ctenophore February 17, 2009 Share February 17, 2009 Care to explain how open source movement has radically changed the software world? It has commoditized software. I can get nearly every application necessary to run a business, both in source code and binary form, for free, and feature-complete enough for non-tech savvy users. You couldn't do that 10 years ago. Home users can get complete, useful and usable OSes and app stacks the same way. It has forced commercial vendors to compete with free products having unlimited distribution, so that only niche or very large vendors can successfully compete in the closed source license model. How many small software companies that make commodity applications can do this? They've all moved to service models or give their apps away with other products. There are a lot more software companies open-sourcing their formerly closed products than the reverse. Gaming is probably the one sector that doesn't apply, but even that is more media production than software these days. Licenses may be annoying to us as developers, but the end user doesn't care so that's a moot point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amay121 February 17, 2009 Share February 17, 2009 Sucks for PFO, especially since they put all their eggs into one basket with the whole LED deal. I don't even want to touch anything from PFO anymore since nothing will be warrantied. As for OpenSource, take a look at the web. Most of it is written/run on open source projects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Ward March 10, 2009 Share March 10, 2009 Looks like PFO has shut down. I was reading a discussion of it over on RC. User got an RMA, shipped back a broken product for repair ($160 shipping costs) and got it returned to him - delivery refused. PFO is no longer in business, and apprently the lawsuit holds water. They cite the patent as existing 2 years before PFO launched their LED fixture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanman March 10, 2009 Share March 10, 2009 I wonder if it's too late to patent Home Depot CFL usage as refugium lights.... This is one of those things I don't think a company should be able to control to that degree. It would be like a patent on 'computer software'. How can they possibly have a patent on ANY method of using LED's for lighting an aquarium? When someone comes out with Radiation Emitting Diodes - I need to build a light unit out of them, put it over a saltwater tank, and take pictures - just in case it becomes worth patenting?? bah... Excuse me while I go off and patent the idea of using cold compresses on foreheads to make people feel better. So if someone comes up with one that is fore-head shaped, I can sue them. bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kengar March 11, 2009 Share March 11, 2009 (edited) The patent is NOT that broad and is NOT going to prevent all LED lights over tanks (e.g., moonlights) as the sensationalistic post states. All claims require the LED's to put out light in specific wavelengths; a controller that controls the on/off status AND intensity of the LED's; and cooling system in the housing. Additionally, the claims require and open-topped habitat. Does that mean you don't infringe if the light system is put over a tank with a glass canopy closing the tank? If so, it can be said that PFO does not contributorily infringe by selling its system because the one that has to make the claimed COMBINATION is the end user, and there would then be substantial non-infringing use available. Also, the housing has to be connectable to the rim of the tank. Don't want to infringe? Fine, don't provide any features by means of which the housing sits on the edge of the tank and only configure it for suspended applications. Don't put a cooling system into the housing; tell the customer to put a fan on the side/back of the tank and blow air at it. H-E-double hockey sticks, the cooling system limitation was put in by amendment; they Festo'ed the snot out of themselves with that one. Why PFO would lay off people over this is a mystery; this one is a cake walk. Edited March 11, 2009 by Kengar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kengar March 11, 2009 Share March 11, 2009 Plus, frankly, the thought that the patent suit cause it is hard to fathom. The economy sucks, folks. People aren't spending on stuff like they used to, particularly unnecessary items like aquarium systems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanman March 11, 2009 Share March 11, 2009 The patent is NOT that broad and is NOT going to prevent all LED lights over tanks (e.g., moonlights) as the sensationalistic post states. All claims require the LED's to put out light in specific wavelengths; a controller that controls the on/off status AND intensity of the LED's; and cooling system in the housing. Additionally, the claims require and open-topped habitat. Does that mean you don't infringe if the light system is put over a tank with a glass canopy closing the tank? If so, it can be said that PFO does not contributorily infringe by selling its system because the one that has to make the claimed COMBINATION is the end user, and there would then be substantial non-infringing use available. Also, the housing has to be connectable to the rim of the tank. Don't want to infringe? Fine, don't provide any features by means of which the housing sits on the edge of the tank and only configure it for suspended applications. Don't put a cooling system into the housing; tell the customer to put a fan on the side/back of the tank and blow air at it. H-E-double hockey sticks, the cooling system limitation was put in by amendment; they Festo'ed the snot out of themselves with that one. Why PFO would lay off people over this is a mystery; this one is a cake walk. So you're saying if PFO took away on/off control from the timer in the light fixture, and put the timer 6" down the cord - there would be no lawsuit? Because on/off control (somewhere) and intensity/color controls HAVE to be part of the system. If it was that simple - even PFO wouldn't walk away. I realize they can't afford a huge court battle - but they could certainly afford to talk to a patent expert. Is anyone offering functional LED aquarium lights now? bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kengar March 11, 2009 Share March 11, 2009 So you're saying if PFO took away on/off control from the timer in the light fixture, and put the timer 6" down the cord - there would be no lawsuit? Because on/off control (somewhere) and intensity/color controls HAVE to be part of the system. If it was that simple - even PFO wouldn't walk away. I realize they can't afford a huge court battle - but they could certainly afford to talk to a patent expert. Is anyone offering functional LED aquarium lights now? bob On/off control yes, it's required, but maybe not intensity control. Certainly my moonlights are on/off only and don't require intensity control. My point is that not all led lighting will be precluded by the patent. Re other design-around solutions, I only took a quick look at the patent last night (way late) and would need to review it and its file history before opining. And regarding affording to talk to a patent attoreny, if PFO was so low on funds that a patent suit forced them to shut their doors, then they were in serious trouble to begin with. 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