Interesting reads on LED patent wars taking place...

[rededge2k1]

Soarin';301048 wrote: I wouldn't have patented it, because I would have thought it so easy and obvious as to not deserve a patent.

That's fine, but don't complain when someone DOES patent that something that you find "obvious" and in turn they earn all rights to it.

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?

Yes, because again, they did not patent the IDEA. They patented the DESIGN.

I'm not going to go through the trouble, but you can look up the patent information and see the design work for yourself. I will bet that Amazon didn't just write on a piece of paper "I would like the idea of storing information to be mine" and submit it to the patent office. I would bet that they outlined the coding of the software in detail, showing exactly what takes place when the program runs and how it "makes it happen," as well as how it can be used in practice. The process began with an IDEA...that lead to a DESIGN...which becomes a PATENT.

Why do you think Google patented their search engine algorithm? The idea was simple, and the use was enormous. They would have been fools to have not patented their DESIGNed algorithm.

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.

Of course it's more complex than that. Have you ever had an idea that you were able to put on paper with no accountable effort? But that's besides the point....because even if you have/did, it doesn't matter how easy or hard it was, because regardless the "idea" and the resulting "design" would be YOURS.

The idea of temporarily binding a stack of paper together with a bent piece of thin metal wire is very simple. And it was patented. Are you upset because someone patented something so simple as a paper clip?

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[/QUOTE]

I think they followed the well-known practive of "the government is slow." Almost all patents are in the paperwork stage for long periods of time. That doesn't mean that PFO could take advantage of the delay and start producing something that someone else had already thought of and submitted for a patent. Serves PFO right for not doing their due diligence and researching something they were about to spend (probably) millions of dollars on.

[QUOTE=]
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.[/QUOTE]

That's fine, and I totally agree with you on that point. But that doesn't mean PFO is justified to steal.

-Dustin

 

[jmaneyapanda]

I ahve to agree with Dustin. Patent application and obtainment aside, Orbitec did own the patent on this device. And PFO made, and sold them, in violation of that patent. PFO was dumb.

 

[soarin']

RedEDGE2k1;301117 wrote:

The idea of temporarily binding a stack of paper together with a bent piece of thin metal wire is very simple. And it was patented. Are you upset because someone patented something so simple as a paper clip?

Paper clips are cheap and simple, as are Post-its. I am grateful to the people that make both (3M in the latter case) because they made things cheap, simple, and easy for all of us.

I'm upset because I was really looking forward to seeing innovations in our hobby. Right now the lighting issue is a big deal, between selecting the light systems, replacing bulbs, picking color temperatures, etc.

I was really watching every LED development (including organic LEDs) and hoping that something really nice and cheap would come down the line to help all of us.

I was also hoping that competition between companies and mass-production would lead to higher quality and lower prices. I have heard many reports of unreliability among PFO's products, so they would have had to up their quality or be beaten out.

I don't think PFO was stupid here because the patent was not published until at least a year after PFO started work on their product. As far as I know unpublished patents are 'invisible' and PFO was neither stealing nor dumb if they searched the patents and couldn't find anything.

I just hope this doesn't slow down the field of Aquarium LED lighting for the next 20 years until things get sorted out -- that's the issue for me.

This hobby is expensive enough that when a company comes along and makes things more difficult without really contributing anything that I can see, it makes me mad.

 

[jmaneyapanda]

We will ahve to agree to disagree. IMO&lt; PFO was not an &quot;innocent victim&quot;. Point in fact, after all was exposed, Orbitec offered to allow PFO to continue production, while deferring a percentage of profit to the patent owner. PFO declined. Then, the lawsuit was filed, and PFO &quot;soiled the bed&quot;. To me, that is dumb and poor business.

Again, I am not going to argue whether it was right or wrong for Orbitec to have the patent. That is a whole other issue. In this case, though, PFO infringed on a patent owners product, and then refused settlement, so the inevitable occured.

 

[FutureInterest]

It's hard to say how much if any profit they were making. I'm sure the royalties orbitec was asking for was substantial. Enough so that they would rather close up shop rather than pay... which is essentially what they did.

As for patenting ideas... Well technically Red is right that you cannot simply patent an idea. You have to patent the use of an idea. In fact being useful is the first requirement for patentability. Most people, including myself, don't get too hung up on that though and will simply say that patents protect ideas while copyrights protect the expression of an idea. So you're both right... kinda .

As for the non-obvious standard, its one of the more confusing and most litigated areas of patent law. It sure seems like it should be an obvious standard to meet, but its not! The legal definition takes many factors into account and balances them to determine whether an idea would be non-obvious or not.

As for this being a submarine patent... the PTO publishes patent applications to avoid this type of abuse. Before we would consider mere publication as proving constructive notice for infringement purposes. The standard now though is more of an "actual" notice standard... again to help protect people from patent misuse.

 

[rededge2k1]

Soarin';301139 wrote:
I was really watching every LED development (including organic LEDs) and hoping that something really nice and cheap would come down the line to help all of us.

This isn't the "death" of LED technology for aquariums. Keep in mind that a new patent can be granted for a drastic improvements to an existing patent. Of course, proving that your new thingamabob is a "drastic" improvement over the existing thingamabob is where your patent lawyers ($$$$) come into play.

For example, Orbitec doesn't own the rights to shining LEDs on aquariums. Rather, they own the right to do it the way it's demonstrated in their patent. If you can do it in a substantially different way, you should do so and apply for a patent.

Just think incandescent light bulb vs. metal halide light bulb. They're both "light bulbs."

-Dustin

 

[soarin']

FutureInterest;301253 wrote:

As for this being a submarine patent... the PTO publishes patent applications to avoid this type of abuse. Before we would consider mere publication as proving constructive notice for infringement purposes. The standard now though is more of an "actual" notice standard... again to help protect people from patent misuse.

If the patent applications are searchable, then PFO would have been very foolish to go down this road -- that's the part I haven't understood.

RedEDGE2k1;301312 wrote: This isn't the "death" of LED technology for aquariums.

...
Just think incandescent light bulb vs. metal halide light bulb. They're both "light bulbs."

-Dustin

You're right about that -- this world is a wonderful place and new and interesting things happen all the time. Many times things that seem bad are just blessings in disguise. I do know that the idea must have seemed extremely cool to the person who patented this, and a revolutionary thing.

I went ahead and looked up the patents on metal halide lamps just to check that story out, and found out that there was an original patent on metal halide lamps in 1912, but in 1966