Goodbye to LED lighting
- Thread starter nano mania
- Start date
hyperfocal
Active member
Do you have PAR numbers, Soundwave?
hyperfocal
Active member
Cool, thanks. Looking forward to seeing how things work out for your fixture.
miwoodar
Likey the bikey
I am disappointed to see that the patent office granted such a junk patent. I mean, really...they essentially patented the *intent of marine growth via LED*. That's garbage.
I've never had even the slightest inclination to buy a Solaris but I anxiously await the future of LED. Does anyone think that part of Orbitec's position has to do with the fact that the Solaris was essentially trashing the perceived 'state of the art' of LED? PFO's fixtures were well known to have numerous disasterous flaws. Maybe Orbitec thinks it can make a quality fixture at a reasonable price and didn't want hobbiest's expectations to be continually dragged down by PFO.
I've never had even the slightest inclination to buy a Solaris but I anxiously await the future of LED. Does anyone think that part of Orbitec's position has to do with the fact that the Solaris was essentially trashing the perceived 'state of the art' of LED? PFO's fixtures were well known to have numerous disasterous flaws. Maybe Orbitec thinks it can make a quality fixture at a reasonable price and didn't want hobbiest's expectations to be continually dragged down by PFO.
Last edited:
I agree, the prices were way out of line. My dad works with Schneider Electric and one of the factories they have makes LED's. He was on a tour there one day and he asked the ops manager when the prices would come down. He said that the prices were already 2x what they needed to be and could come down any time, but that demand was so high they had no reason to. This was on household LED light fixtures.
So look for prices to come down as soon as some more factories for making the actual LED's and control boards come online. I hope at least. Wouldn't count on it for a while though, no one is building a new factory this year I wouldn't think.
So look for prices to come down as soon as some more factories for making the actual LED's and control boards come online. I hope at least. Wouldn't count on it for a while though, no one is building a new factory this year I wouldn't think.
BuddhaKiss
Active member
In a sense, you can...of course an idea can be different meanings depending on the application. But if the idea is well thought out and descriptive, you can patent. This has happened where an inventor patents an idea, but does no manufacturing, marketing, etc. It just sits there...until years later, an upstart company creates a product that infringes on that particular patent. Lawsuit! These are called patent trolls.
As far as how can you manufacture something prior to the Patent grant date...what really matters is when an application was filed. In this case, it was filed in 2004, so essentially Orbitec had "dibs" more or less. On another note, many companies will manufacture products based on their applications before the patent is issued. That's why you see alot of "Patent Pending" on many products.
BuddhaKiss
Active member
I don't know, in some sense, I'll agree with this statement. But if you look at the bigger picture, this actually helps the consumer. Bear with me here...say you have an idea for a product, but requires significant funding for R & D, not to mention production and manufacturing, as well as marketing and advertising. Would you be so inclined to invest all this money into a product...knowing you have no protection. Somebody can copy your designs and produce their own unit, w/o having to go through the financial hurdles you had to. Imagine if this was a common practice? Nobody would want to create or manufacture anything for fear of being stolen. We wouldn't have such advances in technology or items of luxury that we have today. Of course, this is all theoretical, but very likely. So in turn, having some type of protection for you ideas, in the long run, helps the consumer.
Aquabucket
Premium Member
A good patent attorney will be able to shoot plenty of holes into this patent. Prior art can likely be found on this site alone. The problem with patent litigation is it is pretty expensive and it will cost PFO at least a $100,000 to retain an attorney to challenge it.
Last edited:
hyperfocal
Active member
Yup, therein lies the problem. I'll bet you a shiny American nickel that PFO was having trouble making payroll, let alone having a spare hundred grand kicking around to start feeding the lawyers.
Dropping a proven revenue stream (fluorescent and MH ballasts) to focus on an emerging technology takes a lot of guts. Dropping it to focus on an emerging technology with crippling quality problems is a recipe for disaster. I'll bet that PFO took a look at the commoditization of the ballast market (no way to differentiate their Fluor/MH products vs. cheap reference design imports, and no way to compete with those same cost structures) and saw the writing on the wall; the only way they could keep making money in the industry was to shake things up. It's too bad they got mauled by it, I'd rather see that kind of courage and engineering spirit rewarded.
Unfortunately, in this case the customer is the loser. I wish PFO was solid enough to challenge the overly-broad patent -- like you said, Aquabucket.. it would not stand up to scrutiny. But, love it or hate it, that's how our patent system works. Patents are granted without much (any, it seems) investigation with the idea that contention will be worked out in the courts. This is far from the most egregious patent-insanity case I've seen; the tech sector is FULL of them (Google 'Rambus' sometime for one example).
This patent will stifle innovation. The aquarium lighting business is too small to support a big patent fight. Nobody is making enough money as it is. Those who are doing relatively well aren't going to spend their cash on the challenge when the potential rewards are so small. LED component development still hasn't hit the knee of the curve, so rapid obsolescence is guaranteed.. Throw the potential for expensive quality problems onto the pile and it's a done deal.
Some companies may pay licensing fees to Orbitec. I'm not a patent attorney, so I don't know if that strengthens the validity of the patent or not... but I do know it doesn't *weaken* it. Hopefully, Orbitec will offer reasonable licensing fees but they might take this opportunity to lock things down and work on their own designs without fear of competition. We'll have to keep our eyes open and see what happens.
However that plays out, fewer companies will be doing R&D on aquarium LED illumination. That means there will be less innovation and less competition, and that scenario is definitely bad for the consumer.
Dropping a proven revenue stream (fluorescent and MH ballasts) to focus on an emerging technology takes a lot of guts. Dropping it to focus on an emerging technology with crippling quality problems is a recipe for disaster. I'll bet that PFO took a look at the commoditization of the ballast market (no way to differentiate their Fluor/MH products vs. cheap reference design imports, and no way to compete with those same cost structures) and saw the writing on the wall; the only way they could keep making money in the industry was to shake things up. It's too bad they got mauled by it, I'd rather see that kind of courage and engineering spirit rewarded.
Unfortunately, in this case the customer is the loser. I wish PFO was solid enough to challenge the overly-broad patent -- like you said, Aquabucket.. it would not stand up to scrutiny. But, love it or hate it, that's how our patent system works. Patents are granted without much (any, it seems) investigation with the idea that contention will be worked out in the courts. This is far from the most egregious patent-insanity case I've seen; the tech sector is FULL of them (Google 'Rambus' sometime for one example).
This patent will stifle innovation. The aquarium lighting business is too small to support a big patent fight. Nobody is making enough money as it is. Those who are doing relatively well aren't going to spend their cash on the challenge when the potential rewards are so small. LED component development still hasn't hit the knee of the curve, so rapid obsolescence is guaranteed.. Throw the potential for expensive quality problems onto the pile and it's a done deal.
Some companies may pay licensing fees to Orbitec. I'm not a patent attorney, so I don't know if that strengthens the validity of the patent or not... but I do know it doesn't *weaken* it. Hopefully, Orbitec will offer reasonable licensing fees but they might take this opportunity to lock things down and work on their own designs without fear of competition. We'll have to keep our eyes open and see what happens.
However that plays out, fewer companies will be doing R&D on aquarium LED illumination. That means there will be less innovation and less competition, and that scenario is definitely bad for the consumer.
Beaun
It's pronounced Bone
I would say that the patent CAN be good for consumers. It forces other companies to come up with different designs, and then fight over prices. If there are two different LED companies out there with two different patents, the consumers will decide which one is better by its quality and price. However, this is obviously not always the case. I would use a MH and chiller over a LED system any day (at current technology), same price but proven technology vs. new unknown/untested technology. That new LED growing technology looks very promising. $3 bulb lasting 60 years, very promising.
Mr. Brooks
MASVC Member
+1
My family went through this. It's going to cost a heck of a lot more than 100k.
Our case cost many times that and never went to court. We were able to show prior art and prove that they knew about it. In the end it didn't matter though. They effectively crippled us. Both in lost sales over the three years it took to settle and the thousands upon thousands spent in lawer fees.
Well folks there is Prior art right here on this site..
This DIY thread has a WORKING 144 LED light kit in March of 2004
http://archive.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=337077
The Patent was not applied for until December..
I found threads on the basic idea going back to 2001.
The evidence is there.. This is hardly an original idea.. Lots of people had the idea and talked about it in public before the patent was applied for.
It can be overturned but someone has to have the $$ to fight it through.
This DIY thread has a WORKING 144 LED light kit in March of 2004
http://archive.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=337077
The Patent was not applied for until December..
I found threads on the basic idea going back to 2001.
The evidence is there.. This is hardly an original idea.. Lots of people had the idea and talked about it in public before the patent was applied for.
It can be overturned but someone has to have the $$ to fight it through.
Reno Reef
New member
I sent an email to Orbitec and included this link. Ill admit the email I sent was a little heated but this situation annoys me.
Here was Orbitec's response to me.
Thank you for your email. Please be aware that our provisional patent application was filed on December 15, 2003, one year before the final patent application is due. The patent examiner has also reviewed this prior art during our examination process. Since it appears you have read the patent, you can see that it is for a specific system with a number of different components, that describe a product we have built, tested, and will be bringing to market with a an aquarium partner this fall. It is one of many other LED aquarium patents pending or granted, so we do not feel we are stifling competition, but rather protecting our intellectual property as a small U.S. business. If you have any specific questions, please feel free to email me and I will do my best to answer them.
It seems we all fall on one side of the fence or the other...
Let me put this twist on it:
We in the U.S. have an economy based on "free enterprize" - but before you jump to conclusions - understand that we MUST have provisions to promote free enterprize and also note that free enterprize is NOT "market chaos".To wit:
The entire patent law system and process is designed to promote entrepreneurship. How??? - By protecting and rewarding those that do their due diligence as repsect to the rules laid out in patent law. It is designed push the entire "big picture" of: This is the United States of America - you can come to this country and be anything you want - and you can make as much money as you want. *IF* you go about it legally. PATENTS are the legal constraint that a civilized society which fights corruption uses to protect the inventor, the citizen in the street who wants to be an inventor, and the corporate giant that make bazillions from patents. We are all equal in this equation, and all equally capable of DOING THE RESEARCH - AND MAKING APPLICATION FOR A PATENT!!!!! As long as we follow the rules. They are not hidden. You can download them from the internet.
Thus - the REAL culprit is not Orbitec, it is NOT the patent office, nor it's employees. It *IS* however the fault of PFO for being either ignorant of or arrogant toward the patent application made by Orbitec - completely legal appraently- AND it *IS* the responsibility of ANY manufacturer to contest any patent impediment PRIOR to production and sale of a product which could be deemed in breech of patent law.
Look at it this way - if YOU had stock in PFO, and found out that they acted in a way that was irresponsible by arrogantly producing, selling, and shipping a product WITHOUT FIRST performing the proper business practice standards - again:
1. patent research
2. negotiate for rights to produce with patent holder
3. if unsuccessful, THEN sue and ask court for injunction, patent repeal, or other relief
And THEN - and ONLY then, make the bloody product, and throw it on the market - and find that your failure rate was excessive.
Now - that is the correct, and proper American way to "fail" a company (insert laughter here).
PFO chose to skip the steps in 1-3.
None of the "prior art" clause applies because it either:
1. had not become considered a "commom practice" of the trade or industry to which it is germaine which would thus render Orbitec's patent as null.
2.Had not established that PFO was an active participant in the "prior art" itself. Someone else doing the experimenting, as a hobbyist will not make the cut.
How do I know... unfortunately - I have been on both ends of the "stick" in cases mirroring this. Not fun, either way....
But - let's remember guys - the Rule of Law is a compromise we make to protect all of us in a myriad of ways. THIS is but one. Stinks???... Yep.......
T
Let me put this twist on it:
We in the U.S. have an economy based on "free enterprize" - but before you jump to conclusions - understand that we MUST have provisions to promote free enterprize and also note that free enterprize is NOT "market chaos".To wit:
The entire patent law system and process is designed to promote entrepreneurship. How??? - By protecting and rewarding those that do their due diligence as repsect to the rules laid out in patent law. It is designed push the entire "big picture" of: This is the United States of America - you can come to this country and be anything you want - and you can make as much money as you want. *IF* you go about it legally. PATENTS are the legal constraint that a civilized society which fights corruption uses to protect the inventor, the citizen in the street who wants to be an inventor, and the corporate giant that make bazillions from patents. We are all equal in this equation, and all equally capable of DOING THE RESEARCH - AND MAKING APPLICATION FOR A PATENT!!!!! As long as we follow the rules. They are not hidden. You can download them from the internet.
Thus - the REAL culprit is not Orbitec, it is NOT the patent office, nor it's employees. It *IS* however the fault of PFO for being either ignorant of or arrogant toward the patent application made by Orbitec - completely legal appraently- AND it *IS* the responsibility of ANY manufacturer to contest any patent impediment PRIOR to production and sale of a product which could be deemed in breech of patent law.
Look at it this way - if YOU had stock in PFO, and found out that they acted in a way that was irresponsible by arrogantly producing, selling, and shipping a product WITHOUT FIRST performing the proper business practice standards - again:
1. patent research
2. negotiate for rights to produce with patent holder
3. if unsuccessful, THEN sue and ask court for injunction, patent repeal, or other relief
And THEN - and ONLY then, make the bloody product, and throw it on the market - and find that your failure rate was excessive.
Now - that is the correct, and proper American way to "fail" a company (insert laughter here).
PFO chose to skip the steps in 1-3.
None of the "prior art" clause applies because it either:
1. had not become considered a "commom practice" of the trade or industry to which it is germaine which would thus render Orbitec's patent as null.
2.Had not established that PFO was an active participant in the "prior art" itself. Someone else doing the experimenting, as a hobbyist will not make the cut.
How do I know... unfortunately - I have been on both ends of the "stick" in cases mirroring this. Not fun, either way....
But - let's remember guys - the Rule of Law is a compromise we make to protect all of us in a myriad of ways. THIS is but one. Stinks???... Yep.......
T
Last edited:
useskaforevil
New member
so, i jsut foudn this thread, i'e been tryign to get pfo to replace soem dead LEDs in my soalris for a couple months now and at least i foudn out why they won't answer my phone calls or emails... any idea on how i can replace burnt out bulbs now?
useskaforevil Any LED/electrical engineer can do it for you ... they should not have burned out ( and that asks other questions) but replacement is straightforward - even on PFO units. Not sure of US prices but expect to pay c. $2-3 per dye .. Future Electronics are a great source.
Similar threads
