They patented the idea of using LED's in a tank-top mounted light fixture. Are there similar patents for fluorescent or MH based aquarium fixtures? (I don't know the answer...) If not, why not take it up a notch and patent the idea of using any electrically driven light source in a tank top mounted fixture to grow aquatic life? Unless they're patenting some unique technical aspect of the fixture, it's absurd. If they eventually brought a killer fixture to market it would be less so, but with such a loosely written patent, why would they waste money developing a fixture themselves, when they can legally take an easy skim off the profit of any other company that wants to sell LED fixtures in the US? Who do you imagine pays for that additional profit slice? -that's the true cost of our broken patent system.
Goodbye to LED lighting
- Thread starter nano mania
- Start date
They patented the idea of using LED's in a tank-top mounted light fixture. Are there similar patents for fluorescent or MH based aquarium fixtures? (I don't know the answer...) If not, why not take it up a notch and patent the idea of using any electrically driven light source in a tank top mounted fixture to grow aquatic life? Unless they're patenting some unique technical aspect of the fixture, it's absurd. If they eventually brought a killer fixture to market it would be less so, but with such a loosely written patent, why would they waste money developing a fixture themselves, when they can legally take an easy skim off the profit of any other company that wants to sell LED fixtures in the US? Who do you imagine pays for that additional profit slice? -that's the true cost of our broken patent system.
I think that the problem Isn't that they had an Idea then Someone stole it but they had such a vague idea then they have a monopoly on all LED aquarium light systems. like the last post said what if only 1 patent was needed to bar all companies from using halides? but you could say the halides you put your own bulb in so you cant patent someone elses bulb. with that said is it O.K. to make a power driver then sell m LED array separately to plug into your driver? Thats effectively what a halide or florescent fixture is and you cant vaguely patent halides. To me that would be the easy work around. sell a fixture that is just a driver for any use then sell "bulbs (arrays) for aquariums. therefore you would be selling LED "bulbs" not in the patent and you can't patent someone elses driver circuit. Maybe I should patent that Idea.
Still don't buy it. Orbitec has a family of LED lighting. It is perfectly within their business to develop marine lighting; especially since their CEO is an enthusiast. It is not a vague idea but actually a well thought out set of claims. If they are like many companies they filed the patent as protection for a market they intended to enter. Face it the aquarium LED market is not big enough for skimming royalties to be a viable business model in and of itself. I'm sure though some clever individual will figure out a way around that patent.
Orbitec's fixture seems to be a canopy replacement and explains the wording in the claim for being linked to the top of the aquarium. This further reinforces my belief this patent was filed defensively in anticipation of a product.
You might think differently about this matter if your high paying job depended on the intellectual property; ie patents, that you develop. And the return they would allow your company to get on their investment.
Orbitec's fixture seems to be a canopy replacement and explains the wording in the claim for being linked to the top of the aquarium. This further reinforces my belief this patent was filed defensively in anticipation of a product.
You might think differently about this matter if your high paying job depended on the intellectual property; ie patents, that you develop. And the return they would allow your company to get on their investment.
deaclauderdale
Lover of Fishies
The hobbiest wins in the end, whether PFO makes the lighting or some other company. This is simply a lesson in dotting every "I" and crossing every "T".
How do you work that out?
Surely the 'Hobbyist' can only lose?
The existence of 'patents', however ludicrous, will only put prices up. The price will either be by way of royalty payable ( the 'quoted' 25% would have added 33 1/3% to existing PFO selling prices) or by way of monopolistic predatory pricing if and when the patent holder brings out a product.
Bottom line being either an even more expensive product or the technology being rejected/unavailable to the hobby ?
screamincamaro
New member
I agree this only hurts the consumer. The people that have already invested in the product now have a product that is end of life.
If any future companies want to get into the market to develop the technology they would now have to pay royalties which cuts into their profits. I don't see how this fosters healthy competition especially when the people suing PFO don't even have a marketable product.
The thing that gets me is how they can patent something with such a broad statement. Kind of like saying "you can use the sun to grow stuff" and charge some people a royalty for it. There is no innovation in that. Creating a product that actually works and marketing it ........priceless.
I have a Solaris. Love the product and the people at PFO have been great to deal with ever step of the way. They really don't deserve this for trying to bring something new to the market for our hobby.
as for you mr. r&d my job is completely dependent on intellectual property but we dont have a patent because a patent does run out. Instead we have trade secrets. And no i am not making this up. But if someone would patent using cfl bulbs for the sole use of lighting up a house and only GE was making or licensing the rights and marking the bulbs to 20 bucks a pop how many people would be up in arms. Same concept! That is a stupid patent that using LED's for aquariums in the broad spectrum can be blanketed under one patent. I agree with patenting circuit design and configurations such as the 25 perfoot or what have you. But The blanket of LED's for marine lighting that is total BS. And the profit margin they are going to have by having a Monopoly. That imho is an infrigement of those laws alltogether. Kinda like if MS said all operating systems for pc are an infringement of windows no matter how different in apperance or design they make a computer do things thus patent infringment.
Trade secrets are certainly a viable alternative. In my industry we tend to have only 10% or so of the ideas kept as trade secrets for the simple reason if someone leaves and the idea gets out you have zero protection. 16 years is more than long enough for a patent.
I will agree patents are not in any way consumer friendly. They strictly protect the inventor.
I will agree patents are not in any way consumer friendly. They strictly protect the inventor.
deaclauderdale
Lover of Fishies
We will see end the end just how the situation pans out, but I've been alive long enough to know that end the end the consumer generally wins. This will most assuredly open up the market to more research which should result in a better fixture (the colors on most LED systems suck right now), and overall lower cost (for the consumer) as manufacturing cost go down.
deaclauderdale .. You must be a politician! ( Only Joking!) I would accept that we will see how it pans out but 'the consumer generally wins' is no more than a cliche. Would you like to substantiate with reference to other 'generalized patent' claims ?
The colors do not 'suck' .. they look excellent. The only questions which are usually genuinely and deservedly addressed towards LEDs in the reef aquarium environment are :-
- System longevity
- Output efficiency
- 'Real' lifetime cost
- 'Growth' capability vis-a-vis MH
.More Research' ?? - You are joking! Additional cost ( 25-33 1/3% ) is a BARRIER to research if the developer has to build that in his business case.
Costs will not just 'come down'. LED is still a developable technology. Those R &D costs will need to be built into pricing for many years. Many of us involved in the technology keep thinking 'maturity' is close. We have been consistently proven wrong. The PFOs/ AIs etc of this world have been working with 'Good Enough' ... however unlike MH and T5s ( which are mature afaik) LED technology has loads of 'development life' left in yet.
The colors do not 'suck' .. they look excellent. The only questions which are usually genuinely and deservedly addressed towards LEDs in the reef aquarium environment are :-
- System longevity
- Output efficiency
- 'Real' lifetime cost
- 'Growth' capability vis-a-vis MH
.More Research' ?? - You are joking! Additional cost ( 25-33 1/3% ) is a BARRIER to research if the developer has to build that in his business case.
Costs will not just 'come down'. LED is still a developable technology. Those R &D costs will need to be built into pricing for many years. Many of us involved in the technology keep thinking 'maturity' is close. We have been consistently proven wrong. The PFOs/ AIs etc of this world have been working with 'Good Enough' ... however unlike MH and T5s ( which are mature afaik) LED technology has loads of 'development life' left in yet.
patent was applied for in 2004; 2 years before PFO shipped Solaris or applied for their own patent. If PFO had internally documented the use of LEDs for marine applications prior to the Orbitec filing they should have been protected. Pretty clear they didn't.
And yes you certainly can patent an idea. It's not cheap though. Typically they are weak patents. Patents which show a working principle are much stronger. You just can't patent a part of nature. You couldn't patent light itself but can patent how to generate light.
aninjaatemyshoe
New member
I think a lot of people here aren't getting the fact that you can't enforce a patent for something that already existed (even if it just existed clearly on paper by someone other than the patent issuer) prior to the application for the patent. So no, nobody at this point could just come by and patent using a generic light source to grow corals in a marine aquarium. Nobody can come around and patent using halides for aquariums. These things already exist. The one caveat here is that the USPTO may very well grant a patent to someone for a product that already was created by someone else. They're not funded to do a whole hell of a lot of research into the background of the patents they grant. However, when it comes to trying to enforce said patent in court, it is easy to present this prior art and have the case and patent thrown out.
Another nuance to understand is that one cannot enforce a patent on something that can be deemed "obvious" within the industry. This concept is up to interpretation, but its intent is to keep people from undercutting progress in an industry by patenting things that pretty much everyone could have thought of. This combined with the fact that there must have been somewhere talk about using LEDs for marine tanks prior to 2004 makes me think that Orbitec should loose their claim if it goes to court. We will see.
Another nuance to understand is that one cannot enforce a patent on something that can be deemed "obvious" within the industry. This concept is up to interpretation, but its intent is to keep people from undercutting progress in an industry by patenting things that pretty much everyone could have thought of. This combined with the fact that there must have been somewhere talk about using LEDs for marine tanks prior to 2004 makes me think that Orbitec should loose their claim if it goes to court. We will see.
ganjero
saiperchémibatteilcorazon
Its called prior art, that's why you cant patent MH or fluorescent or "any electrically driven light source in a tank top mounted fixture to grow aquatic life". Read a little more.
Some people are clamming that there was prior art for LEDs too, but apparently nobody checked on that and granted this patent.
BTW Catalina Aquariums removed all their LED and T5/LED fixtures from their website
Last edited:
Anemonebuff
New member
I prefer MH and T5's anyway.
justincognito
New member
I just want to cry. I just secured a $30,000 grant to convert to energy effficient lighting for our 4,000 gallons of coral. PFO just got the first purchase order for $20,000 two weeks ago.
I don't know what to do now.
What is the next best LED that won't get sued and go under in the next month?
I don't know what to do now.
What is the next best LED that won't get sued and go under in the next month?
next best led would be a diy plus with 30k you could build one killer system. Especially with that buying power you could get your parts cheap and buy all the equipment needed to do the job and still come out cheaper. I built a 2ft fixture and only cost me around 500 but that was with plenty of rebuying of stuff that didnt work out . I could probably build one with the knowledge gained for around 350. You can find everything you need very easily. Just ask around its out there. or people here on RC will most likely help.
Last edited:
Soundwave
New member
Stay tuned, guys and gals. I've made a few test fixtures and am going full scale with a full size LED fixture. Parts are rolling in and, depending on shipments, it will be up and running within the next two weeks.
I will provide a full instruction sheet for all of you to copy, improve upon, whatever you want. It's time to make a difference. Unless orbitec can drop their prices below 600 bucks, this will be the way to go.
As proof, this is one of my test fixtures. this is ONLY 16 LEDs. 8 blue, 8 white. All CREEs.
The tank in the third picture is lit with ONLY the LEDs.
Excuse the quality. Cell phone pics...
I'm going with 48 LEDs on the final project. You'll want to keep an eye out for this one...
I will provide a full instruction sheet for all of you to copy, improve upon, whatever you want. It's time to make a difference. Unless orbitec can drop their prices below 600 bucks, this will be the way to go.
As proof, this is one of my test fixtures. this is ONLY 16 LEDs. 8 blue, 8 white. All CREEs.
The tank in the third picture is lit with ONLY the LEDs.
Excuse the quality. Cell phone pics...
I'm going with 48 LEDs on the final project. You'll want to keep an eye out for this one...
Similar threads
