pfo lighting might be out of business

[Guest]

Saw this article on RC tried to call their 800 number just transfers you back to main directory no matter what option you choose.

Glad i never pulled the trigger and bought the new solaris


http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=f9f96bd2c1bba9afd5bddcf372b59cc2&threadid=1567602

 

[blureef2]

I would think PFO could still keep doing MH and vho, they should look into manufacturing T5 setups

 

[ChaoticByDesign]

EDITED: I removed my question and posted it in the lighting section. I didn't want to hijack this thread.

This news does suck, though. I was hoping to get a Solaris system one day.

 

[Wes]

wow, i cant say i believe pfo would take on something without looking into the legal side of it first. kind of dissapointing, they were steadily getting better and would innevitably come down in price soon. this will be a huge set back for LED aquarium lighting.

 

[Pneumatic]

oops I meant to post this here and posted it in RC by mistake.

http://www.planet-llc.com/pages/sunbow/pages/apollo.htm

I wonder when that page went up. I would be willing to bet it was only created shortly before the suit. Do they actually HAVE an aquarium light for sale right now or is it one of those "if we can't do it then nobody can do it" kind of things?

 

[Guest]

@Pneumatic wrote:

i have seen working models for display but none actually for sale. If apollo has the patent on led lighting then i would think pfo has no leg to stand on.

my take is they are going after pfo first if they win the case then they will go after other manufacturers.

 

[Opus]

I feel sorry for the people that have fixtures for sale. That kills the resale value.

 

[Curtis]

PFO was likely served with a cease and desist order on the sale of the LED fixtures, as is their right as the patent holders.

It would seem from Orbitec's announcement on Feb 4th, that they've been trying to work out a licensing deal for quite awhile.

It looks like they won the IP battle and now the manufactures will either be forced to negotiate a licensing or get sued for loss.

It will take awhile, but my money says that PFO licenses the technology. They already have market presence; I don't normally think about Orbitecs and they propulsion systems when I think aquarium lighting.

Of course, what the hell do I know?

Kurt

 

[Opus]

25% license fee seems kind of steep to me. Of course I'm not for our patent system. It is too easily manipulated. You read stories all the time of people getting patents in the hopes that someone else will do it then they can sue them. Of course I don't see much difference between that and all those people that went out and bought domain names and then tried to rip companies off. The court steped in there and said they couldn't do that.

If they are going to charge 25% to all the manufacturers, that is a heck of a price difference to make up. Orbitec can sale their fixtures on low price alone.

 

[Reefmike]

Hopefully someone steps up with documented proof of using LED's on an aquarium prior to Orbitech's application for patent. That's all it would take to end the suit and their desire to corner the market.

 

[rckrzy1]

Here is Orbitecs statement.



Orbital Technologies Corporation 1212 Fourier Drive Madison, WI 53717 www.orbitec.com
February 4, 2009
Madison, Wisconsin

Orbital Technologies Corporation, a small business with 70 employees located in Madison,
Wisconsin, has recently been the target of inaccurate, negative publicity regarding its patent for
a Marine LED Lighting System and Method.
As ORBITEC's president, I am an avid aquarium enthusiast. Back in 2003, the company
combined my new‐found passion for aquariums with our decade‐long experience in LED
lighting systems for plant growth, science research, underwater bioreactors and aerospace
applications to create a new design for a complete LED system for marine environments.
Working together with aquarium industry partners, our engineering team began developing
high‐quality, effective LED lighting systems for small and large marine applications, including
aquariums.
ORBITEC's ability to launch its product line was delayed due to internal resource limitations and
a challenge to its intellectual property. We take our intellectual property rights very seriously,
and expect others to do so as well. We look forward, however, to working together with our
aquarium partners to release a growing series of reliable, exciting products later this year. My
excitement is most felt at home, when I experience the benefits of these units in my own
aquarium systems.
We continually welcome any comments or inputs that you may have regarding these products
and future capabilities, and are welcome to email us at aquarium.lighting@orbitec.com.
Most Sincerely,
Tom Crabb

 

[Ashlar]

@Reefmike wrote:

Finding prior art can help when a patent is being reviewed. Challenging an existing patent once granted is much more difficult. If it were that simple, PFO would have already done that, I'm sure.

 

[Serk]

RANT MODE

We SO need to reform, or possibly scrap and start over, our patent system... Patent trolls like this have wrecked many industries/companies and products, mainly in IT, but they're reach is spreading to other industries, as evidenced by this...

For just a few examples of other bad patents out there:

http://yro.slashdot.org/search.pl?tid=155

Even if these patent trolls ever really DO release a product, I'll NEVER buy one, and will encourage others to avoid them as well for their usage of submarine patents like this... It just disgusts me...

RANT OFF

 

[Opus]

I haven't read the patent and I'm not sure I would understand it if I did, but in his comments which are posted above, he states it is for MARINE lighting. If it was that specific, couldn't they just market their lighting for non marine use?

 

[rckrzy1]

@Opus wrote:

Like for " fresh water fish tanks only " :wink: , just like q tips are not for ears :roll:

 

[DaveJ]

Welcome to capitalism....

PFO is to blame for their own business stupidity, not the patent system nor the company holding the patent. PFO made a business decision by investing and producing a product that was patented by another company. They KNEW that there was a patent for it, yet they did it anyway. Not only that, but they shifted their entire business model over to that technology while dumping their bread and butter business while knowing this was going to happen or that there was a pretty good chance it would. They took major risks and are now feeling the crunch because of it, they have no one to blame but themselves.

As far as the drivel about patenting ideas when not producing anything, excuse me but that is why patents were created in the first place. People come up with ideas and patent them because they took the effort or had the knowledge or vision to come up with a unique idea period. When Edison patented the lightbulb and thousands of other ideas and inventions, he wasn't going to mass produce them for the market. He patented them to product his ideas and inventions in hopes that someone would come along and pay him for those ideas if they could make them and sell them in the marketplace later.

Inventing and research of products, new ideas and technologies takes work, it takes intelligence and vision and that comes with a value. If some other company wants to actually produce it, the people who came up with the idea to begin with should be compensated and whatever amount they want or can be negotiated. No one is going to hold a gun to the manufacturers head and tell them they have to pay it, but if they want to produce the product they will have to pay the patent holder or negotiate a fee that works for both.

PFO refused to pay and went ahead and did it anyway.... that is corporate theft and now they will have to pay the price for that move.

The real losers here are the people who purchased very expensive products from PFO and are now going to be left holding the bag on products that will not have any support (though PFO support was for crap before) and any chance of getting repairs or replacement parts for the products. PFO not only owes the patent holder, but the customers who purchased their products. If I was an owner of one of their fixtures, I would be very upset at how they handled themselves and for selling a product they didn't have the right to sell or produce.

You may see a class action suit against them at some point which will sign the death warrant of that company by the customers who purchased them. I applaud the patent holder for their action in protecting their idea and technology...

 

[Opus]

Where does it say that PFO admits to knowing that there was a patent? I didn't see that in anything I read.

The patent is for MARINE use only but I'm guessing they also have a patent for the same thing but say it is for freshwater or plant growth.

So, does anyone know how this effects the other LED makers? Over on RC they seem to think the other companies can still sell their LED lights since their parent companies are not based in the US. I would think the copyright laws would still prevent the distributors from selling them.

 

[Serk]

There's a big difference between a legitimate patent for a new and novel invention like the light bulb was in it's time, and the simple act of combining two things and saying "Ha! Patent it!" like "LED Lighting" + "Aquariums"... That shouldn't justify a patent...

Coming up with a new type of light that's more efficient, the light itself could be patentable, but the act of combining two existing things together in a simple and logical way that any normal person would come up with on their own if presented with the options shouldn't be patentable...

That is why I say the patent system needs a major overhaul...

Anyway, that's all I've got to say on it, not trying to turn this into an argument or fight... I'll speak with my dollars and NEVER buy anything from the company that's trolling PFO and the rest of the aquarium hobby...

 

[DaveJ]

@Opus wrote:

PFO had to know, or if they didn't that is even worse. You do not create a new technology or product without checking that out first. They certainly knew after they were informed of it. You don't go from nothing to a lawsuit. The patent holder had to of informed them and given them a chance to make it right, they didn't so the suit was filed. PFO did not do this in a vaccum...

Nope.. distributors can sell the products, just not manufacture them. International law is even murkier and depends on the trade agreements between the US and the country who is producing it along with the funds the patent holder can put towards legal fees and lobbying to get things done at the government level. It took Microsoft years to crack down on fake software for example and they have a lot more money than the patent holder here. Other countries are supposed to honor our patent protection, but they often don't unless it becomes an issue. Small time manufacturing like this probably won't get the attention it should overseas.....

 

[Rick]

It will all come down to the timing of the filing of the patent, the issuing date, who was already making them for this use. The dates issue is what bothers me about this suit. I first heard about then idea of using led lights for aquarium use at the MACNA in Louisville, that was September 2003. I am almost certain than in September 2004, PFO was marketing one at the Boston MACNA. This patent was not issued till May 2007, though they filed it December 2004.
Then the fact that the suit was not filed till April 2008 is really odd, why let them manufacture and sell the lights for years before the lawsuit.
I also do not understand the time line between between filing date and issue date of a patent. If people are manufacturing the same thing years before the patent is issued how can they issue a patent to one person without overlooking the people that are already making and selling the same thing.
To help me remember I just called a friend of mine Joe Scavo who was the president of the BRS in September 2004.
The guy who was one the first people I or he had ever talk about using Leds on an aquarium light was a guy named Tulillo(can remember last name).
In fact he was Joy's(works for PFO) boyfriend at the time(2004).
If anyone I know has a claim about who was the first person with idea it is Tulillo. Joe told me he actually donated a led light he made to the BRS back in 2003-2004.