Replies to post #64473 on MMRGlobal, Inc. (fka MMRF)

[EsqInvestor]

It's up to the respondent to prove they aren't in violation - that's the bottom line.

Okay, no. That's not the way it works. Patent infringement must be proved by the patent owner. It's not a criminal burden (i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt), but a civil burden (i.e., more likely than not).

If they decide to put responding off (their right) they can sometimes meet an unfortunate ends with fines and restitution to make the IP/patent holder whole which can be big $$$ depending on the level and scale of infringement.

Um, no? Damages must be proved too. There's no statutory damages (unlike copyright law). There are no "fines" and there is no guarantee of "restitution." The type and scope of damages need to be proved by the patent holder.

There is potential for willful infringement once a party is on notice which can result in treble (i.e., triple) damages. However, that's become a pretty steep burden to prove: knowledge of an patent and recklessness with regard to the patent rights. This, however, can be defeated with a reasonable invalidity or non-infringement position.

Of course the other avenue is to prove the patent shouldn't have been issued by filing a claim with the USPTO for a review.

Not a requirement to invalidate a patent. Invalidity under 35 USC Secs. 101, 102, 112 are all defenses to patent infringement.

[croptop]

There are many so called inventors out there who like to play pretend data geniuses or technologist's when really they are just trying to be the first to describe a pre-2000 real world method (its called identifying available real estate) in context of computer systems, or networks (get my meaning?)
You can bet your boots there is going to be some big haggling with prior art for obviousness, validity, enforcement with the claims..
The status of who is guilty or innocent of patent infringement really matters not when litigating the claims....IMO.
I have yet to see a federal Judge order a preliminary injunction because of public interest, SO, just a defendant raising the issue of validity can cause a plaintiff mucho money and time. Did MMRF ask for a preliminary?
IMO, if the way data is transmitted has not changed, but the information has, or named like medical, legal, pets etc., whatever, your right back to just adding some features...(doesn't make a patent) Maybe Bell (from the grave) should file lawsuit for inventing modulation?
Why hasn't MMRF "product" made huge sales? Plenty of publicity, so where is the revenue from such a great product?????
Throwing around a funny quote that actually means the opposite will not help sales, maybe just the ego...

Time is on our side, tick tock, dilution, tick tock dilution, tick tock, dilution...