Connect with us

Current Affairs

Mindef responds to allegations over patent rights

Published

on

swift vehicle

The Ministry of Defence has responded to allegations that it had infringed patent rights of the Station With Immediate First-Aid Treatment (SWIFT) vehicle.

Mindef’s statement, which was posted on its Cyberpioneer Facebook page on Tuesday:

Some of you may have come across online articles alleging that the mobile battalion casualty station (BCS) bought by MINDEF had infringed MobileStats Technologies’ (MobileStats) patent for its “Mobile First Aid Post”. On top of that, the articles suggest that MINDEF is forcing MobileStats to close down, so as take over the patent rights.

It sounds like a great story, but all these accusations are false and baseless. We spoke to MINDEF’s legal team to find out more, and decided to put out some facts so that you know the truth.

First, the false allegations of patent infringement are not new. Since 2011, the owner of MobileStats has repeatedly turned to the media to accuse MINDEF of infringing its patent. Second, these accusations have been deliberated by the High Court and found to be untrue. In January 2014, the Court declared the patent invalid and revoked it. The Court also found that MINDEF had not committed any Intellectual Property infringement. We are disappointed that the owner of MobileStats has disrespected the Court’s decision, and continues to make false and unsubstantiated accusations against MINDEF. MINDEF regards these allegations very seriously and is referring them to the Attorney-General’s Chambers for advice.

If you still have burning questions, read on.

#1 Did MINDEF infringe MobileStats’ patent and try to get away with it? 

The Court has considered all factors and ruled that the patent is invalid. MINDEF did not infringe any patent as you can’t infringe a patent that was never valid in the first place. MobileStats had patented an idea that has existed since the 1970s (just Google the “mobile medical unit” concept, or see http://youtu.be/evcI-KcZw5E). Just as there are many smartphone designs and manufacturers who do not infringe each other’s patents, there are also many ways to design and produce military equipment like the BCS. MINDEF respects Intellectual Property laws and honours patents that are valid. When there are disputes over the validity of patents, parties can bring the matter to court. Just as you can file patents to prevent unauthorised copying of your inventions, so can others challenge your patents if they do not involve new ideas. Most importantly, MINDEF is just a buyer, not the manufacturer. If MobileStats believes it has a valid case, it should pursue the matter with the manufacturer, not the user.

#2 Did MINDEF engage in unfair procurement practices?

The case was actually a commercial dispute between MobileStats Technologies and Syntech Engineers, which supplied the mobile BCS to MINDEF. As the manufacturer of the mobile BCS, the supplier, not the consumer, is responsible for honouring valid patents. MINDEF’s actions were correct and above board. All of MINDEF’s suppliers are required to uphold Intellectual Property laws and obtain the necessary licenses so that MINDEF is free to use the products that we have paid for. MINDEF simply wants the freedom to deploy our mobile BCS for training and operations and has no interest in acquiring MobileStats’ alleged patents. It is unclear why the owners of MobileStats chose to take legal actions against the consumer, instead of the manufacturer. Imagine if Apple sued Samsung handphone users – instead of Samsung Electronics – for allegedly infringing Apple’s Intellectual Property rights.

#3 Is MINDEF out to destroy MobileStats with the prolonged court case and the demand for the payment of $580K?

This is false. MINDEF did not initiate the legal action. It was MobileStats who inexplicably chose to sue MINDEF instead of the manufacturer. In defending ourselves, MINDEF’s conduct was in full compliance with court regulations and never found lacking.

$580K was the amount that the court decided MobileStats should reimburse MINDEF for our legal fees. Not a single cent will be kept by MINDEF. The money will go to Syntech, the BCS vendor, who honoured their legal obligation to MINDEF and bore the cost of the legal proceedings.

When legal actions are initiated against government agencies like MINDEF, these agencies need to respond. Public resources and monies are expended needlessly if such lawsuits are without merit. As a government organisation, MINDEF has a duty to protect our public monies. We regard such lawsuits taken against MINDEF with the utmost seriousness.

Continue Reading
52 Comments
Subscribe
Notify of
52 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

Ng Eng Hen: Dust clouds likely caused armoured vehicle collision during Exercise Wallaby

Dust clouds limiting visibility likely contributed to the collision between two Hunter vehicles during Exercise Wallaby, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen explained in his parliamentary reply. 12 servicemen sustained mild injuries, but safety measures prevented more serious outcomes. A formal investigation is ongoing to ensure further safety improvements.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: Low visibility caused by dust clouds was identified as the likely cause of the collision between two Hunter armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs) during Exercise Wallaby last month, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen said in a written parliamentary response on Tuesday (15 October).

The incident, which occurred in Queensland, Australia, on 24 September 2024, resulted in mild injuries to 12 servicemen.

Dr Ng’s statement was in response to a parliamentary question from Mr Dennis Tan, Workers’ Party Member of Parliament for Hougang SMC.

Mr Tan asked for details on the accident, specifically its cause and whether any lessons could be applied to enhance training and operational safety within the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF).

The collision took place during a night-time movement of Hunter AFVs at the Shoalwater Bay Training Area.

The vehicles were returning to base when one rear-ended another. Dr Ng explained that the dust clouds generated by the AFVs’ movement significantly impaired visibility, might likely contributing to the accident.

The 12 affected servicemen sustained mild injuries and were promptly taken to the nearest medical facility.

None of the injuries required hospitalisation, and all 12 servicemen were able to rejoin their units for training the next day.

According to the minister, adherence to safety protocols—such as wearing seat belts and protective gear—played a crucial role in limiting the injuries to mild ones.

Following the incident, a safety pause was immediately implemented, with all drivers being reminded to maintain proper safety distances, especially when visibility was compromised.

Troops were also reminded to adhere strictly to safety protocols, including the proper use of safety equipment, Dr Ng added.

The safety lessons from the incident were shared not only with the affected units but also with other participating groups in the exercise, as well as units back in Singapore, through dedicated safety briefings.

Mr Tan also asked about the broader implications of the incident. In his response, Dr Ng said that a formal investigation had been launched in accordance with SAF’s safety incident protocol.

The investigation aims to assess the circumstances more thoroughly and identify any further measures that could be taken to enhance safety.

Dr Ng shared that recommendations arising from the investigation will be implemented where necessary.

Exercise Wallaby is SAF’s largest unilateral overseas exercise, and the 2024 edition began on 8 September, running until 3 November.

The exercise involves approximately 6,200 personnel, including 500 operationally ready national servicemen.

The exercise has been conducted at Shoalwater Bay Training Area in Queensland since 1990, and it is a key part of SAF’s overseas training program.

The Hunter AFV, one of the vehicles involved in the collision, is a state-of-the-art platform jointly developed by the Defence Science and Technology Agency, the Singapore Army, and ST Engineering.

It replaced the SAF’s aging fleet of Ultra M113 AFVs in 2019, which had been in service since the 1970s. The Hunter is equipped with advanced features, including a 30mm cannon, a 76mm smoke grenade launcher, and an automatic target detection and

tracking system designed to enhance operational effectiveness. It is also capable of traveling at increased speeds and covering longer distances, making it a versatile asset for the SAF.

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Government to “carefully consider” Lee Hsien Yang’s demolition application for 38 Oxley Road

The Singapore Government will “carefully consider” Mr Lee Hsien Yang (LHY)’s application to demolish the house at 38 Oxley Road. LHY announced his intent on Tuesday morning following the recent death of his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, reaffirming his commitment to honour his parents’ wish for the house’s demolition.

Published

on

The Singapore Government has indicated that it will “carefully consider” Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s (LHY) application to demolish the family home at 38 Oxley Road.

LHY, the youngest son of Singapore’s founding Prime Minister, the late Lee Kuan Yew (LKY), announced his intention to apply for the demolition in a Facebook post on 15 October 2024, following the death of his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, on 9 October.

The announcement marks a significant development in the ongoing saga over the fate of the historically significant property, which has been at the heart of a family dispute since LKY’s passing in 2015.

In his will, executed in December 2013, LKY expressed his desire for the house to be demolished “immediately after” Dr Lee moved out of the property. Dr Lee, a prominent neurologist, had been the last remaining resident of the house.

LHY reaffirmed his commitment to carrying out his father’s wishes, stating, “After my sister’s passing, I am the only living executor of my father’s estate. It is my duty to carry out his wishes to the fullest extent of the law.”

He added that he would seek to build a small private dwelling on the site, which would be “held within the family in perpetuity”.

LHY also referenced his brother, Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (LHL) remarks in Parliament in 2015, when he was Prime Minister, stating that upon Dr Lee’s passing, the decision to demolish the house would rest with the “Government of the day.”

In response to media queries regarding LHY’s announcement, a spokesperson for the Ministry of National Development (MND) acknowledged the intended application and emphasised that the Government would “carefully consider issues related to the property in due course”.

The spokesperson also highlighted that any decision would need to balance LKY’s wishes, public interest, and the historical value of the house.

The house at 38 Oxley Road, where key decisions about Singapore’s path to independence were made, has been a focal point of public and political discussion.

The future of the house became contentious in 2017 when LHY and Dr Lee publicly accused their elder brother, LHL, of trying to preserve the house against their father’s wishes for political reasons.

LHL denied the accusations, issuing a Ministerial Statement in Parliament, where he also raised concerns over the preparation of their father’s final will. He clarified that he had recused himself from all decisions regarding the property and affirmed that any government action would be impartial.

In 2018, a “secret” ministerial committee, which was formed in 2016 to study the future of 38 Oxley Road, proposed three options: preserving the property and designating it as a national monument, partially demolishing the house while retaining the historically significant basement dining room, or allowing complete demolition for redevelopment. LHL accepted the committee’s conclusions but stated that no immediate decision was necessary, as Dr Lee was still living in the house.

In a statement conveyed by LHY on behalf of Dr Lee after her passing, she reiterated her strong support for her father’s wish to demolish the house. “My father, Lee Kuan Yew, and my mother, Kwa Geok Choo, had an unwavering and deeply felt wish for their house at 38 Oxley Road to be demolished upon the last parent’s death,” the statement read.

She added, “He had also appealed directly to the people of Singapore. Please honour my father by honouring his wish for his home to be demolished.”

Despite selling the house to LHY at market value in 2015, LHL’s stance regarding the house’s preservation became a public issue, especially after the family disclosed that the Government had raised concerns about reinstating the demolition clause in the 2013 will. The ministerial committee had reviewed the matter, but a final decision was deferred until now.

The fate of 38 Oxley Road remains to be seen, but the Government’s decision will likely have lasting implications for the legacy of the Lee family and the conservation of Singapore’s historical landmarks.

Continue Reading

Trending