Goodbye to LED lighting

[useskaforevil]

yea, unfortunatly its the same strip of bulbs (at least in their placement ) that have burnt out, so i'm wondering if theres soemthing wrong with what it connects to.

thanks.


Also i feel i have to apologize for my terrible typeing

 

[whosjohnny]

I totally agree with Phil and Tsquare on PFO really screwed up. Don't laugh, here is my personal impression.

In 2004, after readingf Dr. Sanjay's Metal Halide extensive reflector research (multiple published Advanced Aquarist papers), PFO mini pendant and Reef Optix III were my 2 favorites. I pick PFO only because it has the sharpest penetration power of any reflector and retain DE mh reflector efficient with the highest PAR at all depths 6", 12", 18", and 24" depth. Anyways, when I went to Marinedepot to purchase additional PFO mini pendant reflectors, I was surprised they stop selling them. What the hell? Dr. Sanjay's support for them being one of the best and they abandon that nitch and went with $4000 non-proven fixture?! c'mon man... my response with PFO brand is one of disgust... I really don't know what they're doing... If they have at least retain PFO mini pendant business, I wouldn't have been so disgusted.

For me personally I love PFO, even more Optix III (thought quality is slighty better than PFO but not by much). PFO new mini pendant is awesome!! My favorite w/ Aqualine AB bulbs with Icecap electronics. Living in California, I care alot about heat and power consumption during the summer. Using the best Icecap combo with Aqualine AB 13K 150w PFO DE mini pendant can punch PAR close (85%) to a 250w DE with other brand of reflector and ballast at 24" depth (area of concern for most reefers).

PFO dropped the BALL big time on this one. PFO would have made more money from me because I was willing to buy 5-6 additional MH reflectors and I don't plan to buy any LED lighting until 2-3 yrs later until that technology has proven itself and price comes down alot. I don't know why PFO abandon a stable cash cow for LED -- a big risk. They should have at least retain some of that PFO pendant business.

 

[Mr. Brooks]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14366832#post14366832 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by teesquare
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

Very well put.

Just an FYI, in my particular case, we did our due diligence, but were sued anyway. Money really is king when it comes to our legal system. Thank God their case had no merit.

Who's to say PFO wasn't doomed anyway? With the amount of problems people were having I'm suprised they lasted as long as they did.

I think we're all very curious to see what Orbitech brings to the table. If they can come up with a quality product that actually works reliably and isn't ridiculoously priced... Who knows? A year from now we may be praising Orbitech instead of bashing them.

 

[Heinz]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14365087#post14365087 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Reno Reef


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.

i think its a joke, since opitec has the patend on LED lights since 2003, how come they have no LED lights for reeftanks on the market yet?

they where just waiting to see if there would be a market for it and notice there actually is one, and now they jump on it, is that it ?

 

[teesquare]

Thanks for the the affirmation to those who understood my ramblings/rantings <G>.

Heinz:
I hear you, and your frustration is shared by most of us I am cetain.
But - in the U.S. our strange patent system allows you to patent something - at least under the category of "for use", apparently without specific time limits - whether or not you manufacture that item.
Sounds crazy - and is crazy to me, but it is patent law itself that needs serious review.
The downside is - we as individuals will lose some protection though...
How? Put yourself in the mental position as an inventor. You come up with an idea that will change lives. Now, the only thing you need is....money. If you think getting capital for a mortgage is tough right now - try saying to an invevestor " I have this great idea, and it will change peoples lives.... BUt - of course - as it is a brand new idea ( even if it is based on an old product - that will make it relevant here), so ...Could you loan me $200,000?
That sort of capital is gambling at its finest. So - it is inherantly hard to come by.
So- knowing this, the patent law applying to time limits on manufacturing is quite liberal. It gives you as the average citizen the ability to protect yourself from someone with plenty of money just wating until the clock runs out on you.
Granted - there are positives and negatives abounding here. But, the scary part about the reform of the law is always kind of like the old expression:
"Pick either the devil you know, or the devil you don't ".

I am sure we all have some personal experience with "revision" of any law or rule that we thought would help us, and as it turned out- only hurt us. ( If you use the tractor in the picture to earn a living on a family farm - you have seen many of such, I will bet!)

All of this just makes the dilema with Orbitec/PFO that much more empassioned. Some will be hurt - others will be helped. As hobbyists, with no provable monetary investment in either company ( by the courts standards) we can only sit and watch, and hope for an intelligent solution. And that this will not discourage other companies from investing in the technology of LEDs for our aqariums.
T

 

[Heinz]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14438968#post14438968 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by teesquare
( If you use the tractor in the picture to earn a living on a family farm - you have seen many of such, I will bet!)

T

just sold our farm a few days ago, you won your bet

 

[coralfragger101]

I have 3 of PFO's units. The Chinese junk ones that I can now now longer get service for.

I just threw over 6k down the toilet.

 

[teesquare]

Heinz: You as a foundational citizen are owed our gratitude, and apologies. Without our family farms, we lose our place as a "great society" That is a topic worthy of a large volume of print to detail properly. I was born into the ranch/farm business, long ago and far away. We too, suffered the "corporate cunsumption" of family farms.

coralfragger101: Take heart- there will be replacement components, I am willing to bet. Small companies will be looking to sell the needed parts, and the knowledge base is expanding everyday. If you will p.m. me your e-mail address, I will refer you to a person that may be able to point you in the right direction if you need anything for your PFO LED systems. He is able to tell you how to build these from scratch.
T

 

[mcliffy2]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14331594#post14331594 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Philwd
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.

pszemol is correct, you cannot patent a bare "idea." It must be embodied in one of the 4 patentable-eligible categories: processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter.

 

[mcliffy2]

There have been some correct points made in this thread, but there is also a lot of misinformation. For those that are interested, I'm doing a series on patents and the aquarium industry over at Glassbox-Design. Here's a link to part I (part II should be out in the next day or so, and will address the questions of whether patents favor foreign companies (they don't), and whether LEDs are doomed): http://glassbox-design.com/2009/patents-101-benefits-faults-recourse/

 

[teesquare]

Thanks Mike!
I look foward to reading it.
As a patent attorney - I am sure you can help us all better understand the areas which are "black and white - vs - "to be interpreted by the courts"
T

 

[coralfragger101]

Those of you that have defunct PFO lights take heart.

I have word from Orbitec that when they roll their own aquarium units out in the fall that they will be offering a PFO Trade-In program.

 

[Nazrac]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14469771#post14469771 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by coralfragger101
Those of you that have defunct PFO lights take heart.

I have word from Orbitec that when they roll their own aquarium units out in the fall that they will be offering a PFO Trade-In program.

I'll believe that when I see it.

 

[hyperfocal]

It's possible, but don't expect it to be 1:1... more like a couple-hundred off. I think it'd be a smart move on their part.

 

[mcliffy2]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14439438#post14439438 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mcliffy2
There have been some correct points made in this thread, but there is also a lot of misinformation. For those that are interested, I'm doing a series on patents and the aquarium industry over at Glassbox-Design. Here's a link to part I (part II should be out in the next day or so, and will address the questions of whether patents favor foreign companies (they don't), and whether LEDs are doomed): http://glassbox-design.com/2009/patents-101-benefits-faults-recourse/

part II is now posted.

http://glassbox-design.com/2009/patents-101-foreign-manufacturing-licensing-claims/

 

[A.T.T.R]

dont patents also make it illegal to make the item for your self with no intent to sell.

 

[aninjaatemyshoe]

No, not at all illegal if you make something yourself that you don't sell.

It is infringement for a company to sell something as a sort of set of components for the intention that the end-user assembles an item that is already patented. In other words, someone could not sell a bunch of parts for an LED aquarium lighting fixture with the intention that the buyer assembles it and uses it in the manner that is patented.

 

[mcliffy2]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14476024#post14476024 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by aninjaatemyshoe
No, not at all illegal if you make something yourself that you don't sell.

It is infringement for a company to sell something as a sort of set of components for the intention that the end-user assembles an item that is already patented. In other words, someone could not sell a bunch of parts for an LED aquarium lighting fixture with the intention that the buyer assembles it and uses it in the manner that is patented.

I'm not sure where you got this information, but it is 100% incorrect. It is infringement if you make, use, and sell a patented invention in the US. You are infringing if you make a DIY version of a patented invention, or even use one that someone else made.

And if you sell a kit that can be put together to make a patented product, you can be liable for inducing or contributing to the infringement of another.

 

[kruxy]

It is infringement if you make, use, and sell a patented invention in the US.

Should that read make, use, OR sell?

Making and using without selling would otherwise make that legal, as your statement demonstrates doing all three by using the and modifier...

Not being a grammar hammer, just curious, as I see a distinction there. Can you please clarify?



Also something that wasn't addressed anywhere in the thread is that their patent is to grow marine organisms, it never states reef aquariums, or even hobbyists as their intended end consumers at the time the patent was requested.

Their patent could have been for lighting in a place that has heat and electrical limitations (think space station, considering this is an aerospace company) where their previous invention and technological work make more sense.

Scientists do all sorts of growth experiments in space, where a tank mounted light that can be exposed to water, with a built in cleaning device would be useful (if you didn't want water everywhere).

Before I get flamed, I am not claiming this to be true, I am simply thinking outside of the confines of our own use...



The fact that they had the foresight to patent an emerging technology, and that we as a community have taken ownership of that concept after the fact, does not make it legally any less theirs. Maybe their initial invention idea didn't pan out and they saw an opportunity to earn some money, maybe it is still in development and they wanted to stop further development by a future competitor, or maybe they really did want to build home aquarium lights as they claim... that doesn't change the fact that they were the first to LEGALLY file a patent for a commercially viable product.

I have what I think will be the next million dollar idea all the time, in fact, I dream of becoming rich inventing something, but I actually take the time to RESEARCH the filed patents with each of them before I consider putting any further effort and cost into developing the idea... a crucial step that wasn't mirrored by PFO apparently.



If I have a great idea and tell everyone I can think of before writing it up and applying for a patent, it is only my fault if someone else beats me to it.

Do I think it sucks to be PFO? Yes. Do I blame anyone other than them for their predicament? No. I don't mean to seem insensitive, but this makes sense to me, and I don't see the crime or grey area that most others seem to think exists.

 

[mcliffy2]

double post.