Is this why Solaris went out of business?

[Wells]

They have Intellectual Property Rights is is far more broad than a Patent.

 

You make a can for a Soda, it is not a Coke Can, but is somehow looks like a Coke Can. Coke owns the Intellectual Property Rights on the Can look. You cannot produce the can. Intellectual Rights also can be claimed in international court. You are looking at a minimum of 25-30K to obtain Intellectual Rights per item. Patent is in the 2.5k Range.

 

This is done mainly to prevent employees from leaving and forming a new company. Changing the design slightly to get around the Patent. Again, the litigation on either end is so costly, there has to be an underlying reason for this to be taking place.

 

The LED Lighting business for Marine Aquariums is far from a multi-million dollar business. To try re-coup these attorney fees just does not make sense. It would take years.

[cparka23]

It seems this has to do more with the violation of Intellectual Property Rights. To file and register Intellectual Rights is an incredibly costly venture. [...]

 

I would venture to assume, the designer of the PFO LED Lighting at some point had prior design knowledge of the Orbitec system.[...]

Interesting take, Wells. That could somewhat explain the sudden dismissal of the entire Solaris team. But as you mentioned, the cost of litigation would be prohibitive.

 

If this is the case of violating a patent, I can see a reason why the suit makes fiscal sense. In order to recoup those costs (outside of awarded damages), they either aim to have a high margin and volume of their presumed LED fixture for aquariums (unlikely), or they could be losing market share to the Solaris fixture in an industry not reef-related. The latter is more likely, IMO.

 

Still, it's all merely speculative.

[awolfram]

ok, no one has answered the big question:

 

I need a replacement for my now dead 72 inch solaris....who can we go to that is still selling? Overseas outside of domestic patent jurisdiction maybe? Or some store that still carries inventory?

[neanderthalman]

ok, no one has answered the big question:

 

I need a replacement for my now dead 72 inch solaris....who can we go to that is still selling? Overseas outside of domestic patent jurisdiction maybe? Or some store that still carries inventory?

 

I believe the term is "caveat emptor"

[evilc66]

Most stores have pulled all inventory (the few that carried them anyways) Drs. Foster and Smith have pulled all units. Getting replacement parts is going to be very tough. All retail stores were not allowed to sell parts, and told them to refer all warranty and repairs directly to them. Sad to say, but you might be SOL.

[neanderthalman]

Talk to Evilc66 - maybe you can repair it yourself, or at least retrofit it with buckpucks to operate the existing LEDs.

[evilc66]

I guess it would be possible to refit it with another form of control system. You would lose you trick features though.

[TJ_Burton]

This topic has been down for a while, but I wanted to bring it back and see if there has been any news since early Feb on what is going on with the lawsuit.

 

Anyone heard any news about what aquarium company Orbitech is teaming up with to release their LED technology?

[evilc66]

Orbitech was planning on releasing their own product, under the name of Global if I remember correctly. PFO is still fighting, and many experts have given testimony/deposition in support of PFO, but it's uncertain as to what is happening next. This could drag on for months.

[TJ_Burton]

Orbitech was planning on releasing their own product, under the name of Global if I remember correctly. PFO is still fighting, and many experts have given testimony/deposition in support of PFO, but it's uncertain as to what is happening next. This could drag on for months.

 

Well I hope PFO prevails, and Orbitech still pursues the aquarium lighting industry regardless. I think it would give them a sort of rival battle with each other causing both companies to try and outdo the other resulting in a fast and steady climb in LED technology for the aquarium.

[b_c_fisher]

^Agreed

[eddiecorrea]

Honestly I see no problem in what Orbitec is doing. I wish I would have thought of it. If some company out there is not smart enough to apply for patents to protect their investment then another company should get them. Its excellent business. And who ever wrote that little article lost alot of respect for changing the name to craptech. Grow up.

[TJ_Burton]

Honestly I see no problem in what Orbitec is doing. I wish I would have thought of it. If some company out there is not smart enough to apply for patents to protect their investment then another company should get them. Its excellent business. And who ever wrote that little article lost alot of respect for changing the name to craptech. Grow up.

 

I think it is past the blame game stage. I don't really care who is right or wrong in the situation - all I hope for is that it works out better for the hobby in the end.

 

It is possible two people had the same idea at roughly the same time and one was smart enough to patent first. It is possible it was not intentional that the idea or technology was "stolen" - either way the situation has become very serious for both companies, and PFO doesn't look like they are doing too well.

 

From this point forward we should look forward to, and anticipate a "good" ending; for LED technology in the hobby to expand and grow, and not worry about PFO or Orbitech as a company.

[evilc66]

This could have been good for the industry if the approach was used to promote competition, not squash it. I can respect a company that sells a product that they patent the use of. If Orbitech had a product available for sale at the time of the lawsuit, the outlook on the company would be a lot more favorable. In an age where patent trolls are despised, a move like this from Orbitec with no product to back the patent, it's inevitable that there will be backlash in the hobby.

[PBUEHH]

good luck trying to get all the relevant pieces of info from any one side, we are all ill informed unless we all have access to the legal material deciding the case. then after that who can read (or would want to) all the legal jargon which just translate into bs for the sake of confusing the reader.

[BlueAbyss]

Hmm...

 

I don't believe that any company of any kind should be granted a patent for an 'idea'. The patent should be for a unique and specific product that is different from others of it's kind for one reason or another. Any LED based product has the option of being controlled by PWM, having dimming, a variety of color options, etc. Patenting the use of such things in a specific situation would be like patenting the use of paper for magazines, or the use of carbon dioxide to grow plants... Just my opinion

 

I'll be building my own lighting, thank you NR for your DIY insight!

[The Propagator]

I think there is a HUGE piece of the puzzle missing my self.

This is just to outlandish as its written in that article. I do not believe that the US patent office would issue a patent ( like you said /\ ) for specific usage. They had to have developed something that PFO was infringing on IMHO or maybe vise versus ? but something definitely isn't right here.

[amnesiak]

That's the broadest patent I've ever seen. Just for reference, this was filed 2004 and issued in 2007.

 

Here's some prior art:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5211469.html filed 1991/granted 1993

a quote:

An aquarium lighting system for internally illuminating an aquarium tank filled with water, the lighting system comprising:

a multiplicity of lighting sources for disposition within the aquarium tank below the waterline, each lighting source including a light emitting diode

 

Here's more prior art. I didn't look hard, but here's a page of a 1W LED moonlight that aquariumguys was selling in 2004. A finished product. I bet there were more before this too.

http://web.archive.org/web/20041024152919/...aqualight3.html

 

Seriously, the patent office must have been asleep on this.

[evilc66]

Problem is, neither of those are intended for supporting life, which the Orbitec patent covers. Those patents wouldn't be any good against this.

[The Propagator]

Which would be practical application, and that covers every LED made by every manufacturer on the market.

They all have practical application in this hobby. The argument could be made that those low wattage moon light LED's could also support life in a pico.

Which would mean ALL of those LED manufacturing companies would all be able to sue Orbitech for infringement as well yes ? Because this directly involves a product that they came up with and already have a patent on design, and sell them as such to any one in the world for use in any application.

You can't patent something that is already patented. I don't buy this whole thing.

This absolutely has to be a case where Orbitech developed a particular pod, LED, or Lens set that PFO laid claim to by stamping their name on it with out permission and got the smack down because of.

This is just to ludicrous to believe the way it reads.

[amnesiak]

Agreed on the life issue. But, if you combined a few of these, or even just used one 1w light, wouldn't there be some sort of plankton, algae, or small life that would grow?

 

Also, this part is interesting: a housing connectable to said top edge. It looks like there's a loophole to make pendants, since everything is dependent on claim 1 or claim 5 and they both have that clause.

 

Next time I see my patent attorney friend I'll have him look over this.

[amnesiak]

Prop: The other companies wouldn't be able to sue orbitech for infringement, that's only if they would have had patents to protect. But if they could claim that they had existing "prior art", ie, products or devices shown to the public before the filing date, they could get this patent nullified.

[The Propagator]

I'm tell'nya fellas there is a dead fish stinking it up some where.

NONE of this makes any damn sense at all. Not Orbitech patent claiming rights to every LED used for marine aquariums, nor PFO being sued for using them as such. There absolutely has to be a huge piece of information we are not privy to yet or never will be.

That is essentially the same as you or I slapping a patten on bathroom tissue used to clean up spills around marine aquariums. It just doesn't make sense to me. Not only that, but it doesn't make sense that this company would be so worried about it when LED's being sold commercially with any effectiveness for the marine aquarium to the masses are so far off from practical cost to build versus affordable price at the point of sale it isn't even funny. As is they are already targeting one class of consumer with the PFO and most others who are any where near that advanced with their fixtures. SO why would a comany like Orbatech be so interested in LED's used in marine aquarium application only ?

[TJ_Burton]

I'm tell'nya fellas there is a dead fish stinking it up some where.

NONE of this makes any damn sense at all. Not Orbitech patent claiming rights to every LED used for marine aquariums, nor PFO being sued for using them as such. There absolutely has to be a huge piece of information we are not privy to yet or never will be.

That is essentially the same as you or I slapping a patten on bathroom tissue used to clean up spills around marine aquariums. It just doesn't make sense to me. Not only that, but it doesn't make sense that this company would be so worried about it when LED's being sold commercially with any effectiveness for the marine aquarium to the masses are so far off from practical cost to build versus affordable price at the point of sale it isn't even funny. As is they are already targeting one class of consumer with the PFO and most others who are any where near that advanced with their fixtures. SO why would a comany like Orbatech be so interested in LED's used in marine aquarium application only ?

 

It may be possible that Orbitech is planning to merge with a company that can produce the same type of unit PFO was making for a much lower price point. They may drop down in price enough to consider purchasing the LED units over full blown HQI+T5 units. Otherwise I don't see why this would be such a big deal. Even if they planned to do that they could probably put the Solaris line out of business by undercutting them rather then suing their pants off first.

 

I really have no idea what they are up to - but it better be good. This would be quite a stink over nothing if they don't actually take this somewhere that is lucrative for both them and the hobby.

[MSU Fan]

I gotta agree with Prop here. Something smells. The real point is that Orbitec is large/strong enough to tie this thing in knots for years and destroy PFO that way - it may all be a moot point.

 

My personal .02 is that patent law was created by a mentally handicapped person on crack - because it works about that well.