Interesting reads on LED patent wars taking place...

[dough]

I maybe a little late posting some of this but I just came across these articles about and LEB patent wars taking place that could have a profound impact on the future of LEDs in our hobby. It sounds like PFO has already shut down pending the legal battle.

http://www.reefbuilders.com/2009/02/03/big-trouble-brewing-future-aquarium-leds/

 

[down and outman]

I will not buy anything from Orbitec. If they want to make everyone mad in the aquarium industry, they are going about it the right way. Hope they'll have a patent they can't use. We'll just go out and build our own.

 

[jmaneyapanda]

Turns out building your own is also a patent infirngment. As is using one that was amde and sold by any compmnay or individual. Of course, a "crime" that will never be sought out or enforced, but there nonetheless.

 

[weaglereefer]

Turns out building your own is also a patent infringement.

I'm pretty sure it's only infringement if it's an item used for commercial reasons, like in a store or something.

 

[soarin']

I checked out the Orbitec web site and apparently they have a partner company Apollo or something that is manufacturing the LED reef tank lights.

I looked at the patent and it looks like they are trying to patent two things

1) the idea of using LEDs as a main aquarium light
2) the ability to control the LED color temperature and light intensity in a custom way.

The patent claims that there are two types of lighting systems for reef tanks -- main lighting and decorative, or "moon light" lighting. It goes on to say:

(you can read the whole thing at http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7220018.html )

"Neither of these two types of marine lighting systems and apparatus is designed with an LED source offering spatial control of spectral output which can allow a user-defined or preprogrammed appropriate spectrum for growth of specific marine plant and animal life. Though the above are satisfactory for their designed applications, there is a continuing need for a marine lighting system that can be used to promote marine plant and animal life while offering the user spatial and spectral control.".

So apparently what PFO was doing that Orbitec thinks is infringing is that they had a customizable and programmable lighting system that allowed you to vary the intensity and color temperature. Essentially what Orbitec patented was putting a dimmer on reef tank LEDs to customize the output.

Unfortunately the patent also covers organic LEDs, which seem to be much more promising in terms of cost and brightness than silicon LEDs.

Hopefully somebody will fight these guys and win -- otherwise this can really stifle the future of reef lighting. Why have an LED system if you are not going to customize the light output?

 

[tokejr]

Soarin';300727 wrote: So apparently what PFO was doing that Orbitec thinks is infringing is that they had a customizable and programmable lighting system that allowed you to vary the intensity and color temperature. Essentially what Orbitec patented was putting a dimmer on reef tank LEDs to customize the output.

Unfortunately the patent also covers organic LEDs, which seem to be much more promising in terms of cost and brightness than silicon LEDs.

Hopefully somebody will fight these guys and win -- otherwise this can really stifle the future of reef lighting. Why have an LED system if you are not going to customize the light output?

Ah, there's the hole in their patent. If one were to sell LEDs and GIVE INSTRUCTIONS on how to customize it, you would defeat their infringement claims.

Any patent is only as good as your ability to protect it.

 

[jmaneyapanda]

au01st;300720 wrote: I'm pretty sure it's only infringement if it's an item used for commercial reasons, like in a store or something.

Nope. The patent laws are pretty open. If an item is patented, it is to prohibit "theft" of the idea in any form- whether you buy it, make it, adapt it, etc.

 

[jmaneyapanda]

tokejr;300742 wrote: Ah, there's the hole in their patent. If one were to sell LEDs and GIVE INSTRUCTIONS on how to customize it, you would defeat their infringement claims.

Any patent is only as good as your ability to protect it.

I doubt it. As I mentioned above, the patent laws are very open. Orbitec has gone through the hassle of obtaining the patent, and as such, the patent laws will protect their "discovery", by not allowing a lot of mimicry. Besides, do you think this would have not been discussed and investigated by PFO, prior to eliminating their entire staff (which they did)?

 

[FutureInterest]

Patent looks decent although almost half of all the patents that litigated are thrown out. I'm sure there must be some prior art out there that predates this patent...

Patent protection allows you to stop others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the patented product. PFO was smart to stop production for the time being. Infringement requires actual notice, so once given that if they had continued making/using/selling/offering for sale/importing they would be infringing the patent.

This does not mean they cannot fight the patent's vailidity it just means they avoided possible infringement. Hopefully they'll challenge the patent and win... Patent cases typically average about a quarter mil to litigate. Fun times... for the attorneys .

 

[oldschool52]

I read the patents and there are some holes in it, but Orbitec has deep pockets (money). A patent is only as good as the money you have to defend it, and they do have that with their parent company. I've got 2 patents of my own, telephone parts.

Has anybody tried to email Obitec? I have, and my email was pretty much blasting them. They sent me an email back. They told me, and very nicely, that they're pantent was done in 2003, which it was I read it. They said, and I have no reason not to believe them, they spent hundreds of thousands on scientific testing, microprocessor design and programming. They go on to say they tried to work out a deal with partnering with PTO, Which didn't work out. I'm guessing, and this is reading between the lines, PTO said no to what ever offer Orbitec made, we're going to make our own. PTO's is similar enough for lirigation. Orbitec has gotten with another company who will handle their advertising, and sales. They have about $2 million invested in parts for their first production run and will be releasing a whole product line in October.

You can take what they say or not. They have no reason to lie to me. Their email seemed pretty straight foreward. I emailed them back and told them I'd test a unit for them, what the hey! From what I can tell this product is going to be very pricey, out of my range I know PTO's is and/or was. I will post if I hear any more from them.

 

[oldschool52]

i also told Orbitec I've been using LEDs for years. And where I said PTO in my original reply I did mean PFO. (just got up and haven't finished first cup of coffee). Anyway, Orbitec is going to come out with LED lights. I would like to hear PFO's side of the story. Think I'll try to email them.

 

[skriz]

ares;300804 wrote: I believe PFO filed bankruptcy...

they stopped answering their phones a while back, which made the many people that were looking for their monthly array replacements quite upset since the fixtures fail at a near 100% rate... and now have no support.

Na, PFo only shut down their aquarium lighting department. They're much larger than this.

Orbitec's patent will stand. Not because it can't be beat, but beacause nobody can afford to fight it. With as much money as Orbitec has in the game, they're going to fight it until the end. No aquarium company is going to even try and fight them...unless some pro-bono suckers are up for some fun (Jin?)

 

[sailfish]

Na, PFo only shut down their aquarium lighting department. They're much larger than this.

What else do they produce? :unsure:

Joe

 

[rededge2k1]

I have to side with Orbitec on this one. It's their patent, it's their property. They can do what they want with it until the patent runs out. It's important to think about how much money goes into research & development for any particular product, no matter the end use. The company that invests all the time & money into the product should reap the financial rewards of that product, not some company sitting on the sidelines that wants to steal it when it's all polished and ready to go.

If PFO were smart they would have approached Orbitec in the beginning and worked out a deal to use Orbitec's patented technology for their own very limited sector (aquarium lighting). That way, PFO would essentially own the market, albeit small, until the patent runs out.

But on a different note....was anyone really buying those $2,000 LED fixtures? I think the free market would have eventually eliminated this division of PFO anyway.

Just my $0.02

-Dustin

 

[soarin']

The problem with Orbitec's patent is that what they did patent was so obvious.

If they actually invented something, I would definitely want to support them, because I want innovation in this field.

This hobby is so obsessed with color temperatures and light intensity that it's ridiculous to think that this patent is somehow non-obvious.

How would you have liked it if someone had patented the idea of using metal halides to light reef tanks? That idea was a lot more non-obvious than using and controlling LEDs.

The patent system is there for guys like the inventor of MRIs, who couldn't get a patent for one because the patent office said that they were impossible and couldn't be done. THAT was non-obvious.

IIRC he had to fight for 12 years to get GE and the other companies to pay him because he never got the patents.


Whatever the money these guys spent on lighting, it wasn't reflected in that patent -- it was nothing you couldn't do with a couple rows of bright LEDs in different colors and a few dimmer knobs.

This is just like the Amazon 1-click shopping patent. I think Apple actually licensed that one.

 

[rededge2k1]

Soarin';300930 wrote: The problem with Orbitec's patent is that what they did patent was so obvious.

If they actually invented something, I would definitely want to support them, because I want innovation in this field.

This hobby is so obsessed with color temperatures and light intensity that it's ridiculous to think that this patent is somehow non-obvious.

Orbitec did not patent the "idea" of variable color temperature and intensity. They patented a device which they designed that allows the color temperature and intensity of LEDs to be varied. Given, they probably intended to use this technology for something aerospace-related, since that is their focus, but that doesn't matter. It's their invention, their patent, and therefore the use if that technology belongs solely to them, end of story.

How would you have liked it if someone had patented the idea of using metal halides to light reef tanks? That idea was a lot more non-obvious than using and controlling LEDs.

Again, you can't patent an "idea." You patent a design.

The patent system is there for guys like the inventor of MRIs, who couldn't get a patent for one because the patent office said that they were impossible and couldn't be done. THAT was non-obvious.

IIRC he had to fight for 12 years to get GE and the other companies to pay him because he never got the patents.

The "idea" of MRI was tossed around in the 1930s but it wasn't patented until the 1970s, when a guy discoverd it had a medical use. Einstein tossed around the "idea" of relativity in the 1900s, but if I invent a time machine in 2009 using his ideas and have it patented, it will be my time machine, not his.

Whatever the money these guys spent on lighting, it wasn't reflected in that patent -- it was nothing you couldn't do with a couple rows of bright LEDs in different colors and a few dimmer knobs.

Really? You honestly think Orbitec invested nothing during the process, all the way from idea to patent? If it was so easy and so obvious then why didn't you patent it yourself?

 

[oldschool52]

I've been involved with patents and patent infringement litigation years ago. You guys are dight in saying the lawyers are the ones that make the money. I worked for a company who wanted me to come up with some ideas that they had for pay telephones. I designed what they wanted and they had it patented. I had 2 patents and received my $1 for each of them. No telling how much they made. They did sue another company for infringement on my patents. The company I worked for was owned by Ciba-Geigy (stick-ups, Bicaca, Ciba Vision) Very deep pockets.

 

[rededge2k1]

oldschool52;301027 wrote: I designed what they wanted and they had it patented. I had 2 patents and received my $1 for each of them. No telling how much they made. They did sue another company for infringement on my patents. The company I worked for was owned by Ciba-Geigy (stick-ups, Bicaca, Ciba Vision) Very deep pockets.

Well not to poke the fire but it was rightfully their patent(s) since you were one of their (I'm assuming) salaried employees. Employers have the rights to employees' intellectual property in cases like this, since technically you were simply doing what you agreed to do in exhange for a paycheck every 2 weeks or whatever.

Sucks but it's life. Your choices were (a) do the design work for them and get a paycheck, or (b) quit and try to get rich off your two (potential) patents on your own.

It's a calculated risk, and I'm with you, I would have stuck with the guaranteed paycheck.

 

[soarin']

RedEDGE2k1;300990 wrote: If it was so easy and so obvious then why didn't you patent it yourself?

I wouldn't have patented it, because I would have thought it so easy and obvious as to not deserve a patent.

RedEDGE2k1;300990 wrote:

Again, you can't patent an "idea." You patent a design.

If Amazon patents storing payment details in a database so that you don't have to enter them every time you buy something online, are you really going to try to argue that that's a design rather than an idea?

A design is just an idea put on paper. If you really want to argue that the patent is actually more complex than the idea of varying the brightness of different colored LEDs to support growth in a reef tank then I invite you to explain.

Finally, Orbitec seems to have followed the well-known and reviled practice of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent"> patent submarining </a>. If you look at the patent itself, they applied for it in december 2003, and then reapplied in 2004, but the patent was not published until well into 2007, while PFO's device was previewed in the [IMG]http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2006/8/review2/view"> August 2006 edition of Advanced Aquarist </a>

Patent submarining is a reviled practice of applying for a patent on something that you know is going to be widely used, but keeping the patent in the application stage so that it stays invisible ("underwater") until you can suddenly pop it up and surprise companies already using your technology and make them pay through the nose. I don't know if PFO knew about Orbitec's patent in 2006, but it seems hard to imagine they could if it wasn't published until June 22 of 2007.

Wikipedia says that most patents are published about 18 months after application, but that you can get "continuations" so that your patent stays in the "pending" stage.

So given that it's pointless to discuss MRI patents here, but I even checked one of those patents and it was issued two years after the filing date.

So I don't know all the details here, but the bottom line is that PFO has done far more to advance reefkeeping than Orbitec ever has, and my only concern is that reefkeeping becomes easier and cheaper for all of us.

 

[michael ruppert]

Almost all patents are invented around within four years of filing.