Goodbye to LED lighting
- Thread starter nano mania
- Start date
Yeah...uh - I think "the big G" has an exemption to the patent laws, so you should be good there.
Last I checked, he handed us 10 basic laws ( actually there were 613 for those that understand), and - well... we have have not been able to do so good by them <G>.....
T
Last I checked, he handed us 10 basic laws ( actually there were 613 for those that understand), and - well... we have have not been able to do so good by them <G>.....
T
luther1200
Premium Member
Yes, it said it was mainly about the ability to change wavelenths and intensities without changing bulbs. So the device that controls that, I believe is the issue.
The senate takes a shot at patent reform... again... What do you all think?
http://www.itworld.com/government/63666/us-lawmakers-take-another-shot-patent-reform
http://www.itworld.com/government/63666/us-lawmakers-take-another-shot-patent-reform
The Grim Reefer
Ready for some NOBALL!!!
I think it sucks. The government shouldn't be involved in setting royalty fees. They didn't create the product, how would they know the value of the royalty rights? Besides do you want the same morons who built a 2 million dollar outhouse getting involved in your business.
2 billion dollar outhouse??? You need to pass some of that around <G>!
Here a brain teaser: Try to put yourself in the shoes of Orbitec. Think about it for a while. Seriously, I am not defending them - I am saying that WE do not know all of the facts. And we will not know them until after the hearing.....
Real easy to jump on any bandwagon until we know all the facts.
Hell this thread alone has turned into an uban legend (READ: myth) filled adventure.
It is not one issue. It is not a broad and generalized patent....Watch and see..........
T
Here a brain teaser: Try to put yourself in the shoes of Orbitec. Think about it for a while. Seriously, I am not defending them - I am saying that WE do not know all of the facts. And we will not know them until after the hearing.....
Real easy to jump on any bandwagon until we know all the facts.
Hell this thread alone has turned into an uban legend (READ: myth) filled adventure.
It is not one issue. It is not a broad and generalized patent....Watch and see..........
T
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.
Which "sensationalistic" ( is that really a word?) post? Take your pick, we have a wide variety and our selection is deep.....Looks like appropriate timing for PFO to shutter the place. I suspicion that the number of returns on LED units was very high, and perhaps high enough to drain the coffers... Perhaps Orbitec's action is as much good timing (for Orbitec) as it is bad descision after bad product for PFO.
Frankly, I am not familiar with the "cakewalk" defense - enlighten me would you? When one participant in the proceeding is flat broke - I figure even if they are innocent - they LOSE. Time and again, we all witness that "a man (or company) will recieve what justice they can afford". Sounds jaded? Nope just experienced. Not my first rodeo.
When PFO eliminated all of their product line to dedicate themselves to produce an LED light system - that was risky.
As for "Festo'ed"...I am not sure that this is about "the arguement/ equivication of equivalents" - or said more simply: What the definition of IS, is. (Thank you - Bill CLinton for further parsing the meaning of a 2 letter single syllable word that none of US would dare to argue <G>).
I am confident we will see more LED systems in the near future. I am just not confident they will continue to be made by American companies. Partially due to our patent system.
T
Frankly, I am not familiar with the "cakewalk" defense - enlighten me would you? When one participant in the proceeding is flat broke - I figure even if they are innocent - they LOSE. Time and again, we all witness that "a man (or company) will recieve what justice they can afford". Sounds jaded? Nope just experienced. Not my first rodeo.
When PFO eliminated all of their product line to dedicate themselves to produce an LED light system - that was risky.
As for "Festo'ed"...I am not sure that this is about "the arguement/ equivication of equivalents" - or said more simply: What the definition of IS, is. (Thank you - Bill CLinton for further parsing the meaning of a 2 letter single syllable word that none of US would dare to argue <G>).
I am confident we will see more LED systems in the near future. I am just not confident they will continue to be made by American companies. Partially due to our patent system.
T
I just read on another thread here that PFO's site is now down, and they've laid off all staff.
Such a sad situation. and I feel badly for their customers who are in need of assitance.
Such a sad situation. and I feel badly for their customers who are in need of assitance.
mcliffy2
New member
Nice to see another patent attorney here. I'm avoiding taking too much of a stance one way or another, but I actually think PFO's stronger arguments lie in invalidity. I think the arguments you make are valid, but there also are some strong counterarguments, especially if you look at the second independent claim, that doesn't require the aquarium. As to why they went out of business, I think they were already hurting financially -- the suit was not the only factor. I haven't heard officially that they've settled or declared bankruptcy yet, so I'm still holding out a small hope they are continuing to fight...I'd like to see how the case pans out as well.
wayne in norway
New member
Does the presence of similar technologies in a non LED fixture make a difference. If I get a T5 fixture with incanopy cooling that can sit on the sides of my opentopped tank does that have relevance in demonstrating they are hardly new idea. I can change the lighting colour by chaning bulbs.
It seems that it's LED's rather than tubes outputting the light is a rather minor detail compared to larger design features.
It seems that it's LED's rather than tubes outputting the light is a rather minor detail compared to larger design features.
The sensational posting I was referring to was a blog-type posting someone on the local aqaurium club had linked to. I simply cut and pasted my posting there over here; the sensationalist posting wasn't referring to anything here. Pardon the confusion.
Also, my post was very, very off the cuff/hasty and didn't explain things clearly (e.g., Festo) for others on the board.Re defenses, I agree with mcliffy2 that the claims very well may be invalid. I only took a very quick look at the independenst claims last night while taking a break from the Reply to Examiner's Answer from Hell I've been working on for the last 25-30 hours! Perhaps a run at reexamination would be in order! Also, you make the exact same point I was going to follow up with today: if a lawsuit in its beginning stages forced them to close shop, then they probably weren't in good financial shape to begin with.
I'll take a look more closely now at the patent, its file history, and prior art and see what stands out!
mcliffy2
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14586043#post14586043 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Kengar
The sensational posting I was referring to was a blog-type posting someone on the local aqaurium club had linked to. I simply cut and pasted my posting there over here; the sensationalist posting wasn't referring to anything here. Pardon the confusion.
Re defenses, I agree with mcliffy2 that the claims very well may be invalid. I only took a very quick look at the independenst claims last night while taking a break from the Reply to Examiner's Answer from Hell I've been working on for the last 25-30 hours! Perhaps a run at reexamination would be in order! Also, you make the exact same point I was going to follow up with today: if a lawsuit in its beginning stages forced them to close shop, then they probably weren't in good financial shape to begin with.
I'll take a look more closely now at the patent, its file history, and prior art and see what stands out!
Sent you a PM.
mcliffy2
New member
Here is an update to the state of the case, some of the details are starting to be revealed, including that PFO has retained Sanjay and Dana Riddle as expert witnesses on their behalf. More details, including Sanjay's deposition transcript here: http://glassbox-design.com/2009/update-from-the-led-legal-battle-pfo-still-fighting/
in their letter to the patent office they mention that leds are already being used for moon lighting as of the date of filing but not for growth. they also mention that there are 2 types of lighting at the time of filing 1 type ( quote . these systems use fluorescent,incandescent,or metal halide light sources, which provide low intensity light with high radiant heat output. ) end quote. and the other type is for decorative lighting , including leds. well it seems to me they may have been trying to mislead the over worked patent office into thinking their system was better(more light output) than the systems already on the market at the time of patent issue and that the existing system was inadequate for the growth of the marine organism .
it seems that they are also trying to patent the cooling of the leds , but i would think to that any one in the research field working with high out put leds at the time of filing would have been cooling them in some manner or other . thus pre use.
as for dimming i think that the moon lights of the day had dimming features. and they could be said to be for better growth of the marine organisms as it helped them with spawning thus completing the most important part of the life cycle (reproduction) . so it seems to me that every thing was already there at the time of filing and that all they did was grab all the ideas that were out at the time and put them into 1 unit and patent it .
it seems that they are also trying to patent the cooling of the leds , but i would think to that any one in the research field working with high out put leds at the time of filing would have been cooling them in some manner or other . thus pre use.
as for dimming i think that the moon lights of the day had dimming features. and they could be said to be for better growth of the marine organisms as it helped them with spawning thus completing the most important part of the life cycle (reproduction) . so it seems to me that every thing was already there at the time of filing and that all they did was grab all the ideas that were out at the time and put them into 1 unit and patent it .
Similar threads
