Ken February 4, 2009 Share February 4, 2009 Please read and see what is happening to ALL LED lighting for our aquariums. If this goes through, it may even effect the use of moon lights on our tanks. http://www.reefbuilders.com/2009/02/03/big...leds/#more-4332 Ken Jordan Vice President www.smmas.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason the filter freak February 4, 2009 Share February 4, 2009 (edited) hmmm, gotta read this they said bottom feeding patent trolls, if this is real it's not good. Edited February 4, 2009 by jason the filter freak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctenophore February 4, 2009 Share February 4, 2009 I saw this on RDO. Hopefully it will get invalidated with prior art. I've got to believe that someone was messing around with LEDs over a fishtank before mid 2004. Hope PFO has a good patent litigator. I could recommend them my wife's firm but then a Solaris would cost twice what it does now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason the filter freak February 4, 2009 Share February 4, 2009 Not that it is the tell all end all but the patent is on google and the lawsuit looks real enough, any one else heard about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Origami February 4, 2009 Share February 4, 2009 According to PFO's website, they've been working on using LED's for aquarium lighting since 2002, which is a full 2 years before Orbitec filed their patent claims. If, in fact, this is true and PFO can prove it, they may have a chance of having that patent invalidated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctenophore February 4, 2009 Share February 4, 2009 Wow, looking at the patent and then this, it seems pretty clear that there is obvious prior art. How a prosecution attorney could have missed this is crazy. I would guess that borders on malpractice from what little I know of the process. There are stiff fines and penalties for that. Maybe one of the patent attorneys could chime in here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hilary February 4, 2009 Share February 4, 2009 It sounded to me like PFO wasn't that interested in fighting over it. Better buy those LEDs before the price goes up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gatortailale February 4, 2009 Share February 4, 2009 A prodecurtor would have nothing to do with this complaint. This is a civil matter with orbitec attorneys filing suit against pfo. Looking at the docket, PFO has been fighting it as there are 80+ docket entries. Most of the filings have been filed under seal so that trade secrets are not revealed. Since the original filing of the complaint, it looks like Orbitec amended their complaint and they are now fighting over motions for summary judgment. Looks like some well know aquarists in the lighing field have had their depositions taken. Last docket entry was on 1/30/09. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason the filter freak February 4, 2009 Share February 4, 2009 They ORBITECH has a statement http://www.orbitec.com/LEDaquarium.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanman February 4, 2009 Share February 4, 2009 Thanks, Jason! It will be interesting to see the outcome - but there must be 50 ways to use/control those lights. I wonder just how 'broad-based' their patent really is. bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve G February 4, 2009 Share February 4, 2009 just following along... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coral Hind February 4, 2009 Share February 4, 2009 (edited) I started to build one back in 2002 out of LED's from emergency lights but at the time the only ones I could get a hold of were of the wrong kelvin rating. Too bad I didn't get a patent back then. Here is an old thread on the WAMAS board from 2/19/03 that Aquariareview started. Back when my screen name was Prevyet. Like most of the old threads it is not in order. Edited February 4, 2009 by Coral Hind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctenophore February 5, 2009 Share February 5, 2009 A prodecurtor would have nothing to do with this complaint. This is a civil matter with orbitec attorneys filing suit against pfo. Looking at the docket, PFO has been fighting it as there are 80+ docket entries. Most of the filings have been filed under seal so that trade secrets are not revealed. Since the original filing of the complaint, it looks like Orbitec amended their complaint and they are now fighting over motions for summary judgment. Looks like some well know aquarists in the lighing field have had their depositions taken. Last docket entry was on 1/30/09. I assume you meant to type prosecutor. I mean patent prosecutor, as in the attorney writing the patent and submitting it to the patent office. From what I have gleaned from listening to my wife talk about her job, you can get in big trouble for writing a patent and claiming no prior art, when a simple google search turns up stuff in the top ten hits. The inventor can get you for malpractice and the PTO can get you for lying to them and making their job harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeltwayBandit February 5, 2009 Share February 5, 2009 Thanks, Jason! It will be interesting to see the outcome - but there must be 50 ways to use/control those lights. I wonder just how 'broad-based' their patent really is. bob I read the patent.. Its pretty broad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeltwayBandit February 5, 2009 Share February 5, 2009 hmmm, gotta read this they said bottom feeding patent trolls, if this is real it's not good. Technically these guys aren't patent trolls. A patent troll is someone who merely holds patents with no intent to ever use them, only sue people for infringement. These guys are in the LED business, the letter from the president states an intent to get into the market. They aren't trolls... Now if you want to talk about prior art... then we can have a productive discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Ward February 5, 2009 Share February 5, 2009 Now if you want to talk about prior art... then we can have a productive discussion. Keep reading Craig .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeltwayBandit February 5, 2009 Share February 5, 2009 Keep reading Craig .... I've got the bar exam in 20 days.... I'm doing a lot of reading..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveoutlaw February 5, 2009 Share February 5, 2009 I didn't think that you could patent an idea, but that it had to be a specific design. Is the Solaris product a mimic of their apollo product? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsedlack February 5, 2009 Share February 5, 2009 There was a guy who had a very rough idea of bar codes - little more than a conce3pt, and he was able to extort $$ from many businesses that found it cheaper to pay him than fight the case Here is an interesting read Linky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rioreef February 5, 2009 Share February 5, 2009 Couldn't they market fixtures as for freshwater systems, as the patent specifically states MARINE. Theirs no law as to the type of bulbs you could put over a freshwater system? The LEDs would be that what we desire for marine systems, just the packaging states for freshwater use. Just a random no law experience thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Ward February 5, 2009 Share February 5, 2009 I didn't think that you could patent an idea, but that it had to be a specific design. Is the Solaris product a mimic of their apollo product? Not really, Microsoft submitted a patent request for a "To-Do list" feature they integrated into their development environment (Visual C++). And no, there's nothing magic about it. It's just a To-Do list. The patent system is a joke and is being abused. Patent attorneys charge a ton and are few and far between, so it ends up that big companies submit patents for everything they can think of and then extort money from anyone that can't afford to fight it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctenophore February 5, 2009 Share February 5, 2009 Not really, Microsoft submitted a patent request for a "To-Do list" feature they integrated into their development environment (Visual C++). And no, there's nothing magic about it. It's just a To-Do list. The patent system is a joke and is being abused. Patent attorneys charge a ton and are few and far between, so it ends up that big companies submit patents for everything they can think of and then extort money from anyone that can't afford to fight it. Except in the software world, we have open source & Free software. I haven't heard of Microsoft, or any other company for that matter, successfully take down an open source project (think Eclipse foundation here) that "infringes" one of their ridiculous software patents. In the next few decades we will see the rise of home fab machines capable of making nearly any device imaginable on-demand; this technology will go hand-in-hand with the open source movement that has radically changed the software world. IP law as we know it is in for a big change I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanCallan February 16, 2009 Share February 16, 2009 Except in the software world, we have open source & Free software. I haven't heard of Microsoft, or any other company for that matter, successfully take down an open source project (think Eclipse foundation here) that "infringes" one of their ridiculous software patents. In the next few decades we will see the rise of home fab machines capable of making nearly any device imaginable on-demand; this technology will go hand-in-hand with the open source movement that has radically changed the software world. IP law as we know it is in for a big change I think. Eclipse is an IBM project. IBM files more patents in a year than EVERYONE else combined. No country, company, or person comes close. That being said, Microsoft doesn't go after those projects because IBM doesn't go after Microsoft. It's an unspoken agreement. IBM is a fantastic company to have patents, they rarely go after anyone. When Amazon decided to start suing internet businesses for using "1 click" check out, IBM threatened to sue them on 9 different patents. Amazon withdrew their lawsuits and IBM did the same. There have been a few open source projects to be closed down for patent infringement, but there are so many open source projects they just simply go under and no one notices. Since they don't sell the products you can't sue them for monetary gain, but you can force them to close the project. Care to explain how open source movement has radically changed the software world? I'm a huge fan and I contribute to nearly 10 different projects, I represent my corporation on 2 open source projects. But I'd never say it's radically changed software. Surely the 10 different licenses out there that aren't compatible with one another hasn't radically changed the software world? Those licenses have only slowed down certain advancements and technologies and resulted in tons of legal threats. There are a number of successful projects but beyond them the term Open Source is horribly misused. Open source is great, but it is never truly open source with the licenses they have attached to these projects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanman February 16, 2009 Share February 16, 2009 Open source... true open source used to happen. I would sit down and write a program for calculating bowling league scores and averages, and printing out a sheet each week with all of the information. If the league secretary of the Wednesday night league liked what she saw - I gave her a copy of my program on a 5.25" floppy. And she could do whatever she wanted with it. Along with open distribution came 'no support'. I had no responsibilities for updating or maintaining her program. I didn't use dbase to store numbers... I didn't use excel to format them... I pulled the numbers into an array, pushed it out to a file on disk - and used nobody's software or ideas but my own. And then gave it away. bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeltwayBandit February 17, 2009 Share February 17, 2009 I didn't think that you could patent an idea, but that it had to be a specific design. Is the Solaris product a mimic of their apollo product? Section 101 of the patent code states 4 broad categories of patentable material: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now