NOKTA MAKRO (LEGEND) GETTING SUED - PATENT INFRINGEMENT

[DigDog]

Minelab is a for-profit business and, in fact, publicly traded so its priority is its shareholders. That's true of most companies. If ML can use the patent system to restrict competition and make more money then that's what they should be expected to do. And if they can create a de facto monopoly then, again, expect that, too. Keep in mind that patents aren't forever, they expire after 20 years. But drug companies have been gaming the patent system by making a minor tweak to an expiring patent and getting another 20 years out of it.

Other detector companies can also play this game if they choose. Problem is, most of them are badly lagging ML in R&D and don't have much to patent. Garrett has patents on their ProPointer design that could be used to shut down all the clones but they don't even enforce the patents. I filed several patents at White's and 1 at FTP, probably nothing will ever be done with them. That's the other thing about patents: they only give you the right to sue someone. Doing so has a starting cost of about $100,000 so you better have deep pockets or a guaranteed winning case.

Minelab is playing the corporate game like a real corporation, not a mom&pop garage operation. No, the detecting community doesn't benefit from this at all, but that's how the rules of the game are set up.

Not sure what kind of car you like or drive but if that applies to all corporations we would all be driving a Benz since he invented the gas powered combustion engine.
Or I suppose we would all be stuck driving a Ford, using only one brand of firearm, watching the same television set, swinging the same set of golf clubs, you get my drift.
Competition and choice is a good thing.

 

[Carl-NC]

Not sure what kind of car you like or drive but if that applies to all corporations we would all be driving a Benz since he invented the gas powered combustion engine.
Or I suppose we would all be stuck driving a Ford, using only one brand of firearm, watching the same television set, swinging the same set of golf clubs, you get my drift.
Competition and choice is a good thing.

Like I said, patents only last 20 years, after that the invention becomes public domain. All the car companies play the patent game, I took a quick look and Ford has over 20,000 patents filed just in the last 20 years. That's why you see particular features in some brands but not others. Things that are now ubiquitous (like an internal combustion engine) are public domain but even then they are always making patentable improvements on that, such as with hybrid systems.

Also, the Big Boys often do patent swaps. Ford sues GM over patent F, GM countersues Ford over patent G, and they settle by doing a patent swap, often involving dozens of patents. I used to work for Analog Devices, one of the Big Boys of the semiconductor industry, and we did that with TI and others. I personally authored a dozen patents for them. Detector companies other than Minelab don't have much to bargain with so they either fight or settle.

It's not a matter of what I like or dislike, it is what it is. I'm not defending Minelab, either... they are doing what a company should do to stay on top, can't blame them for that even if it means you pay more for their product or the product of a company they sued. Like I said, that's how the rules are written and Minelab didn't write 'em. The patent concept has some benefits but also some pitfalls that need addressing. Big Business won't allow Congress to deal with those pitfalls and, as with everything else in a capitalistic economy, the consumer pays.

One thing about metal detectors is that they are rapidly moving to where the IP is almost entirely in software where it's way more difficult to look at. It then may be smarter to simply keep that IP as a trade secret rather than writing a patent and telling everyone what you did and how you did it. Coca-Cola took that approach with their formula and they've outlasted patents by 120 years or so.

 

[CoinShooter01]

Like I said, patents only last 20 years, after that the invention becomes public domain. All the car companies play the patent game, I took a quick look and Ford has over 20,000 patents filed just in the last 20 years. That's why you see particular features in some brands but not others. Things that are now ubiquitous (like an internal combustion engine) are public domain but even then they are always making patentable improvements on that, such as with hybrid systems.

Also, the Big Boys often do patent swaps. Ford sues GM over patent F, GM countersues Ford over patent G, and they settle by doing a patent swap, often involving dozens of patents. I used to work for Analog Devices, one of the Big Boys of the semiconductor industry, and we did that with TI and others. I personally authored a dozen patents for them. Detector companies other than Minelab don't have much to bargain with so they either fight or settle.

It's not a matter of what I like or dislike, it is what it is. I'm not defending Minelab, either... they are doing what a company should do to stay on top, can't blame them for that even if it means you pay more for their product or the product of a company they sued. Like I said, that's how the rules are written and Minelab didn't write 'em. The patent concept has some benefits but also some pitfalls that need addressing. Big Business won't allow Congress to deal with those pitfalls and, as with everything else in a capitalistic economy, the consumer pays.

One thing about metal detectors is that they are rapidly moving to where the IP is almost entirely in software where it's way more difficult to look at. It then may be smarter to simply keep that IP as a trade secret rather than writing a patent and telling everyone what you did and how you did it. Coca-Cola took that approach with their formula and they've outlasted patents by 120 years or so.

Carl,
You remind me of a very intellegent guy named Elon Musk.
He purposely gave away, free of charge, some of his most valuable electric vehicle patents, to the Big 3 automakers.
Why would he do such a thing?

 

[CDDZ]

Carl,
You remind me of a very intellegent guy named Elon Musk.
He purposely gave away, free of charge, some of his most valuable electric vehicle patents, to the Big 3 automakers.
Why would he do such a thing?

Hey gave them away because he was already 2-3 years ahead of said patents

 

[Texashunter61]

Coinshooter01 you’ve convinced me to purchase a Legend! Thanks

 

[Nokta Detectors]

Dear Valued Members,
Please see attached Press Release from Nokta.

PRESS RELEASE
December 26, 2022

Nokta Detection Technologies is issuing the following statement in response to the patent infringement lawsuit filed by Minelab USA, on November 17, 2022:

Nokta has invested considerable resources in research and development of the Legend, which performs on par with even the most expensive detectors on the market. Over the past year, the Legend's excellent performance has been recognized by consumers and ultimately led to its successful launch.

Minelab recently filed a lawsuit alleging infringement of a patent directed to decades old technology. While Nokta values and respects intellectual property rights of other members of the metal detector community, Nokta strongly believes Minelab's claims against the Legend to be baseless. Minelab's lawsuit appears to represent an attempt to unjustly strong-arm a competitor rather than to protect intellectual property. It is unfortunate, but unsurprising based on Minelab's recent activity in the global metal detector community, that Minelab has chosen to make such allegations to counter Nokta's recent accomplishments and worldwide growth, instead of competing on price and performance. Nokta strongly believes America’s free enterprise system of competition has provided a healthy performance and value-based marketplace.

So, be assured that Nokta is determined to vigorously defend against all allegations of patent infringement without any concern of interruption in our business. Nokta will continue to offer high-end, quality products at the best prices. Nokta’s investments in research and development will continue with plans to expand its engineering team significantly while moving this coming year to a new headquarters and technically advanced manufacturing plant.

This lawsuit has only fueled our passion and desire to invest more so we can offer more in return to our customers and the metal detector industry at large. As Nokta, we will fight this dispute not only for our company, but for the sake of all users in the metal detecting industry to provide our past, current, and future customers a winning focus on best performance with a value-based variety of alternatives to over-priced detectors and sustain healthy competition in the metal detector marketplace.

 

[tvr]

I don't recall that Minelab sued Fisher. The story I heard is they sent a cease-&-desist letter to Fisher, and Fisher replied with evidence that the CZ did not infringe. Minelab went away, no lawsuit.

I recall reading several years ago a post Dave Johnson made about Minelab objecting to the CZ where he indicated that he showed there were several ways to implement the design that did not infringe on Minelab patents and that the CZ was shown to have not infringed on any. Earlier in this thread I characterized that as a suite against Fisher, I stand corrected. Thank you for the post Carl.

 

[#1Leatherneck]

For quite a while I anticipated this happening. How many similar filings have there been? Who is the dominate Plaintiff in these filings? Has any been brought to fruition?
And, if so, what was the result?

At the outset I commented for (1) one reason. I wanted to place 'fodder' food for thought.
It appears that there may be some now commenting that will make this noteworthy.
Perhaps soon there will be more to glean from.
I will preserve any further comments till a later date.

 

[DigDog]

I recall reading several years ago a post Dave Johnson made about Minelab objecting to the CZ where he indicated that he showed there were several ways to implement the design that did not infringe on Minelab patents and that the CZ was shown to have not infringed on any. Earlier in this thread I characterized that as a suite against Fisher, I stand corrected. Thank you for the post Carl.

Not a whole lot of difference in intention between cease and desist or we will sue, and we are suing. The main point in all this is the bullying and as NM put it strong arming your competitors. Don’t forget to factor in they sued or ceae and desist to all their competitors.
If it is how you say and ML sent out the letter and Fisher replied with proof they were not infringing then again ML just willy nilly sent out a letter with no proof to back it just to see if it would stick and it apparently did not. the optics of everything still points to ML trying to crush all their competition

 

[DigDog]

At the outset I commented for (1) one reason. I wanted to place 'fodder' food for thought.
It appears that there may be some now commenting that will make this noteworthy.
Perhaps soon there will be more to glean from.
I will preserve any further comments till a later date.

Oh Im sure this whole thing is making you glee hence your reasoning.
We are looking forward to your preservation

 

[DigDog]

At the outset I commented for (1) one reason. I wanted to place 'fodder' food for thought.
It appears that there may be some now commenting that will make this noteworthy.
Perhaps soon there will be more to glean from.
I will preserve any further comments till a later date.

Just curious as you are not interested in a legend why is this such a concern to you ? And enlighten us, did you voice your concerns on the XP, Whites, and Fisher forums as well when they were sued or issued letters of cease and desist by ML if not why not ?

 

[Nokta Detectors]

This thread is about a company stealing intellectual property from another company.
A very serious implication.
Not very ethical, and where I come from, we work hard, and we do not like thiefs.
If you choose to be a rebel, and disagree, so be it.
I however, trust the system, and will let the judge decide.
When the judges gavel falls, its ultimately a no-win situation, for the entire hobby as a whole.
In the mean-time, Im rooting for ethics and honesty over thievery.

CoinShooter - With all due respect, before I report this biased and pitiful comment insulting a company, let me correct your English .. the plural form of thiefs is thieves in proper English.

But I guess your unawareness is not only limited to English language and there are other things you do not know about the USA and its justice system.

''3.02 Presumption of Innocence; Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

It is a cardinal principle of our system of justice that every person accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent unless and until his or her guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption is not a mere formality. It is a matter of the most important substance.

The presumption of innocence alone may be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt and to require the acquittal of a defendant. The defendant before you, [__________], has the benefit of that presumption throughout the trial, and you are not to convict [him/her] of a particular charge unless you are persuaded of [his/her] guilt of that charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The presumption of innocence until proven guilty means that the burden of proof is always on the government to satisfy you that [defendant] is guilty of the crime with which [he/she] is charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The law does not require that the government prove guilt beyond all possible doubt; proof beyond a reasonable doubt is sufficient to convict. This burden never shifts to [defendant]. It is always the government's burden to prove each of the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence. [Defendant] has the right to rely upon the failure or inability of the government to establish beyond a reasonable doubt any essential element of a crime charged against [him/her].

If, after fair and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to [defendant]'s guilt of a particular crime, it is your duty to acquit [him/her] of that crime. On the other hand, if, after fair and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of [defendant]'s guilt of a particular crime, you should vote to convict [him/her].''

THANK YOU!