LED's

[morris]

PFO is out of business and from what I hear there will be no more advances in LED lighting for aquariums due to patent issues.

 

[kirru]

Is that LED lighting only or does that mean moon lighting just for seeing at night as well? I got to have my moon lighting

 

[george]

As a hobby, I think we could easily file a class-action suit contesting the breadth of the patent involved.

If someone suddenly produced a patent saying they patented the use of HID lights over saltwater aquariums with a controller, would all of you pack up your metal halide setups willingly?

LED's showed amazing promise for aquariums in every way from heat issues to "green power" to acurate environmental simulation. I really hope that companies and the community don't roll over on this.

If anyone's interested, here's the http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=3&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%22orbital+technologies%22&OS=%22orbital+technologies%22&RS=%22orbital+technologies%22">original patent filing</a> and the [IMG]http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%22orbital+technologies%22&OS=%22orbital+technologies%22&RS=%22orbital+technologies%22">granted one</a>.

And, yes, it covers moon lights as well.

 

[jmaneyapanda]

George;286624 wrote: As a hobby, I think we could easily file a class-action suit contesting the breadth of the patent involved.

If someone suddenly produced a patent saying they patented the use of HID lights over saltwater aquariums with a controller, would all of you pack up your metal halide setups willingly?

LED's showed amazing promise for aquariums in every way from heat issues to "green power" to acurate environmental simulation. I really hope that companies and the community don't roll over on this.

If anyone's interested, here's the http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=3&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%22orbital+technologies%22&OS=%22orbital+technologies%22&RS=%22orbital+technologies%22">original patent filing</a> and the [IMG]http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%22orbital+technologies%22&OS=%22orbital+technologies%22&RS=%22orbital+technologies%22">granted one</a>.

And, yes, it covers moon lights as well.[/QUOTE]


The issue here is that PFO made the product over someone else patent. The users only suffer from lack of product and support. However, PFO is suffering the major setback.

The argument here is whether the patent shouldve been issued, so it is a complaint against the patent clerk. Personally, I think PFO was pretty stupid to start the line and invest so much into it, without first looking into whether it had been patented (which it had). Right ior worng reason for giving the patent, it was patended.

 

[lorenk]

FYI, I've patented this thread. Any duplication of this thread or attempt to improve it will result in a visit from my imaginary lawyer.

 

[george]

I'm betting that lawyers at PFO said they could easily challenge the patent as too broad, but by the time it came up, they didn't have the capital to challenge even an easy case. However distribute the costs around a reef community with something to loose and we could win a judgment in favor.