Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Gareth Halfacree, 7 Dec 2015.
This makes about as much sense as suing end-users for buying infringing products.
AMD is a buyer of the parts, not a manufacturer.
Therefore, no infringement as they are a customer of CM.
If only law and logic went hand in hand...
You know that is a good point. I was going to say AMD should have stopped using this part once Cooler Master got sued. But you are correct. It is still on Cooler Master to pay the royalties on the parts sold to them by Cooler Master. I can't see how this would hold up in court.
I was going to correct this, but then decided it's too much like work haha
please do0 - because by essence he is correct ; its like asetek suing me because I use a coolermaster aio....
No - it isn't. You're an end customer, AMD aren't. Yes - they are a customer of Coolermaster, but they are also supplying a patented product as part of another product. At the very least, under UK law, they are joint tortfeasors.
Simply supplying someone else's product is no defence - they are at the very least committing secondary infringement. s60 of the UKPA '77 sets all of this out:
- Disposing of;
- Offering for sale (or selling);
- Importing; or
articles which fall within the claims of a granted patent are all infringements, and if I were drafting the pleadings for this case, I'd sure as eggs is eggs be looking to get AMD in the mix for using and disposing of infringing articles.
As an aside, you can get 'done' if you're a 'contributory' infringer - supplying an essential element of the patented invention - section 60(2)(a) of the '77 act.
It's interesting reading (if you're sad like me).
No, it's like Asetek suing you because you sell a product which includes a Cooler Master AIO. There's a very, very clear distinction there.
EDIT: Ninjad by The Man Wot Knows.
Haha - it's often me being ninja'd by you
I can't be reading what you posted correctly jinq-sea, Using, Disposing of, and Keeping doesn't mean what it seems I'm guessing? It seems by using an infringing product, throwing it away, or just having it in the cupboard sees you falling foul of the infringement, i must have that wrong though.
I'm confused, where did the talk transform into Asetek suing AMD/Gigabyte?
A cease order is something completely different to suing for patent infringement, the suing is happening to CM whereas Gigabyte & AMD have been instructed by legal order to recall those products from their retailers and to remove them from sale... if however they refuse to follow the order then it'll likely turn into them being sued, at present there's no guarantee of further action.
There may be a follow up of a call for back payment for a portion of the profits on already sold cards to go to Asetek, but AMD & Gigabyte would likely also be within their rights to demand compensation from CM for the damages to their profits.
Read the bit about s.60 in that. It used to be divided up into sections, but not any longer. Starts on p.532.
The legal system; Screwing you over without you even knowing about it!
That's about as clear as mud.
Have i read it right that, in this case, AMD would be using the 'process' that Asetek holds/has a patent on?
Holy ****, you've got to be bored to bother sifting through stuff like that...
Or, it's just stuff you have to know if you practice in that profession.
the cooler used in the furyx - according to coolermaster , is sufficiently different than the asetek design that its non infringing
Separate names with a comma.