masterbuilder Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Posted over at reefbuilders.com http://www.reefbuilders.com/2009/02/03/big...leds/#more-4332 ============================================================ Well we started hearing murmurs of trouble brewing at PFO and our investigation has revealed some startling news which will affect the future of all LEDs for aquarium use. The story all began when we were informed that PFO Lighting, one of the leading innovators and manufacturers of aquarium lighting, laid off their entire staff. Why would a thriving company with innovative products such as the Solaris be forced to do such a thing? Because they are being sued by bottom-feeding patent trolls who have nothing to do with our industry! Please read on to learn more about how this lawsuit is damaging innovation in the industry and how it could lead to a complete absence of LED technology in the aquarium hobby. This gloomy situation all began with a patent lawsuit which was filed by the greedy folks at Orbital Technologies Corporation, also known as Orbitec. For some unknown reason, this primarily aerospace research and development company with over $150 Million in industry and government contracts decided to patent the use of LEDs for Marine aquariums, well after the people began to use LEDs for marine tanks and well after PFO began shipping the Solaris luminaire. Once they were awarded the really broad and obviously bogus patent, Orbitec filed a lawsuit against the most obvious aquarium LED manufacturer PFO. PFO tried to reason with the heartless corporation, even offering to sell the lighting division to Orbitec. The suits at craptec made it clear that they had no intention of operating in the aquarium industry and they demanded 25% royalties on all LED products sold. With over $150 Million in contracts, what do they care about squeezing out a few grand from the aquarium industry? Well the road to corporate profit and greed is paved on the backs of hard working folks and the path of least resistance is what makes a river crooked; Orbitec couldnt care any less about the industry they are disrupting and the American companies and jobs they are shuttering. As if things weren’t bad enough in this economy, the target of this lawsuit is not some far away Chinese knock off company, it’s a domestic manufacturer which uses nearly all American labor and parts. Furthermore, the implication of this lawsuit will affect all light fixtures which use LEDs, that means Current, Aqua Illuminators, AquaFX and even all the little moonlight makers could be next on the chopping block. PFO has tried and failed to convince some of these manufacturers that this lawsuit is in the mutual interest of many parties, should Craptec win this lawsuit, they could singlehandedly halt the production of LED fixtures in the aquarium industry for good. The impending lawsuit scheduled for this month has already stymied aquarium lighting innovation. We know of several LED fixtures which some of these companies have ready for release but they are withholding from the market until the outcome of the Wisonsin based lawsuit. With PFO’s lawyer fees well over 6 digits and climbing, it’s clear that craptec and it’s army of legal hacks are bleeding PFO of capital until they probably cannot fight the lawsuit anymore. So Reefbuilders readers, including all of you in the lighting industry we know you’re reading this too, the detritus has hit the fan. The detritus just got real and it is time for us to fight for our industry, for our hobby, and for the good of the American economy. We implore you to become involved in this legal battle anyway you can. Take a moment to email Bob and Marty over at craptec what you think about their indifference towards the aquarium hobby or the well being of American manufacturers. Please contact PFO with your support and most importantly, please comment below on how we can all band together to come to the aid of one of our own in the industry. Link to comment
Nanoized Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 There are companies with the sole intent of getting patents merely to collect royalties and or win lawsuits. No intention of building anything ever. Link to comment
npain316 Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 It's obvious this article is somewhat biased, and I'm afraid some other pertinant information may have been omited. Just my opinions though. Admittedly, I have minimal understanding of patent law, but I think what they are doing is legal. In the same breath I will admit it is sickening! Also, this article says the patent is for "marine aquariums". So why, if you are PFO, AI, Current, etc. just market it for freshwater, hydroponics, industrial, disc jockeys? pick something! Luckly patenets are not indefinent, if my memory serves correct the limit is 20 years.This should have no impact on us DIYers either. The availability of our resources SHOULD NOT be affected, nor can Orbitec come after us for making our own lights. If we, mass produce and sell them, thats another issue. It sucks for the folks at PFO, and I wish them the best. Link to comment
jeremai Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Why the hell didn't PFO apply for the patents themselves? If the patents were unavailable when the company started to produce units, then they knew full well something like this would happen. I'm not condoning what Orbitec did, but how is this industry to be taken seriously when innovative companies have no idea what is involved in running a business? When you are dealing with cutting edge technology, you cannot just trust that no one will try and steal it. Link to comment
BKtomodachi Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Why the hell didn't PFO apply for the patents themselves? That was my first thought in reading this thread. Link to comment
ccjung Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 ive stayed silent on this issue for a long time, but it looks like its out in the wild, so I can put in my 0.02. It's sickening how these scientists used government money to fund their research in order to rape and pillage free enterprise. The patent and the timing of the patent has merit, but its all dependent on Tullio Del Aquila, who is the godfather of LEDs for aquariums. His use of LEDs for primary lighting were mentioned in MACNA in August of 2002, not 2003 the year the patent was filed. You cant get a patent if you arent the invention or if the inventor is novel or has been published/documented. Timing is critical, but i think its all up to Tullio. this is hitting me hard right now and I am taken unaware of whats transpired at PFO. I need to dig up some links. http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/aug...003/feature.htm Chris Link to comment
JG Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 ive stayed silent on this issue for a long time, but it looks like its out in the wild, so I can put in my 0.02. It's sickening how these scientists used government money to fund their research in order to rape and pillage free enterprise. The patent and the timing of the patent has merit, but its all dependent on Tullio Del Aquila, who is the godfather of LEDs for aquariums. His use of LEDs for primary lighting were mentioned in MACNA in August of 2002, not 2003 the year the patent was filed. You cant get a patent if you arent the invention or if the invention is novel or has been published/documented. Timing is critical, but i think its all up to Tullio. this is hitting me hard right now and I am taken unaware of whats transpired at PFO. I need to dig up some links. http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/aug...003/feature.htm Chris interesting there are some who believe the use of government funds prevents scientists from patenting breakthroughs. I don't know enough about patent law to know sh1t from shiola. I still don't understand how using lights for a specific use qualifies for a patent. Link to comment
Nick's Reef Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 That's terrible, looks like we may be stuck with DIY fixtures of halides and t5ho for awhile. I can't belive someone would do something like that, and I agree that use in marine aquariums sonds to broad for a patent. But hell I'm only 15 and don't understand that stuff. Link to comment
npain316 Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 You cant get a patent if you arent the invention or if the invention is novel or has been published/documented. Timing is critical, but i think its all up to Tullio. ^^^This is the answer. Tullio, publically demonstrated LED aquarium lighting. This makes it public knowledge. Its not even up to Tullio. He made it public knowledge in 2002 w/o applying for a patent. Chris is right on! No company or individual can patent public knowledge. Tullio was the only one to patent it...and I'm fairly sure its too late for him now too (the cats out of the bag). PFO et al. will win this a get there all the court/lawyer fees paid back from Orbitec. Link to comment
echinatl Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I'm not an expert here but this patent doesn't look legit. They should challenge the patent. This is like how Apple says it has a patent on multitouch gestures, it's silly and other companies are already calling their bluff (Palms new device). Plus, this fixture is just combining existing products. It's like the guy who tried to patent a pencil with an eraser, he was denied. Link to comment
clifford Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I have no idea if this is something PFO even wants to deal with, but Slashdot LOVES this kind of crap, and the community is fairly militant regarding (evil) patent issues. It's a tech related, it's a patent issue, and /. has a MUCH larger audience, so if getting some eyes and attention on this is the desired result...having someone "in the know" get this posted might not be a bad idea? Link to comment
BKtomodachi Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 wow, we have lots of patent lawyers on NR this afternoon. Link to comment
JG Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 wow, we have lots of patent lawyers on NR this afternoon. when do we not have lots of sme here Link to comment
c2dev Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I wanted to comment on this, as my company's product was mentioned in the original post. A point that hasn't been brought up anywhere with regards to this issue, is that PFO filed for a provisional patent on April 27th, 2006. The application was then published on November 1st, 2007. The application was then rejected in 2008. In this application it doesn't site anywhere the patent from Orbital Technologies, Inc. that was granted on May 22nd 2007. The Orbital application should have been available at time of filing for PFO's provisional status. Looking at this timeline means PFO continued trying to get a patent on something that had already been patented. It also worth noting that PFO has also tried to exercise the patent's power in pending state, without the issuance of the patent. I know this for a fact. The concept of LEDs in the aquatic industry isn't novel, therefore shouldn't have been patented in the first place. As ccjung posted earlier, Tulio has presented data using them for years. If a patent is going to be had in this industry, unless it's truly novel, a design patent is the only one that fits. Implementation is key in the LED realm, as the do-it-yourself group knows. EDIT/NOTE:...at least that's my opinion on how the patent system should work. -Chris Link to comment
jeremai Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 ^ Right. PFO is not an innocent little start-up being quashed by Big Business, imo. There is more to the story, and I'm interested to see how it plays out. Link to comment
JG Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I wanted to comment on this, as my company's product was mentioned in the original post. which one? Link to comment
Marteen Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 which one? Aqua Illuminations. Link to comment
skimmerdude Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 which one? Can't nanocustoms make a "kit" that includes all the pieces that you purchase "separately"? So they sell the led's and the power supplies and fittings to get the lighting systems into or above the nano tank. Or they make a full spectrum "reading light" or something. There has to be a way around this. It just does not seem right that you can patent a light for a specific application. It just does not seem novel enough, maybe a certain "special" spectrum of led's or something. I just don't see how any company can make an led flashlight, but a patent is allowed if you shine that light on a "marine" tank. This definitely needs to be attacked . . . Can someone post the actual patent? Can it be argued that their patent is for a "marine" tank, and we are keeping "reef" tanks? If you change their design enough, you can be outside their patent. What if someone wanted to produce "sun" or "moon" simulators, and use them for whatever they wanted, like shining the light on any damn thing they please. And these simulators just happen to fit into a biocube 29 hood, with slight modification of coarse. Could you argue that we need "life support lights" and their patent is simply for illumination of marine life so it can be viewed? Or what if new led technologies allow cooler running systems, what about a new patent for a new low heat model. I also don't get how lights for a specific use qualifies for a patent, someone please post the patent so we can see what we are up against. Link to comment
neanderthalman Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 http://www.google.com/patents?id=mwWAAAAAE...ne+aquarium+LED Looks like I was six months late to the party, or I'd throw my own LEDs in as "public knowledge" Link to comment
skimmerdude Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 It seems that their patent describes some specifics, certain open top lights, like the elos e-lite might fall outside of the patent. It might also be outside the patent if the lighting was integrated into a "supercube" type of setup. Link to comment
neanderthalman Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Looks to me that any pendant will be ok, it just can't mount to the outside rim of the tank. Also, any design that does not have a controller or cannot control the intensity of the output is outside the patent. OH SNAP. The solaris permits altering of the spectrum of the output. Innovation biatches. Link to comment
Nick's Reef Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 So PFO is fine or are there more specifics we don't know about? Link to comment
skimmerdude Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 So PFO is fine or are there more specifics we don't know about? I would bet $$$$$$$$$$ that there are more specifics we don't know about, but this seems in now way bullet proof. But someone just needs to fight it. The idea of underwater lights might be covered pretty well by this patent. The led's are all arranged in the same plane in these images. What if they were placed on a convex surface to better disperse the light or what if the led arrangements were swappable, or what if the led box if mobile like the old nanocustoms fuge lights. They should be a-ok. Anyone know for sure how long you have to get a product to market after filing a patent? I would guess that if PFO took it to court with decent lawyers, they would win. We need a reefers lobby. Link to comment
stanlalee Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 bout time we got the scoop on what the heck was going on with PFO. it made no sense before why they are doing what they were doing. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.