hes got darkweb meth orders to fill. cut homie some slack lol
5 Likes
JPM had a few of those “whales” on board….
Like your humor.
steering back on topic, can anyone explain the claims that haven’t been deemed unpatentable any better?
6 Likes
Sounds shitty. Hate to hear it. I am not going to arbitrate that here. This thread is about the patent problem we have as extraction businesses. I hope to get dozens of companies together to create both the technical and financial resources to defend the industry. I am confident that there will be history and beef between many of those individuals. The history and past actions may be lousy, but what will really suck is getting picked off one by one by lawyers. Cling to your beefs and resentments at your own peril.
3 Likes
you should really talk to @spdking. There probably isnt many people in this industry that have as many patents as him nor took as many people to court. im sure he could easily give you a game plan to beat some of these people. Id even pay the guy for the information if needed. That would be my first choice.
4 Likes
Exactly what the conversation about patents is about. Irony doesn’t miss a beat. Can’t have them go putting their own feet in their mouths about caring about the industry as a whole then going and doing behind the scenes tactics that involve governments and expect it to be all peaches and cream.
1 Like
Cookies has entered the chat
1 Like
Lmao now that’s funny.
2 Likes
So…. I must be missing something.
If your lab does not disclose the procedure used to extract then how do they know who to sue ?
4 Likes
Would open blasting be covered by any patents?
I would imagine that much of that info is found during discovery in the lawsuits with manufacturers.
1 Like
Discovery or not, you wouldn’t be compel to share your intellectual property just to offload burden of proof for the prosecution, it’s not mandatory and they can’t force it. Obviously this stifles the open source concept but it wouldn’t give the prosecution much to work with.
1 Like
An equipment manufacturer’s customer list isn’t IP.
The customer list is IP/trade secret.
That is up to the judge. Financial records are most likely subpoenaed to calculate damages. I would assume client information would be hard to hide.
Just because I purchased a piece of garbage x10 from precision does not mean I use it as per the manual and that is also not grounds to expose a lab’s process. The labs going to trial for this must be feeding the prosecution ammunition.
A sale for a complete system, install, and engineering docs makes it hard to play dumb when you are selling products that are consistent with those made in the systems in question.
Just throwing it out there that the type of infringement the manufacturers of the patented equipment committed (direct infringement) is categorically different from the type of infringement committed by the customers who bought and operate the equipment (induced infringement).
The company commiting direct infringement is liable REGARDLESS of if they were aware of the patent. The customer commiting induced infringement is not necessary liable for the period of time when they weren’t aware of the patent. This means, the customers cannot be forced to pay damages for the period of infringement which occured before they were aware of the patent…meaning they can pretty much continue to play dumb all the way up to when they get served.
9 Likes
Agreed. However, client info from a manufacturer is a probably where the trail to being served starts. That, or open advertisement on social media.
1 Like