Great. Surely they could clear up any misunderstandings that any of us might have on the topic. Here is a website which explains a lot of the basics. Please note the first question.
Some other questions that could be cleared up:
If a manufacture claims their product is being patented, but it is later found that they have been deceitful in that claim, what actions could a customer or a potential customer take against this companies fraudulent action? Who should they contact?
Would a class action lawsuit be required to receive a refund from the manufacture if customers bought their product based on the deceitful claim that it was being patented?
If company B has a patent, and company L does not honor that patent on their product, and company B decides to take company L to court to file damages, does company B need to make that information public?
I'm sorry are you talking about LI here? Because there are two separate issues. One is about LI selling product without either Lidateks or Blinders approval, and the second is that LI claims that they have applied for a patent, when in fact everything that they say about the subject is not true. They didn't even know what a application number was. Patents 101. When you apply for a patent the government gives you a receipt called an application number, which proves that you have applied for a patent. You can verify that a patent is authentic by going here or the U.S. Patent website. LI refuses to give any information out. Why? Could it be that they don't have application number? Hmmm.... I'm starting to see a pattern here in their actions. A normal person would just give you the application number so that customers could verify it.
So, there's suddenly a post by JTG on the LI Forums - asking this very same question.
OK, let's out with it, who's who?
I'm me, and I am always me, regardless of which on-line community I'm on.
I'm "TSi+WRX" throughout, and "LGT+WRX" in a few select communities where I signed-on at a time when I somehow thought it more fitting to have my current car in there, rather than the car I identified myself with (a moment's confusion, for a "car-guy").
This, so far, has only happened in a couple of Subaru-related communities where I participate, namely, NASIOC and the ECUTeK Forums. And even in those places, everyone knows that I'm "TSi+WRX" underneath it all, and that I'm, furthermore, "DumboRAT," an on-line identity which I've assumed since my beginning days on the Internet, around 1992.
Anyone here wanna own up to being JTG or anyone else?
----
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Trap Hunter
Can we, at least, agree on this, at this time?
FACT: Blinder does indeed have a patent to legally market their laser jammers in this market (ie; United States).
FACT: Any number of other companies that manufacture and sell in whatever form and by whatever means to this market, which do not have clearly stated and verified claims of another U.S. Patent legally permitting the same may or may not be "legally" marketing and selling their products (by whatever name or said "function") in this same U.S. market until such time demonstrates (ie; proves) that they too actually will be or have been awarded a patent of their own to do the same, legally (by definitions afforded by the USPTO).
OPINION: Certainly, as Stealth Enthusiast posted earlier, I too would hope that the apparent engineering skill that any one of these other companies may possess (or the (potentially self-serving) "friendships" or their associations online that they have established [ie; LI's support of the GoL or members of RD.NET and others) ALL OVER their postings and website, are playing by the rules, that indeed, there may be a bonafide patent pending application (as opposed to presuming or assuming that they or anyone else does not currently posses an applied-for patent in the U.S.) that may ultimately be assigned to them (no guarantee of that either and that's between the USPTO, the patentee, and their IP law firm).
OPINION: There's has been enough blood spilled (and casualties of collateral damage) on this extended topic for years on any number of online forums (especially RD.NET).
OPINION: In the case of LI (and others actively engaged in selling in the ALCM market), I would hope that they're going to come out of this OK.
OPINION: BUT, until such time that they actually are awarded any patent and it is stated on their packaging and can be verified as Blinder's (and Lidatek's) have been, THEN, at least from my perspective, the BENEFIT OF ANY DOUBT MUST GO TO THE ONE'S ALREADY IN POSSESSION OF AN AWARDED PATENT and that is BLINDER (Denmark) and its U.S. base of operations BLINDER (U.S.), since Lidatek is no longer an active/going concern/operation for whatever reasons [that] led to that unfortunate development.
FACT: I am not taking any sides here, except the one of the rule-of-law.
OPINION: And I believe I have accurately done so, here.
I agree.
However, the problem of honor/morals/ethics remain.
If we're speaking negatively of LI/LPP (KMPH)/AL/LaserStar (and here, then, what about the PASS, marketed by the US branch of SpeedCheetah, Cheetah USA?), for violating patents which are held by Blinder and/or Escort, how can we not speak of Blinder in the same way, when it comes to Lidatek's patents, regardless of whether or not the *company* is defunct?
Does a company being defunct carry any stigma, when it comes to the patent? <---- genuine question.
If it's true that a company being defunct means that its patent rights are up, then sure, Blinder/Escort should be given a pass - so should anyone else trespassing upon those ideas, then.
But if not, then would it not be akin to raiding the corpse of your deceased comrade?
Would not all parties mentioned here, then, be guilty?
However, the problem of honor/morals/ethics remain.
Agreed.
I trust, you know who Speed Trap Hunter and the Veil Guy are and have always been.
I trust, you believe that I have never posted on "LI FORUMS" as anyone, and in fact, not joined as a member of such any "such forum or forum(s)", for I have not.
STH
Last edited by Speed Trap Hunter : 2009-07-02 at 20:21.
Reason: verification, clarification
This is just a question of curiosity because someone mentioned it earlier about Blinder violating Lidatek's patent.Doesn't a product that is submitted for a patent have to be checked by who ever issues patents to see that it doesn't violate another patent before there's is issued...Wouldn't that mean Blinder's product would have to differ in some way if the patent office says it does not violate another patent(Such as Lidatek's Patent) and issues its own patent.....I hope that makes sense!
^ The problem, for me, is that I'm no patent attorney.
In as far as I understand things, as a total layman, as long as two ideas have sufficient differences, a separate patent can be made.
Perhaps the different products are just sufficiently different, as to allow for unique patents?
Or, alternatively, it's also possible that what's in the rumor mill is true - that back in the day, Lidatek was in the same position as Blinder/Escort is in, now: that for whatever reason (most likely one of cost/effort), they simply chose not to pursue enforcement of the patent(s), knowing that pursuing such would likely mean themselves more economic hardship than the results would be worth.
Independent hobbyists like me, on the outside, will, I suspect, never know the extent of background handshakes that happen in this industry.
-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Trap Hunter
Agreed.
I trust, you know who Speed Trap Hunter and the Veil Guy are and have always been.
^ That was understood from day one. No worries.
Quote:
I trust, you believe that I have never posted on "LI FORUMS" as anyone, and in fact, not joined as a member of such any "such forum or forum(s)", for I have not.
^ I think you've been around enough that you wouldn't need to hide behind such multiple identities.
Linear Mode
