" laws - on the federal books in the US. The most commonly seen one is the False Claims Act, an old old law meant to allow private citizens to sue government contractors on behalf of the government when those contractors perpetrate fraud on the government, with the relator getting a small portion of any damages awarded to the government.
When this law was written, looking up the patent likely meant somebody taking a horseback ride to Washington D.C. to the patent office and paying a patent clerk to locate the patent and bring it out for inspection. At the time, the law made perfect sense. However, technological progress has rendered the law unnecessary and absurd.
And this, friends, is a perfect example of why EVERY law should be required to have a sunset clause after which time it is abandoned if not explicitly renewed. The fact that all these archaic laws are still on the books is embarrassing. Important laws will, of course, be renewed. Unimportant laws won't. This would also effectively cap the number of laws that can exist at any given time, which would be a good thing.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Or you could just put on the packaging: "Protected by patent ...... until 2007"
Is it really a problem though? A patent on a product just lists a number. You have to look up that number to see what the actual protection is, and there you will see quite easily if it is expired.
Falsely listing copyright would be a big thing because it covers all aspects of the product. But patents just apply to one technical aspect that you have to look up anyway.
The ______ Agenda
Both sides are evil, and it's the patent system that made things that way. It doesn't have to be like that.
So wasteful having these endless fights over who is allowed to use an idea, like many kids fighting over 1 toy that could have been copied endlessly. Instead of copying and sharing freely, and giving the inventors a special treat, we've declared sharing a great evil because it allegedly causes the market to break down. We've created a complicated, expensive, and damaging system for managing the fights and assigning blame and determining punishments. And, no surprise, it hasn't quelled the violence. The only reason there isn't even more violence or complete anarchy, is that the kids have adopted customs that reduce the bloodshed, and made agreements among themselves. The disciplinarians deserve very little credit, though that doesn't stop them from taking it. Indeed, they have a vested interest in perpetuating the fighting.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
It's a conundrum to be sure. Companies need to stop marking products as patented when the patent expires, but what these "trolls" are doing isn't socially beneficial.
I'd say that it's very socially beneficial.
There's currently a flood of lawsuits and from now on, everyone will check to make sure they aren't asserting patent rights that no longer exist.
The pain is short term and the benefits are long term.
Or to put it another way: because the market didn't correct itself, the regulations are now being used to force a correction.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Does the law also apply to resellers? If it does I can see how this would be good for certain company strategies.
:).
There are many companies that have no intention of still selling the same product for 3 years and certainly do not intend to be still selling the same product for 20 years. So put a suitable patent number on say an iPhone and voila customers can't even legally resell their old iPhone by the time the new one is out, if you want an iPhone someone has to give it to you for free or you'll have to buy the new one
Silly, silly. It's so obvious!
Hate ALL of them.
On the one hand, you have a troll that results from the decay from within, on the other hand, you have a saprophytic troll that feeds on that decay and spreads like a bad case of untended jock itch.
DEFINITELY, despise them ALL.
Also, from the summary:"it's against the law to sell a product that's marked with an expired patent number." Do I smell legislatively forced obsolescence? Does this mean I can't sell old tools in a garage sale, without the mentioned patent trolls coming after me?
Tis why you don't make business decisions on a comment on a summary of a summary.
To answer your question: no. This is similar to legislative bounties on other business practices that the state doesn't like, such as the ADA. I'm not going to get in to whether or not it is a good idea, but the notion that grandma selling dead gramp's tools is going to be hauled up on patent charges at her garage sale is silly. This is about claiming false "ownership" of IP.
There may be good policy reasons why we don't want to put a bounty on people who falsely claim to be in possession of state-sponsored idea rights. But it is important to cast what is going on here correctly: it is about (mostly, as in any IP, this is complex) about companies falsely claiming to own IP that they don't.
Some complaints in the original article ring true - manufacturing from an old mold, simple forgetfulness, etc.
Well, those arguments don't work well for most categories of business (try the "I forgot" argument in your next contract dispute). I don't see why there should be a difference for people claiming government protection on objects they sell.
Some of the hinted arguments I've seen (to be fair, not so much in that article) are even more bullshit - this should be allowed because they were true at one time, so we should be able to keep claiming it.
Bite me. Insofar as using a state-imprimatur for a monopoly on something should be allowed at all, it has to be honest. Even hippies should like this - state ain't gettin' no (or at least suboptimal) rent.
Libertarians should be much more up in arms. I guess anarcho-capitalists should applaud the chumming of the waters.
Anyone who live in the present world, however, should think this a good thing. It is pretty narrow: don't claim you have a government monopoly that you don't, and we're enabling bounty hunters to fuck you up if you do. Real producers with a problem on their etching molds will fix it; those that are exploiting it won't.
And for anyone who wants to claim "ZOMB, this will raise costs!", get back to me when you've come up with accounting that internalizes the overall cost of patents, before you start worrying about the costs of correcting lies about patents.
I forget what 8 was for.
Maybe the company should then order a set without the patent numbers stamped at the same time. You'd still have to machine the extra one and do the finalising, but at least all the preparation will only be done once.
Patentus Trollus Obsoleticus?
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
Take a photo of the patent number and it gets sent to a server for OCR and analysis against a patent database.
Nullius in verba
In the case of copyrights, the law is supposed to go two ways... first it's protected, then it belongs to the public. The problem is, they keep extending copyright terms.
In the case of patents, the law is supposed to go two ways... first it's protected, then it belongs to the public. What's the problem? Too many to mention.
In this instance, I think it should serve as a wake-up call. I see this in ways that are similar to the "Junk Fax Trolls" who use the laws against unsolicited facsimile transmission as a source of income while aggressive marketers ignore the fact that they are using the resources and supplies of other, often unwilling and uninterested people and business for their marketing activities. The law says they can sue and collect money for the activities on a per-incident basis. In this case, the companies who benefited from patents are attempting to unlawfully continue to benefit from them once they have expired.
Here's a sad part -- there is cause to believe that many instances of violation are unknowingly committed. Perhaps a label design that was never changed or a mould from the original manufacturing process was neglected. That doesn't excuse ignorance of the law, however. People who seek to benefit from the law seem to read only the parts of the law that benefit them and ignore the rest.
For the moment, these trolls are performing a public awareness service. They reveal the complete nature of patent law rather than the parts that strike fear into the hearts of small business and individuals. Eventually, just as in the case of junk fax trolls, the public awareness lesson will be learned and the business will diminish to a slight trickle of cash flow making it not worth the trouble for most operators.
One difference between the junk fax trolls and these new expired patent trolls is that in order for the "trolled" to remain in compliance with the law, they may have to spend money to accomplish this. Labels will have to be redesigned and produced. Moulds will have to be modified or even destroyed. Products will have to be modified by hand or simply destroyed. This represents a significant loss in many cases. While I am sympathetic to such losses, I think that they could have been factored into the business operations if they paid attention to the FULL LAW rather than just the parts that benefit them the most.
This isn't like software, where you can copy and paste a program and comment out a line or two; most of labor (did you read what he wrote about manual polishing and finishing?) would be duplicated and so the second mold would still be costly. And how do you predict, X years in advance, if the product will still be in production? If it isn't, you've wasted your money.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Could someone sue oracle for their db and microsoft for windows 7 expired patents
Take the mould. File the patent number down until it's flat. Done.
Because in the DMCA takedown case, the onus of looking up the validity of the claim would be on an uninterested, lazy and risk averse third party, whereas in the expired patent number case, the onus would be on the potentially wronged party.
Now, in which case do you think this lookup would actually happen, and in which case it won't?
As I read the GP, he didn't say that the company should only pay $250. He said that whoever brought it up should get $250, instead of half of the fine.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Except the laws on validity periods could change during the lifetime of a product.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
ward off other potential competitors
The competitors can look up the number. Very simple.
I wish I still had the bottle but I don't. A few years ago I found an old glass bottle buried in my backyard, clearly stamped on the bottom with a low 6 digit patent number (started with a 1 too). I typed the patent number into google and it directed me to a copy of the patent clearly listing it as a perfume bottle and including a single diagram picture of that exact bottle. Not only was it interesting, I think of it as sort of a personal milestone in the evolution of the internet. That was the day that Google's knowledge expanded to the point that they KNEW WHAT WAS BURIED IN MY BACKYARD. The bottle itself was pretty awesome, it was designed in such a way to hold the liquid inside by surface tension even when tipped upside down, and would dispense a single drop when touched to your wrist. In other words, patent worthy. P.S. Why doesn't the form submission on a technology oriented website save the paragraph breaks? This isn't 1998 anymore is it?
how about changing the name of that country from USA to TUSA?
Don't apply for so many dumb patents then. Seriously, how many patents do you need on a screwfit? If your widget has 50 patents then you'll be getting 50 license payments. Some of that can go to paying for changing the mold. If you're not selling the patents, then you already wasted money on paying for patents. Fifty of them. WHY???? Just post them to the patent office as proof you invented it first and leave it alone.
Or fight for patent reform instead of hoping you'll land a big one and make out like bandits.
Expiry dates on food are there for a reason; it goes off, and when it goes off it's bad to eat.
This is not true of ethernet crimpers, the first thing that came to hand with a patent number on it. They'll still be good in twenty years time.
Also, expiry dates are not molded on, for reasons that even you can probably work out. Hence the comparison is totally invalid.
Nope, it's just common sense: if it ain't broke, why replace it? That's just wasteful.
What if there wasn't room? What if the validity period changes in the meantime? What if it wasn't foreseen that the product would be in production for so long? What if this dumb law was passed after the tooling up had been done?
You seem to like telling other people how to spend their money. What are you, some kind of communist?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
While I think the statutory damages here sound excessive, if it really gets to be a problem the legislative branch can easily pass an amended statute correcting that. Meanwhile it does seem to be desirable to have some disincentive in place to prevent manufacturers from claiming the protection of expired patents. A better system might require a company be served with notice to stop claiming the patents, giving them a reasonable amount of time thereafter (30 days?) to correct their manufacturing; any devices produced after the grace period would be subject to penalties if patent protection continued to be falsely claimed.
It probably wouldn't be such a problem if we hadn't gone absolutely patent crazy in the past fifty years. I made a ludicrous discovery the other day while replenishing my toilet paper supply. The brand of TP I had purchased claims no fewer than 36 patents on the packaging, and I believe that's not even counting the additional design patents (or at least I presume that's what the series designated D########## represented.) C'mon, really -- 36 patentable innovations? It's toilet paper.
So you were granted a patent back in 1492. Regardless of whether that patent is still applicable, why is it wrong to mark products you produce with that patent number? That patent number, while now obsolete, still stands and should be seen as a marketing promotion. When Gore-Tex lost its patent, they still promoted the Gore-Tex name, because hey, while others can now produce goods based on that patent, the Gore-Tex patent says, "hey, we did it first, we sell a product we're more experienced with."
This is absurdity. If you invent (or sometimes patent) something first, you should be allowed to claim so. Who cares if the patent still applies. If a company is interested in producing a previously patented good, you'd think they would have the sense to investigate whether or not that patent number is still valid.
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
Which country? Personal use of patent is fine without a license. How else could you innovate an advancement without access to the patent (the license can say "you cannot reverse engineer or extend this patent" just as copyright EULAs do)?
There's no "fair use" but this isn't fair use.
Patents cover the manufacture of goods and being a civil tort only cause reparation of damages. If you are not damaging the patent owner (e.g. you have gone to the patent office, taken the patent and are building it to see if it's sufficient information, which a legitimate patent MUST be), then there is no damages to redress.
When a Patent expires of it's registration, then it is to be returned to the Custodian of the maker of it's privilege in the State, where was called the proprietary cause of it's occlusion.
United States Patent And Trademark Office is a corporation that is conferred a security interest in it's tenancy of holding the said patent and trademark on behalf of the maker: legal names have nothing to do with
the operation of such corporation, and the militant nature of the matter is that every corporation persuing every manner of the law has deployed local and international violence of police and related agents to uphold whatever premises in their care of limited liability.
The date they were manufactured is then taken into account, not the date they were sold. Given that some of these items were 50 years out of date, well, they weren't made that long ago.
Anyhow, if you read the recent decisions (and I have), you also have to allege some kind of harm arising from the markings. You can't sue just because.
The reason the government put that clause in there was so that they didn't have to enforce this law: they'd get random 3rd parties who were injured by it to enforce the law for them, and the government would collect half of the take.
Except the laws on validity periods could change during the lifetime of a product.
Well, this would create a gigantic lobby in favor of not changing the validity period at all. Would that be such a bad thing?
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Monsanto micro-etches its patent numbers on each seed.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Define "no actual harm".
If a company is selling a rock, saying that it's extremely rare, and it turns out to be garden variety granite ... has there been any actual harm? ..", looks into it, realizes that the item is patented and drops the idea - has there been any actual harm? What if the patent expired 10 years ago - has there been any actual harm?
If John Doe buys something sold by ACME INC. today and thinks "I could improve upon that by
Language like "...at the time of manufacture" is probably in there some place. Too lazy to check.
This existing law is both good and bad. Many posts here already detail that. My solution is to change the law to provide a simple safe harbor that avoids the anti-competitive aspect of patent number markings. Under this proposal, any patent numbers that include at the end of the identifying number, separated by a dash, the correct year of expiration, shall not be a violation.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
The numbers are much higher, is that what you mean?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
the competitors, maybe. but the customers? that's false advertising, first and foremost, and then an unfair business practice.
When I hear words and phrases like "simple", "trivial" and "a small matter of" it's usually a good indication that these minor trifles will be done (or paid for) by someone other than the writer.
-- Henry Ford
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
> It's a conundrum to be sure. Companies need to stop marking products as patented when the patent expires, but what these "trolls" are doing isn't socially beneficial.
It _is_ beneficial.
They are claiming to have a government-granted monopoly which they do not have (any more). The end result is a chilling effect on potential market participants (who would inform themselves properly in a perfect world, but hey).
The fines should obviously be capped at reasonable levels, but even though these lawyers are sucking up money they did not generate, this practice is A Good Thing.
Put an expiry date on the patent. Oh wait, that would actually benefit customers, modders and the other companies trying to get a foot it.
So we end up with a net benefit for society at large.
I wouldn't exactly label them trolls myself. I see it as individuals trying to keep the ones in line that think they are necessary. After all if you are still selling things with expired patent numbers, how "innovative" was it really?
Interesting part I took from the article is that if it is expired, or non-existent then it is labelled anti-competitive, but the third alternative isn't.
Silly people. Even if I believed in them I wouldn't trust the Federals to do a good job in evaluating my patent, or insuring it didn't have prior art. They just don't have the right stuff nowadays to have the power, and responsibility we have given them. Think 3 year olds when you think Federal. =)
Thanks, you spared me having to write pretty much the same thing for the third time in this thread :)
So because people need to double-check anyway it's OK to make factually wrong claims that are prohibited by law?
In that vein, it might make sense to change the patent numbering system to add a 2-digit code to the end of the patent number that represents the year of expiry. Seems like a trivial way to make it abundantly clear when the patent expires, both for the company that's protected, and for those interested in accessing the patent once it's free of protection.
-Styopa
> Nobody cares about a company's lying if it causes no actual harm.
I do.
Also, where is your detailed analysis of the claim above, supported by extensive studies? Oh, you are arguing with your beliefs, same as we do. The difference is that we use proper arguments, not the old & trivial kill-all ruse of "you have no factual basis" without any proof to support it.
"don't claim you have a government monopoly that you don't, and we're enabling bounty hunters to fuck you up if you do. "
The presence of a patent number isn't a monopoly claim. It's a reference to detailed information about (at least one feature of) the product. The manufacturer is actually informing its (potential) competition on how to find detailed information on the design of its product. That's exactly what the patent system is supposed to do, make detailed information on inventions available to all. Having expired patent numbers on products should be encouraged. If the patented feature has value, then the free market encourages removal of the number to prevent disclosing that information after it becomes publicly useful.
And, exactly what do you think libertarians should be up in arms about? About patents themselves, or about the type of patent troll discussed here?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
> Don't why the gov't has to split the money with random third parties, though, that's just asking for abuse.
"Abuse" as in "making sure laws are followed because no one else ever cared to do so"? I do agree that there should be reasonable caps, though.
So, it's not too expensive to put the number on the device, but it's too expensive to remove it? Tough luck, soldier. But that's the way the world works. Especially since it's your choice to put the patent number on there in the first place.
> Also, from the summary:"it's against the law to sell a product that's marked with an expired patent number."
RTFL (l as law) would clear that up, but I am too lazy, too.
There is an alternative to all this that's more or less firmly in the mind of everyone.When i buy a product , for example machinery , tools, things that are definitely going to be practical and of use for a long time and there is a small indication like a few patent numbers , what it tells me is this , we have an original product and not just a copy or a look-alike it's the real thing.In a way when we see those it simply means it's an original.No other is done like this.We often see those stickers on equipment ages old. Even if the patent is now expired, it's still the machine that introduced the technology behind the patent.Therefore even if it IS expired , i don't see why the reference to the patent describing the technology should go.Protection or not.The Patent is still the place where the information is about what device introduced which technology advance. Now that some low life lawyer hounds companies with old patents that might be totally obsolete tech and wants 250 bucks for the patent sticker still being there 75 years on a machine run that still lasts is just the proof that Dick Cheney had the right idea when he shot ( of course totally unintentionally ) his lawyer buddy :)
Just the same old lawyer bullcrap that leads nowhere but expose the ridicule of the American law and patent / copyrights system.
Why this dualism? Why must it be EITHER/OR? Can't both be leeches, and the increased sliminess of one not reducing the sliminess of the other?
I've seen plenty of patent infringement cases for software and procedures that certainly do not have any sort of patent office label thrown at you when you use or download or purchase the software. The Verizon vs Vonage lawsuit comes to mind. I don't recall seeing USPTO No's : X, Y, Z, C, B, A at the bottom of my bills from Verizon. So even though IANAL, I suspect that putting a patent number on the product is not required.
Given the scope of the article I would say that one should either make a mold that says US Patent Pending (i see lots of these) to serve as a warning that copying will get your butt hauled into court. OR stick to putting the patent numbers on the packaging which is much easier and cheaper to modify. Let this be a lesson that there is no depth to which a lawyer will refuse to sink. Every aspect of what we do or what rule we write or what product we make should have a very pessimistic review done to evaluate worst case outcome.
They're claiming to have a government sanctioned monopoly on something, but it's rare, if ever, that they're telling you on what. They just list patent numbers, which as of today bear no relation to their actual content, because, well, they're numbers, rather than English phrases.
If the stamps we were talking about said "This design is covered by patent #10294818291, which covers the use of proton torpedo to turn lead into gold", then sure. But saying it's covered by patent #somelongnumber" really isn't helpful, all it does is say that there are patents that apply here, and so if you do an exact copy you may get into trouble.
One could ask why companies should bother stamping the warnings on their goods in the first place, given the above. Quite honestly, I'd agree except for the fact that it is actually helpful in many ways. If the purpose of patents is to ensure that people document their inventions in exchange for a limited monopoly, then it does make a lot of sense for a company to stamp the patents that apply, or applied, on the items they sell.
In that respect, the lawsuits aren't just parasitic, they're actually anti-beneficial. The lawsuits encourage companies to delink the documentation on how to make their products from the products themselves. And while I'm for anything that undermines the patent system, I've seen no evidence that removing the positives from a system that has widespread corporate support ever undermine it.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
No way! Everybody knows that a new species is not possible. This one has been creationed by God 5000 years ago, together with the dinosaurs and all the other species!
> In that respect, the lawsuits aren't just parasitic, they're actually anti-beneficial. The lawsuits encourage companies to delink the documentation on how to make their products from the products themselves.
That's not quite true. You have no guarantee that by oversight, maliciousness or changed circumstances, the list of patents is exhaustive. You still need to do all the checking by yourself. I see printed patent numbers as a chilling effect, nothing more, nothing less.
It doesn't matter, once the patent has expired, it's dead.
Unless of course Congress pulls the same thing with patents that they recently pulled with copyrights, i.e., takeback from stuff that's lapsed into the public domain.
> realizes that the item is patented and drops the idea...
Anybody with a decent IQ would look up the patent to see:
- what's covered
- when it does expire (it might be soon, it might even be expired after the company released the product into the market)
This leaves dumb people with bright ideas out, but they were going to be screwed later on anyway :D
The whole story seems to demonstrate two things:
1 the patent system is again a fraud, earning $$ to people who don't contribute
2 punishment should be proportional to violation is a forgotten principle
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
I've talked with the guy briefly before on SFLC matters. He seems like a pretty level-headed guy and also runs the Pub Patent Foundation. I finally got around to RTFA, and here's what he said:
"It chills competition, it misleads the public and takes away from the credit patent holders deserve," says Daniel Ravicher, founder and executive director of New York nonprofit Public Patent Foundation, which has filed numerous suits.
Mr. Ravicher says he found one defendant, Johnson & Johnson's McNeil-PPC unit, by perusing his local drugstore shelves, where he found a bottle of Tylenol he says had an expired patent. Johnson & Johnson declined to comment.
I can totally understand the outrage if after the time of patent expiry someone in management at, say, Johnson & Johnson, added a patent number to a bottle mold or label, but what if they're just reusing an existing stock of bottles, labels, or molds?
To break down Ravicher's claims:
[leaving expired patent numbers on items] chills competition
I'm really not seeing it at all.
Let's just take the example of Tylenol. There's no way, no how that any company large enough to successfully manufacture FDA-approved generic acetaminophen would be inconvenienced by an out-of-date patent on a bottle of Tylenol. The patent information (unlike the totally disorganized registry of copyright renewals) is AFAIK all there online, for anyone to see, including whether or not the patent rights are still in effect.
Here are some times when it sounds reasonable fine or sue a company:
- A patent is listed on a product, but the patent is not owned or licensed by the company (I believe that's straight-up infringement)
- A patent is listed on a product, but it never was a real patent (I believe that's fraud)
- A patent is listed on a product, but the patent doesn't apply to the product
- A patent is first listed on a product After the patent has expired
[leaving expired patent numbers on items] misleads the public
In a very, very small way, yes, I guess it could.
But where's the harm caused by it? I'd argue that all of the crazy ads by drug companies do a lot more harm and cause a lot more confusion than out-of-date patent numbers on drug bottles.
Let's just think rationally here for a moment. In order for expired patent numbers on pill bottles to mislead the public, we'd have to have a person
1) read the patent number on the pill bottle.
2) try to use that patent number information in some manner in which the expiration date matters
Heck, how many people check to see if the pills themselves have expired?
Except for business purposes, I really don't see a "personal use" case in which the patent numbers have any relevancy to the end user. And in a business situation, a list of patents can be trivially checked.
[leaving expired patent numbers on items] takes away from the credit patent holders deserve
This seems like a "sloppiness" argument -- basically, if patent owners or licensors are too lazy to list patents on manufactured goods correctly, and remove them immediately upon their expiry, then they should pay a hefty fee.
I can, to a limited extent, agree with this point. But the problem here is that I've had to deal with another part of our nation's "limited monoploy" (i.e. IP) system, namely the minefield that is copyright and copyright extensions. If only all parts of this system were to operate with the same exacting, no-holds-bared, no-fine-withheld attitude that the Patent Office is taking here, then perhaps I'd be on board.
Maybe the point of this whole law is to get people to file fewer patents and to get them to less aggressively protect patented items with listed patent numbers on them. I seriously can't believe that's the case, but I'll accept it and move on. I don't have any patents myself, and I'm not planing
coding is life
Because customers are always concerned about whether or not the product they are about to buy is covered by a patent... Last time I checked, the customer looks at what they want, if it meets the price that they are willing to pay, and whether or not another "generic" version exist that meets their needs for less cost. I guess it's possible that I'm the odd one here, but I've never really cared whether something I buy has a patent, valid or invalid.
+++ATH0 NO CARRIER
The law should apply ONLY to product that was packaged and marked AFTER the patent expired. Otherwise, a company could be liable for product shipped YEARS ago but is STILL sitting on a shelf someplace for sale. Not likely for products such as clothing or food, but for more durable goods such as vacuum tubes, pencils, crayons, hand tools, etc.
Patent numbers are also history. A family friend has an old Steinway piano that has various internal parts marked with a list of patent numbers as long as your arm. Most of these date back to the 19th century. I think this piano was made at the turn of the LAST century (before "T.R." was president).
I've heard that some small scale manufacturers (e.g. Bernina) to make a run of a product years in advance, and warehouse the goods until they're needed by dealers. In the meantime, patents expire.
Most of these companies are undoubtedly committing these violations unknowingly, but GP does have a point that the law exists for a reason: otherwise people could go on falsely claiming patent protection indefinitely.
So what will be the result of this? That companies will not put patent numbers on their molds. That will not help anybody - to the contrary. Just consider how patents work in practice. You see a product and you think - "wow, that's neat idea, I bet I could put it in my product!". So you put it in your product and you get sued for patent infringement because you didn't know it was patented.
On the other hand if you see the patent number on the product, you will be more cautious and check it out.
You see, putting patent number on your product is not a claim as you all seem to argue here. It's a warning.
Checking whether a patent is still valid is easy. Searching for a patent when you don't know whether it exists is hard.
In the case of a mold used to make plastics, stamp metal, etc., its incredibly expensive for a company to get a new mold made.
To paraphrase the company spokesmen in the article, "We're big corporations! We shouldn't have to obey laws against fraudulent trading." I'm remain unconvinced.
How expensive are these molds in actual dollars? Why not just use stickers for the patent numbers if this is such a great expense?
If the patent has been so unprofitable that the former owner can't cough up a few million dollars for a mold, it never should have been granted in the first place. Maybe we should make the patent examiner who granted such a patent partially responsible for the bill? Or we could require a deposit 3x the estimated cost of retooling to be placed with the patent office on the first renewal date.
Honestly, I think this will resolve itself in the marketplace, if it doesn't we can increase the fines from $500 per item max to $50,000 per item max. And we can also impose minimum fine of 3x the retail cost of the item with the fraudulent markings. Only if such simple measures don't work would I support the a retooling deposit and extending liability to the patent examiner.
Well, Chinese groups make knock offs even when you patent something anyway. Yes a solution is to put patent numbers on the packaging instead. Another solution is to remove ridiculous laws and punish lawyers that exploit them who also waste the courts time, which I believe would be more beneficial to society.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
No, its too expensive to replace molds. It wouldn't be that expensive to remove a patent number depending on if on the mold is ridged or grooved. A ridge would be easy to remove, a groove not so easy. You also have to consider the cosmetic differences in the final product as well as specifications needed. What if filing down the patent number results in imperfect parts being made? Its no sweat off the back of some large company's back, but smaller companies may have a hard time with it.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
Here's another take--and why I think that making them remove the patent numbers is a HORRIBLE idea:
To get the patent, the applicant must disclose the details about the patent. We're left out in the cold, of course, if we want to make our own use of what is patented, but the public does get one huge benefit: we get to see how the thing works. We also get a clue into hidden dangers the thing might have.
Patents have this important cost to the applicant: they have to disclose what's going on. That's a bit of consolation for us who have to use a product, and that could be a great thing for people once the patent expires.
If manufacturers remove the patent number from products when the patent expires, we lose a very useful disclosure on their part. It would be far better if we were to require them to keep the patent numbers on the products.
No one is forcing companies to print patent numbers on manufactured goods. Companies do so because they see an advantage in doing so. If this costs extra in the long run, it is their problem and theirs alone.
The patent still exists, it just expired. If people are too lazy to look up a number online or inquire through the mail as to whether a patent number is expired or not then it is their problem and theirs alone.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
Yah, that is not how the law governing this issue works.
But even if it were: What advantage does it give you to print the numbers when everyone else needs to do a full check anyway? Other than a chilling effect, that is.
The Dilbert version is more consise.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
No, the numbering system changed in 1836 and previous patents were retroactively renumbered, so a patent in 1810 would have a different number than the one it has today.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Interesting factoid: The popular boardgame Monopoly lists an expired patent number.
I'm a fan of expired patent numbers on modern products simply because they are extremely useful for historical research. They used this exact information in an episode of History Detectives. Granted, they don't mention the fact that they could've just looked up Monopoly on Wikipedia, but the show is trying to tell a good story.
It make it easy for other people to do a full check by just looking up the number that's stamped on the side of the product.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
So one solution might be that, instead of embedding the patent etc info in the mould, it's applied as a "latter step" via a stamp or something of the like. I don't think it would be incredibly hard to do one of the following:
* Include it in the manual (easier to modify the print than a mould) instead
* Include it on a sticker (it's not like lost-sticker = no patent)
* Stamp it on (ink) after the mould is released
* Stamp it in (heated press) after the mould is released
> It make it easy for other people to do a full check by just looking up the number that's stamped on the side of the product.
That's the thing. It does nothing of the sort. I still need to do a _full_ check as there is no guarantee that this list is exhaustive. I gain _nothing_ from this list while the manufacturer gains a chilling effect. Thus, both the time limit and the extra work in removing the stale numbers is more than justified.
Something similar to the usual:
"copyright 2001-2007 megacorp"
Something like:
Patent #999999999 (2001-2010) megacorp
Showing the patent expiration/validity should help prevent being sued, I'd imagine?
Of course, but partial documentation is better than none at all, wouldn't you agree?
Then you're being extraordinarily myopic. I see publicizing the technologies used to build a product as a positive thing. You can't deny that stamping a patent number on a product fails to do that, surely? And given that a patent could expire the day after you buy a product, why would you take a list of patents on the back of a product as meaning that the patenter still has a monopoly anyway?
Because I type fairly quickly, and because Pudge and CmdrTaco are fucking idiots, I can't post this right now (oooh, it's been THREE MINUTES since I responded to someone else, I must be a hacker with nothing to say!), so instead I'm going to waste some of their bandwidth and storage space by adding this Wikipedia article. Hope you're OK with that.
Advanced Passenger Train
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search
The Advanced Passenger Train (APT) was an experimental tilting High Speed Train developed by British Rail during the 1970s and early 1980s.
The introduction into service of the Advanced Passenger Train was to be a three-stage project. Phase 1, the development of an experimental APT, the APT-E, was completed. Phase 2, the introduction of three prototype trains, known as the APT-P, into revenue service on the Glasgow - London route, did occur but enjoyed limited service due to bad publicity. Phase 3, the introduction of the Squadron fleet designated APT-S, did not occur. The knowledge and experience gained enabled the construction of other high speed trains, including tilting derivatives.
Contents
* 1 Background * 2 Demise * 3 APT today * 4 APT versus TGV and Shinkansen * 5 Further uses of APT technology * 6 References + 6.1 Notes + 6.2 Bibliography * 7 External links
Background
In the mid to late 20th century, British Rail express services compared unfavourably with France's TGV and Japan's Shinkansen. Experience with High Speed Trains on the East Coast Main Line from London to Edinburgh had shown that reduced journey times could produce a significant increase in passenger numbers, but that line was largely straight and suited to high speeds. Other lines, such as the West Coast Main Line (WCML) from London to Glasgow, were not straight enough to support high speeds with conventional equipment. Lateral forces would be just too high around corners; passengers would not be able to stand upright easily, and items would move on tables. Because slower trains also use the same tracks, superelevation (banking or "canting" of the track around curves) could only be utilised to enable speeds up to 125 mph (201 km/h). In order to permit a top speed of 155 mph (249 km/h), and thereby cut journey times, British Rail's engineers at the Derby Research Division developed an advanced active tilting technology, using hydraulic rams controlled by spirit level sensors to tilt the passenger cars into the curves so that no lateral forces would be felt. Numerous engineers involved in the project had an aeroengineering background. Not only was the train designed to tilt but it was also articulated and had hydrokinetic (Water turbine) brakes. The latter feature is often overlooked but was in fact just as significant as the tilting concept, because it enabled the train to stop within the existing signal spacings. The fact that under operating conditions it failed to do so, was one of the main factors in the train being withdrawn.
Some of the senior managers in British Rail at the time were unwilling to put all their eggs in one basket, and so initiated a parallel project to design a train based on conventional technology as a stopgap.^^ This was the Hig
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
You are, of course, assuming that patents only affect large companies' rights to manufacture a product.
A patent grants the right to exclude others from using, making, selling, offering for sale, or important the product. If a company wanted to, they could prevent you, a regular Joe, from using its product. If John buys a piece of software subject to Patent X and the EULA says "non-transferable" in it, and then John gives the software to you, you could be sued for using it, even without knowing about the existence of patents.
Patents aren't just about Boeing manufacturing a new airfoil.
IIRC, not all patents are of the same length.
Yes-and-no. The numbering system wasn't changed and a patent in 1810 wouldn't have a different number than the one it has today simply because the patent from 1810 didn't have a number; they were identified by date and inventor name (or company name? I'm fuzzy on that one). But as far as actual numbers as in "Patent No. #######" goes, there's been no change; and you can still look up the older patents if you have the date/name/company information, of course.
Often these patents are for just a part of the product - and it's generally easier to figure out how to make it for yourself by looking carefully at the actual product, than to try to learn it from the patents. Patents tend to be quite obfuscated.
If this is true, then the patent system has totally failed. Patents were intended to be a trade. You explain how it works, we give you a limited monopoly.
If you simply must have the patent number on the product, laser etch it.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
If you simply must have the patent number on the product, laser etch it.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
For the case of the rock, yes, actual harm has been done. This is known as fraud. The harm is the premium over actual fair market value the company extracted from you by makign a false claim of rarity.
For John Doe looking into ACME INC.'s patent claims, if he really was doing his homework he'd use the referenced patent numbers to do a search with the USPTO itself, instead of naively assuming the patent numbers were still valid.
Besides, you have to look at the actual patents to make that sort of judgement call.
When the patent was awarded, it had an expiration date, and the company either knew or reasonably should have known that their legal privilege of citing the patent expired with the patent. The fact that they chose not to make adequate plans to assure that they would not continue to claim the patent on the product once it expires is the companies fault.
Sure, by the time the patent expires, no one at the company may be aware of the problem, but if that's the case its only because the company, sometime before, didn't bother doing what was necessary. The way you get people not to cut corners like that is to assure that there is a cost to doing so.
It doesn't have to. It can sue the violators itself, and keep all the money. The provisions allowing third parties to sue and split the money with the government are there to promote efficiency in government by giving private parties an incentive to find and address violations without the government spending money (except in the portion of the fines it lets the private party keep.)
How is anything here "abuse"?
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the identification system has changed, but there was no patent 1 in 1810, and the first US patent would actually be 1X today.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Yes.
Or, they could simply list the expiry date next to each patent, and then they wouldn't need to change their packaging at all.
Also, expiry dates are not molded on, for reasons that even you can probably work out. Hence the comparison is totally invalid.
How so? Putting the expiry date next to the patent number makes perfect sense; after that date, the patent has expired. Is this really such a difficult concept for you?
The dumb law is part of the patent process. If you are applying for a patent you are agreeing to follow certain rules. If you do not follow those rules you get fined as you should.
Very simply, a patent expires. If you have a patent, you can put that number on your product. If you don't have a patent, you can't claim you have one. That leaves a grey area where you have a valid patent, but it expires. If your patent is invalidated, or your "patent pending" is rejected, you can't have a number on it. An expired patent is simply a loophole where you can advertise a patent which is no longer valid. It exists, but it does not protect the product.
The loophole is that you leave the patent number on there, indicating to the customer that no other company can provide this tool as-is. The per-offense fine reflects how many people potentially bought your tool understanding that it was the only solution available. Also known as the number of times you claimed you had a valid patent but don't.
Fluffeh was on the right path, but took the conclusion in the wrong direction. Regardless of the benefit, the per-offense fee is intended to reflect the market impact of the patent advertisement. If you sell one toothbrush, you lied to one person. If you sold a million, you lied to (potentially) a million people. Or one person a million times.
It doesn't matter if there's harm. I'm sure you just stopped reading, but for the rest of you: You can't claim you have a patent when you don't have one. Once your patent expires, you don't have one. It's a technicality and plugging a loophole, not preventing harm.
Simple fix for the whole thing.
Patent #0000000000 (exp 09/01/10)
There is no ambiguity and gives all the info needed.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
This is totally tangential, but actually the "expiration date" on milk (at least locally, I suspect at least US-wide) is really a sell-by date, and it's still "good" for a week after that with proper refrigeration. For other kinds of foods, it's even weaker than that and says "best if used by" a certain date, and the manufacturer even says it just might not taste as good.
ah yes, they added that little X to the changed-over ones.. I guess technically that makes it NaN as well ;)
Well, the thing is, it is not a trivial thing to get a patent. Any inventor or business that obtains one must have been familiar with the relevant laws in order to know whether the invention was patentable, and in order to pursue its application all the way to the end, when a patent issues. And a patent is often worth pursuing, because the rights of a patent holder are very powerful, and last for a substantial period of time.
The requirement that no articles claim to be patented unless there is, in fact, an applicable patent in effect is part of this law. Any applicant that could manage to get a patent is going to know that it cannot make false claims about patents in the course of its business.
So the sorts of companies you're defending knew the rules perfectly well, used them to their advantage, but now seeks to escape them when they're no longer convenient? This is not acceptable.
A responsible business would know that it could not allege the existence of a patent forever, and that there are penalties for those who try. As a result, a responsible business would plan for the long term, fully expecting that whenever the patent expired, it would have to replace its molds, or stop adding labels to its goods, or whatever. At the very least, it would budget for this accordingly, so that when the day came, it wasn't caught short of funds, and didn't have to run afoul of the law that it had relied upon immediately prior.
Really, you're only defending irresponsible businesses, which seek to shield themselves with the law, but throw that very same law in the trash the moment it is no longer of value to it.
I'm perfectly fine with these suits. They'll either suffer the penalties and know better in the future, or they'll go out of business and being scofflaws, I say good riddance. The law is not only just, as it protects against false claims to monopolies, which could be considered unfair competition, but we're better off without small businesses that flout the law; for if they'd ignore this rather minor one, who knows what else they'd do.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
People who look to make personal profit by being fucking leeches on the hard work and money making ability of others are parasitic sacks of shit. That doesn't include just this 'new' type of patent troll. It includes all of the people who suck the life out of others because they are too fucking useless/incompetent/lazy/fucked up to make money properly.
IANAL and thank fucking god for that.
eg "Pat.Pend. 4852294213". I haven't looked recently but used to see that terminology on all sorts of products. The implication was the company was confident of gaining the patent and began production while the filing was still processing. IANAL, but it seems the phrase does not claim patent protection, it claims they expect to get one. It warns a potential infringer to check the patent to see if the product is protected, but makes no claim as to its current protection. For all you know, they never got it in the first place, and it is clearly making a conditional statement in the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_pending#United_States
I don't know if it would be considered fraudulent to claim your patent was pending when you in fact already had it. Seems innocuous, but since it was technically not true may cause problems.
If you are in fact a lawyer I can understand why you feel that way.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
It's nothing to do with that; it's more an issue of fairness.
No one forced the businesses that are violating this law to get a patent. In order to get a patent, they must have known the rules. Once they got a patent, they could use those rules as a sword against their competitors. But now that they've gotten the benefits they wanted, suddenly they no longer want to play by those rules.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
If we are still using Ethernet in 20 years time I would be quite surprised.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty