Actually. Ting need to ascertain :-
(1) Did he file his patent properly?
(2) Did he pick the right party to seek redress - the manufacturer and not the buyer who bought it.
It is never easy for an individual to contest an institution - it will drain your financial resources engaging legal assistance.
ricky l
1 second ago
Even if Ting pick the right party to seek redress - the manufacturer - he must have a properly filed valid patent.
If not Ting will lose no matter how right he is (assuming he is the original inventor).
ricky l
11 seconds ago
Ting have no choice but learn from this lesson - so that in future, he won't make such a mistake again.
I think there is a guided way to file a patent.
Ting need to consult the right source to file the patent correctly.
ricky l
1 second ago
The only redress for Ting is leave it to karma - if indeed he is the original inventor, and someone copy his design.
But if happen that his design - is a "meeting of mind" - and not someone copy his design, then Ting has no redress and karma will not be invoked.
Universal Law of Karma is very fair.
ricky l
11 seconds ago
In this World of Samsara, this Universe of Samsara - lives are never totally fair.
Hence there are 3 stages of justice:-
(1) Human legal law
(2) Heavenly law (if Human legal law - is unable to adequately dispense justice)
(3) Universal Law of Karma (if both human legal law and Heavenly law - is not able to dispense justice adequately.
Bearing in mind, Universal Law of Karma is the final justice to be dispensed - and it will be the Ultimate Justice - as Karma calculate justice up to end of Infinite Universal Time).
Beyond this World of Samsara, this Universe of Samsara - it will be Nirvana (where even the Universal Law of Karma cease).
Humans must have faith with "Justice".
Do what is Humanly correct - using 心。
ricky l
1 second ago
真心。
ricky l
12 seconds ago
Because 大地万法唯心造。 由因缘而生，由因缘而灭。
ricky l
32 seconds ago
Mindef rejects claims it stole idea for mobile first-aid vehicle
MobileStats co-founder Ting Choon Meng alleged in a report on The Online Citizen website that Mindef had illegally copied his patented concept for a mobile first-aid vehicle. -- ST PHOTO: WONG KWAI CHOW
MobileStats co-founder Ting Choon Meng alleged in a report on The Online Citizen website that Mindef had illegally copied his patented concept for a mobile first-aid vehicle. -- ST PHOTO: WONG KWAI CHOW
PUBLISHEDJAN 21, 2015, 8:36 AM SGT
FACEBOOK3TWITTERWHATSAPPEMAIL
It will refer matter to AGC; start-up stands by claim and will defend itself
Feng ZengkunEnvironment Correspondent
SINGAPORE - The Ministry of Defence (Mindef) yesterday hit back at claims that it stole the idea for a mobile first-aid vehicle from a Singapore start-up and infringed the firm's patent. It added that it took the allegations very seriously and will refer the matter to the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC).
In a lengthy post on its Cyberpioneer Facebook page, Mindef said it could not have infringed the patent for the vehicle since it was not valid in the first place. It pointed out that in January last year, a court had declared the patent invalid and revoked it.
This was after MobileStats Technologies abandoned its defence to Mindef's counterclaim that the patent was invalid.
Mindef said yesterday: "Just as there are many smartphone designs and manufacturers who do not infringe each other's patents, there are also many ways to design and produce military equipment." It added: "We are disappointed that the owner of MobileStats has disrespected the court's decision, and continues to make false and unsubstantiated accusations against Mindef."
Last week, MobileStats co-founder Ting Choon Meng alleged in a report on The Online Citizen website that Mindef had illegally copied his patented concept after speaking to him about it at a trade fair in 2005.
He and Dr Mak Koon Hou had started work on their mobile medical station after the Sept 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States. Their vehicle is essentially a truck that opens up to become a resuscitation area with surgical equipment, a built-in suction system for removing blood, fluids and debris, and emergency life-saving devices. They named it a "Station With Immediate First-Aid Treatment", or Swift.
The duo obtained local and international patents in 2005.
Dr Ting said that while the Singapore Civil Defence Force had respected the patent when it called for a tender in 2006 to manufacture the Swift vehicle, Mindef did not in its 2009 tender. He said he found out about Mindef's vehicle only when it was exhibited at the 2011 National Day Parade.
Dr Ting and his partners decided to sue Mindef instead of Syntech Engineers, which manufactured and supplied the vehicles. He said he was forced to drop the case last January, claiming that the legal costs were too high.
In its rebuttal yesterday, Mindef said it was the court that had decided MobileStats should reimburse Mindef $580,000 in legal fees. "The money will go to Syntech, the vendor, which honoured its legal obligation to Mindef and bore the cost of the legal proceedings," it said.
If MobileStats believes it has a valid case, it should pursue the matter with the manufacturer, Syntech, not the end-user. Mindef said: "Imagine if Apple sued Samsung handphone users - instead of Samsung Electronics - for allegedly infringing Apple's Intellectual Property rights."
Dr Ting posted a reply on Mindef's Cyberpioneer Facebook page, saying this was a poor argument as even a person who buys a pirated DVD is also liable. He also told The Straits Times that if the AGC decides to act, "we will have to defend ourselves".
zengkun@sph.com.sg
ricky l
1 second ago
Ting seems to have picked the wrong party for redress based on the above news report.
