PFO ballast switch fix

[Anonymous]

PFO, from what I've read since this subject hit the boards, had been investing more and more, proportionately, in the LED side of the business. Not sure if they were actually winding down the MH business. Would be odd if they had - they had a pretty good profile on that side.

They went LED only end of 2008, or at least that was the plan. LED sales were driving the business

 

[Anonymous]

Ya. This lawsuit will be the death of Orbitec in the aquarium circle. It's a REALLY stupid move on their part.

Death implies there was life at one point and Orbitec never did enter any circles Everyone I know testified on behalf of PFO and turned down Orbitec.

 

[Anonymous]

Interesting.

 

[Anonymous]

Ya. This lawsuit will be the death of Orbitec in the aquarium circle. It's a REALLY stupid move on their part.

Death implies there was life at one point and Orbitec never did enter any circles Everyone I know testified on behalf of PFO and turned down Orbitec.

what do you mean by "testified for"?

 

[Anonymous]

Ya. This lawsuit will be the death of Orbitec in the aquarium circle. It's a REALLY stupid move on their part.

Death implies there was life at one point and Orbitec never did enter any circles Everyone I know testified on behalf of PFO and turned down Orbitec.

what do you mean by "testified for"?

Expert witnesses (deposition)

 

[Anonymous]

Ya. This lawsuit will be the death of Orbitec in the aquarium circle. It's a REALLY stupid move on their part.

Death implies there was life at one point and Orbitec never did enter any circles Everyone I know testified on behalf of PFO and turned down Orbitec.

what do you mean by "testified for"?

Expert witnesses (deposition)

Interesting. If PFO was/is relying on expert (paid) witnesses to attack the patent, they must not have been able to find any documentary prior art demonstrating that the combination of LED lights and marine aquariums is old technology.

 

[Anonymous]

nice assumption

 

[Anonymous]

nice assumption

Of course it is an assumption, but a reasonable one.

If you want to attack a patent, then the best and cheapest way to do so is find some prior art document that discloses each element of the claim, then file a motion for summary judgement that the patent is invalid. You are fighting an uphill (and more expensive) battle once you need to turn to expert witnesses to fill in the gaps of your attack on the patent.

But I know nothing about this case or the patent, so my comments are general in nature and may not be applicable in this instance.

 

[Anonymous]

so my comments are general in nature and may not be applicable in this instance.

Spot the lawyer. :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

nice assumption

Of course it is an assumption, but a reasonable one.

If you want to attack a patent, then the best and cheapest way to do so is find some prior art document that discloses each element of the claim, then file a motion for summary judgement that the patent is invalid. You are fighting an uphill (and more expensive) battle once you need to turn to expert witnesses to fill in the gaps of your attack on the patent.

But I know nothing about this case or the patent, so my comments are general in nature and may not be applicable in this instance.

I think the issue here, that many of us reefers are having, is that Orbitech (or should probably call them Vulturetech ... but I digress ) is suing on a really general patent (using a specific light over an aquarium), instead of actually having any technology or techniques that they actually devised. I'm sure any prior art of "a light" used over an aquarium probably would fit the bill here.

But I dunno, don't moonlights predate the patent? Granted might be fuzzy there whether they "grow" stuff, but if it can be shown that blue LED moonlights do in fact grow stuff that entire patent should be invalid as I was under the impression that you can not file a patent if the item has already been sold to the public.

 

[Anonymous]

nice assumption

Of course it is an assumption, but a reasonable one.

If you want to attack a patent, then the best and cheapest way to do so is find some prior art document that discloses each element of the claim, then file a motion for summary judgement that the patent is invalid. You are fighting an uphill (and more expensive) battle once you need to turn to expert witnesses to fill in the gaps of your attack on the patent.

But I know nothing about this case or the patent, so my comments are general in nature and may not be applicable in this instance.

I think the issue here, that many of us reefers are having, is that Orbitech (or should probably call them Vulturetech ... but I digress ) is suing on a really general patent (using a specific light over an aquarium), instead of actually having any technology or techniques that they actually devised. I'm sure any prior art of "a light" used over an aquarium probably would fit the bill here.

But I dunno, don't moonlights predate the patent? Granted might be fuzzy there whether they "grow" stuff, but if it can be shown that blue LED moonlights do in fact grow stuff that entire patent should be invalid as I was under the impression that you can not file a patent if the item has already been sold to the public.

If the inventors of the Orbitech patent did not actually "invent" anything, then no, they should not have received a patent. If moonlights predate and filing of the patent and include all of the features of the claims, then yes the patent should be invalid. But pointed out above, these are all assumptions.

 

[Anonymous]

nice assumption

Of course it is an assumption, but a reasonable one.

If you want to attack a patent, then the best and cheapest way to do so is find some prior art document that discloses each element of the claim, then file a motion for summary judgement that the patent is invalid. You are fighting an uphill (and more expensive) battle once you need to turn to expert witnesses to fill in the gaps of your attack on the patent.

But I know nothing about this case or the patent, so my comments are general in nature and may not be applicable in this instance.

I think the issue here, that many of us reefers are having, is that Orbitech (or should probably call them Vulturetech ... but I digress ) is suing on a really general patent (using a specific light over an aquarium), instead of actually having any technology or techniques that they actually devised. I'm sure any prior art of "a light" used over an aquarium probably would fit the bill here.

But I dunno, don't moonlights predate the patent? Granted might be fuzzy there whether they "grow" stuff, but if it can be shown that blue LED moonlights do in fact grow stuff that entire patent should be invalid as I was under the impression that you can not file a patent if the item has already been sold to the public.

If the inventors of the Orbitech patent did not actually "invent" anything, then no, they should not have received a patent. If moonlights predate and filing of the patent and include all of the features of the claims, then yes the patent should be invalid. But pointed out above, these are all assumptions.

I found DIY threads on this site concerning the use of LEDs as primary light sources for tanks dating back to 2002 and 2001(I posted a link to one in the industry thread yesterday)

 

[Anonymous]

nice assumption

Of course it is an assumption, but a reasonable one.

If you want to attack a patent, then the best and cheapest way to do so is find some prior art document that discloses each element of the claim, then file a motion for summary judgement that the patent is invalid. You are fighting an uphill (and more expensive) battle once you need to turn to expert witnesses to fill in the gaps of your attack on the patent.

But I know nothing about this case or the patent, so my comments are general in nature and may not be applicable in this instance.

I think the issue here, that many of us reefers are having, is that Orbitech (or should probably call them Vulturetech ... but I digress ) is suing on a really general patent (using a specific light over an aquarium), instead of actually having any technology or techniques that they actually devised. I'm sure any prior art of "a light" used over an aquarium probably would fit the bill here.

But I dunno, don't moonlights predate the patent? Granted might be fuzzy there whether they "grow" stuff, but if it can be shown that blue LED moonlights do in fact grow stuff that entire patent should be invalid as I was under the impression that you can not file a patent if the item has already been sold to the public.

If the inventors of the Orbitech patent did not actually "invent" anything, then no, they should not have received a patent. If moonlights predate and filing of the patent and include all of the features of the claims, then yes the patent should be invalid. But pointed out above, these are all assumptions.

I found DIY threads on this site concerning the use of LEDs as primary light sources for tanks dating back to 2002 and 2001(I posted a link to one in the industry thread yesterday)

Then PFO should have been able to get this case dismissed quickly on summary judgement.