University of California Sues Walmart, Ikea Over LED Bulbs
 

If I am reading this correctly they are suing the retailers because they are selling a product that supposedly uses U of C developed tech.

Why is the retailer responsible? Do we require retailers to verify technology used in each product sold? Shouldn't they be after the manufacturer? They claim it would be too much trouble to track all the foreign manufacturers down.

This sounds so wrong.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/walmart-ikea-sued-university-california-183525479.html

(Bloomberg) -- The University of California is looking to halt imports of vintage-style LED light bulbs that are sold at five of the nation’s biggest retailers, including Walmart Inc., Target Corp. and Amazon.com Inc.

The University of California Santa Barbara says the retailers should be paying it royalties from sales of the bulbs. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. and Ikea of Sweden AB also were named in the complaint filed Tuesday with the U.S. International Trade Commission in Washington and in civil suits in federal court in Los Angeles.

The energy-efficient light bulbs are designed to imitate the iconic look of the ones developed by Thomas A. Edison, who invented the first mass-marketed incandescent bulb. The dangling Edison bulbs, with their old-fashioned look, glowing filaments and sepia tones, are popular at American restaurants and with modern home designers.

Typical LEDs use opaque glass that hide the structure inside the bulb. Researchers at UC Santa Barbara’s Solid State Lighting and Energy Electronics Center said they developed technology that would allow for an exposed filament that disperses light in all directions.

Seth Levy, the Nixon Peabody lawyer representing the university, said the school had approached some of the retailers to seek a license and was rebuffed. The bulbs are all made overseas by a large number of manufacturers, so suing the sellers is more efficient than trying to track them all down.

well, they went to them first so no need for them to verify

often the legal strategy is the same as a quote used by some guys in the 82nd Airborne & others:

“sue them all and let the judge sort it out.”

They're probably right. Everyone who profits from the theft of IP is responsible. The retailers are the most visible and easily accessible. Shut them down and you shut down the whole illegal enterprise.

China...

But wait, if we go after this unfair practice, won't that Hurt the American Consumer^TM (gti - green text implied)

If University of Ca put up their banking details I'll pop a 20 cents in for the fantastic led bulbs I've been enjoying.

Too much partying by a bunch of dope smoking surfers...

Seems to me if someone is importing stolen goods, you can go after the importer?

Cease-and-desist might apply perhaps, but certainly not patent infringement.

The sellers are just a point of sale.
With millions of products on the market, how are they expected to know every facet and nuance of every single product?

The DMCA law is spilling over into other sectors: Automotive Right to Repair, hosting liability, etc.

I agree. Go after the companies that have actually stolen the technology. I don't want this to be taken as political but one of the key points on trade with China is blatant technology theft. This seems to be an example.

The bulbs are pretty cool so I just hope the lawsuit doesn't force them off the market while they figure it out.

they are the BIG GUYS in retail

with buyers who contract directly with the china technology theft
may even demand the spec that the U has the rights patented
so I bet they ARE THE IMPORTER or use an owned shell corp to do it

so why not sue them

Walmart = Deep Pockets.

That's all.

So a US tax-payer funded school wants money from US entities for selling product in the US with technology knocked-off in China.

Do I have that right? ...seems like double dipping.

Now if they were to go after sales in other countries...

Lets change this up a bit.

Lets say someone is importing fake Ferrari's made in China.

Surely Ferrari has the legal right to go after the fake Ferrari dealer network in the U.S.?

I'm sure the UC lawyers sent cease and desist to the retailers who promptly ignored them. So this is the next step.

Yes but that's a different point. If Ferrari was subsidized by the Italians then that would be my point. (Italy would go after other countries)

If Ferrari was subsidized by the Italians, and China was selling Ferrari tech around the world, then going after Italians (who all benefit from their tech investment) is a bit twisted. They should go after those who put nothing into the tech.

Right, we fund schools so that we benefit as a society. People of California should get the tech for royalty free, and if the school takes Federal money, then the whole US should benefit.

I'll add that with patents the holder can't really claim they are owed a bunch of money because X-number of units sold (at a low price) and that the tech is worth Y-dollars, and therefore X times Y = Bazilion in damages. .. well, they do claim that math, and courts typically say, ah, no. You are vastly over-estimating how many units would be sold would the product have been tagged with that higher price.

Which brings up another Q. The reseller is responsible for how much of that? Certainly the manufacturer carries the biggest burden. oh wait, they are in China. That is too much work for lawyers... so sue everyone stateside. :rolleyes: for a patent held by a publicly funded school.

Ferrari would have the legal right to go after the fake Ferrari dealer network in the U.S. because they are both representing themselves as another US registered company in name and logos etc and selling a counterfeit product based solely on that.

That is an excellent point. And quite the hypothetical question. There are many LED products now commonly sold, so what would be the value of an expensive type used perhaps only in specific circumstances. I don't have the answer for that.

I do think a cease-and-desist should probably apply though when challenged in courts that specialize or are knowledgeable in IP case law.
Plant and software have more recently been at the top of the contested list.

The bulb infringement might be completely different. Maybe this will bring new law or legislation into effect?

I'm assuming there was a patent issued to UC previously, okay, but they are demanding the reseller cease based on their own self-interpretation of protected rights and their own definition of patent infringement....not any kind of previous court judgement. Since I've been making check marks on school papers long before Nike was a company can I now demand Walmart stop selling them?

I'm also assuming they have not sued the Chinese company and gotten a judgement yet.....which would normally be the first step.