what about them lawsuits ...

[MXGratefulDiver]

Yep, here we go again ... Sartek's suing everybody else who builds HID lights ... on the basis of a patent that was just recently granted.

Seems to be a bit like Ford suing everybody else who builds cars. The technology's been out there for quite some time ... not to mention that it's really nothing more than an upgrade to an older, existing technology.

The upshot ... I think ... will be that a few smaller companies will fold, a few medium-size companies will settle, and a few larger companies will go the legal distance.

Either way ... somebody's gonna end up paying the lawyers. You can bet it'll be the consumer.

Thanks Sartek ... once again a dive equipment manufacturer proves that they are their own worst enemy ... or maybe just that of those of us who purchase their products.

It'll be interesting to see how they deal with those out there who are building their own HID lights off of plans readily accessible to anyone with an Internet connection ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[padiscubapro]

Yep, here we go again ... Sartek's suing everybody else who builds HID lights ... on the basis of a patent that was just recently granted.

Seems to be a bit like Ford suing everybody else who builds cars. The technology's been out there for quite some time ... not to mention that it's really nothing more than an upgrade to an older, existing technology.

The upshot ... I think ... will be that a few smaller companies will fold, a few medium-size companies will settle, and a few larger companies will go the legal distance.

Either way ... somebody's gonna end up paying the lawyers. You can bet it'll be the consumer.

Thanks Sartek ... once again a dive equipment manufacturer proves that they are their own worst enemy ... or maybe just that of those of us who purchase their products.

It'll be interesting to see how they deal with those out there who are building their own HID lights off of plans readily accessible to anyone with an Internet connection ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

actually the filed for the patent SEVERAL years ago (2000 if I remember correctly), at the time they were the ONLY HID source.. The patent they have is very specific.. There patent is for having the balist mounted near the bulb, at the time of filing this was against all recommendations of welch allen (the maker of the ballasts and bulbs)... This patent will make it a violation for all the 10w HIDs out there, the 18w and higher can be made without violating their patent although not very effectively..

Their solution was novel so it is a viable patent.. if you read through the patent it will be very hard to invalidate..
Some of the other people selling HID light near the begining were selling lihts made by Sartek.. This included Halycon..

This isn't a matter of patenting something that was common knowledge..

I don't know how much he is asking from the manufacturers, hopefully he is being reasonable and the other manufacturers give him his due.

 

[scubasean]

Seems to be a bit like Ford suing everybody else who builds cars. The technology's been out there for quite some time ...

If the patented (e.g. claimed) technology has really been out there, you can initiate a reexam and supply the prior art. But, it'll cost ya...

not to mention that it's really nothing more than an upgrade to an older, existing technology.

Well....Most patents are not inventing new things to put on the periodic table and are therefore upgrading older technology, and building on something that previously existed.

Are the current microprocessors patentable? Or do you believe they are building on older technology (which is not the test for patentability) and therefore unpatentable?

And, are you looking at the claims rather than the specification? It is the claims that define the invention.

Not sure what your point is...

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

My point?

Perhaps only that I'm of the opinion that lawsuits should be used as a last resort ... not a first resort.

Perhaps it's that when companies take this route, they ultimately hurt the very consumers they're trying to market to ... typically the only real winners in a lawsuit are the lawyers. Lawyers are expensive, and the cost of legal fees ultimately get built into the price of the surviving product.

Regardless of the legitimacy of Sartek's claims, one has to wonder if they attempted any sort of redress before filing lawsuits against 30 or so companies?

And the question remains ... what, if anything, can they do about the garage guru doing the DIY thing using their "patented" technology?

Maybe my point is simply that inquiring minds want to know ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[SDAnderson]

Perhaps only that I'm of the opinion that lawsuits should be used as a last resort ... not a first resort.

First, another way of phrasing your point is that a victim of theft (which is exactly what Sartek is alleging they are) should first attempt to negotiate a settlement before proceeding to litigation. If someone is stealing my car, you want me to negotiate with him before I call the cops? I'm more likely to shoot him and save the courts the trouble. Second, apparently you have some knowledge of the case, did Sartek go straight to court without attempting to negotiate?

Perhaps it's that when companies take this route, they ultimately hurt the very consumers they're trying to market to ...

I couldn't disagree more. The only consumers that benefit from patent infringement are the ones that bought stolen goods. Of course the guy selling TV's from the back of his truck can offer lower prices - he didn't pay for them. In the long run, however, stolen goods drive the cost of everything higher, not lower.

typically the only real winners in a lawsuit are the lawyers. Lawyers are expensive, and the cost of legal fees ultimately get built into the price of the surviving product.

True enough. Maybe we, as consumers, could help prevent the situation by not abetting theft.

Regardless of the legitimacy of Sartek's claims, one has to wonder if they attempted any sort of redress before filing lawsuits against 30 or so companies?

But wait a minute. Earlier you were ripping Sartek for not trying to negotiate first, now you're saying you wonder if they did - what do you have against Sartek? Before you accuse them of something, don't you think you ought to at least have some kind of information that they did (or didn't do) the deed?

And the question remains ... what, if anything, can they do about the garage guru doing the DIY thing using their "patented" technology?

In light of economic considerations, not much, perhaps. Does that invalidate their claim? Are you suggesting that they can't prosecute the big thieves because they can't afford to prosecute the little ones?

Maybe my point is simply that inquiring minds want to know ...

Fair enough. This should have been your starting point. Sorry to get on my high horse about this, but I don't think you're being fair and the whole thing strikes kind of close to home for me...

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

'scuse me, but I don't think I ripped anybody.

Before you go any further ... why don't you put your opinions into context by telling us just how close to home this strikes? Are you, perhaps, an employee of the company in question? Or one of their legal representatives?

I know very little about the case ... but I do know the principles in two of the companies who were served, and they were both taken totally by surprise by the lawsuit.

I don't think anyone but Sartek's lawyers know whether or not they talked to any of the companies involved prior to suing them ... it's a long list.

As to your analogy, one would have to ask if the people being sued were aware that this patent was pending. "Stealing", as you put it, is a conscious thing. If someone were to inadvertently take something thinking it was in the public domain ... only to find out later it was not ... then I think the civilized thing to do would be to give them an opportunity for redress prior to taking them to court. Then again, that would reduce the need for lawyers ... and we can't have that, can we.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[scubasean]

My point?

Perhaps only that I'm of the opinion that lawsuits should be used as a last resort ... not a first resort.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Do we know that the lawsuit was the first resort? I'm curious how you arrived at this conclusion.

:banana:

 

[scubasean]

I know very little about the case ... but I do know the principles in two of the companies who were served, and they were both taken totally by surprise by the lawsuit.

Perhaps your acquaintance with the principles clouds your own objectivity a bit. Or did you also raise these questions in the other scuba-related patent suits that were filed?

Just curious.

As we know, the filing of a lawsuit does not mean it will get to court. Most lawsuits are settled before the first day of court.

 

[gj62]

A pending patent is public data. In a market this small, identifying any pending patents would be fairly easy. Ignorance is not a defense. My company serves a specific niche with 10 or so others, and we constantly monitor patents - any manufacturing company should do the same...

BTW - I don't own any HID lights, nor do I know the companies involved by anything more than consumer reputation.

 

[rab]

A pending patent is public data. In a market this small, identifying any pending patents would be fairly easy. Ignorance is not a defense. My company serves a specific niche with 10 or so others, and we constantly monitor patents - any manufacturing company should do the same...

BTW - I don't own any HID lights, nor do I know the companies involved by anything more than consumer reputation.

Has something changed? I thought that patent applications (which are "pending" patents) were not available. It's only once a patent is granted that it becomes public. I'm interested mainly from the perspective of software patents and this has been debated continually when a patent is granted for something "obvious" that wasn't previously covered by a patent (because patents weren't used for protection of software until fairly recently).

I don't know what the proper procedure is, but filing a lawsuit first and then negotiating might be required in order to protect one's patent rights when the alleged infringment has already occured.

-Rob