LED Patents - Action Needed!

[Ron99]

Originally Posted by Red Coral Aquariums

One simple sticker on your proposed LED fixture would solve the whole patent issue.

" NOT FOR AQUARIUM USE"

Kevin

If only it were that simple If you built in aquarium friendly features like timers and sunrise/sunset, splash shields etc. they might be able to argue in court that you were in fact targeting the aquarium market. you would have to spend a bunch of money marketing it to the hydroponics industry etc. to protect yourself and be very quiet about aquarium marketing. In practice I don't think it would really work.

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

not in this case Bill, they did not patent a machien, but rather a novel idea. the idea is running 1 or more leds with a controler and powersupply which can alowing for local or remote operation.

this is the problem as it is a blanket patent. and yes it is valid in canada as all US patents are.

Steve

I think the patent is iffy because we have been running timers and controllers on our lights for sunrise/sunset and spectral control by timing different colours of bulbs before so doing that with LEDs is not really novel.

Also, US patents are not enforceable in Canada. They would need a Canadian patent (which they may have applied for. I'm not sure if the Canadian office publishes applications and they can be kept in the application/limbo phase for a while in Canada). But you could not make a product in Canada and sell it in the US, only Canada.

[saltcreep]

Ron99,

I've been searching for something else on the Canadian patent site tonight, so it's kind of funny this topic is being discussed.

It doesn't appear that there are any patents or patent applications in Canada. You can search the Canadian patent database for current patents and for applications.

I'm also an owner of a Solaris system and I can attest to the fact that SPS has done well in my tank. However (answering another thread), being in the industry has kind of made me slip on my maintenance on my tank so the SPS are longer with me. I've settled for much more forgiving corals since my care for my tank is rather spotty (much like the kids of a cobbler having crappy shoes).

I agree that the US patent was rather sketchy at best as there didn't appear to be a whole lot of research put into the approval to see what technology was already in the public domain.

[StirCrazy]

Originally Posted by Ron99

Also, US patents are not enforceable in Canada. They would need a Canadian patent (which they may have applied for. I'm not sure if the Canadian office publishes applications and they can be kept in the application/limbo phase for a while in Canada). But you could not make a product in Canada and sell it in the US, only Canada.

my mistake, they have to wait 1 year after being aproved for there US patent befor they can submit a blanket patent that covers most industrealized countries.

Steve.

[StirCrazy]

Originally Posted by saltcreep

Ron99,

I agree that the US patent was rather sketchy at best as there didn't appear to be a whole lot of research put into the approval to see what technology was already in the public domain.

what I don't understand is acording to the US patent system you will know if you have been aproved in most cases with in a year. why did this one take 4 years? that just makes me think they looked at it real hard.

Steve

[saltcreep]

It was my understanding that the patent was approved. Maybe it was for a shorter period than the usual 20 years. There was an application in 2003, then another in 2004 which apparently was approved in 2007. I think that was the time that PFO was forced out of business. Without going through the documents, there must be a valid reason for the continuation of the applications.

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

not in this case Bill, they did not patent a machien, but rather a novel idea. the idea is running 1 or more leds with a controler and powersupply which can alowing for local or remote operation.

this is the problem as it is a blanket patent. and yes it is valid in canada as all US patents are.

Steve

I have to see the actual patenent from what I know you can not patenent an Idea or a number or letter. that is why Intel started naming there processors they lost a huge law suet aganst AMD when AMD use intels specs to form a processor chip. AMD won the law suet were told to be very carful. Intel was told that they could not patenent a number leter or an idea. You can patenent a process of construction or a design. Not all US patenents are valid in Canada they have to be registered in Canada to be recognised. When you applie for a patenent you have to list all countries that you want it registered in or someone can use your design and make one of their own. My father has been involved in patenents before it can be a huge night mare ever if the wording is not just right. As apple found out when microsoft stole the windows concept from them. Apple thought that their patenent for their computer also covered the operating system. The wording was there but it was not clear so microsoft was alowed to keep their version of windows which was exactly the same as apples. microsoft patenented it and now we have a operating system ment to work with an IBM processor not an intel chip. back during the battle for the operating system of the future there was some thing like 10 different operating systems.

Bill

[Slick Fork]

I think there's some misunderstanding as to how patents work. You can patent a specific mechanism or manufacturing process, but I don't think you can patent something as general as "light bulbs on a controller". If you had a specific LED board/controller design you could patent that but they certianly don't have the patents on LED light bulbs, and they don't have the patent on controllers so the only way they would have anything patented is if it was a specific design.

Patents aren't an evil thing and they don't discourage innovation, they are a way for people to protect their hard work. PFO patented Solaris (both the name, and the product), Aquarium Illusions Patents their LED light system and the interface with profilux.

The way LED lighting will get more affordable is when
1: The product is ready
2: Mainstream reef keepers accept that the product is ready and are willing to buy it en masse
3: More than a handful of companies produce it.

I'm really not optimistic that we'll see it anytime soon... lots of people will still argue the efficiency of T5's Vs. Power Compacts. I think that T5 lighting will be advanced in other fields such as industrial lighting LONG before we ever see it go mainstream in our aquariums.

[StirCrazy]

Originally Posted by Slick Fork

I think there's some misunderstanding as to how patents work. You can patent a specific mechanism or manufacturing process, but I don't think you can patent something as general as "light bulbs on a controller". If you had a specific LED board/controller design you could patent that but they certianly don't have the patents on LED light bulbs, and they don't have the patent on controllers so the only way they would have anything patented is if it was a specific design.

Patents aren't an evil thing and they don't discourage innovation, they are a way for people to protect their hard work. PFO patented Solaris (both the name, and the product), Aquarium Illusions Patents their LED light system and the interface with profilux.

The way LED lighting will get more affordable is when
1: The product is ready
2: Mainstream reef keepers accept that the product is ready and are willing to buy it en masse
3: More than a handful of companies produce it.

I'm really not optimistic that we'll see it anytime soon... lots of people will still argue the efficiency of T5's Vs. Power Compacts. I think that T5 lighting will be advanced in other fields such as industrial lighting LONG before we ever see it go mainstream in our aquariums.

I think we all need to quit debating about weather they can patent the concept/idea/whatever as they have, so aparently you can. now thew issue is wheather there is prior art from 2003 and befor as thats the only way to bring it down. the continuation is a seperate patent that is even more encompasing. so if prior art cannot bring down one of the original patents it can stop the next one. If the original patent was so blaintently wrong and should have never been issued, PFO would have won there court battle and wouldn't have run out of money.

A us Patent runs for 20 years if issued after 1996, 14 year if issued prior to 1996. they do have to make maintance payments at 4, 8 and 12 years. if they mis any of thoes the patent is voided and they can only make changes to the patent in the first year.

Steve

[sphelps]

Originally Posted by JDigital

These are quite the LED tanks... I'm sure the LED setups weren't cheap at all, but sure does look like the tanks are doing well..

Now, I certainly am not an LED advocate, just thought I would post a few LED tanks to stir up discussion.

Those don't support LED potential in my books, first one has no sign of any high light demanding corals and that fixture has 400 LEDS which is at least 400Ws, if that's a 6 foot tank then I think 10 36" T5 bulbs would be brighter.
The second tank is too short, if you want to prove the potential of LEDs we need to see them setup on an average size tank which is clearly a 90 gallon and 2 feet deep. That tank also seems to have gotten a lot brighter in the second pic and the fixture is conveniently out of frame

[sphelps]

Originally Posted by naesco

I see a fantastic potential for LED lighting. Many reefers are tired of the static though beautiful SPS tanks and are looking to LPS coral which offer the opportunity to view florescense that LED deep blue lighting provides. The difference is colour is shocking.
The newer LED systems provide this opportunity. You can focus light beams, programme different lighting and dim which is not available on dated MH lighting.
I would encourage the lighting experts on this board to experiment with DIY and bought systems.
I am defineately not knowledgeable of the details of LED but IMO LED is the future.
Wayne

Yes I've seen some nice thanks that use LEDs as supplemental to halides and/or T5s. LEDs can create the spotlight effect which is very nice. I agree and see potential as supplemental but not so much on their own. I see more potential in the plasma light than LED, the plasma is 1000x smaller and more efficient. The other problem is LEDs is limited spectrum.