Is there a way to check for patent infringment for free, when selling on Amazon? I have a listing of a chinese wireless charger, compatible with the new iPhones. How can i know, whether the product infringes Apple's patents without hiring a lawyer (which would be more expensive than the whole operation).
Amazon and most similar vendors (e.g. Wal-Mart) requires vendors to warrant to them that the products sold do not violate intellectual property laws and indemnifying Amazon for any harm it suffers if the representation is inaccurate. (I came to learn this in intellectual property litigation involving a Wal-Mart supplier and in separate patent infringement attorney malpractice litigation involving other vendors of different firms.) But it doesn't generally do any independent due diligence to confirm that these representations are true. As a practical matter, determining if something infringes any existing patent is a non-trivial matter, and even in cases where patent infringement lawsuits are brought by lawyers in court who have done due diligence, the validity of the patent is upheld in only about 50% of the cases that go to trial. The basic problem is that there is no definitive way to index patents that isn't vulnerable to an invention which is infringed being described in a different way than you are conceptualizing it for your search. Generally speaking, simply buying a patent infringing good as an end user in the good faith belief that it is not infringing is not a violation of patent law or actionable, and the knowledge that large firms require representations with legal consequences from their vendors probably suffices to show good faith. But if you plan to use the purchased good in some product that will be resold to others that incorporates it, that might be an infringement. If you are a prospective vendor, there are firms that specifically do patent searchers to determine if there is an infringement, but they aren't cheap. Typically the fee would start at $5,000-$10,000 and go up from there, and typically that is for a non-guaranteed search. An opinion letter from a patent practitioner would be necessary to be really sure (assuming that the patent practitioner or non-patent practitioner search doesn't find a clear infringement which could happen quickly and be cheap by comparison) and that would be much more expensive, maybe $25,000-$100,000, if it wasn't a particularly close case. On the other hand, if what you are primarily concerned about is the design of the bit that plugs into the Apple product, rather than all aspects of the product, it is a relatively trivial matter to determine if the connector involves an industry standard which is either in the public domain or widely available for license at a modest price for manufacturers, in which Apple does not itself claim a patent, or a proprietary design, in which Apple claims rights. USB-C connections, for example, are an industry standard connector, discussed here, which would give you some further leads. In contrast, earlier Apple-promoted (and developed) Lightning and MagSafe connectors, are proprietary connectors, which would potentially be infringing and would require more analysis.
Patents are not that relevant in this case. Software patents are unenforceable in most parts of the world anyway. What matters here is copyright. Every work contract has a clause that everything an employee creates as part of their employment is copyrighted by the company. So using company-owned code to build an own project would be a copyright violation. There are also other legal tools in some jurisdiction which can be used against employees trying to misuse intellectual company property. But that's a topic for Law Stackexchange. Also, this isn't really related to a BYOD policy. Being able to bring your own device to work and then back home might make data theft more convenient, but isn't required. There are many other ways to steal sourcecode, like USB drives or uploading them to the internet. To prevent the first you would have to design your software development offices like a supermax prison facility with meter-high walls (so nobody can throw a device over it) and strip searches on everyone leaving the building. This is neither feasible nor reasonable for anything below matters of national security. To prevent the second, you would have to completely prevent internet access from developer workstations, which would greatly impede the productivity of any software developer. So most companies do not even try to physically prevent employees from stealing sourcecode. They rather rely on the legal safeguards and on maintaining a mutual trust relationship with their employees. It might seem counter-intuitive to some, but when you do not treat your employees like potential criminals they are in fact less likely to betray you.
To answer the specific questions you asked: Can I use the publication to perform ECC without being under patent protection? Can an academic publication be under patent protection? The answers are: No, that academic paper does not provide any protection from patent litigation. Yes, an academic paper can publish the details of an invention, and that in no way voids the patent. The issue is the timing of the publication; the patent was filed in 1998; the academic paper was published in 2002. Once a patent is filed, the inventors (or anyone else, for that matter) can publish the patent, and that in no way invalidates the patent. To provide any protection against a patent, the prior art needs to be "prior", that is, earlier than the filing date of the patent. Now, this particular issue is made a bit tricky because there does appear to be prior citations of this invention. The whole reason this invention is called the "Montgomery ladder" (not Montgomery multiplication - that's something else) was because it was first published by Peter Montgomery in 1987. One would think that would invalidate the patent. However, I'm not an attorney; I cannot advise you to proceed under that assumption. Instead, I would suggest you follow the advice of Joao; there are plenty of elliptic curve routines out there; use one of them.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office has a relevant document. As mentioned in the referenced document, the inventor must set forth the best variant of the invention, which would explain using the words "preferably" and "advantageously". But the inventor doesn't want to let someone evade the patent by building a version that isn't the best, but is still better than what was known before the patent was published. So some features are described as "optional", meaning both the invention with the optional feature, and the invention without the optional feature, are covered by the patent.
Anyone seriously planning on doing this or anything like it would be well advised to consult a good trademark lawyer with the specifics. Specifics will matter in such a case. That said: Under US trademark law, the key question is whether a reasonable person would be confused into assuming that there is some connection, and that the new firm could be relied on based on the reputation of the old one. if so, this is a trademark infringement unless permission is obtained from the trademark holder (not likely to be granted). Since "orbitz" is a coined term its protection is stronger, there is no natural object or concept this can refer to. "AppleMoving" is less likely to be confused with "Apple Computers" because apples are real things and need not refer to computers. The likelihood of confusion depends on the specific facts of an individual case. Note also that trademark protection is a matter of private civil lawsuits. If orbitz didn't choose to sue for whatever reason, nothing would have stopped OrbitzMoving.
The audio book would probably be an infringing derivative work because the client could redistribute it once the client received it. It sounds very much like a product that is regularly sold by merchants relying on copyrights. Conceivably, simply reading a book aloud to a client in some sort of streaming context that could't be shared with others or replayed would merely be fair use, much like hiring a baby sitter to read a book aloud to your children would be clearly fair use. If there were an automatic text to sound converter as opposed to an individualized performance, it might not be considered infringing. There are people with programs that do this who haven't been sued, but the boundaries haven't been explored very thoroughly. Honestly, there isn't a lot of guidance in this area from statutory language, and the questions would often not be guided by much case law involving similar facts. Your intuition living in the modern world is probably almost as good as a lawyer's in this situation.
What would be the most reasonable thing to do? Live with it. Oh, and stop breaking the law with your automated emails. Illegality on their part does not justify illegality on your part. Also, it’s likely that this activity has caused your email address to be blocked automatically which may explain why they aren’t contacting you. From a legal point of view, that’s the only reasonable option. You do have valid grounds for a lawsuit for the value of the watermelon but the cost of filing will be a couple of orders of magnitude greater than the value of the melon so doing so isn’t “reasonable”. If you want to vent, the internet offers a wide variety of social media platforms for which that seems to be their primary focus. But that’s got nothing to do with the law.
Update (12/2/16) - Just received the following confirmation from Apple Export Compliance: The [redacted] app presently uploaded into your account CAN BE legally released to US and Canada only, it will not be necessary to go through Export Regulations. They have also rephrased the question "Does your app qualify for any of the exemptions...?" to the following: Does your app meet any of the following: (a) Qualifies for one or more exemptions provided under category 5 part 2, (b) Use of encryption is limited to encryption within the operating system (iOS or macOS), (c) Only makes call(s) over HTTPS, (d) App is made available only in the U.S. and/or Canada. Update (12/1/16) - In addition to the research below, a list of "Sample Scenarios" are given in iTunes Connect Resources and Help, one of which states: A developer chooses to release his app in the U.S. and Canada only. -- No U.S. CCATS or ERN is required. No France Import Declaration is required. The following statement (mentioned earlier in the same page) should also be taken into consideration regarding exemptions: All liabilities associated with misinterpretation of the export regulations or claiming exemption inaccurately are borne by owners and developers of the apps. So it appears the correct answer is likely not: N.B. to Note 3 (Cryptography Note): You must submit a classification request or self classification report to BIS for mass market encryption commodities and software eligible for the Cryptography Note employing a key length greater than 64 bits for the symmetric algorithm ... in accordance with the requirements of § 740.17(b) of the EAR in order to be released from the “EI” and “NS” controls of ECCN 5A002 or 5D002. Furthermore, under Note 4: Category 5 - Part 2 does not apply to items incorporating or using "cryptography" and meeting all of the following: a. The primary function or set of functions is not any of the following: “Information security”; A computer, including operating systems, parts and components therefor; Sending, receiving or storing information (except in support of entertainment, mass commercial broadcasts, digital rights management or medical records management); or Networking (includes operation, administration, management and provisioning); b. The cryptographic functionality is limited to supporting their primary function or set of functions; and c. When necessary, details of the items are accessible and will be provided, upon request, to the appropriate authority in the exporter's country in order to ascertain compliance with conditions described in paragraphs a. and b. above. I suppose there could be clarification under this note, but if I understand it correctly, an iOS app having the sole purpose of performing symmetric encryption with keys greater than 56 bits would have the primary function of: "Information security" Being "a computer" Barring clarification on these points that would qualify for exemption, NLR, etc. self-classification would likely be [any of the following]: 5D002.a.1.a (software) - Designed or modified to use "cryptography" employing digital techniques performing any cryptographic function other than authentication, digital signature, or execution of copy-protected "software," and having ... A "symmetric algorithm" employing a key length in excess of 56-bits Encryption registration may have also been required prior to September 20, 2016 (see linked reference). "Companies no longer are required to submit an encryption registration to BIS before self-classifying and exporting certain encryption items..." (Wiley Rein LLP) References: Commerce Control List: Category 5 Part 2 (Cryptographic "Information Security") - BIS Export Compliance - f5 License Exception ENC (740.17) - BIS Information Security Updates (September 20, 2016) BIS Publishes New Encryption Rule - Wiley Rein LLP