Wow, have you seen this

[johnr2604]

I was just just reading this article. Dont know how I missed this going on but it can't be good.

 

[drnecropolis]

I remember seeing something about that before.. Something along the lines of they were not going to make any kinds of lights anymore except LED then they got smacked with that crap, and they have already made the conversion away from Halides and everything else so they stood to lose it all with the gamble on LED

 

[rostato]

That stinks

 

[seedless reefer]

If I shared my thoughts on this it would start a very lively debate.

 

[johnr2604]

DrNecropolis;283734 wrote: I remember seeing something about that before.. Something along the lines of they were not going to make any kinds of lights anymore except LED then they got smacked with that crap, and they have already made the conversion away from Halides and everything else so they stood to lose it all with the gamble on LED

Yeah it sucks, They have always made great halides and I think it was a poor descision to ditch them. If they loose the lawsuit though its going to have huge ripples in the aquarium lighting industry.

 

[seedless reefer]

They will more than likely lose and rightfully so they are infringing on Orbits patent.
Seems to me that all PFO would have to do is look at the detailed patent, make a minor improvement and re-patent.

 

[johnr2604]

Seedless Reefer;283745 wrote: They will more than likely lose and rightfully so they are infringing on Orbits patent.
Seems to me that all PFO would have to do is look at the detailed patent, make a minor improvement and re-patent.

Well, I dont think redesign is possible. Looks to me like they have pattented the general idea of lighting marine aquaria with LED's. While I agree that they may have infringed on the patent the question you have to ask yourself is weather this should have been patentable at all. I'm not a patent lawyer but I just think the patent is to broad. I can see patenting specific designs but I liken it to NASA patenting traveling through the atmosphere to get to space.

 

[seedless reefer]

I believe you can patent an "idea" and if I am correct Orbit is entitled to royalties.

It's Capitalism at work.

 

[weaglereefer]

This shouldn't stop us from being able to get Chinese knock-offs in a year or two, should it?

 

[hn1]

johnr2604;283752 wrote: Well, I dont think redesign is possible. Looks to me like they have pattented the general idea of lighting marine aquaria with LED's. While I agree that they may have infringed on the patent the question you have to ask yourself is weather this should have been patentable at all. I'm not a patent lawyer but I just think the patent is to broad. I can see patenting specific designs but I liken it to NASA patenting traveling through the atmosphere to get to space.

Seedless Reefer;283759 wrote: I believe you can patent an "idea" and if I am correct Orbit is entitled to royalties.

It's Capitalism at work.

I'm going to patent the idea of electronic communication then. You can both pay in coral.

I agree with both posts... PFO did infringe, but if you read the patent it is way too broad. JMHO.

 

[weaglereefer]

I'm going to patent the use of salt in marine aquaria...

 

[johnr2604]

Seedless Reefer;283759 wrote: I believe you can patent an "idea" and if I am correct Orbit is entitled to royalties.

It's Capitalism at work.

Well like I said I agree you should be able to patent a design but not such a broad idea. I think I will patent the idea of using incondescents to aluminate CO2 this way I can sue anybody using light bulbs to light their house. Isn't this the same difference? Just like Edison patented the light bulb. He wasn't able to patent the idea of creating light with electricity he was only able to patent the design of the bulb, hense the Edison base. This still left it Open for Tesla to create a bulb with a different base and eventually flourescents.

 

[grouper therapy]

shining light thru space is not an idea. so what, if an aquarium happens to be in the way

 

[kirru]

Seedless Reefer;283745 wrote: They will more than likely lose and rightfully so they are infringing on Orbits patent.
Seems to me that all PFO would have to do is look at the detailed patent, make a minor improvement and re-patent.

I'd settle under the conditions that Orbits take control of the LED lighting division at PFO and produces the lights till the Patent runs out and lets PFO take over their LED lighting division again.

Or with what you are suggesting, put individual highly reflective reflectors and patent those.

Any other ways to improve it or change it so they could re-patent under a different one?

I wasn't aware that there was and LED patent for plant growth and such. kinda stupid, they only went after them was because they were making money off of the items and why did the US Patent office notice there was already a patent out for this design, i'd blame it on them.

 

[kirru]

grouper therapy;283767 wrote: shining light thru space is not an idea. so what, if an aquarium happens to be in the way

i agree with you on that point as well

 

[drnecropolis]

Kirru;283769 wrote: I'd settle under the conditions that Orbits take control of the LED lighting division at PFO and produces the lights till the Patent runs out and lets PFO take over their LED lighting division again.

.

They didnt want to do that..PFO tried to sell that division to them and they said they didnt want to operate in the Aquarium industry

 

[kirru]

I'd sue the patent attorneys on the basis they didn't find the patent that was already listed. or something along those lines, i'm sure a lawyer could come up with a case

ares;283771 wrote: broad yes, little known fact, patent attorneys are pretty cheap for filing a patent, you bend over when it comes time to defend them.

but PFO's pockets are a bit too shallow Im guessing to make the case needed. not worth fighting.

the spin on that is heavy though, poor little PFO, lets not forget that the solaris was the biggest turd you could buy... sorry, but its failure rate would appear they put as much thought into R&D as they did into researching potential patent infringments. the solution of "just replace the LEDs!" was ridiculous.

and the big bad company that holds the patent, what in the world would an aerospace company need a patent on LEDs growing plantlife in marine enviroments? makes sense to me... Im suprised they are the only one with a patent on it. and doubt they will for long before someone with some real deep pockets fights that. Though it wont be for our relatively small market.

eventually I suspect a quality product will come out and they will pay a modest royalty to orbitec, something they can all live with, as its in orbitecs best interest as well, unless they plan to enter the market themselves, and they wont.

 

[kirru]

DrNecropolis;283773 wrote: They didnt want to do that..PFO tried to sell that division to them and they said they didnt want to operate in the Aquarium industry

Then I'd tell Orbitec to shove it and be done with it. lol American laws and things can be a scary place

 

[crew]

ya, the original patent is for illuminating a marine environment with LED's... why does an aerospace company who has stated they want no part in this industry have this patent?? I think its bull**** personally.. excuse my french

 

[kirru]

yea, this kinda suxs a little.
Maybe they win. I'd like to see that happen


Side Note:
anyone good with wiring? I'm going to attempt a DIY to add some moon lighting to a fixture that doesn't have it, I have 5 LEDs I'd like to use. Just PM me please.