The Double standard of USA and copyrights

[Lucas]

Hey guys,

If I understand the copyright discussion right the US Goverment is pushing hard to get China inlined with the rest of the world and not infringe on copyrights by Watch Makers, Clothes Manufacturers and more.

To be consitent in their persuit for justice, US and other goverments hosting companies producing color computer screens and using the GPS satilite system should egnoledge the Patents by the swedish inventor Hakan Lans, who actually owns the right as he is the inventor. Companies are today not paying his royalities as there is an uncertanty if he ore his company owns the patent. (either way still him, right)

http://egoist.blogspot.com/2005/03/inventor-hakan-lans.html

The irony of this is that US and other contries are persuing China for creating replicas, while the contries themselves are ignoring the verry well standards that helped to create.

I know this topic is a bit off, but when we see the watch industry close down parts of the forum because dealers are selling replicas, I would like to see Hakan Lans close down all computers using color screens ore shops selling computer screens of companies that has not paid is rightfully earned royalties.

I mean come on... Be consitent and look at yourselves first before blaiming China. This is just one example.

Well thats my two pence...

Cheers

Luc

[HauteHippie]

You can't *really* believe that our (the US's) agreements with China should hinge on the outcome of a single patent dispute.... Right? As far as this Hakan person goes, did he really get screwed on 3 patents? Or did he patent something obvious and get upset when everyone else thought of the same thing?

[leitztozeiss]

Companies are today not paying his royalities as there is an uncertanty if he ore his company owns the patent. (either way still him, right)

A patent holder has rights during the term of his patent. The patent at issue (U.S. 4303986) is expired, so companies could not be compelled to pay royalties today.

Lans assigned the rights to his patent to another entity, Uniboard AB, which is wholly owned by Lans. It seems that he did this for tax reasons, so I suppose that even Lans would acknowledge himself and Uniboard as separate entities. At least, that's what he would submit to the tax collector. The tragedy here is that Lans filed his suit under his name only without mentioning the patent holder, Uniboard AB, as a party to the suit. It does not matter that Lans is the inventor - he assigned his rights to Uniboard. It does not matter that he owns Uniboard, as they are different entities, particularly in the eyes of the courts (just as they are viewed as different entities to the tax collector).

The distinction between the U.S. and China here is that the U.S. does have a system that allows preservation and enforcement of intellectual property rights. China does have a system for defining intellectual property rights, but enforcement is, quite frankly, a joke.

Lans had rights and screwed up in asserting those rights. While Lans's story is tragic, there is no moral connection between Lans's blundered attempt at asserting his patent rights, and the U.S. government and China.

(I hate to be on the opposite side from you on this one Luc for several reasons. One, having spent several years in Sweden, its country, culture and people will always have a special place in my heart. Two, my youngest boy's name is Lucas.)

[leitztozeiss]

One would think Sweden and Norway would have copyright complaints with China too. Their intellectual property for woolens designs and patterns are being stolen outright and replicated in China. The person for whom I do web pages every year is from Finland, has been selling Scandinavian woolens for 34 years, and is now changing her shop to do everything BUT "snowflake" sweaters. She just can't compete anymore.

Before leaving Sweden to return to the U.S., I stocked up on those wonderful woolies. Worth every Kronor.

[archibald]

The US government cares about what they're paid to care about just like everybody else. They're pressuring the Chinese, to the extent that one can pressure its largest creditor and trading partner, on movies, software etc. There might be some Paneristi House comittee staffer somewhere who cares about rep watches, and some Press Officer at the Customs Bureau did get a little carried away with the post-911 funding grab by putting out a release that said reps fund trerrorists, but other than that nobody cares much about fake watches--that's why some PI hired by GAF with local cops in tow is runiining around putting pinhead-sized tiny dents in US rep distribution.

[Lucas]

You can't *really* believe that our (the US's) agreements with China should hinge on the outcome of a single patent dispute.... Right? As far as this Hakan person goes, did he really get screwed on 3 patents? Or did he patent something obvious and get upset when everyone else thought of the same thing?

When he patent it it was not obvoius. It was the groudn breaking technology. He is the inventor.

A patent holder has rights during the term of his patent. The patent at issue (U.S. 4303986) is expired, so companies could not be compelled to pay royalties today.

However, they did not pay royalites during the durration of the patent either.

Lans assigned the rights to his patent to another entity, Uniboard AB, which is wholly owned by Lans. It seems that he did this for tax reasons, so I suppose that even Lans would acknowledge himself and Uniboard as separate entities. At least, that's what he would submit to the tax collector. The tragedy here is that Lans filed his suit under his name only without mentioning the patent holder, Uniboard AB, as a party to the suit. It does not matter that Lans is the inventor - he assigned his rights to Uniboard. It does not matter that he owns Uniboard, as they are different entities, particularly in the eyes of the courts (just as they are viewed as different entities to the tax collector).

He did not do it for tax reason, but for law suit reasons. Nevertheless, one of them does still own the right to the royalties and not one of the party got the royalty.

The distinction between the U.S. and China here is that the U.S. does have a system that allows preservation and enforcement of intellectual property rights. China does have a system for defining intellectual property rights, but enforcement is, quite frankly, a joke.

Lans had rights and screwed up in asserting those rights. While Lans's story is tragic, there is no moral connection between Lans's blundered attempt at asserting his patent rights, and the U.S. government and China.

They still used his idea to make money without paying him as the replica industry makes money without paying the watch industry. I still see a match of ethics and morals between the two.

(I hate to be on the opposite side from you on this one Luc for several reasons. One, having spent several years in Sweden, its country, culture and people will always have a special place in my heart. Two, my youngest boy's name is Lucas.)

Good for you.

If I get a son, his name will be Lucas.

The thing is that I dont think that US has a straight forward approach.

[leitztozeiss]

However, they did not pay royalites during the duration of the patent either.

Luc, companies don't just roll over and pay royalties because of the existence of a patent. This is not just U.S. companies - this is ALL companies. Even when asked, a company may have valid reasons for not paying the royalty. Perhaps they believe they do not infringe and have opinion from counsel indicating noninfringement, OR maybe they believe the patent is invalid and have opinion from their counsel indicating invalidity.

Anyway, he had rights, he had means to assert those rights, but he didn't follow procedure and was burned by his own (or attorney's) mistake. One word was missing from the front of his complaint that might have completely changed the outcome - "Uniboard."

He did not do it for tax reason, but for law suit reasons.

Well, if he did it for reasons related to the law suit, then he really did screw up, didn't he? There is no good excuse for not including Uniboard as a party to the suit.

Nevertheless, one of them does still own the right to the royalties and not one of the party got the royalty.

The one of the them with the patent rights should have filed suit while the patent was in force.

They still used his idea to make money without paying him as the replica industry makes money without paying the watch industry. I still see a match of ethics and morals between the two.

I'm sorry, but it really is not that simple. At this point, you're only a step away from Kevin Bacon.

The thing is that I dont think that US has a straight forward approach.

There is NO straight forward approach to defining intellectual property rights and enforcing them. None.

[HauteHippie]

Luc, companies don't just roll over and pay royalties because of the existence of a patent. This is not just U.S. companies - this is ALL companies. Even when asked, a company may have valid reasons for not paying the royalty. Perhaps they believe they do not infringe and have opinion from counsel indicating noninfringement, OR maybe they believe the patent is invalid and have opinion from their counsel indicating invalidity.

Right. And let's not blur the line between patents and copyrights now!

[leitztozeiss]

Right. And let's not blur the line between patents and copyrights now!

Yes. Very good point.

[Lucas]

So your conclusion is that China is wrong in producing replicas, US has no double standards and yet you buy replicas. How do you justify that, father of Lucas. ;-)

[leitztozeiss]

So your conclusion is that China is wrong in producing replicas, US has no double standards and yet you buy replicas. How do you justify that, father of Lucas. ;-)

I did not make any such conclusions. Let me end by sharing a moment . . .

My son and I were observing Saturn the other night through my telescope, and he (a 3 year old) asked me, "dad, can we see Earth?" I said, not right now son, but one day soon, you will.