tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post6232853183244913394..comments2024-03-29T12:23:31.959+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Patent Pending? Or not?Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-18063778254216838332007-04-20T16:47:00.000+01:002007-04-20T16:47:00.000+01:00Now you're moving the goal-posts, Iain!Does "Value...Now you're moving the goal-posts, Iain!<BR/><BR/>Does "Value" necessarily mean "monetary" value, or can it be of value from an advertising or public relations perspective, or even just good karma? I suspect the former.Geoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12424257512957515766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-85737061016117465382007-04-20T13:37:00.000+01:002007-04-20T13:37:00.000+01:00Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to offer...Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to offer their thoughts on this.<BR/><BR/>Upon reading the section again, would it be correct to assume that since s.111(1) includes the wording "disposed of for value", no offence would be committed if the CD, or at least any parts having "patent pending" on them, were given away for free?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-35684496017942375532007-04-20T13:09:00.000+01:002007-04-20T13:09:00.000+01:00This is undoubtedly an offence, but I suspect that...This is undoubtedly an offence, but I suspect that it would be considered that the public interest would not be served by a prosecution. Even if a private prosecution was commenced, whist no prior consent from the DPP is required in this case, the DPP can always take it over and kill it (http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section1/chapter_h.html#09). I am more interested in the meaning of sub-section (4), which I had previously paid no attention to. What exactly does it mean?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-91121277616406079072007-04-20T11:18:00.000+01:002007-04-20T11:18:00.000+01:00Does the context in which the words "patent pendin...Does the context in which the words "patent pending" matter? <BR/><BR/>There are an awful lot of "or"s in Section 111 so doing any one of those things, even if not in the same context as doing one of the other things, might still get you caught by the section.Geoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12424257512957515766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-76507664277939728222007-04-19T16:22:00.000+01:002007-04-19T16:22:00.000+01:00I am not sure that a court would find someone culp...I am not sure that a court would find someone culpable. My guess is that a court would decide that in interpreting the provision it should construe the words “patent pending” in the context of the words following which are “or anything expressing or implying that a patent has been applied for in respect of the article”. Thus, if the words “patent pending” are not used in the context of expressing or implying that a patent has been applied for then the person should not be taken to have so indicated. <BR/><BR/>Otherwise I am with Jeremy and think it is clearly a case where, on conviction, a court would absolutely discharge the band. Finally, even if in accordance with the Code of Crown Prosecutors the CPS decide that it is contrary to the public interest to prosecute it would not stop the band facing the possibility of a private prosecution… one never knows how far a battle of the bands can go.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-72708955340014981542007-04-19T09:21:00.000+01:002007-04-19T09:21:00.000+01:00CPS = Criminal Patent Suppressors?CPS = Criminal Patent Suppressors?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-29539852910953802592007-04-18T17:28:00.000+01:002007-04-18T17:28:00.000+01:00One hopes the CPS would recognise that the to pros...One hopes the CPS would recognise that the to prosecute would not be in the public interest under their guidelines...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-13296884614310957952007-04-18T16:37:00.000+01:002007-04-18T16:37:00.000+01:00This is driving me mad. The offence appears to hav...This is driving me mad. The offence appears to have been committed in purely formal terms, though this is manifestly not the mischief that the provision of the Patents Act 1977 was intended to prevent. Mitigation goes to the sentencing, doesn't it, rather than to the question of initial liability?Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01123244020588707776noreply@blogger.com