Magnet Patent Suits 249
toybuilder writes: "Magnequench holds a key patent on high-power neodymium-iron-boron (Nd-Fe-B) magnets that they claim is worth almost 1/2 of the world's permanent magnet market. These magnets are in use everywhere including motors in CD/DVD drives and in actuators in camcorders. They are suing a whole lotta companies including Compaq and HP. You can see the AP newswire at Yahoo or read the company's press release."
Re:The New New Economy (Score:3)
1) Trademark - Has to be applied for, has to be defended to continue existing. Never expires.
2) Copyright - Automatically granted, can be defended at anytime. Lasts life of author+70 years.
3) Patent - Has to be applied for. You can defend it at any time. last 25 years.
Maybe there should be a freqently asked questions section for slashdot?
Some suggestions are - How long do copyrights last? how long to patents last? Do you have to defend copyright to keep it? Do you have to defend patents to keep them? Should I post on Slashdot if I have no idea in the slightest of what I am talking about? If I put IANAL does that mean I can talk crap?
Re:Recall? (Score:2)
...phil
Re:Does anyone bother reading the articles any mor (Score:2)
As opposed to USA where people are sued for saying what they think about encryption schemes...
Recall? (Score:2)
Secret windows code
Re:So it's OK to steal other's work? (Score:2)
Newtonian physics.
Gunpowder.
Steam Engines.
I could go on, but I won't- all of these were obtained during an era that didn't have patents to protect the "Intellectual Property" of these ideas. You have to admit, they're pretty innovative.
While I'm not opposed to patents per se, I am opposed to people making rash comments about things being way worse without them- they wouldn't exactly be worse, just different.
Re:The decline (Score:2)
Ironically the USA didn't recognize other countries copyrights & patents for many years, much like 3rd world countries are doing today.
Isn't history annoying, always resisting attempts to mythologize it with awkward little facts?
Re:Do you really think anyone reads the articles?? (Score:2)
Of course, in this case, it's fairly easy to argue that the companies named could have managed a patent search before using the technology.
--
How long has Compaq been making magnets? (Score:5)
Why stop here? What happens if I work for Compaq's Magnet Supplier, and I get sexually harassed while on the job. Shouldn't I be able to sue Compaq? Aren't they somehow responsible for... well, something?
If it's a valid case, sue the magnet manufacturers, not the 'end users' such as Compaq and Sony.
Re:I hope they don't make fridge magnets (Score:2)
They have also invented any number of handy tools and accessories -- an example where patenting is a good thing, because Lee Valley deserves to make a bundle from their brilliant innovations. It doesn't hurt that they price their stuff reasonably, too!
Anyway, back to their magnets: they sell rare-earth magnets in sizes from
Or in other metrics, their 3/4" magnet will, when placed in a steel cup, hold 3lbs on your fridge door... and that's with a felt pad to keep your enamel from being scratched!
They seel 'em flat and thin, as tall cylinders, or as rings. They're great fun to play with!
Alas, you can't mail-order them. You'll just have to go to the store, where you will then be tempted to spend thousands of dollars on all sorts of workshop toys!
--
Re:I hope they don't make fridge magnets (Score:2)
Look for their little black engineering reference book. Filled with arcane data.
Or their custom-made graph paper. Because regular graph paper, frankly, sucks wind.
Or... well, no. I best stop. I'm getting urges to purchase more shit...
--
Re:I hope they don't make fridge magnets (Score:5)
I love handing a pair of these little magnets to an unsuspecting guest, and ask them to separate them for me. One guy actually told me they were glued together, until I showed him how to slide the magnets apart to separate them.
Another good trick to do with an old (but functional) drive, before you take its guts out: take the cover off, hook the drive up, and run fsck on its contents while you mess with its guts. Touch the center of the platter stack to slow them down. Use a marker to write on the spinning platters. Put your finger on the center of rotation of the arms the R/W heads are mounted on. See how much abuse the drive will take and still function (I was kind of surprised).
I also like to salvage the disk-platter assemblies and set them out as objets d'art. They're really quite pretty!
--Jim
I thought Maxwell wrote the laws on magnetism... (Score:2)
The Yahoo article said "patent violations." It didn't say which ones...
Is this patent crap just going too far, or what?
Magnetic Suit Patented (Score:2)
John Yaya of Yoyodyne, Inc, announced today that his company has obtained a patent on their new magnetic suit. {you fill in the rest--refer disparagingly to Yoyodyne's stock holdings in plastic pens for extra credit. Also, describe how the person demonstrating the new suit was almost killed at the press conference when a reporter let his microphone slip, etc]
--
Who should be sued... (Score:2)
As Oliver Hardy would have said: ``Well, isn't this a revolting development.''. Compaq and HP are now in the position of being sued because they didn't check that their magnet suppliers weren't violating someone's patent?
Since when did it become illegal to buy raw materials without doing Magnequench's work for them. Does this mean that just about anybody could be named in a patent lawsuit for buying a product that's in violation of some (possibly bogus) patent. My Compaq workstation's cursor is blinking. Does that mean I'm in trouble for violating that asinine XOR patent?
Seems to me that Magnequench should be going after Compaq's and HP's magnet suppliers.
--
Re:I hope they don't make fridge magnets (Score:2)
In olden time, when a drive went bad, the kind that had removable cartridges, and you didn't spend the $$$ to get it fixed, there were several magnets that you could remove. First there were the magnets that held the cartridge to the spindle which were easily removed with a small screwdriver. These can be used to hold cardboard to the fridge. Then you could remove the covers and remove the solenoid magnet which was strong to troll for cars in the local lake. Screwdrivers placed on the solenoid magnet were magnetized such that they could darned near attract screws from across the table (which meant we had keep them out of the computer technician areas lest they clobber data on a floppy disk or a tape). But since these monsters weighed so much, they weren't terribly useful.
--
Re:How long has Compaq been making magnets? (Score:2)
If they, for example, sue the manufacturer of the magnets, Seagate for using them in a disk, Compaq for using the "illegal" Seagate disks, and then sue Best Buy because they're selling Compaq equipment, wouldn't it follow that they'd be getting royalities four times for the same physical product and "instance" of infringement?
A rarity on Slashdot, it seems that this is actually a "legitmate" case of patent protection.
-Jeff
The Redifinition of the American Dream (Score:5)
At one time the "American Dream" had little to do with money directly. It used to be the notion that one could go to a free country and achieve everything they were capable of, without governmental hinderence. For some people this was the practice of their non-mainstream religion, for others it was the persuit of philosophies or studies suppressed elsewhere, for other the chance to explore the unknown, and, yes, for some it was the opportunity to persue wealth.
Now, the media have all come together and redefined the "American Dream" solely in terms of the persuit of wealth, even going so far as to equate it with winning the lottery (as if, prior to the 20th century, there had ever even been such an absurd notion).
At one time laws were intended to benefit society, and the production of wealth was but one component in an entire series of concepts which together were required to benefit society (others included free education, libraries, fire department and water services, land grants, etc.) This is not to say society was ideal, as at the same time there were horrific things going on (the enslavement of black Americans, the wholesale theft of land from native Americans, etc.), but only to point out that, at one time, laws and politicians were expected to serve the voting population of the country, and to a fair degree did so.
Now there isn't even the pretense of laws in the United States serving the American public, much less society as a whole. Is it any wonder, with our willingness as individuals (by and large) to sell every ideal down the river in the name of profit and income, that our government, as our representatives, behaves any differently?
Disgusting, yes, Reprehensible, yes. Self defeating and ultimately destructive (particularly with respect to government granted monopolies such as patents, copyrights, and other forms of IP), yes. But, given the direction the majority of the American people chose to go in 1980 and have continued toward since, hardly surprising. Fortunately for us, and the world, these sorts of things are self correcting, even if it means the US economy stagnating and even going third world before people become aware enough to start demanding the kinds of reforms which are necessary.
Re:Recall? (Score:2)
Exporting Patent Infringement (Score:3)
And no, this isn't patenting magnetism, breathing or any of the other tired clichés that get posted every time slashdot runs a story on patents. It takes real money and scientific research to invent improved permanent magnets.
Re:The Patent King (Score:2)
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Definitely my mistake (Score:2)
Of course perhaps this is an interesting thought in itself - why can someone be granted a patent, then wait for a few years before suing people under it?
Analyzing the combined picture (Score:4)
This is more than the usual stupid patent/copyright cases here. It illustrates a lot of the issues that need to be considered about patents, copyright, and intellectual property.
And I strongly reccomend people write Assistant Majority Whip Mike Pence (Republican, Indiana) on his statement. Let him know the above points, let him know the issues.
Re:The New New Economy (Score:4)
Patents do not have to be defended. You can selectively enforce them however you want.
Trademark is what you are thinking of; trademark must be enforced, or it no longer has meaning.
However.. I'm puzzled by Past Damages. I was under the impression that with Patent, you cannot claim past damages, only future dealings. You can't say 'We just discovered this company has been using our patented technology for the last 20 years'. Unless you can prove the company knowingly violated your patent (ie: you asked them before and they ignored you) you're probably out of luck.
Re:Stupid patent (sic) fees (Score:2)
If company A makes a patented product, and sells it to Company B, is Company B liable for licensing fees? IANAL (NDIWTBO*), but it doesn't make sense for Company B to have to pay.
*Nor Do I Wish To Be One
Let them get on with it (Score:2)
----------------------------------------------
Re:Does anyone bother reading the articles any mor (Score:2)
And America doesn't have nuclear bombs pointed at Chinese cities? But "thats different, Americans are the good guys" ..
I'm not saying China doesn't have a lacking in the human rights department, but quite frankly, the anti-China sentiment seen in the US media (and on /.) has gone way past objective levels - people don't seem to be thinking clearly about it, they're posting the most ridiculous statements.
Do you really, really believe that the average American's opinion on China has not been clouded by a slew of media propag^H^H^H^H^H^H, uh, "information" about China?
-----
Re:Does anyone bother reading the articles any mor (Score:2)
Yeah, we have nukes pointed at China, but you missed everything else in that post to get your little snippet in
That wasn't my purpose. I bundled the other stuff under the general comment about human rights. I know China is lacking in human rights. I'm not disputing that at all. I just completely disagree with the way that America is handling China, it is incredibly dangerous and quite frankly, fscking stupid. Yes, the Chinese government is "in the wrong". Yes, they lie, and keep their people in the dark with propaganda. The way I see it is, during the next 100 years, it is almost a certainty that China will undergo some sort of "freedom revolution", this seems to be the overall trend in todays society. So the only question is, will it be a bloody revolution, or a "peaceful" revolution? Do thousands (maybe millions) of people need to die to bring it about? I don't think so, freedom can be attained without largescale bloodshed (e.g. South Africa). So the US wants to see freedom of Chinese people. How do they go about it? They provoke. They have huge 'China is evil and the USA is great(*)' media (propaganda) campaigns. They portray the Chinese as evil (**). Americans seem to think that doing this will pressure the Chinese government into improving policy. Ha, right! It will only serve to provoke, and escalate tensions. Is that the right way to export the principles of freedom and democracy? You attack someone (not physically I mean), they go on the defensive, and you will not convince them of anything after that. All the US is doing is convincing the Chinese government more and more that their own animosity towards the USA is justified. There is a reason that the US is so hated in many countries (e.g. Iraq) - the US comes across as being really arrogant, pushy and self-righteous. This makes it very easy for totalitarian rulers to push anti-US propaganda. Do you really believe that the right way to change China is for the US to go to war with China? This is what may well happen if current trends are extrapolated. Is it worth it for thousands of Americans and Chinese to die? I don't see it as a necessary solution. You're not going to convince the Chinese what freedom truly is by going about it the way you are currently.
All things considered, the US has a pretty lousy human rights record (McCarthy era, slavery, racism, womens rights etc). The system itself though does seem to correct itself over time, which makes it a worthwhile system. But Americans must remember just how far from perfect their system is when they make noise about the problems in other countries. From the perspective of somebody living outside the US, you people come across as believing yourselves to be so much better and more righteous than everyone else (I'm not saying it is that way, but that is the impression you give, and that counts for a lot). Myself, I think the US would have a more positive influence on other countries if they adopted a more humble approach. Because everyone else is sick of hearing the same crap over and over about "how great this country of ours truly is" and about "the principles on which this great country of ours was founded" and how the US "stands up to protect and defend" others, "defenders of the free world", blah blah blah. Self-appointed "big brother" (not in the orwell sense).
(*) See CNN reports when US pilots returned home, its not even subtle. Its flat out "USA is such a great wonderful country" propaganda.
(**) Russians no longer seem to be the evil guys in US television and movies. Grep all 80's TV scripts for "russia" and replace with "china". Chinese are now portrayed as being maniacally bent on ruling the world by force, a show I saw just a couple of days ago portrayed the Chinese government as wantonly trying to completely nuke entire USA. Pretty lame, yes, but that sort of thing brainwashes on a large scale.
-----
Re:Does anyone bother reading the articles any mor (Score:3)
And incidentally, in 1995 the whole shebang was acquired by a Chinese holding company. Yes, a Chinese company suddenly has the potential to drastically affect a large portion of the American computer-manufacturing market. Does anyone think *that* might have interesting repurcussions worth discussing?
Gosh, you mean this might be an ATTACK on the GOOD GUYS from the EVIL CHINESE!?!? Uhm, lets see now ... the list of defendants includes Sony, Philips, Toshiba and Samsumg, none of which are American companies. It is truly amazing (and sad) how Americans simply cannot seem to see the anti-China propaganda for what it is.
-----
Re:I hope they don't make fridge magnets (Score:5)
If you ever have a hard drive go bad, you should get yourself a set of tiny torx drivers and disassemble it. You will find a pair of insanely strong magnets around the head positioning coil.
Watch your fingers, when those magnets take a notion to slam together they will pinch through your flesh.
note: the preceding should not be construed as instructions to bang your office mates computer up and down while operating in order to acquire a bad hard drive.
The decline (Score:5)
So it's OK to steal other's work? (Score:2)
1) Magnequench does in fact hold four patents on the manufacture of the type of magnets in question.
2) Our current patent laws correctly grant them a limited period in which they can profit from the sweat of thier brow by preventing others from simply copying thier invention. (BTW: if you're opposed to this sort of protection, prepare to go back to a pre-industrial revolution timescale for innovation.)
3) Magnequench obviously feels that it's pretty easy to prove that the devices in question really do infringe on its patents.
The only questionable aspect of this is suing the OEM end users rather than those actually infringing, although I suspect that's a practical matter since the infringers are likely in a foreign country where IP is not well-protected.
If the patents were actually violated, I'm all for Magnequench on this one, and I hope they win big. Compaq and HP are not actually responsible for the violations in question, but they have the only economic power that will make the violators sit up and take notice.
(BTW: More detail on my position on patents can be gained from a letter I wrote to LWN a while back. [lwn.net])
Re:It's the responsibility of the importer (Score:2)
Most of this sort of thing is governed by the Paris Convention, the Patent Cooperation Treaty, the European Patent Office/European Patent Convention, and the Pan American Convention. (Source: Chapter 12 of David Pressman's excellent Nolo Press book, Patent it Yourself.)
If you really need to know this stuff, get a good book on it, or pay a patent attorney - it's rough terrain for some of us engineering types, and the penalty for doing it wrong can be severe, especially considering how much more expensive it is to seek overseas patents...
Re:A modest proposal for patent reform (Score:2)
First, you obviously didn't read down to the part where I said the lower bound of protection should be something that's still economically reasonable, like 3-5 years.)
Secondly, the system is somewhat self-correcting in that it will tend to prevent people from filing if they can't realize a return on their investment within the shorter time frame. (Why would a company spend $15,000 on a patent if it wasn't going to make back many, many times that much before it expired? Granted, this assumes markets are rational - generally but not always true.) Most likely, this would actually cut down on BS patents. There will be more incentive to file when the term is longer, less when it's shorter, unless the short term is still valuable because the innovation is in a fast-moving technology space, in which case that's OK, as it's still the result we want...
A modest proposal for patent reform (Score:3)
The only problem with the US patent system (which is far and away the best in the world, and a primary driver behind American technological leadership over the past couple of centuries) is that it is blind to the huge differences in economic timescales across disciplines. I think 17 years should be enough for anything (if it can't be capitalized on in that timeframe, it's not *ready* for a patent!) Areas where innovation is more rapid should have shorter terms. I'm all for software patents, but I don't think they should be valid for more than five years.
So here I present Dublin's simple but excellent patent reform proposal:
The length of patent terms can and should be self-regulating: Make the length of term for new patents in each patent category (mechanical device, electronic hardware, software, etc.) inversely proportional to the average number of patents issued in the previous two quarters. (Note: that's "issued", NOT "applied for" - this discourages artificial manipulation.) This would automatically produce shorter terms as patent activity heats up (with a quick response time), and then lengthen them again once the pace of innovation slows, matching the growth patterns of the associated industries. Also, it ensures that the IP behind innovations is more quickly available freely in fast-moving areas. This tends to prevent the formation of long-term dynasties unless there is real and continual innovation to back it. (We might expect to see more innovation like that of Dyson in the UK and other companies *really* pushing the state of the art under such a plan.) Interestingly, this could make patents (especialy early and really innovative ones, which will have longer terms) *more* valuable than they are today, while still making technologies more rapidly and readily available for society at large.
Reasonable upper and lower limits should apply to the patent terms: I'd argue for 17 years upper and 5 years lower (although I could perhaps be persuaded to consider 3 or 4 years as a lower bound in extraordinary circumstances - nothing shorter makes any economic sense.)
This relatively simple and straightforward change would fix the aspect of the patent system that most vexes its foes, while still retaining all the best features of a system that has proven its inestimable value over the past two centuries. In other words, it only fixes what's broken, which is a very good thing. I can envision no alternative type of patent reform that has such advantages for the inventors, for the creation of vibrant markets, and can ensure that a proper balance is struck between protecting the innovator and freeing the innovation for the use of all in a reasonable timeframe.
Re:Recall? (Score:2)
Is this standard in patent suits? Lawyers? Anyone?
Re:There's a very simple explanation (Score:2)
In patent infringement cases, it simply doesn't matter whether they knew or should have known their conduct was infringing. Period. It is infringement simply to make, use, sell, offer to sell or import into the country any infringing article of manufacture. Strict liability, no state of mind required.
Re:The New New Economy (Score:2)
Misleading historical revisionism (Score:2)
This is a wildly simplistic and misleading remark. Indeed, America's commitment to intellectual property protection is deep and longstanding.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides for a Copyright and Patent Act, and recognizing the importance of invention to the health of the new nation, the early Congresses made the enabling laws a key priority. That wasn't the earliest provisions either. Many (I don't know if it was all) of the states of the confederation each had patent systems and there were copyright-like protections available for works of authorship.
As to our being the "China" of the world, that's just wildly misleading. NO NATION AT THAT TIME gave broad reciprocity to the intellectual property laws of another. That sort of multi-nationalism didn't happen until the modern era, with the Paris and Berne conventions, and various other multilateral and bilateral trade agreements. Foreign nationals were permitted to obtain patents in some nation's patent systems, albeit with some prejudice and disadvantage. (There were some bilateral IP agreements dating back to the 18th century, but they were sparse and narrowly circumscribed, so I am informed.)
For the United States, it is true we didn't enforce English letters patent issued by King George and his predecessors. Guess what? We also stopped enforcing the tea tax acts and other British decrees and laws at that same time! You see, we just beat them in a war and became sovereign entities. We got to make up our own laws, just as they did.
After we resolved to replace the confederation to become one United States, we continued that practice. Guess what? They didn't enforce American patents either. Hey, were they China too?
Even today, Britain does not enforce US patents (Score:2)
Even given the broad multilateralism, you must apply for and receive a patent in each individual nation in which you would like to enforce a patent. The Patent Cooperation Treaty merely facilitates the process by assuring you a priority date based on your domestic filing for later-filed international applications.
Thus, I suppose, if we adopt the original poster's criteria, we might say that the US is still the China of the modern age, since we still do not enforce a single foreign patent. (On the other hand, a vast number of U.S. patents are regularly issued to foreign nationals, and we enoforce every one of those to the extent they are valid, just as we did way back in the 18th century.)
Can't get there from here . . . (Score:2)
That dullard noninventions should be patented is an undeniable truth. So what? That is a straw man proposed by no one. However, this does not mean that a spark of genius is required. This is his fallacy.
Moreover, spark of genius is clearly not the standard. It suffices merely that differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill. And both the Congress and the Supreme Court has set that forth clear as glass. See 35 U.S.C. s. 103.
Indeed, more than thirty years before the excerpt proffered by the previous writer was penned, the Supreme Court established the obviousness standard that the modern statute now codifies. Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. 248 (1851)("more ingenuity and skill . . . were required . . . than were possessed by an ordinary mechanic acquainted with the business").
If this standard, which has been in place for most of the past 200 years (there was a short-lived dalliance with a "flash of brilliance" standard, which was later repudiated), constitutes the "decline of our civilization," then we should embrace such decline, and keep it going for so long as we are able.
It was never the object of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufactures.
While the citation and volume reference is incorrect ("Atlantio," not "Atlantic"), the quote certainly is. No defender of the patent system would agree that patents should be issued to an invention that "would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic." This doesn't mean that any standard greater than unobviousness would be required. Unobviousness is the common law standard set years prior, later codified as 35 U.S.C. s. 103.
Finally, the author's largest logical leap was to tacitly assume that this particular patent isn't inventive. I invite the previous author to provide evidence of invalidating prior art that would make this particular form of permanent magnet obvious. The substance, if any, of that answer will clarify whether he was genuinely attempting to make a reasoned comment on the state of society, or was simply engaging in demagoguery.
Re:Misleading historical revisionism (Score:2)
I understand that the U.S. has had copyrights and patents since its inception. It wasn't the case, though, that we respected other countries' patents. And why should we have?
You seem to be under the false impression that nations enforce each other's patents. So far as I know, no nation has ever enforced the patents issued by another, then or now. (I am told there were a few sparse bilateral agreements that might be considered to be exceptions to this, but we would be quibbling if you were resting on those; the PCT and Paris conventions actually serve to disprove, rather than support, your point for patents).
Today, if I want to enforce my patent in the UK today, I must timely file a national application there, go through examination (at great expense, typically), perhaps face additional objections and make additional concessions to those made in the US prosecution. Only after my UK patent issues there would I have any enforceable rights. The same is true of any UK patent with respect to enforcement in the U.S.
So, I guess, the UK is still China. Hell, we all are.
Not a difference at all (Score:2)
Now you are running wildly afield of your original case. First, WIPO doesn't issue patents. The PCT grants no enforceable rights at all.
Second, I agree that not all nations issued patent to foreigners in the past. But the US (almost) always did so. Hence, the US was not china then, unless (using your standards) everyone was.
At any rate, none of this supports the historical revisionism of your initial post.
Indemnity is not immunity (Score:3)
If they made, used, sold, offered for sale or imported an infringing apparatus, they are liable to the plaintiff. Their contracts with other persons might give them a cause of action for indemnity or contribution (if collectible, of course), but that doesn't get them off the hook -- they still owe the plaintiff the dough, and if their indemnitors go under, they are stuck holding the bag.
Yes, this means an indemnification and hold harmless provision from an uncollectible poor guy is virtually meaningless in practice -- at best it may give the poor guy some deterrence.
Them's the breaks.
How can they sue the large companies? (Score:2)
I have to agree with alot of other people have said. Suing has just become another tool used byu businesses to gain income. Maybe they see it as R&D. Pour some money in, possibly get some big money out. I'm getting sick of having to pay for it at the retail store though. I think the USPO needs a serious over-hual and someone that can go in and say that a patent sucks, shouldn't have been granted and kill it.
What I would like... (Score:2)
------
Re:Misleading historical revisionism (Score:2)
... in the context of my statements, yes. The point is, we respected U.S. patents, but not other nations', and as was common then, it wasn't easy (possible?) for non-citizens to get patents in the U.S. So, we happily se about copying stuff from overseas and selling it here and abroad. And the europeans complained about it.
I understand that the U.S. has had copyrights and patents since its inception. It wasn't the case, though, that we respected other countries' patents. And why should we have?
- - - - -
Re:Even today, Britain does not enforce US patents (Score:2)
Plus, it wasn't always the case the nations issued patents to foreigners.
- - - - -
Re:What I would like... (Score:4)
Interestingly, the U.S. was the "China" of its day when the country was first founded (with a little more freedom for its citizens, of course). Cheap manufacturing, a lack of regard for copyrights and patents from other countries. Plus, the U.S. defaulted on its debts quie a bit.
Slightly hypocritical of us to complain about people doing that to us, now...
Some other people have noted that Magnequench is a Chinese company -- but their World Headquarters is in Anderson, Indiana. So they look like a U.S. firm. They have a "Technology Center" in the RTP area, just up the road from me. They make their materials in China. The Chairman of their Board is Chinese.
However, according to their "timeline [magnequench.com]," General Motors, Sumitomo Metals and the Chinese Academy of Sciences all discovered neodymium-iron-boron magnets in 1982. Magnequench was created as a "business unit" of GM in 1986. Then, in 1995,
So, yes, they appear to be a Chinese company now.
Apparently Sumitomo Special Metals Co. licensed [grouparnold.com] the magnet technology to San Huan New Material High-Tech Inc., which sells the stuff through Beijing San Huan International Trading Co. Sumitomo has this notice on their website:
Sumitomo [sumitomosma.com] is a Japanese company that got its start in 1918 as Sumitomo Steel Works, Ltd. So it appears that, even though GM invented the stuff here, they sold it to the Chinese who now license it from the Japanese.
Ninbo Konit Industries Inc. [konit.com] is the only Chinese licensee of Magnequench and Sumitomo. They are also the largest manufacturer of NdFeB magnets in China. They are located in the "Ningbo Economic and Technical Development Zone" in Xiaogang, China. I.e., one of the pseudo-capitalist (mercantilist, really) enclaves in otherwise Communist China. Konit is actually owned by San Huan High-Tech New Materials. Apparently Tridus [tridus.com] of Rancho Domingo, California founded San Huab New Materials in a joint venture with the Chinese Academy of Science. They claim to be "the only legitimate importing and marketing company for Chinese Sintered Neodymium Iron-Boron permanent magnets in North America."
Apparently these infringement suits [usitc.gov] have been going on for a while. In 1995, a suit was originated in the PRC and Hong Kong by Crucible Materials Corporation against San Huan New Materials, Tridus and Ningbo Konit, among others. Violation of patent #4,588,439 [delphion.com] ("Oxygen containing permanent magnet alloy") was found and a Cease and Desist issued.
- - - - -
Does this mean i can get a refund? (Score:2)
It's the responsibility of the importer (Score:2)
If I understand this correctly the party that infringed the US patent is the one that imported the product with the infringing tech into the US.
It's not infringing if it stays in a country where there isn't a patent on it.
The point I'm trying to make... (Score:2)
I think you misunderstood me.
The point I'm trying to make is that the infringing activity DIDN'T happen outside of the US. The infringing activity was not to make the magnets in a country where the patent didn't apply. It was to BRING THEM IN to the US.
They're unpatented in the other country. They're patented in the US. So building them in the other country isn't illegal (except MAYBEE if it's done by a US corporation). But IMPORTING them into the US IS an infringement if the US patent is valid and nobody along the chain from the manufacturer through the importer licensed the patent.
See?
(But IANAL either. B-) )
This is good, actually... (Score:2)
----
Re:How can they sue the large companies? (Score:2)
Re:Maybe you should read about the Patent King (Score:2)
Re:The Redifinition of the American Dream (Score:2)
This morning, I caught this article on MSNBC [msnbc.com] about our Republican whitehouse wanting to seize private property to give it to electric companies
("Sorry Bob, but it's been a rough couple of months for PG&E executives and shareholders. It's only fair that we take your farm to help them thru the tough times.")
This is as disturbing, if not more, than former Clinton whitehouse private property seizures for national parks.
Who's looking out for the little guy when both parties are robbing him blind?
And last night, watching PBS's Islam: Empire of Faith [pbs.org], I was surprised to learn how Islam encouraged, cultivated and "open sourced" tremendous amounts of knowledge to the world - releasing it in numerous languages and promoting the distribution of paper-based texts.
No wonder they kicked butts for hundreds of years...
Somehow, the knowledge and property grab by large corporations seems entirerly inconsistent with the development of civilization, but I don't think you'll find wealth-generation as the motivation.
Small entrepreneurs pursue wealth-generation - heck, I'd expect most folks wouldn't mind improving their personal income a bit. But their wealth-generation is a means to a more comfortable end, not a means to raw, unadulterated power grab.
Instead, it's the major corps that have helped themselves to the PTO raid, greased both parties, created wonderful intellectual property scams like the Cybersquatting law and various other amusements, and in general, looted public and others private property.
So please... don't give the aspiration and achievement of financial security and success the blame for this theft. Call it what it is.
*scoove*
Bad Pun (Score:2)
Does anyone bother reading the articles any more? (Score:4)
You know, aside from the obvious "yet-another-patent"-ness of this, there actually are some interesting points to be made, that if anyone (!) had bothered to read the actual article(s), they might have picked up on.
For instance, "Magnequench" is not some Johnny-come-lately. They started as a division of GE back in the mid-'80s. The magnet technology was originally discovered in 1982, and they've had a production plant in operation since 1986. They have physical plants in both the US and China. They actually produce the products that they are suing over, as opposed to a lot of the business-method parasites usually discussed in these forums.
And incidentally, in 1995 the whole shebang was acquired [magnequench.com] by a Chinese holding company. Yes, a Chinese company suddenly has the potential to drastically affect a large portion of the American computer-manufacturing market. Does anyone think *that* might have interesting repurcussions worth discussing?
And FYI, here is the link to Magnequench's patent guide [magnequench.com], which actually lists all of their patents (see especially 5172751), including their so-called philosophy, in case anyone feels like doing more than just barking today.
Re:Analyzing that YANAL (Score:4)
Neither am I, but I do know the difference between trademark law and patent law. A patent holder does not Not NOT need to defend it in order to maintain it. They can choose to enforce it selectively, at a late date, or otherwise, any time in the duration of the patent.
The parent post [slashdot.org] is a good candidate for -1: Misinformative moderation.
The New New Economy (Score:2)
And they just noticed that companies are using these types of magnets 20 fscking years later?!? IA Most Definitely NAL, but don't you have to defend your intellectual property rights in order to retain them? Even if this claim was valid, they've acted in bad faith by waiting for this type of magnet to saturate the market for 20 years before trying to enforce their patents.
The new new economy apparently consists of companies that use lawsuits as their primary source of income.
Re:Magnatism patented? (Score:2)
=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=
Re:Japanese patents (Score:2)
Magnaquench and Sumitomo have cross liscensed their patents, they both hold rights to the process.
Magnetic field watermarking technology.... (Score:2)
Re:Recall? (Score:2)
The typical result is that unsold inventory is destroyed, and damages are paid for retail sales already completed. I'm not sure from what is being written there whether manufacturers would be recalling from wholesalers and perhaps retailers(quite reasonable) or from consumers too(pretty harsh).
Damages would need to be paid on any devices sold and not destroyed. The damages can't be less than a reasonable royalty.
All of the above assumes, of course, that Mangequench would win.
Re:Gone fishing... (Score:2)
Right, you can't prove a negative. The person who can prove the positive in this case has the burden.
1) The Plaintiff has said he can prove that the magnets in question infringe the claims of his patent.
2) Having bought a magnet from a LICENSED source is a DEFENSE to patent infringement. Once the Plaintiff has proved the magnets infringe, it is up to the defendant to prove his defense. All he has to do is prove he bought from a licensed source.
Each party is proving a positive. Requiring the patent holder to prove THE ABSENCE OF A LICENSE is forcing the proving of a negative. As you point out that is illogical. That is why the law does not do it that way.
Re:The New New Economy (Score:3)
The limit is 6 years. 35 USC 286
286. Time limitation on damages
Except as otherwise provided by law, no recovery shall be had for any infringement committed more than six years prior to the filing of the complaint or counterclaim for infringement in the action.
Re:Who should be sued... (Score:3)
Well, er, technically, YES. 35 USCA 271.
271. Infringement of patent
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
Please note USES. In the case of the defendants in this case, SELLS and OFFERS TO SELL apply, and IMPORTS might also.
Companies don't go after consumers, it is just too big a pain in the ass. But they could. (Oh, they can't sue the company that sold to you and then sue you. When they get their damage award, the sold product gets an implied license -- no double dipping.)
The Patent King (Score:3)
http://www.fortune.com/indexw.jhtml?channel=artco
The Patent King. He has a staggering 558 patents, costing companies around the world some $1.5 billion in licensing fees. But what did Jerome Lemelson actually invent?
Re:Naming (Score:2)
Normally these magnets do almost no work--they move things around a proton at a time. If they do macroscopic work, such as when some idiot brings a ferrous tool into the NMR room and lets it clang against the side of the magnet, the magnet "quenches", usually dumping coolant all over the floor.
You REALLY don't want this to happen, because after cleaning up the mess, you have to go through a godawful restart sequence.
So, the name "Magnequench" has the same disaster imagery as the "MaxiCrash Disk Drive Company", or "Microsoft".
(Disclaimer, I am not an NMR spectroscopist, but my wife used to be one.)
Imports (Score:2)
U.S. patents protect against importation of products produced outside the US by an infringing process. That's why MagneQuench is going after Best Buy and CompUSA. Those two are big enough they probably buy outside the US and import themselves.
This is all normal commercial litigation. No big deal.
Links and explanations for Dennis (Score:2)
The USPTO.gov server seems a bit slow today, so here are the patents from Delphion: 4496395 [delphion.com] (a method of tempering magnets), 4851058 [delphion.com] (material composition), 4802931 [delphion.com] (another material composition), 5411608 [delphion.com] (yet another composition), 4902361 [delphion.com] (even more composition), and especially 5172751 [delphion.com] (more tempering). As usual, look at the first few claims to get a general idea of the scope of the patent.
(Who's Dennis [unisys.com]?)Re:I hope they don't make fridge magnets (Score:2)
Watch your fingers, when those magnets take a notion to slam together they will pinch through your flesh.
These magnets are also quite brittle - they will break if struck (particularly with another magnet.) Also, don't even think about putting these magnets near a CRT, credit cards, or disks...
The aluminium rings that separate the disk platters are also worth salvaging. For instance, with a suitable diameter pipe, coil and battery these would make ideal "jumping rings."
recall? (Score:2)
Compaq: "Uh, we lost a lawsuit and now you have to send back the computer you just bought so we can destroy it"
Me: "hello? you're breaking up, did you say computer? Send back? I, uh, sold it on ebay and shipped it to east timor. Sorry"
Re:The Redifinition of the American Dream (Score:2)
What a crock. While your basic point, that the American Dream has has always been about freedom, is correct, the freedom to make money has always been high on the list. Remember that in a lot of countries there was no real freedom to become rich; the social and economic systems were designed to perpetuate the high status of those who were already wealthy.
Get rich quick schemes have been a part of America since forever. For every group of people who came to America searching for religious freedom, there was a group that was looking to make a buck. Before the colonists came to Plymouth so they could worship as they pleased, there was a group that went to Jamestown and nearly starved because they were all looking for gold instead of growing food. A key driving force behind the Revolution was a change in the legal status of the Northwest territories that squashed a lot of land speculation there. There's a reason that one of the things that people said about America is that it's streets are paved with gold; that's a big reason that they wanted to go there.
Re:How can they sue the large companies? (Score:2)
Because that's the way that things work. What's happening is that companies in countries with weak or no patent protection are making the products and then exporting them to countries where some of the components are covered by patents. IIRC, patent law does specify that suing the importer is the correct legal response in such a case.
Consider an analogy. Suppose I go to a country like China that doesn't respect American copyright laws and start stamping cheap Windows2000 CDs that I then try to export to the U.S. Microsoft could try to sue me, but they wouldn't get anywhere because the Chinese government would laugh at them. Their only recourse is to sue the people who are importing the non-licensed copies into the U.S. You can't very well say, "Sorry, you can't sue the people who are making the things. You're just going to have to watch those copies eat up your market share." Copyright would be meaningless if that were the case. The same thing is true if the IP involved is a patent instead of a copyright; importing goods that were made without proper license is not OK. If it were, the law wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on.
Stupid Companies.. (Score:2)
Re:Analyzing the combined picture (Score:3)
Just because these magnets are now so widely used doesn't means that whomever did the R&D and ultimately "invented" them doesn't deserve a patent. There's a lot of bogus patents in the world, and IMHO, this probably isn't one of them.
Re:please don't post (Score:3)
See how this story is helpfully filed in a section called 'Patents'? Now you know what to turn off in your preferences. I agree that this is the same old story with new names, but these names are pretty damn big ones. When someone announces they are trying to take Sony, Philips and Toshiba for all they can get then thats gutsy. Or stupid, I can't decide which.
good hsitory -- but learn more (Score:2)
However, your conclusion is ironic in light of American history. If there is a single belief that unites Americans across the sapce of the continent and through 4 centuries of existence, it is the belief that the rest of the world is going to "hell in a handbasket." if they don't do something about it. This both a source of American society's penchant for renewal and the American sense of superiority that the rest of the world so resents.
I would like to exhibit Cotton Mather [umkc.edu], an influential man in his day, who loved to preach about how the country was falling appart adn vigourous action was call for immediately to save the "city on the hill" -- right up until the time he led the Salem Witch trials.
So keep up the pessimism -- it's patriotic! (oh - and I agree with you that the patent system has run amuck and is violating it founding principles)
Re:Stupid Companies.. (Score:3)
From the press release...
...which would suggest they're both big and good.
They're a spun-off joint venture between General Motors, Sumitomo Special Metals and The Chinese Academy of Sciences.
What I found interesting was that their attorney is one Archibald Cox. Now if that's the Watergate Special Prosecutor, then they're not exactly skimping on the legal firepower, are they?
Based on the same broad ignorance as every other poster to this story, I'd say this looks like a pretty credible legal attack, as long as the patent's there. And since it's not on Magnets, but the use of certain Neodymium compounds to make high-powered magnets, it might well be.
TomV
Re:Legitimate Patent Usage (Score:2)
Re:Does anyone bother reading the articles any mor (Score:2)
Yes, a Chinese company suddenly has the potential to drastically affect a large portion of the American computer-manufacturing market. Does anyone think *that* might have interesting repurcussions worth discussing?
Did he say "Chinese bad, Americans good"? No. You could claim he implied it, especially if you're overly sensitive. It IS an interesting point-- in today's interconnected economy, is it possible that politicians will come to view economic control as a weapon against other countries? And China's a good example, because it has shown a lack of restraint when it comes to controlling and/or nationalizing businesses on its soil. Additionally, both America and China currently have conservative leaders in power, who will tend to play a lot more hard-line brinkmanship than other administrations might.
To deny that the U.S. and China may come into conflict, and that economic weapons could be used, and that it could have an effect on the lives of people in the U.S. and China, and everywhere else-- to deny that possibility is ridiculous. Just as it would be ridiculous to automatically side with either country every time a conflict pops up, or to deny that there's a lot of propaganda flying about on both sides (or, finally, to ignore the fact that it's much easier and more efficient to distribute said propaganda with a state-run media).
Now, is that the case here? No, it's not. As you pointed out, "the list of defendants includes Sony, Philips, Toshiba and Samsumg". Additionally, there's no obvious reason for either country to escalate, nor is there any obvious control being exerted by the Chinese government over either of the involved companies. No, it seems quite obvious that in this case, they're simply doing what corporations do-- sue people to make more money.
Gone fishing... (Score:3)
"Our primary focus is to get these companies to go back to their suppliers - and in some cases their supplier's suppliers - to make sure they are using our materials," said Jeff Day, senior vice president of marketing and sales for Magnequench.
It looks like Magnequench is following Microsoft's lead and, rather than presenting proof that there is violation and suing based on that, demanding the company shows proof that it isn't violating the patents.
This is a bad thing, people, and when Virginia Beach caved in to Microsoft's demands based on assumed guilt rather proof of wrongdoing, it set a precedent because a government body accepted this sort of demand.
In Logic, you generally can't prove negatives, which is why courts say "Not guilty" [of the charges levelled] rather than "Innocent" [and didn't do a damned thing].
OK, so this is /. and here you can prove that MS on your system will have negative results, but some of you know what I mean.
Rather than bitching and moaning, Run for some branch of the government (legislative or executive) to become a part of the solution. It can only be changed from within. Run for office. Listen to some Jello Biafra mp3s or <gasp!> buy his spoken-word CDs (like I Blow Minds) for inspiration. Or go to law school and deal with the judicial side. Learn how to write an Amicus [hint: no l337 sP3LLiNg, no "dude", passable grammar, etc.]. Just quit whining!
Re:How long has Compaq been making magnets? (Score:2)
Nobody mentioned makes the magnets, or even the devices that use them. As an example, HP doesn't make CD-Rs and CD-RW drives; they buy them from people like Mitsumi. But Mitsumi doesen't make the magnets either, I imagine.
Unfortunately, from my understanding of patent law, limited as it is, it's within Magnaquench's rights to sue *users* of infringing magnets, not just manufacturers.
That doesn't clarify how retail channels like Best Buy could be sued. Are they going to go after Wal-Mart, too? I can buy HP computers at Wal-Mart!
Re:I hope they don't make fridge magnets (Score:2)
Re:So.... (Score:2)
Actually, yes. The metal content in a $20 will make it stick to a really strong magnet.
Re:I hope they don't make fridge magnets (Score:2)
Re:Recall? (Score:5)
It does make you wonder how in the world everyone got to be using that magnet material without *realizing* it was under patent, though. There's gotta be a story there - maybe a "publish the method but forget to mention the patent" story a la LZW compression? Anyone have more info?
There's a very simple explanation (Score:2)
Well, the explanation is that everyone in the funky world does in fact realise it's under patent. It's just that some suppliers have been engaging in "magnet piracy", selling on more Magnequench magnets than they have paid a royalty on. Sony, Cisco et al have been brought into the suit because 1) they have deep pockets 2) It's arguable that they knew, or should have known, what was going on, which makes them co-conspirators and 3) they are likely to force the real offenders to settle out of court. It's fairly standard legal tactics.
Just another small battalion in the war against slashdot cluelessness.
Re:Chemistry patents (Score:2)
TWW
Patent Law Annoyances (Score:2)
I am going to patent that as a proprietary business method.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip
Prior art (Score:2)
Re:Definitely my mistake (Score:2)
More litigation == higher prices (Score:2)
When crooked companies go after other companies like this there is tons of litigation and, of course, the lawyers come out winning big. Why can't these small-time companies go make their money the hard way...?
When companies like Compaq or HP come under fire and loose a lot of money, where will that loss of money be translated to? That's right, the consumer. Prices will rise due to account for their loss.
I wouldn't be surprised if there is someone out there that has a patent on a breathing mechanism. They'll probably be suing God and every living breathing thing for all their worth...
This is why contracts include indemnification (Score:2)
So the big-name manufacturers named in the suit will no doubt just whip out their contracts, and show that their suppliers are at fault. There's no way that the plaintiff could have known about the details of those private contracts (and of course, there's always the chance that some purchasing manager or house counsel screwed the pooch, and failed to include the right protections in those contracts, in which case there will be red faces and settlements). The way for the patentholder to find out that H-P *isn't* liable is to include them in the suit, and thereby learn what's in their (private) contracts.
JMHO and IAMAL but this is how I believe it all works.
The Rambus Principle at work (Score:2)
Karma whorin' for Jesus (Score:3)
Magnequench! Leading innovation in Nd-Fe-B magnets, because only we own the license to innovate!
Re:please don't post (Score:2)
Oddly enough, Goodyear's patent on rubber didn't do him any good. He spent many years and all his money (and family and friend's money) developing vulcanized rubber, and then didn't make dime one from the people that simply stole the idea and used it. (The Goodyear company has no relationship to him. The owners just liked the name and stole that too.)
Patents in general are a good idea. We just have to get them to stop issuing bloody stupid patents.
Leading Magnet Innovation (Score:3)
Re:Does anyone bother reading the articles any mor (Score:3)
Really? Then I guess those thousands of students protesting in favor of DEMOCRACY that were shown being rolled over by ChiCom tanks in 1989 deserved what they were getting, huh? Masterful fake camera work by all those American news media companies, NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, who were SO always biased towards President George H.W. Bush they created that fakery so as to promote his "Anti Chinese Propoganda".
I guess it's a Big Lie that Mao caused the death of millions in the "Great Leap Forward", right?
I suppose it's also a Big Lie that China forces millions of women to have FORCED abortions, against their will. I suppose it's another Big Lie that China arrests and imprisons people who dare ever speak out against their tyrannical, autocratic, anti-freedom MURDEROUS government?
And, of course, China would NEVER opress people because of their religion. Why no, those Falun Gong who are being murdered by the hundreds deserved what they got.
I'm sorry, but The US Patent Office ought to out of hand thow out a patent held by a FOREIGN government hostile to American Citizens. No business of ANY substance or size is totally privately owned in China, one of the most opressive anti-property, anti-freedom governments. China already has comitted an act of WAR against this country by attacking and forcing down a military aircraft flying well outside their borders, then holding the crew hostage.
I hope they don't make fridge magnets (Score:5)