Do you really want to support these guys?

[prattreef]

Hi, I just became aware of this and it ticks me off to no end. First some full disclosure for those that don't already know:

1) I am friends with the folks at Icecap and they have and still do support my projects here at Pratt.
2) I stumbled upon this issue myself and have not been asked to stir things up here.

So here goes, seems Sunlight Supply has initiated legal action against Icecap claiming patent ( they don't have one yet) infringement of the Single lamp T-5 reflectors. Below is an excerpt from Andy Howard's post on the Icecap forum on Reef Central.

"From IceCap:
We just received a request from SLS's attorney "... to cease the manufacture and sale of the reflector." Has anyone else?

For the record, we don't manufacture them as we're not a sheet metal company and have them made exclusively for us by Universal Metalworks in Connecticut. Before that ARAD designed and had a local sheet metal company in NY manufacture them for us. We dictated that only the best materials be used and the design be computer driven (CAD) to maximize directed light into an aquarium.

As there have been numerous sources for fluorescent single lamp reflectors over the years we though our CAD designed SLR, made for T5HO lamps in an aquarium application (for an overhead office like application you wouldn't want spikes of light) was unique and a superior product. I know they sell for a premium.

I had tried to contact SLS last week, unaware of the impending letter. Now I know why they ducked each call. I wanted to inform them their sponsor's forum was in need of management's attention and SLS employees should make a habit of not posting on IceCap's sponsor forum. "

This is such a BS bullying tactic by a company trying to corner the market for themselves ( and limiting choices for hobbyists). While I can't comment on the quality of their products, I can comment on the way they do business, and I for one will never purchase an item from them.

Yes, I know business is business, but we have choices as consumers and I would like it to remain that way. What you choose to do with your $$$ is of course, up to you, but in my opinion these kind of practices should not be supported, particularly by a community that likes to hold their vendor to a higher standard than the norm.

I'm not going to post on this any further and those interested can follow up on the Icecap forum where the ordeal continues to unfold in a not very pleasant way.

Respectfully,

Randy

 

[Pseudo]

Wow,

I know Perry from SLS and he has helped the company get a really good foothold into the Aquarium community. I am really surprised at this move by them. I thought Icecap and SLS had some kind of partnership as far as Icecap supplying ballasts for some of the Bluewave line. I also thought they were quite friendly toward each other in other respects as well.

Seems like a business decision from higher ups and stank ass lawyers mucking with the way the conduct themselves. Seems like Icecap may be producing a better reflector and they know it.

Kasei

 

[marrone]

If Sunlight Supply has a patent or a pat pending then they have came up with the product, and most likely invested money into it, and they deserve the right to make money off of it. Business is business and Icecap or who ever shouldn't be able to make money off of some one elses product, without paying the person that has the patent. It great to say that they want to make sure that hobbyists don't have a limited market but they're in business to make money too. I'm sure if the shoe was on the other foot they would be acting the same way as Sunlight Supply.

 

[jhale]

Icecap has always been good to me and other reefers.
What a shame they have to deal with this.
Thanks for making me aware of the issue. I never bought from SLS and won't be buying from them in the future.

 

[jhale]

Mike,
SLS is only claiming a patent, they do not have one yet.
This happens often but is a bunch of BS. SLS did not invent the
reflector but are trying to claim the design so no one else may make it :arg:

 

[bad coffee]

here's a goodie:

Originally posted by SamatSLS
Nemo,

The material used in the reflector(miro7/miro4) doesn't explain the whole story with the 20% improvement in the SLR over the Tek. I would be surprsied if using Miro 4 over Miro 7 improved the output by anything more than 2-3%

BTW, output is only one aspect to address when designing anything related to illumination. A benefit of Miro 7 is the excellent diffusion & uniformity of light properties. The Tek's do have great ouput, while maintaining excellent diffusion/uniformity, in a compact size. (You can fit more lamps in the canopy)

The reflectors are NOT the same in design, IC's design is apparently a bit better for pure output. I'm not sure that I've ever seen the published results on that, but I'm sure it's true, based on the width of the SLR. It is a lot wider, which could only help.

-Sam


You have someone from SLS admitting they're different designs. So why the lawsuit?

B

 

[marrone]

JH

If Sunlight Supply had filed a patent application they will have a pat pending. They will be able to serve notice to potential infringers that they may be liable for damages, royalists, seizure, and injunctions once a patent is issued.

If there patent is turned down they Icecap or anyone else could continue to make their product without a problem.

.

MM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud

 

[fritz]

Wow I thought that this brand of BS was limited to the tech sector. Looks like we reefers have made it to the big time.

 

[techreef]

i'm no lawyer, but I run both products in my light setup, and other than they both attach individually to each bulb and slightly wrap around that bulb, these two reflectors are not the same design. that's like saying that Chrysler owes Ford royalties on each car they make. the IC reflectors are much shinier, have different bends in them, and like Sam said above, are wider than the SLS reflectors. I don't get this.

 

[jhale]

here's a goodie:

Originally posted by SamatSLS

The reflectors are NOT the same in design, IC's design is apparently a bit better for pure output. I'm not sure that I've ever seen the published results on that, but I'm sure it's true, based on the width of the SLR. It is a lot wider, which could only help.

-Sam


You have someone from SLS admitting they're different designs. So why the lawsuit?

B

wow B, nice find.

 

[bad coffee]

Someone posted it over on the thread on RC.

B

 

[Aqua Pro Builder]

Mike,
SLS is only claiming a patent, they do not have one yet.
This happens often but is a bunch of BS. SLS did not invent the
reflector but are trying to claim the design so no one else may make it :arg:

If SLS cannot prove that the design is their own and not too closely derived from some previous work, they cannot get a patent unless the officer who reviewed the file drink too much. Filing a very simple patent could mean 20,000 pages of "what, how, where, why" and a lot of other legal supporting materials. Filing for patent is not as easy as filing copyright(and most are covered by common laws anyway)-there is technical and legal officers to review the files. Therefore, if SLS has done alot of their work and think that others are using their designs, they have the right to let the potential infringers advance notice instead of actual legal actions after the patent is approved. However, on the other hand, if someone else who thought that SLS has used their ideas, they can also file a complaint to patent office to object the approval or even revoke an approved patent.

Legal part aside-I don't like the way the patent system work though. You don't have to even make a prototype and claim a patent. A lot of patents are approved to the "father of inventor" here without even a prototype nor any intention of making it. Even the round blade can opener is patented. Don't we use round blade roller to cut pizza for the longest time? Yeah, I think I have to agreed a lot of the patents are BS.

 

[herman]

Andy has my support! Not because he is a friend or that we know him, but because he makes a better product. I have just switched to a full Icecap lighting system Ihave both and they are not the same except in principle.

Patents patents, what can I say. Thats for the lawyers to battle out.

 

[meschaefer]

here's a goodie:

Originally posted by SamatSLS
Nemo,


The reflectors are NOT the same in design, IC's design is apparently a bit better for pure output. I'm not sure that I've ever seen the published results on that, but I'm sure it's true, based on the width of the SLR. It is a lot wider, which could only help.

-Sam


You have someone from SLS admitting they're different designs. So why the lawsuit?

B

WHile I am not a patent lawyer, nor do I want to be a patent lawyer, the above referenced statement is what the people in my line of work would call an admission against interests.

We do not know what the patent covers, and what it is about the IC relflector that they claim is in violation of their patent. Most products have a number of patents associated with them, everything from the design and shape of the reflector, the way that the lamps clip into them, the positioning of the lamps, materials, manufacturing process and who knows what else could be patented.

I also wonder to what degree IC is responsible for the patent infringment (if such an infringment exists), if they are not the ones who designed the reflector and manufactured it.

 

[Chiefmcfuz]

My response to this is get as many as you can now before something bad happens and they become unavailable or 3 times the price.

 

[House of Laughter]

This is a all smoke and mirrors - patents are defendable, but at what price - that's the bottme line - SLS has a ton of cash, Ice Cap does well, but aren't as large and then the gorilla srops his paw and crushes the competetion - perhaps SLS has a monopoly now - isn't that against the law, attempting to limit the market by stompin the competition?

House