Mindef rejects claims it stole idea for mobile first-aid vehicle

hahaha....all the high emotions and as usual the empty vessel making the most noise...
in this case, it is quite obvious that Dr Ting was ill advised to sue Mindef....
he should have sued the vendor and the reason he gave for not doing so was that the vendor would have referred the matter to Mindef...
what logic is this???

Mindef would normally only specifies the Specific operational and technical requirements.....
it is left to the vendors to propose the design to meet the requirements.....
also it is standard clause in the contract that puts the onus on the vendor to do due dilligence ensure that no IPR is infringed....

Putting aside the matter whether there is a valid registered patent (which is puzzling to me as I thought this can be verified easily),
Dr Ting has no case against Mindef unless he can proved that Mindef provided the detailed design that resulted in Syntech making a product that is
identical to the one he patented.....I doubt this is case and he would have been better off suing the Syntech instead of Mindef if he thinks he has a case...

Papsmearer said:

PAP want to turn SIngapore into the intellectual property Law hub of Asia. What a joke. Govt agencies infringing on patents. Not the first time. HDB also sued one inventor for his clothe hanging rack design.

Click to expand...

Singapore wants to attract top researchers and Nobel laureate but with this type of mafia-like behavior and a controlled media
they will never set soil here.

NUS will always be in the dumps with second rate and third rate researchers and rejects.

Those who can make it elsewhere will give Singapore a miss.

kukubird59 said:

hahaha....all the high emotions and as usual the empty vessel making the most noise...
in this case, it is quite obvious that Dr Ting was ill advised to sue Mindef....
he should have sued the vendor and the reason he gave for not doing so was that the vendor would have referred the matter to Mindef...
what logic is this???

Mindef would normally only specifies the Specific operational and technical requirements.....
it is left to the vendors to propose the design to meet the requirements.....
also it is standard clause in the contract that puts the onus on the vendor to do due dilligence ensure that no IPR is infringed....

Putting aside the matter whether there is a valid registered patent (which is puzzling to me as I thought this can be verified easily),
Dr Ting has no case against Mindef unless he can proved that Mindef provided the detailed design that resulted in Syntech making a product that is
identical to the one he patented.....I doubt this is case and he would have been better off suing the Syntech instead of Mindef if he thinks he has a case...

Click to expand...

MINDEF gave the design they stole from Ting to the vendor to build for them, you moron. In any case, whether he sued the vendor or MINDEF, he will lose. MINDEF/PAP will never allow one of their vendors to lose such a lawsuit, because if they did, they might as well admit they bought illegal and plagiarize material from a vendor. Christ, u are shit stupid.

enterprise2 said:

Actually I don't see anything innovative or original about this. Why is there a patent in the first place?

Click to expand...

Steve Jobs can patent a staircase design.

Papsmearer said:

PAP want to turn SIngapore into the intellectual property Law hub of Asia. What a joke. Govt agencies infringing on patents. Not the first time. HDB also sued one inventor for his clothe hanging rack design.

Click to expand...

Get used to it. I would avoid sharing knowledge and innovative designs with local government agencies

Papsmearer said:

MINDEF gave the design they stole from Ting to the vendor to build for them, you moron. In any case, whether he sued the vendor or MINDEF, he will lose. MINDEF/PAP will never allow one of their vendors to lose such a lawsuit, because if they did, they might as well admit they bought illegal and plagiarize material from a vendor. Christ, u are shit stupid.

Click to expand...

double confirmed an empty vessel with no brain....
1. Mindef only issues tenders based on Specific Operational requirements and technical specifications.....
you are an idiot to to think that the Contract was signed based on detailed design stolen from Dr. Ting and provided by Mindef....
2. During implementation, someone may provide "confidential design details" (privately) to Syntech for guidance to speed up implementation; etc... the vendor is still legally responsible...not Mindef.....
3 knowing your low standard, next you will claim that there is hanky panky; etc; etc.....but contractually and hence legally, Syntech is responsible for any breach....period..and Mindef as an organisation would never have officially provided such information which the original vendor would have insisted on NDA protection in the first place..no need to talk about IPR....

Obviously you have never been involved in any major Mindef/Govt projects.....
worst is that you have no brain and cannot think but just, assumes, guess.....

let me tell you a simple point....
in all major projects, major systems/structural drawings have to be reviewed and "approved" by relevant officers....
however the vendor cannot use such approvals as excuse if their design and final products do not meet contractual requirements....period.

the whole matter would very much have been simplified if Dr. Ting had taken another approach.....going the way of breach of NDA.....
if he had not signed any Non Disclosure Agreement with Mindef (or potential customers) then he deserved to be screwed...

kukubird59 said:

double confirmed an empty vessel with no brain....
1. Mindef only issues tenders based on Specific Operational requirements and technical specifications.....
you are an idiot to to think that the Contract was signed based on detailed design stolen from Dr. Ting and provided by Mindef....
2. During implementation, someone may provide "confidential design details" (privately) to Syntech for guidance to speed up implementation; etc... the vendor is still legally responsible...not Mindef.....
3 knowing your low standard, next you will claim that there is hanky panky; etc; etc.....but contractually and hence legally, Syntech is responsible for any breach....period..and Mindef as an organisation would never have officially provided such information which the original vendor would have insisted on NDA protection in the first place..no need to talk about IPR....

Obviously you have never been involved in any major Mindef/Govt projects.....
worst is that you have no brain and cannot think but just, assumes, guess.....

let me tell you a simple point....
in all major projects, major systems/structural drawings have to be reviewed and "approved" by relevant officers....
however the vendor cannot use such approvals as excuse if their design and final products do not meet contractual requirements....period.

the whole matter would very much have been simplified if Dr. Ting had taken another approach.....going the way of breach of NDA.....
if he had not signed any Non Disclosure Agreement with Mindef (or potential customers) then he deserved to be screwed...

Click to expand...

You are the one with no brain..write so much crap for what? Are you from Mindef defending Mindef? Lots of words don't equate to having a brain.

Papsmearer's point is very simple. Who Dr Ting sues is immaterial, as long as it's linked to our esteemed govt, He will lose, 100%. I guess he already knew, and went for Mindef for maximum impact.

zeebjii said:

You are the one with no brain..write so much crap for what? Are you from Mindef defending Mindef? Lots of words don't equate to having a brain.

Papsmearer's point is very simple. Who Dr Ting sues is immaterial, as long as it's linked to our esteemed govt, He will lose, 100%. I guess he already knew, and went for Mindef for maximum impact.

Click to expand...

Kukushit is a simpleton. He thinks the Govt./tendering process is infallible. the NPARKS Brompton bicycle case already shows that a lot of behind the scene shit goes on. Let him go and do his research. I enjoy wasting his time. LOL.

Mindef replying to public queries through the ass....I expect much more from an ah neh Info Director in Mindef.....

Beat around the bush and talking rots..

https://www.facebook.com/cyberpioneer.connect/posts/10152548942076059

Walaoiieh..........Ah Ting got supporter making facepoop page leh....

https://www.facebook.com/groups/gahmenstealspatentfromgooddoctor/

Sinkie said:

Mindef replying to public queries through the ass....I expect much more from an ah neh Info Director in Mindef.....

Beat around the bush and talking rots..

https://www.facebook.com/cyberpioneer.connect/posts/10152548942076059

Click to expand...

Can someone with legal expertise comment on this? I am wondering if Mindef knew about the design and patent and yet knowingly wrote the tender based on this knowledge, would it not them who infringes and not the supplier? And how can the due diligence be past onto the supplier in this manner? I agree the clause may be in the contract, but as a primary user, they have to exercise due diligence and prove that they have taken "reasonable" steps.

Cerebral said:

Can someone with legal expertise comment on this? I am wondering if Mindef knew about the design and patent and yet knowingly wrote the tender based on this knowledge, would it not them who infringes and not the supplier? And how can the due diligence be past onto the supplier in this manner? I agree the clause may be in the contract, but as a primary user, they have to exercise due diligence and prove that they have taken "reasonable" steps.

Click to expand...

The clue is in the statement issued by this kekling MINDEF spokesman Col. Dinesh. He says that MINDEF requires all suppliers to issue a warranty of intellectual property rights for their product. Therefore, the winner of the bid, Syntech, must have given MINDEF such a warranty. How can they give it when Dr. Ting already has this patent for this product, issued by the singapore patent office around 2005? And in fact he has been filing patents since 2002 in total of 9 countries. Syntech was issued the contract in 2009. When Ting files his patent, Syntech hadn't even started the design work on the vehicle. I never once saw a comment by Syntech, I mean they are very much in the news and their reputation is at stake too. I have not seen them issue any statement showing their design and the date of registration of their patent.

Papsmearer said:

The clue is in the statement issued by this kekling MINDEF spokesman Col. Dinesh. He says that MINDEF requires all suppliers to issue a warranty of intellectual property rights for their product. Therefore, the winner of the bid, Syntech, must have given MINDEF such a warranty. How can they give it when Dr. Ting already has this patent for this product, issued by the singapore patent office around 2005? And in fact he has been filing patents since 2002 in total of 9 countries. Syntech was issued the contract in 2009. When Ting files his patent, Syntech hadn't even started the design work on the vehicle. I never once saw a comment by Syntech, I mean they are very much in the news and their reputation is at stake too. I have not seen them issue any statement showing their design and the date of registration of their patent.

Click to expand...

Why go into such a rabbit hole?

It's so obvious.

1. If Ting has no case against Mindef, the court will throw it out and this can be done at pre-trial or any time.

2. If Mindef has indemnity, it would just need to flash this indemnity to the court and the case has to be dismissed, as Ting would be poking wrong hole.

3. There is no such thing as Mindef fighting the case on behalf of Syntech unless there is a sinister relationship that requires Mindef to protect it at all cost, including paying for the legal fees.

4. In simple terms, Mindef just need to void the contract with Syntech and sort penalty from Syntech. Why get dragged into such a case, unless again, it is protecting Syntech, but if so, the question is ,why?

5. SCDF honors the patent? Is it because Mobilestats bidded directly and no other vendor bidded and Mobilestats won?

6. For the Mindef tender, did Mobilestats also bidded for the tender? If not, why not? If yes, why it did not win? Price? Specs? Relationship? etc

7. Patent can so easily invalidate one is it? The court must show cause and IPOS must give its reasons why it accepted this patent if it cannot be patented in the first place.

8. Ting should have also sued Syntech. Maybe he did. Mindef then would not be able to proceed if the supplier Syntech is mired in a court case, and Mindef Procurement, if it is worth its salt would void the contract and seek penalty from Syntech, instead of going ahead to fight the case on Syntech's behalf, because the indemnity itself would be sufficient to prevent Mindef from getting into such a legal tussle, and the court would have taken the cue and dismiss the case, as Ting would be poking the wrong hole here.

9. This whole thing smells like a rotten fish to me.

The designer should sell this design to ISIL or the Russians or the North Koreans.