Reefers and Fans of LEDs Unite!

[evilc66]

Please take a read here

 

http://reefbuilders.com/2010/01/30/stop-or...g-broad-patent/

 

As a community, we need to find more evidence to blow holes in their patent claims. It's out there, and a lot of it has already been found (and used in the original PFO litigation), but I'm sure there is more. We need to find magazine or web articles, forum entries, pictures, lab tests, anything. The date is important though. These items must have shown up before December 2004 (the time of filing of the patent).

 

Now keep in mind that this is not just important for commercial companies developing LED lighting solutions, but for every reefer that wants to DIY an LED setup. While the likely hood of Orbitech going after the DIYers is slim, they can still target you for a lawsuit. Any device built that infringes on the patent, commercial or not, is a target. Even if they don't go after the DIYers, they could go after the companies that resell DIY components for the specific purpose of reef lighting. This affects everyone.

 

What I would like anyone who finds anything to do, is submit it to Reefbuilders, and post it here as a backup. I will also be posting this on other forums that I frequent to get the same results. The more ammunition that we have just makes the case stronger on getting the patent thrown out.

 

I know that there are a lot of you that are active on forums that I am not. If you would be so kind as to copy this thread and post it on other sites, and link them here.

[ccjung]

In the past 40 years or so of this hobby, we have seen lighting technology that feeds off of the main trend in the industry.

 

From incandescent to Flourescent to Compact Flourescent to mogul base MH to Double Ended MH to T5 to T5HO to LED to Plasma to Widget photon, WE AS AN INDUSTRY follow the main trends.

 

Why didn’t someone pursue patenting HQI technology? Because it wasn’t novel.

 

None of orbitechs claims are novel, as its just a way to control and color mix light using varying levels of intensity.

 

The more you read, the more you realize, that this is a case of a Patent process gone wrong.

 

PFO is out of business (controversial, but true) and the innovation in the industry has been stymied.

 

If there was ever a time for the industry and the hobby to come together, IT IS NOW.

[coolwaters]

cant w8 for the plasma arc lighting to come out...

we'll grow coral with that.

 

i dont see how they can sue DIYs for something they make at home from parts that we put together from scratch...

also cant we sell the LED systems as...well lighting. u know like wat LEDs were meant for?

 

Obitech is such a dushbag trying to get a piece of everyone's pie.

[redfishsc]

Just what does Orbitec make so we can push for a total boycott?

[BLoCkCliMbeR]

Just what does Orbitec make so we can push for a total boycott?

ummmm.....is this the same orbitec your trying to boycott?? http://www.orbitec.com/

 

i for one will not ever use a orbitec rocket engine...ever....ill buy russian or chinese before i do!

 

also, http://www.orbitec.com/LEDaquarium.html

[Professor]

Great idea Evil. I am getting ready to make the jump into LED myself, both experimenting with a Ecoxotic module as well as an array I am designing for a Pico at work. I think LED's are the future of reefing for the next decade or so.

 

Banding together is the only way to work through this. My past reading on the Orbitec patent and the PFO litigation left me disgusted.

 

I will start to research your request in my spare time.

 

-Prof

[evilc66]

cant w8 for the plasma arc lighting to come out...

we'll grow coral with that.

 

i dont see how they can sue DIYs for something they make at home from parts that we put together from scratch...

also cant we sell the LED systems as...well lighting. u know like wat LEDs were meant for?

 

Obitech is such a dushbag trying to get a piece of everyone's pie.

 

 

...until someone patents the use of plasma light over an aquarium.

 

What you pointed out is exactly the reason Orbitec shouldn't have the patent in the first place. This isn't anything new, or revolutionary. Anyone with half a brain can put a few LEDs, a driver, and a power supply over a tank and support life.

 

Unfortunately, holding a patent means that anyone that builds something using the patents claims is infringing, and can be sued. DIY or not, you can be a potential target.

[supernip]

http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/index.php?...2&hl=review

 

DO I WIN? August 8, 2003. I'd been using leds as primary lighting for a month or something. Please dont read poorly written review. Had no idea what I was doing

[farkwar]

Good Job evil.

 

The patent is bogus. Dimmable LEDs have been around for decades. Colored LEDs have been around for decades.

Use patents are patently spurious as well. If you can't patent a toothbrush(already invented), to be used on your fingernails, or clean your car. You need to invent a new thing. And Orbitec has not invented a new thing, LEDs over an aquarium use won't hold up if challenged.

 

 

But it will not change until it is challenged and changed in court.

Someone needs to sue someone.

 

There were some interviews with an interested IP lawyer linked in that asiansignals thread.

Maybe a bunch of folks can pitch in for a class action suit. There are 100 people or so in just on that led group buy thread. Everyone of them is going to be breaking the law to make a light.

[jeremai]

also, http://www.orbitec.com/LEDaquarium.html

does he, as the president of that company, honestly believe whatever products he may happen to bring to market will be well received by the hobby at large? he's delusional - and if he really is a hobbyist he should be ashamed.

 

I agree with evil, this is an example of patent misuse. the capitalist in me can't help but wonder if antitrust laws apply in patent cases, especially since the market is already well-defined and thriving...

[farkwar]

Anti trust does not apply.

 

A patent is an intentional limited monopoly on an invention.

 

This patent is spurious. It is not an novel invention.

 

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=yGM...q=dimmable+leds

[DiverReefer]

Some reefer lawyers need to get in on this. Do it right.

[jeremai]

competition law may not apply directly to the patent, but it should still be a factor for the company. I would say that orbitec's treatment of pfo, as well as the strong-arm effect that has kept led fixtures from other companies off the shelves, can be taken as anti-competitive practices that could lead to the firm dominating the market. the patent is just a legal ticket to ride, imo.

 

hopefully some people pop up with pre-patent usage, like supernip's. I'm generally not a fan of led lighting, but I find this particular situation hard to stomach.

[ccjung]

Tullio has also had his LED fixture featured at MACNA around August 2003.

 

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/aug...003/feature.htm

[supernip]

i wonder if tullio had his fixture up before I did. hmm

[ccjung]

Not a pee pee contest. Just about any prior art prior to 12/15/2004.

[neuwave]

Just an idea has anyone thought of contacting the lawyer whom orginally was defending PFO for aquarium use? By asking him we can find out what has and has not worked against the battle with orbitec. Then start a new plan of overcoming the patent. Or atleast comprise a series of starting points of new inventive ways of using leds over a tank. Might make it easier to find out what PFO treid to keep afloat but didn't work so we can take a different route of overcoming the patent.

[ccjung]

Theres already a submission in play to overturn the patent. All we need is as much PRIOR art as possible.

[robpardee]

Doesn't anyone personally know lawyer that would be intersted in giving input on the subject and possibly setting up a lawsuit of somekind to deny the renewal of their patent.

 

P.S. Their patent is bull*hit and it ticks me off whenver I think about it, It's like patenting the use of water to grow flowers.

[nibor]

What's really needed are examples of LED setups using two or more different coloured LEDs with each colour on seperate dimmable controls. Examples of this prior to their submission date completely undermines their claims.

 

EDIT These systems should be the only lighting on the aquariums to have maximum impact.

 

 

Quoting from Orbitec's Patent.

 

"2. Description of the Prior Art

 

There are many lighting systems currently available that either promote growth for land-based plants or are used for decoration or illumination of marine life. However, none of the prior art describes a system for promotion of marine life using light-emitting diode based lighting.

 

Plant growth lighting systems and apparatus are common in many fields that include crop production, germination, tissue culture growth, horticulture, landscape architecture, and specialty growth systems. Although these systems provide for support of plant growth and development in terrestrial applications, none is suitable as a growth system for plants in aquatic settings. For productive growth, marine plants and animal life such as coral and algae require (at least in a limited manner) light of a specific intensity and within a specific range of wavelengths. Light quality and quantity are degraded as you go deeper in water which can preclude healthy sustenance at depths below a few feet without powerful lighting systems.

 

Marine growth apparatus are available for cultivating or permitting the growth of marine life. These systems typically consist of structures that provide a surface that permits the growth of coral, algae and other marine life, or provide a portable or permanent habitat for marine life to grow within. These include systems that are used for artificial coral reef development, coral reef regeneration, harvesting of marine life for food, and marine aquaculture for jewelry and ornamental aquariums. These inventions are typically passive apparatus that rely on natural solar light for illumination and do not use spatially or spectrally controllable artificial lighting to promote or accelerate growth.

 

Finally, aquarium lighting systems are also common and include light sources using fluorescent, incandescent, metal halide or light emitting diodes. These systems can be classified into two types. In type one, the primary purpose is to provide illumination to an underwater space. They contain a housing, light source within said housing, and means of power supply or connection to power supply. The light is not spatially controllable, but instead attempts to provide a consistent intensity above an area of the marine habitat. These systems use fluorescent, incandescent or metal halide light sources, which provide low intensity light with high radiant heat output and no user-defined spectral control. Maintenance is required on these systems (through light source bulb replacement) to maintain light intensity over time.

 

In type two, the primary purpose of the lighting system is to provide decorative lighting, including artificial moon light or colored lighting, to the marine landscape. These systems are not intended to provide sufficient quantity of light and are only supplemental to other light that supports healthy sustenance and growth. They contain a housing, a colored light source usually consisting of light-emitting diodes, lasers, color wheels or filters combined with a light source, or ultra-violet illumination, and a power supply or connection to power supply. They may or may not be portable or submersible systems that direct light at specific marine features.

 

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."

[c_k_kuehne]

http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/index.php?...2&hl=review

 

DO I WIN? August 8, 2003. I'd been using leds as primary lighting for a month or something. Please dont read poorly written review. Had no idea what I was doing

 

Does this mean you get to sue Orbitec for stealing your idea

 

And do I now have to pay you to use my LED's

 

Go easy on me -- after finishing my current build I will have no money left

[evilc66]

Keep it up guys. This is what we need.

[supernip]

Does this mean you get to sue Orbitec for stealing your idea

 

And do I now have to pay you to use my LED's

 

Go easy on me -- after finishing my current build I will have no money left

 

no. I just want to be able to show off my work without being sued. Let me try to think of other cases around that time involving leds.

[neuwave]

hey evil would a group of scientists and marine biologits who have experimented with LED used on coral growth suffice?

 

Here's a article that was an experiment using LEDS to test out coral growth copyrighted in 2003 so it may be old enough?. Eh, maybe it will help who knows.

 

LED experiment on coral growth

[doug105]

How long does this patent last??

 

Doesn't it eventually expire??

 

 

DougN