Ya Alibaba doesnt care about patent's LOL

led lighting
 

the ones on alibaba are 1 watt -14000k-20000k(probably more 14000) and blue at 460 nm.as i mostly have gargonians(8)sun coral(4) and carnations(6)lower lighting is not the problem.if i do buy them i am going to j&l aquatics and test them on a meter-still it probably be better than the coralifes i have now(4 over a 220 gal).the only thing i heard that there might be a problem is if one bulb burns out they all go

and to play devils advocate, they do have an invention of a novel idea that is usefull. and they regestered for a patent befor anyone else had applied or was even using such a system comercialy.

personaly I think looking into this is a waist of your time, but if you have time to waist.... PFO had there court battle claiming it was to broad and encompasing and tried to have the pattent revoked and lost..

Pattents serve a purpose and I suport them.. we can't just arbatrarly not honor the ones that incoveniance us. that would be like me taking you to court to have your patent revoked because we don't like the fact that we can't do it to.

Steve

PFO lost that battle because they ran out of money, not because the patent was valid.

Yeah, that might work for you and hey, it's your buck :biggrin: I would just worry a bit about the quality of those no name fixtures in terms of build and cooling. if LEDs are run to hot then their lifetime will be severely degraded; lasting 18 to 24 months instead of 5+ years.

Now, as for the patent (sorry to kind of keep the side tangent going on this thread but I think it is a good discussion), I have given the first one a quick read. I'm not an expert on engineering patents as my experience is primarily on the pharmaceutical side. However, I would say at worst this patent should never have been issued and at best it should have been narrowed in scope.

As it is I think you could build an LED fixture without any controller for dimming etc. and not be subject to this patent. What is patented seems to be the whole shebang with controller.

Now, the big question for me is whether the patented technology is obvious or not. If obvious it should not have been patented. Right off the bat their description of prior art is flawed and incorrect:

So the implication is that the existing light systems are not suitable for aquarium use which is just plain wrong. My corals grow fine under my Sunlight Supply Sunblaze fixture which is exactly identical to their hydroponics fixtures. Really, other than public aquariums and a few really wealthy individuals who has a tank more than a couple of feet deep? Are the existing MH, fluorescent and CF systems completely inadequate to support growth? I think not. Furthermore, LED light also degrades as it penetrates deeper into water as opposed to their implication that it magically penetrates the water like a scalded cat.

This really has little to do with aquarium lighting.

They imply that other forms of aquarium lighting are low intensity and meant to illuminate the aquarium rather than support growth of corals and algae etc. They also imply no spectral control which is not true as we do that by using different bulbs in different combinations. We also use timers on separate actinics and whiter lights to simulate sunrise and sunset. Not much different then the LED systems as you have spectral control by varying the intensity of separate LEDs of different spectrums. Not really any different then what has come before other than having somewhat finer control of the process.

Now let's examine the actual invention:

Uuuhhhh, do we not already have systems that can provide optimal wavelengths between 380nm to 690nm and can be controlled with timers to provide sunrise, daylight, sunset and moonlight? How is doing this with LEDs non-obvious? Do we not already have light sources (i.e specific colour bulbs) that enhance the fluorescence and colours of fish and corals?

Not really true. While LEDs, if properly cooled, will have a lifetime of 5+ year they do degrade over time. Cree emitters will probably loose 20% to 30% of their output over 5 or 6 years. So, yes they do last longer then other sources but they do also degrade over time. That statement is not accurate and I fail to see the invention because a more long lasting light source has been developed by others. Remember, Orbitec did not invent any of these LEDs, they are trying to claim a new use that was not thought of by others and is not obvious to those with knowledge of aquarium lighting.

A weak argument on their part and hardly something worthy of issuing a patent. Most lighting systems have a splash shield to prevent broken bulbs getting into tanks. while it can and does happen on occasion I hardly think that is a major breakthrough.

I'm not familiar enough with other forms of underwater lighting to comment on this. Maybe underwater fluorescent or MH systems exist?


In any case, the only thing I can see that is significantly different from other lighting systems is a finer degree of on the fly control of the lighting (spectrum and intensity etc.) but the question still remains as to whether that would be obvious or not. To me it is.

It's to bad PFO ran out of money before they could really fight this. Also, I think the patent should be attacked from the obviousness standpoint rather then trying to establish a bunch of prior art or by a combination of tactics. Going the prior art route alone is probably subject to to many uncertainties.

Well see my last post to decide whether they have an invention or not. Some say yes, some say no.

I do support patents wholeheartedly but the patent system has its flaws and sometimes stupid patents like this one get through that cause problems for an industry and favour people who really invented nothing (ever heard of patent trolls?). Sorry, using LEDs for aquarium lighting is not an invention, it is obvious. You can't patent something that is obvious or an obvious improvement on existing technology. At the risk of repeating myself it HAS to be non-obvious and novel.

In pharmaceuticals if there is a drug out that treats arthritis by an anti-inflammatory mechanism we cannot patent that drug for the treatment of another autoimmune disease by means of anti-inflammatory activity. That would be an obvious extension of its utility. We could however, file a use patent on that drug if we found that it had another activity besides being an anti-inflammatory that say prevented hair loss. The hair loss prevention is unrelated, unknown and unexpected in relation to the anti-arthritis activity. So I fail to see how using a light source to light an aquarium is not obvious :biggrin:

Now if Orbitec have some specific control scheme or can demonstrate that specific spectra over specific time periods enhance growth then that would be an invention. They have not done that. They have simply stated that throwing a controller on an LED array to control colour spectrum and time is something new that wasn't obvious and and they were the first to think of it. That's BS.

And as mentioned above, the PFO lawsuit never reached its conclusion because they went belly up.

I totally agree with you and will back you if you decide to fight it. But really, what can we, a group of reefers do? If PFO ran out of money fighing, then Orbitec has some deep pockets or REALLLY good lawyers. I couldnt afford a PFO fixture when it came out, and I certainly can't afford to fight Orbitec for the Patent

What gets me is the LED manufacturers likely HATE this patent. They'd easily sell more LEDs if this patent didn't exist.

ok one thing here is your caught in the time warp.. you keep reading this as if it was applied for today.. they files in 2002 and at that time there was no discusion of using LEDs for anything but acent lighting as crees wern't out/afordable yet and we were only playing with 5mm LEDs. so at the time this was aplied for we were only using leds for decrative purposes. I even did PAR tests on 5mm leds and they were junk. untill 3watt leds were redily availble no one used leds as a primary lighting source then a while later solarus came out with 3 watt leds but they were off shore cheep ones that had a lot of burn out problems.

also you should get 50000 hours befor you lose 15 to 20 % or the brightness only the spectral wavelenth stays the same where in other lights both the brightness and wavelenght are decreased/changed. so there is some valid points there.

I don't know if you would get away with making a system with out a controler.. it looks like the controler is an inclusion to the main patent of using one or more LEDs over an aquarium to permote grother of marine life.. I would have to read it agin though.. one thing that did pop into my head is you could maybe sell a system for fresh water tanks and sell it as an ornamental light.. the only thing I would wonder about is the spectral wavelenth for color they mention.. that might be a catch all for fresh water use.. but if it is sold as an accent light it might be able to squeek through as long as you don't think anyone would use it as a primary light.. :mrgreen:

now from my understanding the drug trade is heavy regulated by the goverment to do with patents also to allow the goverment and medical system access to clone drugs for cheep.

with this one you have to look at it not as you you would a drug where you are dealing with a specific compound but rater.. hmm whats the best way to look at it.. lets say I go to home depot and buy a bunch of off the shelf stuff. with that I go home and build a system that automates a rotatiller so it will follow a string and keep your garden tilled inbetween the rows. did I invent the rotatiller... no.. did I invent any parts I used.. no, but I did invent the process and use of the combanation of these parts to achieve a purpose. so I can now patent it and sell them myselves or go in partnership with another company who wants to build it and sell them and give me a cut.. that is what they have done.

Steve

i have been searching for some good leds in canada but nobody seems to carry the good cree ex-r mounted on the star boards if anybody is thinking about a group buy out of the states count me in

not realy... we are a very small slice of the market that would buy leds. automotive, industreal, and flashlights are way bigger markets that we would ever be. don't forget 50000 hours works out to about 11 years on a 12 hour cycle befor you should need to replace the leds. so when you look at it that way if I bult a whole new system every 11 years I would buy about 30 bucks in LEDs a year.. and 50000 is a concervitive estimate, most leds are rated at 100000 hours, but I cut that in 1/2 as I would run at 1000mA instead of 700. but with proper cooling that souldn't affect the life.

Steve

Hi Steve,

You raise a few good points but still not accurate in my opinion.

1. The first high power lumiled LEDs came out in 1998 or 1999 I believe. Yes they were expensive but they were already being incorporated into products such as flashlights by 2001. Orbitec filed their patent on December 15th, 2004 and IRRC they may have filed a PPA a year earlier so that would have been no earlier than December 15th, 2003. So high power LEDs had been around. There is also some prior art published in Advanced Aquarist and possibly elsewhere testing LEDs as aquarium lighting earlier in 2003. Besides, Orbitec's patent simply stated LEDs and does not make a distinction between low power or high power etc. They state that no commercial LED systems were available which is true but the idea had already been published by others. There is also the issue I have raised about obviousness. The question still remains as to whether using a newly available lighting source to light aquariums is novel or obvious.

2. Yes it is true that LEDs degrade more slowly and differently than other lights but their rate of degradation is entirely dependent on how they are cooled and on the particular environment and use. Orbitec implied that they do not degrade which is somewhat inaccurate. In any case, if you invented the longer life LEDs then you could patent them but I do not think a longer duty cycle is a valid patenting point for a use patent. It is obvious because the emitters last longer so you don't have to change them as often. Nothing surprising there.

3. If you read the patent it is very specific as to what is claimed (as patents must be). That is why you see multiple claims in patents to try to cover various bases. The patent claims:

The operative part to look at is this:

What is claimed is that combination of elements. So a straight LED array without a controller for controlling the activation status and intensity should be outside the scope of the patent. I have reviewed enough patents to be fairly sure of that. That is why you are seeing a bunch of fixtures with LEDs and no controller or combo fixtures with LEDs and T5s etc. but no controller. AI felt they had to license the patent because they have a controller.

4. Yes the drug industry is heavily regulated from the standpoint of marketing approval and sales but that is separate from the patenting. Dugs are patented like anything else and are subject to the same criteria as mousetraps or toothbrushes when it comes to patents. Completely separate criteria and governance than drug approvals. You can have a patent issued on a drug but have it fail in testing and not be approved for sale.

5. The same principals apply no matter what you are patenting. If your rotatiller guide is obvious to those skilled in the art of rotatillers and is similar to other rotatiller guides, even if you made it out of different parts, it is not novel and non-obvious and you could not patent it. You would have to have some surprising improvement over other rotatiller guides in order to be able to patent it. Have a look at this:

http://web.mit.edu/invent/h-chapters/h-three.html

The really important part in my opinion is:

So even though I am not an expert on lighting systems and engineering I do know how patents work and understand the criteria to make something patentable. I still don't see anything surprising or non-obvious in Orbitec's patent. Using LEDs to light an aquarium does not give new and non-obvious results compared to T5, Mh etc. I can almost guarantee that they had a patent examiner who didn't know much about lighting systems or aquarium lighting and just went with what was in the patent with minimal research into it.

Cheers,

Ron

The Patent may have been filed in 2002, but people WERE thinking of using LED's on tanks. It;s just the 3w LED's were not mainstream enough. I do not see the patent as an un-obvious use of LED's, or a lighting controller. We (reef community) had allready experimented with LED's, and were waiting for better ones to come on the market. To me, this patent has some pretty serious holes/Grey area's in it.

um the patent I am reading by them was filed in early 2002, if they did a provisional that would put them early 2001, which means they were at the same time as the release of high power LEDs . now they do have two patents on theses so maybe the one your reading is the second one?

Steve

What's the patent number? I have two patents I am looking at:

1. 7,220,018 which was filed on Dec 15, 2004 (and I now see it lists a PPA filed Dec. 15, 2003) and issued on May 22, 2007.

2. 7,473,008 filed March 22, 2007 which is the new continuation where they are now trying to claim all LED lighting even without a controller. :cry:

ok so the first patent was applied for on dec 2003. the 2002 one was a supporting doccument. in there prior art statment they say there are many systems availble producing light capable of sustaining marine life, but none using LEDs as the light source. so that is a valid point.

one thing I have been wondering about is the anti trust laws pertaining to monopolies.. I think for them to get around this they would have to grant all licencing rights to companies willing to pay there fee.

proving prior art in court seams to be the only way to bust this patent but.. it costs 180.00us just to file your prior art for them to concider and prior art has to be certified by a qualified inspector at the time. so pictures of systems over our tanks 10 years ago doesn't cut it.

I would like to see this busted as much as anyone but I think that most big companies are just waiting for review years to see if they renew, or waiting till it expiers as it is to hard and very very expensive to fight a patent that is inplace.

Steve

Yes, the fact that no commercially available systems were out is a valid statement but you have to ask why that is? Is it because nobody thought of it or it wasn't an obvious application or because the costs would have been to high. The PFO solaris fixtures were thousands of dollars when they came out in 2005 or 2006. imagine what a decent LED fixture would have cost in 2003 or 2004? Would a 3' or 4' light fixture costing $10,000 have been a viable product? The fact nothing was commercially available does not make the idea patentable. Should I be able to patent a personal rocketship? No personal rocketships are available now because the costs would be astronomical (sorry for the pun:lol:), not because it is a new and patentable idea.

Apparently there are some moves afoot in the US for a third party submission to review the patent but it's not all public yet. It's tied into the recent request for prior art references on reefbuilders. There is some discussion of it on nano-reef as well. I'm happy to lend whatever support they need for that if I can. I think I should probably start a new thread for that later today when I have time...

ya they were a couple K, but about 1 to 1.5K of that was probably profit for PFO. I actualy think PFO was stupid and let greed run there release of the solaris, as they new there was a patent aplication but they decided to cash in on it while they could befor the patent was granted, which is viable, but instead of just stopping production when the patent was granted they decided to figh it as the solaris was a cash cow for them..

they were using exhisting extrusions which cost them next to nothing, they were using off shore LEDs which are a fraction of the price of the cree. and they were driving them at lower levels which reduced the requirment for a heat sink. I would be willing to bet including labour there cost was under 500 bucks, and they probably sold the one unit to the stores for about 1700 and then the stores resold for about 2 to 2.5K

If they wouldn't have had as many problems they did with the cheep LEDs burning out they would have made a killing, but they had to many warenty issues which ate into there profit a little to much.

Steve

I don't think that is a completely fair assessment. PFO used Phillips Luxeon emitters in their fixtures from day one. Now I have spent around $1200 to $1300 so far to buy parts for my DIY 48" fixture and that is with very good volume pricing through the nano-reef group buy for alot of it and also includes a free housing and cheap used heatsinks from eBay.

So I would be surprised if the cost of materials for a Solaris fixture was significantly less than that in 2006 even with their crappy excuses for heatsinks (which were probably responsible for the emitters burning out). now that also doesn't account for the R&D work to create a commercial fixture, tooling for bespoke parts if necessary, labour (even if it is cheap in China), shipping from China (not cheap), and any safety/electrical certification they required in North America. And then you have your operations cost in North America for offices, warehouses, staff etc.

Now normal retail markup is 40% so if the retail was $3500 then the wholesale price from PFO was probably $2100. I don't think it is unusual for a manufacturer to have a markup of 100% over the cost of materials therefore I don't think the pricing was wildly out of line. You may want the manufacturers to have razor thin margins but they won't bother if they can't make any money.

how many LED's you putting on that sucker ?? I think I am spending 600.00 total on a 30" long unit using 40 degree optics, and nothing was free or cheep..

the luxton stars were 1 watt leds, and at the time they were making the solaris they were cheeper than we can get the crees for, but that doesn't matter much.. what we get as a group buy is nothing compared to what a company can get things for. I know when I had my company going and I was looking at buying a significant quantity of something if I couldn't get it for about 1/3 of the retail price I would shop elsewhere. I never had to look around much. generaly I found there are 3 price ranges, retail, wholesale, and distrubitor. I am working on a deal right now that will get me distrubitor+ pricing on a produce that the rights to BA/AB with a few exclusions. nothing to do with the aquarium industry but the structure is the same.

Basicly I know a guy who has the canadian distrubution rights to a line of products, he has a few avenues that he sells directly to in a specific industry. I can sell to any industry but the one he sells directly to and my cost is his cost plus 10%. when I sell to a company I am oblagated to sell at a lower price than if I sold directly to the public otherwise why would a company buy the product to resell. so lets pick a number of 100 bucks. I buy the product for 110.00 because of my deal, so for wholesale I sell at 180 to 200. for retail I would charge 280.

with the group buys we are involved with in the diy fish tank things, we are dealing with retailers so the price we get is going to be better than if you go to a store and buy a product, but not anywhere near wholesale and distrubitor. now what would be ideal is if we had some one with a reg company that could contact cree sales directly and order a large volume. you would probably see the price down about 2 bucks a LED. same thing would apply to the heat sink, if I knew I would use 100 30X10 heat sinks, you could probably get at least 50% off the regular price and if you were to do some digging and find the smelter that actualy makes them and they are a generic die, not customer owned you could get them cheeper.

at anyrate I digress. the company PFO makes it, sends it to there distrubitors and then the distrubitors sell to the stores so something that costs 3500 in the store probably cost the store about 2500-3000 (usaly less mark up on expensive stuff), would cost the distrubitor rep about 1500 to 2000, and the company about 700 to 1000. if there made off shore then you can cut that number way down. I am just pulling numbers out of my a$$ here, but the idea is that there are usaly 3 or 4 steps along the way and usaly each one of thoes steps is 50 to 100% mark up on pricy things, and more on cheep things.

Steve

I'm going to use 80 to 85 LEDs and start with 60 degree optics but I have some 80 and 40 as well to try and may mix and match a bit to have some higher and lower PAR areas.

As for the Solaris, they were 3 watt luxeons. Here's a review of the first units:

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2006/8/review2#h8

I did a bit of searching and it looks like the bare emitters sold for $3.45 each in quantities of 10,000 or more back in 2006. That doesn't include the cost of any MCPCB and mounting. I see where you are coming from and the reality is probably somewhere in between your estimate and mine. But there is more to a product then just the cost of the parts and while PFO may have been making a healthy gross margin on each fixture the volumes were probably low and then you still have to factor in all the overhead. So while expensive, the prices were probably in line for an expensive new technology that will sell in low numbers. I remember when 42" plasma TVs first came out in 1990 or so and they cost in excess of $25,000.

I just realized my cost estimate is off as I have only spent about $1000 so far but will probably need another $100 worth of stuff to finish it off.

what are you using for spacing? I just realized your tank is 18" front to back.. mine is 12" so that is going to add an extra row or two for ya.. so that why you need a lot more than I do.

you one thing I don't like about the DIY leds is how ugly the bottoms look. I wish there was an easy way to cover that up so you don't see all the wires.

are you making an enclosur for yours or just leaving the heat sink bare?

Steve

I figured 4 rows 3" apart and 2" to 2.25" spacing in each row. I may also include a few UV LEDs along the centerline. I haven't laid it out yet. I finally received my last supplies including some Berquist adhesive thermal pads. That will be easier then drilling and tapping 160 holes :)

I have a Hamilton light fixture housing (I think it may have been a MH fixture once) I plan to use to enclose it all and it has a bottom cover with acrylic splash shield

Hello Gentlemen,

Quick question. what size heatsink should i run for a 50 gallon tank. 36Lx18Wx18H. and how many LEDs will do it for me. and just wondering where you guys found large heatsinks in Canada! all i hear about is heatsinksusa, but i would rather buy it from a canadian supplier.

you guys should document your builds!!!!


Thanks for your future reply!

I was going to buy mine from heatsink USA myself.. didn't find anything like that in canada.

as for the amount of LED's it depends on how much light you want. so like anything else what are you intentions for the tank.

Steve

I will start a build thread as soon as I start to build it :lol:

For heatsinks, I found some used ones on eBay. I bought three that were 12" by 15" in size so that will give me good coverage over 48" x 18". For your tank you will probably need something around 12 to 13 inches wide and 28 to 30 inches long.

And as Steve said, the number and spacing of LEDs along with what optics to use will depend on what your stocking plans are. I am using 4 rows spaced 3 inches apart front to back and then the LED spacing along each row will be 2.25" with 60 degree optics. That should give me similar or slightly better performance to a set up using 2 x 250W MH. You could go with 40 degree optics but then your spacing needs to be no further apart then 2" between LEDs in the rows and that would probably give you PAR equivalent to a 400W MH. Probably overkill in an 18" deep tank. I may use 80 degree optics in a few areas or set it up so i can dim it by sectors to have some lower PAR sections for LPS etc.

If I were setting one up for a reef in a tank your size I would probably do 4 rows of 12 or 13 emitters with 60 degree optics.

thanks for the reply! i was thinking 4 rows of 12 as well. so 60 degree optics will give me the light i need to grow anything? (sps, lps, softies, clams, anemones)? I shall begin my planning asap if this is the case!


also, i wish i lived in BC! love the rockies!
also, also, I will definitely be watching your build! (I have a 75 gallon freshwater, that i may, in the future, convert to saltwater, once i get the hang of things on this 50G build)!

Sounds like a good plan. Try to get dimmable drivers so you can adjust the lighting for acclimation etc. If you get ambitious you can make a controller to do fancy sunrise and sunset, cloudy periods etc. :)

BTW, where are you in Etobicoke? I grew up right around Dixon Rd. and Kipling. Been on the west coast for 18.5 years now so I guess I have assimilated.

I'm technologically inept. a controller would be amazing, but i dont think i could do it. maybe in the future. Small world, I'm at Kipling and princess margaret!

personaly I think 60 degree optics would be more about T5 lighting levels, to get MH levels I think you need to use 40 degree optics on anything over 18" deep.

Steve

Doesn't hurt to build it with the future expandability. Most reef controllers can output 0-10v signals for dimming so if you get drivers that are capable of being dimmed that way you are ready to add the controller in the future. And it is a small world. I went to High School at Martingrove not far from you :biggrin:

Depends what set ups you are talking about. It's all comparing apples to oranges but evilc66's testing at nano-reef seems to show performance equal to MH set ups. I don't think he has made many PAR measurements of T5 systems for comparison.

Will you have to change the lighting as often as the MH and other forms of lights?? LED's great idea!

I could be way off here as I do not know much about patents and how far they go but seeing businesses like nano tuners got me thinking.

Couldn't someone come out with an array of led on a heat-sink that "coincidentally" fit inside of a lighting hood that is also supplied by that same supplier, and again "coincidentally" has a compatible driver? The parts could be sold as a sort of a retrofit idea. all portions being offered separately?

I read the posts and ANswered my own question. !5 years! WOW! That alone would put these other lighting companies searching for other means to make money...to make even better lighting than the LED's.

Hi Stephanie, LEDS last for a looooong time!! i think its something like 10-11 years. so you will not have to change the bulbs! that is why LEDS are a key advancement in aquarium lighting. they may cost more now, but in the long run (i think its something like a 4-6 year breakeven) it will pay off!

yes i will definitely be using dimmable drivers (meanwells). So your using 3xheatsinks. I like the idea of breakign the heatsinks up, but how will you wire that? i assume you would run the clear whites separately from the royal blue LEDs using different drivers. but will you have, lets say, leds being connected from heatsink to heatsink on the same driver?

Yes i know Martingrove Collegiate H.S. I went to Michael Power though:razz:

im not sure how patent laws work. but if you sell all the parts in a package, i guess it would be okay, just as long as they are not assembled.

This is actually incorrect. Still illegal if sold as a DIY 'package' or kit. It's even against patent laws to assemble your own with your own parts but it's rather unlikely you'd ever get sued for this (the cost of suing you >>> money they'd get from you).

:doh:My bad, thanks for clearing it up. But how does nano-customs get away with what they do then?