What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
47 Comments
- amabaie, on 06/14/2009, -14/+52I wish courts would throw people in jail for clogging the legal system with frivolous technicalities that focus on "technicalities" and the "finer points" of the law, rather than are people or the planet being hurt. What a waste of human resources the entire legal system is.
- trakie, on 06/14/2009, -2/+31this law kinda makes sense, the law says you can't put patent #'s on a product if the patent is expired. the point of a patent is to have a limited monopoly for the duration of the patent (up to 20 years), if a company is putting patent numbers that are expired it seems to me like the company is being deceitful by trying to make it look like the patent is still valid. of course it would be trivial to look up the patent and find out whether it really is valid.
that said, i think the lawyer is taking advantage of the system - gcnaddict, on 06/14/2009, -1/+18Solo Cup alleged that it's unconstitutional for a private citizen to sue on behalf of the US Government thanks to separation of powers...
I'm not sure how Solo Cup expected that argument to support their defense. Citizens pay their taxes, and thus, have a vested interest in seeing their money used wisely. Citizens pay taxes and have a stake in every power as a result.
As much as this might *seem* like abusing patent law, it's perfectly legit. Good on Pequignot for chasing those who are using outdated patents to claim protections and scare others away... even if he is doing it for his own personal financial interests.
Next question: can I join? - inactive, on 06/14/2009, -3/+17Only on Digg do such broad generaliztions get dugg up so much.
That is because it takes a VERY simple and limited mind to not be able to see the chaos that would exist wthout any part of the legal system. - kukurio, on 06/15/2009, -0/+11This isn't some legal triviality. The companies knowingly and falsely claiming patent protection are breaking the law. It's fraud, and no one's doing anything about it. I think we need a bit more legal vigilantism.
- Atomic1fire, on 06/14/2009, -0/+10@defragsta
The legal system, while it can be abused (just like any system with holes)
is meant for the protection of the people,
anarchy would mean that there would be no protections for people, unless they defended themselves, via violence or otherwise.
once you take out the protections of the legal system, you still have people taking advantage of other people, except instead of the smarter or richer people, it becomes the stronger ones.
rich people would pay strong people to defend them,
smart people would either hide or be under the support of the rich.
and what you have left is the desperate people and the people who take advantage of everyone else,
The law is meant to control that so that people have some rights, though there are imperfections that make it subject to abuse, such as the government trying to raise taxes so that a number of people can be supported by everyone else, when they make no efforts to support themselves, welfare was invented for a reason, and it wasn't to abuse it.
/end political rant - TheCheeks, on 06/14/2009, -2/+12Oh, PATENTS.
Thought it said Parents. - NavS, on 06/14/2009, -1/+11Finally, its my turn.
- newman8r, on 06/15/2009, -0/+9if a corporation is violating patent law then then they open themselves up to this... I don't think private citizens should be able to cash in on it, but why should a corporation be allowed to claim patent rights that it doesn't actually have?
- kanojo1969, on 06/15/2009, -0/+7The hurting butt is nothing compared to the empty skull cavity where you brain should be. Did you even understand the article? The guy isn't suing because the expired patent number caused him some harm, he's suing because putting expired patent numbers on a product to give the impression of patent protection is ILLEGAL. Idiot.
- kanojo1969, on 06/15/2009, -0/+7There's noting frivolous about this. On one hand, yes, you have a couple of people looking to make some easy money. But on the other hand, they are at least holding companies feet to the fire. The patent laws need to be enforced and I see nothing wrong with rewarding people for doing it. Companies rely on patents as a form of income security, and if you are so cavalier as to continue using patent numbers 20 years after they've expired, and never had them renewed, then you deserve to be prosecuted.
- Spire3660, on 06/15/2009, -1/+6If the labeling law states that expired patents cant be used to label a product, then i dont see an issue here. Imprinting a patent number on a product would fall under truth in advertising and labeling laws. It can be considered a legal mark, and as such subject to strict guidelines. Not necessarily frivolous. Who cares who is suing, the fact of the matter is they are breaking the law/guidelines/rules.
- wissler, on 06/15/2009, -1/+6Claiming you have a patent when you don't is fraud. He's performing a public service and should be paid.
- kaosethema, on 06/15/2009, -0/+4there are laws out there that give ordinary citizens extraordinary powers
they (corporations and their puppets in OUR government) don't want us to know that. - mhuggins, on 06/15/2009, -0/+4Uhh, you should probably have someone look into that "butt hurt" thing.
- rxbudian, on 06/15/2009, -0/+3It's a good idea to allow to sue for displayed expired patents, but what happens if the patent display was printed before the patent expired and only been able to be used after?
- vsujohn2, on 06/14/2009, -1/+4Thats like a dump truck putting signs saying they arent responsible for objects thrown from road. Technically they aren't but if the stuff comes off their truck and hits your car, they are liable. They just hope people don't realize this.
- shig, on 06/15/2009, -0/+3Anarchism doesn't preclude peaceful arbitration of disputes.
- Travelsonic, on 06/14/2009, -0/+2Doesn't mean nobody will win.
- Gareth321, on 06/15/2009, -0/+2emjaymj, are you suggesting abolishing the unclean hands doctrine? I'm sorry, but that's misguided.
Petersonca, you obviously subscribe to positivism. However you must acknowledge that law isn't strictly so. Particularly in America, you have natural and real leanings. This means that the law, to at least a degree, is dictated by common values and the status quo. If America as a whole feels that such minor technicalities should be overlooked or amended entirely, perhaps it should be so? - Paulish, on 06/15/2009, -0/+2It makes sense, but it is terribly implemented. Remove the patent # and problem solved. I don't think it is worth millions of dollars.
- DonutGuy, on 06/15/2009, -0/+2Page2 fail?
- emjaymj, on 06/15/2009, -0/+2@shig
"If the crime figures of Detroit and Chicago mean anything, they mean that even when peaceful arbitration is provided to the masses in a monopolized system of courts, there are still those that will refuse it."
Not really. Violence is such a part of the culture of gangs BECAUSE we've made what they are doing illegal. If two gangs are having a dispute on some drug-related issue, how can they settle it? Certainly not with the court system. What these crime figures show us is that violence becomes a much more attractive option when there is no legally binding and "final" process to settle it. - Xenko, on 06/15/2009, -0/+1Full Article:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5 ... - eShinn, on 06/18/2009, -0/+1I wonder if the currency from the Federal Reserve has any patents that are printed and expired. I bet the government would LOVE to get half of that suit from the private bank Federal Reserve ;.)
- shig, on 06/15/2009, -0/+1Sorry that I edited that out. I considered it somewhat less of a point than what I left.
"we've made what they are doing illegal"
How do we expect justice to be done when there is this entire other system of "justice" that imposes arbitrary trade restrictions against our will, and has no precept of protecting basic property rights? I have no answer for that. Find an impartial court, I suppose.
"If two gangs are having a dispute on some drug-related issue, how can they settle it?"
How would you settle your own personal disputes? You'd go to the monopoly court, because you agree that it will treat everyone fair, right? Well it's simply a case of finding a court that treats gangs with equal fairness, even if it's made up on the fly.
Gang A can bring their case before Judge A of their choosing, and Gang B can bring their case before Judge B of their choosing, and if Judge A and B can't agree they'll present the case to Judge C and D of their choosing, etc. - kukurio, on 06/15/2009, -1/+2Yeah, I think it would be great if citizens could sue on behalf of the government more often, because it would help to insulate enforcement of the law from the political process. Just looking at the selective enforcement in the last eight years makes me sick. The Bush administration didn't prosecute a single anti-trust violation during his term. Even worse, the Clinton DOJ had taken Microsoft by the balls, and yet the Bush DOJ let them get off with a slap on the wrists. Not to mention the countless number of SEC violations that went uninvestigated during Bush's tenure, helping get us into our current financial situation.
- Gareth321, on 06/16/2009, -0/+1Unclean hands specifically precludes illegal activities being legally moderated. You're exactly prescribing abolishing the doctrine. It may seem wise on the surface, but you need to look a little bit deeper and understand the reasons for the doctrine.
Allowing legal moderation creates a pretence of acceptance. Illegal acts are illegal for a reason, so the message must be clear; there is no respite for illegal activities. Furthermore, any form of legal moderation or interference open up the act to the scrutiny of the law. If a drug dealer requests moderation under a dispute over non-payment for goods supplied, their case becomes public record. This then utterly REQUIRES that all illegal acts under public record be investigated and tried. Creating an exemption here would destroy our legal foundations. It would mean that illegal acts revealed as a result of other legal action cannot be prosecuted. Can you imagine a civil suit over a lawnmower revealing one party has murdered someone, then being unable to ever prosecute? Unclean hands exists to only solidify the rule that all illegal acts, once discovered, must be prosecuted. - emjaymj, on 06/15/2009, -0/+1@Gareth321
"emjaymj, are you suggesting abolishing the unclean hands doctrine? I'm sorry, but that's misguided."
Absolutely not. I'm actually suggesting we bring the vast majority of these criminal markets above-ground and legally accessible to actual law-abiding citizens. We need to review whether keeping things illegal is doing more harm than good - and all the evidence seems to suggest that this is particularly the case with drugs and prostitution. The vast majority of the violence surrounding the drug trade is not an inherent problem but is rather a result of prohibition itself. - TekTrixter, on 06/15/2009, -0/+1you should patent that idea!
- inactive, on 06/15/2009, -0/+1Gillette? For what they charge for a 10 cent razor blade everyone should sue them.
- Skurt, on 06/15/2009, -0/+0The bottom line here is that the number on the cup really shouldn't matter. They do/did have the patent, they are only showing the patent number.
Like saying your Oscar is expired because someone else won your category this year.
Period, it's just a number.
If you want to make a cup, check the patent number and see when it expired.
When I see a patent number on a product, I think, "Hey, they patented this item" I don't wonder if it is expired, I don't care if it is expired, it is still their patent even if it is expired.
It's just a stupid number
And calling me a empty skull cavity idiot didn't help your argument either, but there you go. - cliffzdude, on 06/15/2009, -1/+1Why oh why can't our Federal Government think like a normal human being? Damn it, makes me crazy.
Simple soution; Print patent on product, with patent grant date.
As in: Patented 2006 | Patent # 95416573456
If patent laws change, one only has to figure out when it as patented vs. current legal length of patent validity.
Was that so difficult?
If I were King...... - Skurt, on 06/15/2009, -2/+2@kanojo1969
A bunch of ***** lawyers with nothing better to do but think up ways to line their pockets.
I did read both pages, and here is what I heard
"I've been looking at this cup for a while and thought maybe I can make money off this"
Because he is a just and fair lawyer who is only looking out for the government. /s
Quote:
"A couple of sharp-eyed lawyers are shooting for a financial windfall through the nearly forgotten law, and the Justice Department says they have a case." And you can't wear pink shoes in the winter in alabama according to some other old forgotten law... doesn't make it right.
"The person who sues gets to keep half of any money awarded"
Money Grubbing Bastards trying to get a buck for being lawyers.
The only person it really hurt is the other cup manufactures that think the patent is still viable. When all they have to do is look at the patent number on the cup/blade/lawnmower or whatever and see if it is out of date, THEN if it seems out of date, and they want to make their own cup/blade/lawnmower etc., they can do a bit more research from some cheepo paralegal and have everything they need.
AND after finding this juicy way to make money:
"Pequignot followed the Solo Cup case by suing razor company Gillette, owned by Cincinnati-based Procter & Gamble Co."
So now anyone with an erroneous patent date has to double check to see if they are 'breaking the law' in this manner because this 'team' will be checking everything possible and doing what lawyers do best, SUE the crap outta people for stupid things.
@kanojo1969 you are a ***** - SOS84, on 06/15/2009, -2/+2Ah, capitalism at its finest.
- Stiverton, on 06/15/2009, -1/+1Yeah, we should just get one guy to decide who should go to jail.
- scubachef11, on 06/15/2009, -3/+3Pequignot is a talentless *****.
- skipvt, on 06/15/2009, -1/+1Must have been a slow ambulance day...
- kanojo1969, on 06/15/2009, -0/+0What's wrong with a lawyer earning some money by knowing the law? The government chose to police expired patents by allowing the public to sue, instead of having to employ more drones to investigate and keep track of things.
These guys are just following the rules, why the ***** would anyone mind? Oh no, the poor cup company, those hard-working, just-scraping-by executives might have to pay some attention to what they are doing. The cheap ***** are deliberately putting expired patent numbers on products to scare people away without having to actually bother getting a patent. It could well be that someone else actually owns an active patent on the same item, it's illegal behaviour, and I like the idea that anyone can get a share of the cash for figuring it out.
And calling me a ***** is hardly doing much to augment your logic, rather, it makes you look like a drooling retard with all the argumentative capacity of a potted plant. And your ***** smells. - Skurt, on 06/15/2009, -1/+0But they have the patent, it's just expired. It's just a number. Want to make your own cup? then look up the patent and see for yourself.
- ThaATrain, on 06/15/2009, -3/+1Lawsuits are the most backwards thing
- dafragsta, on 06/14/2009, -5/+2The legal system is the backbone of civilized enslavement and white hat extortion. They can always get you for something if they have better lawyers, whoever they may be.
- Joshislong, on 06/14/2009, -6/+3If Solo is sued, it will have to increase the price of it's cups, which will make beer pong more expensive. Universities across America will see a substantial jump in GPAs.
- inactive, on 06/14/2009, -3/+0Nobody will win just for spotting an expired patent.
People MAY successfully sue if the patent holder is actively trying ti illegally benefit from deceiving people into thinking that their patent is still valid. - inactive, on 06/14/2009, -4/+0doesn't mean anyone will win.
- tcheck, on 06/14/2009, -7/+1Why is it a private citizen's business to do this? Like breaking other laws, shouldn't government be the one solely responsible for taking action. And like reporting a drunk driver, citizens are welcome to alert the government of possible lawbreakers.
Oh but wait, now you aren't getting money for it. No need to tell on the companies now! - Skurt, on 06/14/2009, -9/+2WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
I am butt hurt, the number on the cup is expired, it has ruined my whole life, give me money.
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is