Bad news for solaris owners

[Whatigot]

as I understand it, it's also largely to do with the way solaris is mounted to the tank...
meaning hanging fixtures might be exempt as well.
RC has a tonne of posts about this now, more all the time, even some patent lawyers piping in there.

[GreenSpottedPuffer]

Originally Posted by Whatigot

as I understand it, it's also largely to do with the way solaris is mounted to the tank...
meaning hanging fixtures might be exempt as well.
RC has a tonne of posts about this now, more all the time, even some patent lawyers piping in there.

If you read the patent, you will find not much mentioned about mounting. More about illumination of marine aquariums with LED lighting. As I said above, its very broad.

[mseepman]

In looking at the patent further...and in reading some of the responses that Orbitec has provided people who inquire, the patent lawsuit against PFO is more aimed at at the similarities between the Solaris product and the patented product. Though their claim on LED's over a marine aquarium sounds broad, I believe they would lose a claim which was singularly based upon that broad statement. As exemplified by so many people pointing out that such a product instead be sold strictly for "freshwater" aquariums. In this case they are targeting the product itself which has a controller that adjusts the spectrum of the lighting (the main benefit of LED of course). Notice that similar lawsuits have not been filed against some of the other LED products out there.

[Whatigot]

read the very first thing in the patent.
Number 1.
It refers to the way the fixture relates to the open top of the aquarium.
maybe you missed it, it's a little convoluted.
it's a little clearer if you click on the pdf image int he top left of that link you posted greenspot, go tp page 8, starting about line 27.

I have read that some of the issues with the patent are due to the similarities of the soalris design with this aspect of the patent.

[GreenSpottedPuffer]

Originally Posted by Whatigot

read the very first thing in the patent.
Number 1.
It refers to the way the fixture relates to the open top of the aquarium.
maybe you missed it, it's a little convoluted.
it's a little clearer if you click on the pdf image int he top left of that link you posted greenspot, go tp page 8, starting about line 27.

I have read that some of the issues with the patent are due to the similarities of the soalris design with this aspect of the patent.

Yes I missed that. Makes more sense now.

I just hope they do indeed continue to advance this technology as its something I was really hoping to try this year. Perhaps they can do a much better job too than PFO had done. The PFO fixtures left a lot to be desired. I have even heard of stories where the fixture arrived with rivets popping out. Seems the whole fixture was really poorly made (even after moving production to the US) which is too bad because the idea and technology are something that could really advance this hobby.

[mark]

not bothering to read the patent but what's so unique about putting a light fixture full of LED over a marine tank that it would be patentable?

[GreenSpottedPuffer]

Originally Posted by mark

not bothering to read the patent but what's so unique about putting a light fixture full of LED over a marine tank that it would be patentable?

Well thats the thing. Anything is patentable. Any idea can be retained as intellectual property no matter how broad or absurd but the chance of solely keeping that "idea" without ever producing/manufacturing a product is slim to none. In this case the patent was applied for in 2004 and granted in 2007. In the meantime, PFO shipped they're first fixtures in 2006. So although they were selling this technology before any patent went through, they knew this could happen and this is 100% they're fault. Bad business IMO. Whether right or wrong, another company had a patent pending on this technology and PFO took a huge risk--either blowing off US patent laws or assuming the patent may not go through. They did apply for patent on they're fixtures/technology in 2006 and it has yet to be approved. Most likely will not be after all this mess.

Now if the patent holder had no intention of producing LED lights sold for marine aquarium growth, PFO would most likely have ended up getting their patent granted. Basically if you have a patent but do not act on it within 2-3 years and other companies DO produce similar products, the producing company will be allowed to patent their products. There is a lot more to it including often still paying the original patent company a percentage but thats kind of off topic.

PFO did try to sell the Solaris division of they're company to the new patent holder but they were not interested and filed the lawsuit instead. My feeling is this is just to stop them from selling anymore LED fixtures and ultimately put PFO under. Again, PFO took a huge risk when put they're entire company into one product that was already under patent pending. They really have no to blame but themselves.

[Buccaneer]

How do you adjust the spectrum ? if you have a 6500K cool white LED how do you change that ?

or is it in increasing the intensity of some lets say blue LED's while decreasing the intensity of lets say whites ( or vice versa ) that allows this shift in spectrum ?