Igor Zevaka’s Techdirt Profile

izevaka

About Igor Zevaka




Igor Zevaka’s Comments comment rss

  • Feb 20th, 2013 @ 12:01pm

    Copyright infringement via domain name registration

    http://ifonlyourtonguesweremadeofglass.howmuchmorecarefulwewouldbewhenwespeak.com/

  • Apr 2nd, 2010 @ 12:53am

    Re: Re:

    I'm more interested in reality.

    Which is?

  • Apr 1st, 2010 @ 11:50pm

    Re: Re: The original post is somewhat misleading

    That would be illegal. You really should try to read up on patent law before commenting so much on it.

    Yes, I should have. In fact it was in that same article I linked earlier:

    A relatively recent district court case, however, appears to have broadened that definition by holding that once a patent has expired, a product covered by that patent is an “unpatented article” under section 292(a). Pequignot v. Solo Cup Co., 540 F. Supp. 2d 649, 653 (E.D. Va. 2008), appeal pending, No. 09-1547 (Fed. Cir.). If that decision is affirmed on appeal, a marking that states “This product is protected under U.S. Patent X,” where X has expired, would violate section 292(a) if the requisite intent to deceive the public is proven.


    I did post in haste, however, the hypothetical is not as stupid as you made it out to be. The decision is fairly recent (Dec 2009) and might be overturned on appeal.

  • Apr 1st, 2010 @ 11:33pm

    (untitled comment)

    No one is saying that those who mark their products with incorrect or expired patents should not be penalised. It's just it makes more sense that only those who are directly affected by the incorrect marking should claim liability.

    An indirect "If you haven't marked the product incorrectly than a competitor would release a product which will result in more competition" argument is as nonsensical as piracy is lost profit argument. Sure, there is an impact on the consumer, but the effect on other manufacturers is far greater.

    I find it hard to believe that an expired patent will stop a competitor from releasing a product. They will do more research into it and dig up the actual patent and see whether or not it is applicable or expired. At that point they can sue the manufacturer of the incorrectly marked product, if that is the case. Oh, and they also have to prove intent to deceive.

    I see this as an attempt to stamp down on incorrect patent marking trolling. This will not and should not limit liability for those that fraudulently mark products with incorrect/expired patents.

  • Apr 1st, 2010 @ 9:46pm

    The original post is somewhat misleading

    From what I heard (and I don't have any links) the proposed amendments bring the false patent marking lawsuits in line with the trademark violation, where you can only sue if you are directly affected by a false marking - i.e. if you are a competitor.

    This makes sense to me as as a consumer I don't really care if the item i am using has false or expired patent numbers. The point of stamping products with a patent number is not usually for the benefit of the consumer but more to dissuade a competitor from infringing on your patent. Have a look here:

    A patent marking on the product or associated packaging provides constructive notice to potential infringers. That permits a patentee to collect damages for infringement even if the infringer had no actual knowledge of the patent before the patentee filed an infringement suit.


    Again, I think this makes sense, as the rush of false patent suits is a cash grab for lawyers that are not in any way affected by "patent lying". I also think that the key element to this is per article fines, and the fact that any Joe Bloe can file a suit will not reduce the amount of suits being filed. All those looking to profit from the affair will just offer their services to direct competitors of affected products.

    So, the chilling effect will still be the same, it's just the beneficiaries of the litigation will be those that are mostly affected by false marking.

    To touch on Ravicher's point about misleading the customer claiming "a patented formula". I would think that any promotional material associated with the product is distinct from patent marking and goes under misleading advertising regulations which is the domain of the FCC.

    Another thing to think about. If the patent for a dog formula expires and you remove the patent number from the packaging, can you still claim that it's a patented formula? After all, the formula was patented at some time.

  • Mar 23rd, 2010 @ 2:47pm

    Sounds reasonable enough

    I think the threat of a $10 mil lawsuit is punishment enough for the little power tripping buerocrat who caused all this.

  • Mar 4th, 2010 @ 8:34pm

    (untitled comment)

    This reminds me of "The Case of the Stolen Smell" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%8Coka_Tadasuke). I really feel for the guy, but I kind of agree that the lawsuit is without much merit.

    The movie is undoubtedly based on this guy. That much is obvious. He should get someone to write a book for him and promote it on the back of the movie. The studios will clearly object but in doing so they will have to admit to using him as an inspiration for the story.

  • Feb 4th, 2010 @ 4:03pm

    This is great

    The whole ruling is quite a read. This blog ( http://robertcorr.com/2010/02/afact-v-iinet/ ) has a few tasty excerpts of the judge completely slamming AFACT council behaviour and assertions in court. This is my favourite bit:

    As an aside, the Court notes that AFACT, the organisation which the applicants use to aid in enforcement of their copyright, itself blurs the distinction between tortuous copyright infringement and criminal acts involving copyright, as seen in its name: Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft.
    It's really good to see a judge that doesn't take entertainment lobby bullshit at its face value.

  • Feb 3rd, 2010 @ 7:57pm

    (untitled comment)

    Techdirt: Survey Claims Some Depressed People Use The Internet A Lot

    Fox: Internet Use Causes Depression.

  • Feb 3rd, 2010 @ 5:32pm

    Didn't expect such complete victory for iiNet

    The court even awarded ISP's legal costs to be paid by the applicants, that's pretty massive. From memory iiNet spent in the vicinity of AU$4M for their defence. I expect some hardcore lobbying for the three strikes law from now on.

  • Dec 15th, 2009 @ 5:40pm

    Just a few corrections

    There was only one push to filter the internet and it started in 2007 as a Labour Party election promise. The online came in waves corresponding to major announcements of the scheme.

    Unfortunately it hasn't been completely abandoned as just yet and it looks like we are looking at live trials in the near future.

    The latest wave of #nocleanfeed (#openinternet) outrage is due to farcical trial results (http://www.inquisitr.com/52298/australia-confirms-censorship-plans-tells-fibs-on-the-filtering-tria l/).

  • Jul 13th, 2009 @ 4:39pm

    Other evil things

    Funny this should come up. Last week I've heard the story about Google(rather distastefully) cancelling an adsense campaign for a linux distro that could possibly be seen as a competitor to ChromeOS. The story has been unreported at large, but i think it deserves more attention.

    Read more here http://www.cannonade.net/blog.php?id=1433