what about them lawsuits ...

[gj62]

Bob - it may suck, but it is SOP in most small industries where patents are used to protect one's investment and R&D... As any industry matures, it's proponents must begin to look at fiduciary responsibility. This doesn't make them evil - if they didn't do it, they wouldn't be around for long...

 

[SDAnderson]

Anybody got any spare blood pressure meds?

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

Ah, I see. Your post was intended as a compliment. My misunderstanding.

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 don't work for Sartek, nor do I know anyone that works for Sartek. I don't work in the scuba industry and I'm not an attorney. I do know people that hold patents and copyrights and I have seen how much time and money they have to expend defending their property from people who would...usurp...said property. Also, I own a Sartek HID light that is covered by the patent in question.

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.

So this hits a little close to home for you, too!

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.

And the defendants, of course. I’ll be very surprised if it develops that Sartek made no effort to contact the defendants about their claim prior to initiating litigation, but who knows. I don't know that it matters, from a legal or a ethical perspective. Also, it might be kind of hard to open friendly negotiations with someone that has…usurped…your technology and rights and is making money that should be yours.

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.

Any analogy has a point at which it will break down and that line may be fairly close at hand in the one I presented. You are correct, “theft” requires the intent to deprive, what shall we call it if you take something that doesn’t belong to you without asking if it belongs to someone else?

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.

Assuming for the moment that they were given no such opportunity to make amends, what would make anyone think that this new technology was public domain? The idea that you're promoting is that we have someone with the education, experience, intellect, determination and wherewithal to reverse engineer a sophisticated piece of electronic equipment, design a clone and then manufacture and market that clone, all without the idea ever occurring to them that they’re possibly infringing upon someone else’s intellectual property. S-t-r-e-t-c-h. It would seem that the only civilized thing for them to do would be to at least make some inquiries as to whether the idea they were working so hard to take advantage of might not belong to somebody. In hindsight, it would seem the only fiscally prudent thing to do, eh?

Then again, that would reduce the need for lawyers ... and we can't have that, can we.

Not much love for the lawyerly profession here, either. There are exceptions to every rule but I’m comfortable with the generalization that JD really stands for junkyard dog. If you have to hire one, remember to keep him on a tight leash - something about a necessary evil...

I don’t know much about the case, either, but anyone who has been around scuba for more than a few years knows that underwater HID lights are a recent technological innovation. Solving the ballast issue is an important advance, as indicated by the numbers of divers skipping lunch for months on end in order to scrape together the many hundreds or even thousands of dollars required to buy this technology. Sartek is, according to the patent office, the originator of that advance and they’re entitled to the profit from it. Actually, as I understand it, they’re entitled to ALL the profits from it, at least for awhile. It seems premature to jump on Sartek as though they were the bad guys, simply because they are aggressively defending their property. Some of our ire should, perhaps, be reserved for those callous enough to take advantage of an innovative idea without any thought towards recompense. After all, had any of the defendants picked up the phone and called Sartek before they cloned the technology, they could have avoided all of this unpleasantness. Hopefully, all parties to the dispute will be able to come to some kind of a satisfactory settlement, the sooner, the better.

Rant off.

Here’s a link to the Sartek patent:

Anybody got a link to the court filings?

 

[Uncle Pug]

OK.... time out.... everyone back away from your keyboards. Take a deep breath. We are not enemies here just because Reefraff owns a Sartek and Bob has a personally engraved Terkle.



There. Are we feeling better now. Sheeesh! I hate it when two moderators fight out in the open!

 

[TTSkipper]

Thanks UP I was the one who created the original post about AUL yesterday that I believe started this thread and have refrained from posting in it because of the quickly heated conversation. I am trying to do some more research and get some permission before I post any more details or my opinions.

It may be best that before we all start putting our 2 cents into the mix (even though I did a little on the 1st thread) we hold off until we have all or at least more of the details. I am trying to get some of these details although from only one source and would welcome the other side (Sartek) to post their opinion as well.

 

[SDAnderson]

OK.... time out.... everyone back away from your keyboards. Take a deep breath. We are not enemies here just because Reefraff owns a Sartek and Bob has a personally engraved Terkle.



There. Are we feeling better now. Sheeesh! I hate it when two moderators fight out in the open!

Spoilsport!

Bob & I are both reasonable guys and able to handle a disagreement - even a passionately felt one - without being too disagreeable. There won't be any fisticuffs and we'll make up...although there probably won't be any kissing, either. Besides, I think we've both had our say so tranquility should return to this little corner of our world.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Anybody got any spare blood pressure meds?

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

Ah, I see. Your post was intended as a compliment. My misunderstanding.

Nope ... it was intended as a "here we go with another damn lawsuit". Neither a compliment nor a slam ... an observation of a trend.

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 don't work for Sartek, nor do I know anyone that works for Sartek. I don't work in the scuba industry and I'm not an attorney. I do know people that hold patents and copyrights and I have seen how much time and money they have to expend defending their property from people who would...usurp...said property. Also, I own a Sartek HID light that is covered by the patent in question.

Fair enough ... and I own a Terkel and a NiteRider ... both companies are affected by this litigation. I also know people working in other companies who build HID lights. My purposes in commenting has nothing to do with any of them. Rather an attempt to start a discussion on the merits, opinions, or observations of this litigation trend we've seen in the industry of late.

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.

So this hits a little close to home for you, too!

In a sense, yes ... and I wanted to be upfront about it so that those reading my comments would have a proper context.

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.

And the defendants, of course. I’ll be very surprised if it develops that Sartek made no effort to contact the defendants about their claim prior to initiating litigation, but who knows. I don't know that it matters, from a legal or a ethical perspective. Also, it might be kind of hard to open friendly negotiations with someone that has…usurped…your technology and rights and is making money that should be yours.

In the cases I'm privy to, I've already stated that Sartek made no effort to contact the defendants. Perhaps negotiations could be friendlier if they'd tried.

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.

Any analogy has a point at which it will break down and that line may be fairly close at hand in the one I presented. You are correct, “theft” requires the intent to deprive, what shall we call it if you take something that doesn’t belong to you without asking if it belongs to someone else?

Only if you believe ... or are aware ... that it does belong to someone else. There's a large area of "public domain" out there.

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.

Assuming for the moment that they were given no such opportunity to make amends, what would make anyone think that this new technology was public domain? The idea that you're promoting is that we have someone with the education, experience, intellect, determination and wherewithal to reverse engineer a sophisticated piece of electronic equipment, design a clone and then manufacture and market that clone, all without the idea ever occurring to them that they’re possibly infringing upon someone else’s intellectual property. S-t-r-e-t-c-h. It would seem that the only civilized thing for them to do would be to at least make some inquiries as to whether the idea they were working so hard to take advantage of might not belong to somebody. In hindsight, it would seem the only fiscally prudent thing to do, eh?

Well, perhaps the fact that you can go download that technology off the Internet might give someone reason to believe it was public domain. Those people building their own DIY lights aren't reverse engineering someone else's design ... they're using plans someone published in a Web site ... or in a book.

Then again, that would reduce the need for lawyers ... and we can't have that, can we.

Not much love for the lawyerly profession here, either. There are exceptions to every rule but I’m comfortable with the generalization that JD really stands for junkyard dog. If you have to hire one, remember to keep him on a tight leash - something about a necessary evil...

It's not a question of evil ... it's a question of trends. And whether or not those trends are a good thing, or even a necessary thing.

I don’t know much about the case, either, but anyone who has been around scuba for more than a few years knows that underwater HID lights are a recent technological innovation. Solving the ballast issue is an important advance, as indicated by the numbers of divers skipping lunch for months on end in order to scrape together the many hundreds or even thousands of dollars required to buy this technology. Sartek is, according to the patent office, the originator of that advance and they’re entitled to the profit from it. Actually, as I understand it, they’re entitled to ALL the profits from it, at least for awhile. It seems premature to jump on Sartek as though they were the bad guys, simply because they are aggressively defending their property. Some of our ire should, perhaps, be reserved for those callous enough to take advantage of an innovative idea without any thought towards recompense. After all, had any of the defendants picked up the phone and called Sartek before they cloned the technology, they could have avoided all of this unpleasantness. Hopefully, all parties to the dispute will be able to come to some kind of a satisfactory settlement, the sooner, the better.

OK ... I won't argue that if they made an investment in developing the technology they should benefit from it. The question in my mind is whether or not this is a reasonable way to do so ... and whether or not their intent isn't so much to eliminate much of their competition through measures that are a more extreme than may be warranted.

Rant off.

It wasn't my intention to start a flame-fest. I'd have hoped that the "regulars" on here would by now know that's not my style.

I was hoping to engender a more civilized discussion of the issue. Regardless of which brand of HID light you use, if you use one this is going to affect you.

Perhaps it's best to just say "never mind" at this point ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Spoilsport!

Bob & I are both reasonable guys and able to handle a disagreement - even a passionately felt one - without being too disagreeable. There won't be any fisticuffs and we'll make up...although there probably won't be any kissing, either. Besides, I think we've both had our say so tranquility should return to this little corner of our world.

Totally ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[gj62]

OK ... I won't argue that if they made an investment in developing the technology they should benefit from it. The question in my mind is whether or not this is a reasonable way to do so ... and whether or not their intent isn't so much to eliminate much of their competition through measures that are a more extreme than may be warranted.

Other than patents - I don't know of another way to do so. The filing of a patent infringement suit accomplishes several things in the most easiest way:

1) It immediately shows you intend to protect your patent, thereby letting competitors & customers alike know of your intentions.

2) It maximizes your protection under the law, which makes good fiduciary sense.

3) Done correctly, it actually could help avoid protracted legal battles.

4) It does not preclude negotiation with the other parties.

Our attorneys (not in the scuba equipment industry) have always promoted this approach, rather than negotiation before filing. There are a number of reason, including those above, why it makes sense to do so. Granted, it certainly can increase your bargaining power - but hey, that's the point, isn't it?

Now, if they wish to remove all competition, then you can look at them as a predatory company. However, I would look instead that they are trying to protect their company and customers by being profitable and exploiting their innovation.

Lastly, the patent is very detailed - this was probably required to obtain the patent. It should not be an overwhelming task to reengineer other products to fall outside the patent enforcement yet provide much, if not all, of the commercial advantages. You can build something commercially similar and still avoid a patent infringement.

 

[jonnythan]

OK, I'm not an attorney, but I do play one on TV (actually, my work requires that I work closely with our attorneys).

There is something called the Defense of Laches - which basically states that if the patent holder (laches is not just for patents) delays too long on a known infringement, then the defense can avoid a majority of the liability of the infringement. We've been counseled that since we are in a small, tightly knit industry, we should pursue any patent infringement claim against known competitors with little delay. It is different for IBM who may never have heard of the company that is infringing...

Absolutely right. But no matter how many times a patent hs been violated, new violations can still be prosecuted. There are several defenses for this, but it's still not like the patent is lost the way a trademark is.

 

[UWSojourner]

Sheeesh! I hate it when two moderators fight out in the open!

Yeah ... two fighting moderators would be much more profitable as a Pay-Per-View only forum