Wow, 6 years of “development” and still no results.

I’d have to say the same as Scott. As aquarists, I think we’d like products that work well, but we’d also like to eventually HAVE the products. If they are not producing products for us and someone else is and then they shut down the people who are, what else could we feel, but…annoyed. I don’t know anything about legal mumbo-jumbo with patents and all, but as just a regular person, patents seem bad for us consumers. It SEEMS to mean only one person can produce this item/idea and charge whatever they want. I’ve made my opinion clear before of liking knockoffs so I can actually afford a high end idea, and this seems to fit right in with it. I hope I’m wrong-I hope they make better LED systems both cheaper and more effective and efficient, but I kindof doubt it.

I still don’t understand how using lights for a specific use qualifies for a patent.

That is arguing the function and performance of the patent clerk. But, Orbitec WAS given a patent for LEDS on aquariums, and, as such, PFO was quite foolish to tread on the patent. Do, I think that Orbitec shouldve been given such a broad and vague patent? No. Do I think LEDS should be out in the market today in better presence? Yes. But that does not change the fact that PFO has been profiting off a product that a LEGALLY acquired patent was issued to another company. If the roles were reversed, and PFO owned the patent, and Obritec was sued for infringing on their patent, would we be making the same argument? Absolutely not, we would be saying “yeah PFO!! Go get them!”. Our hobby is in the losers corner, so we are objecting. But, PFO was rather dumb to just think that would go unnoticed. JMO.

Good post Jeremy. As an I4 owner I am quite disappointed in PFO for not covering their (and my) butt on this. I took a rather large (and expensive)leap of faith with these lights after I had seen them produce a few versions, working out the kinks along the way. I had no idea anything like this would even be possible. It’s a shame that this has come up in what is supposed to be a friendly world of aquarium enthusiasts. I am still somewhat shocked and hope something good comes out of it, and at least some way for Solaris owners to maintain their current units.

Jeremy and Matt,

I would reserve judgement for now. I don’t know all the details, but it is possible they did take some preventative actions, and we just don’t know about it. For example, PFO may have got a clearance opinion from counsel stating that the patent was invalid or that they did not infringe, we just don’t know. Also, keep in mind that the patent didn’t issue until May 2007 – after Solaris fixtures were already being sold. There are many patent applications that don’t issue as patents, so knowing about an application is not necessarily a reason to take any action (with a few exceptions, the general course of action is to monitor the application and possibly get a clearance opinion). I’ll try to address these points generally in my next aquarium patent 101 post. I’m not saying your points are without merit – flying blind and ignoring IP (be it others patents or protecting your own innovations) when developing technology is generally not a good idea. However, we just don’t know what the facts are in this case yet.

- Mike

Mike:

Good post. I think emotions are running high now because it was so sudden and PFO won’t answer their phones or put anything up on their site. We’ll all see how it plays out because really we have no other choice.

Matt

First, I believe PFO Lighting released a product prematurely causing nearly every fixture that was sold to suffer some sort of defect. I have had a 100% failure rate with every fixture we installed on customers aquariums. Though PFO Lighting initially was responsive to correct all of the issues with these fixtures (though they all continue to this day to have problems), now there is no response from the company either by email, phone or in response to registered letters mailed to the company. With thousands of these fixtures sold around the country, if the failure rate was anything close to the fixtures I sold, how could this company recover from such a financial loss even without this lawsuit over the LED patent. I contacted Orbitech concerning the lawsuit via email and was responded to within an hour. The partner company of Orbitech that will be launching their line of LED fixtures noted that they intend to set up a part of the company for servicing defective PFO Lighting Solaris fixtures so owners will not be left in the cold with these expensive yet defective fixtures. If a stronger company intends on launching a more tested LED system and step in to help owners of defective fixtures released by a company that did not test their fixtures (PFO Lighting) properly, then I believe we (the aquarium industry) should support them. If Orbitech indeed invested vast amounts of time and money to develop LED technology and went so far as to patent their discoveries, then PFO Lighting overstepped their boundaries. If PFO Lighting had released a quality tested product and sold them to the public, then they would be more financially sound in fighting this patent lawsuit. But instead, PFO Lighting released a product prematurely, it has failed miserably as far as reliability, now a stronger company with tested technology that they patented should have the right to benefit from their hard work and release a quality LED product WHEN IT IS READY FOR THE MARKET. Chris

Chris:

I agree and am much more interested now in supporting my investment than supporting PFO. Just because the people at PFO were “nice” and sent me replacement strips when I needed them (I wish I didn’t need them) doesn’t do me a whole lot of good now that they are shut down. I hope you are correct when you say that Orbitech or their offspring aquarium division will be able to help out Solaris owners. Otherwise we’ll have to set up a DIY site for the smaller fixes.

Matt

[...] Orbitec President Releases Statement in Response to Negative Press.  [...]

In response to the current state of affairs with PFO, Orbitech and Solaris owners, if there is a resolution process that comes out of this quagmire, I would like to be notified. My 5 ft G-series light was sent to PFO for warranty repair just before they stopped doing business. My $3K fixture is somewhere in Washington (having been received by C. Turner) and is untrackable at this point. Thanks.

It looks like to me that PFO patented their light 3 months before the douchebags at orbitech got thiers. Regardless this is a blow to a much needed technology in this day and age. Competition would be the driver to make the technology better and affordable.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=vdWjAAAAEBAJ&dq=led+aquarium+light

http://www.google.com/patents?id=mwWAAAAAEBAJ&dq=Marine+LED+lighting+system+and+method

***Edit, Dave if you plan to contribute via comments keep them clean***

@ Dave – What you are looking at are actually patent applications, not issued patents. Their application was filed about 2 years after Orbitec’s and 3 years after Orbitec’s provisional.

Do a search on GBD for the other articles relating to PFO and patents for more info.

Also, it does not appear that LED fixtures will be unavailable for long as Orbitec has repeatedly mentioned that they will release a fixture with an aquarium company they have partnered with in the not too distant future.

Yeah Mike, but there is one truth in this hobby, and it is that the hobbyist research and share information. They are going to have to have one hell of a good product at a very reasonable cost to over come this bad publicity. I can only imagine what orbitec spent on litigating this issue, and also on their own R&D. The aquarium lighting business isn’t that huge. How many lights will they have to sell to recoup their expenditures, and at what kind of a mark up? If it ever even comes out. The only info I’ve seen about their alleged product is that crappy patent sketch that looks like the walmart $25 guppy tank special. With green house gas issues today this technology needs to become wide spread, not doing so will only hurt the industry in the long run. It looks to me orbitec shot themselves in the foot on this one.

@ Dave – I think there is some bad sentiment now, but a lot is also aimed at PFO for not researching/protecting their IP and putting out a product that just didn’t work as promised. Another truth is that people are quick to forget, we’re a “what have you done for me lately” society…whether this will prevail over bad sentiment to Orbitec, I don’t know. I guess time will tell.

Now that PFO is out of business and Orbital is has a patent on using LEDs for aquarium us, does that mean that we cannot use any form or LED lighting for aquariums in fear of infringing on Orbital’s patent?

I’m an electrical engineer and have been building custom LED lighting fixtures just using standard 1w SuperBright LEDs with different spectrums to get my desired result. I’m using a controller like the Neptune Aqua Controller Jr. to control the various colors to simulate dusk to dawn effect. Does that mean that I am infringing on Orbital’s patent? Any clarification will be greatly appreciated. Also, where can I find more about Orbital’s patent?

Thanks in advance.

As a libertarian it annoys me that nobody blames the real culprit of this whole mess. It is not Orbitec or PFO, but the government that has stifled competition and given us consumers less choice and higher prices on LED aquarium lights because of their arbitrary power of patent. Ideas cannot be owned by one person or organization. Without patents, Orbitec would have to compete in the marketplace with real products, and seek cost advantages with design and manufacturing efficiency instead of using an undeserved monopoly privilege granted by the government. Google “The Case Against Patents” for a more eloquent debate against patents.

as aquarists, we should boycott any partnered lighting product orbitec thinks we are going to open are loving arms to,they need to pay for delaying our reef tanks advanced lighting for years.any company willing to partner,should stop,take a step forward,band together with all lighting manufacturers and class action sue orbitec,only in numbers will they prevail, and spread the legal cost,why should we be forced to accept a company chosen by orbitec to by our lights from ? that aint happening.

Roger, without patents, there would be no incentive to put in the required R&D to create truly innovative products. I'm sorry, but intellectual property absolutely needs to be protected.

in fact, congress was given the power to establish the u.s. patent system in the constitution. see article I, section 8: to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. the laws that govern it are found in 35 U.S.Code; the rules are found in 37 Code of Federal Regulations. It is not some arbitrary process, but sometimes things do get overlooked when the patent office is evaluating a patent application.

Ken (Kengar over on Reef Central)

in fact, congress was given the power to establish the u.s. patent system in the constitution. see article I, section 8: to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. the laws that govern it are found in 35 U.S.Code; the rules are found in 37 Code of Federal Regulations. It is not some arbitrary process, but sometimes things do get overlooked when the patent office is evaluating a patent application.

Ken (Kengar over on Reef Central)