Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 93

Thread: Arctos flexing euro patent muscles

  1. #31
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Rijen, NL
    Posts
    115

    Default

    I do not think i am pedantic, obstinate or whatever.

    Let's go through the first claim of the patent :

    Laser device (1) comprising a plurality of single-emitter laser diodes (2), the individual output beams (3) of which are superimposed to form a total output beam (4),

    This refers to any situation where there are 2 or more single-emitter diodes combined. Yet the word " superimposed" means the are on top of each other, the first being " covered" by the others in such a way that they form a combination...a whole if you will...

    - wherein to each single-emitter laser diode (2) a first collimator (7) is assigned for bundling each individual output beam (3),
    This is added to the statement above and only states a collimator. Not even an adjustable collimator as we all know collimators need to be adjusted. The RGB block in our system uses adjustable collimating lenses.

    - wherein the individual output beams (3) of at least one group (8) of single-emitter laser diodes (2) are converged together by means of a plurality of converging deflecting mirrors (10b to 10d, 14, 18) into at least one group-beam-array (20, 23), in which the individual output beams (3) run closely adjacent to one another at least during a first common beam path,
    This section is applicable to each and every situation where more then 1 beam is being combined. It's too generic and is considered common knowledge. Nothing new here....moving on...

    - wherein at each converging deflection mirror (10b to 10d, 14, 18) at least one first individual output beam (3a) not reflected by the converging deflecting mirror (10b to 10d, 14, 18) is converged with at least one second individual output beam (3b) reflected by the converging deflection mirror (10b to 10d, 14, 18),
    characterised in that at least at individual converging deflecting mirrors (10b to 10d, 14, 18) a portion of the non-reflected (3a) individual output beam and/or a portion of the reflected (3b) individual output beam (3) is cut off, so that the cut-off cross sectional parts do not contribute to the group beam array (20, 23).
    there you have it, in the fat text....

    This makes the application thus specific that it *only* applies to situations where indeed "a portion of the non-reflected (3a) individual output beam and/or a portion of the reflected (3b) individual output beam (3) is cut off" .

    So if the whole beam is reflected it does NOT apply.

    Hope this clarifies it and shows who's being obstinate ...:P

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Langhus - Norway
    Posts
    349

    Default

    ...and if the patent states MIRROR(s), should it be valid when using PRISM(s)?
    __________________________________________________ __________

    More projects than time available.
    More projects started than finished.
    More money spent than earned.
    More failure than success.
    Just got to love lasers!

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,513

    Default

    No Dave, I disagree. You are correct that the initial descriptions of the "patent" discuss in detail the technique of beam combining, but they move on to cover PBSing and dichroic combining as well. This is just too broad. I would not ever buy a preassembled projector. They are just too simple or low quality to justify the value added additional cost. That may be another way to avoid the teeth of this threat.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    2,147,489,446

    Default

    I'm certain there is prior art on the technique of knife-edging going back to the 1970's as well. Someone should contact Casey Stack at Laser Compliance Inc and ask him about some of the early LaserMedia projectors that used multiple ion lasers to get more power. Or for that matter, Aaron Bacs (formerly of AVI) can probably chime in on prior art as well, since I'm reasonably certain that AVI also had mutliple-laser projectors where the beams were stacked.

    Hell, Paul Berthot of Clandestine Systems was doing this for a demonstration he set up for Universal Studios nearly 10 years ago, and he was borrowing the technology from what he had seen in the 90's. There are numerous prior art examples of this.

    Bottom line: this patent is rubbish. There isn't anything novel or unique about knife-edging. Even if you expand the definition of knife-edging to include carving out only the most powerful center portion of a beam, as Peter suggests, that is nonetheless covered by SPACIAL FILTERING techniques, which also pre-date this patent by several decades, and thus also fall under the prior art umbrella.

    A good lawyer ought to be able to rip this to shreds. The problem is that someone is going to have to PAY a lawyer to do this. It will probably wait until they decide to sue someone over the patent, at which point the poor company that gets sued will hire a lawyer to defend themselves, and the case (and hopefully the patent as well) will be thrown out. Sucks for the company that gets sued though, as they will be out the cost of the lawyer. (Unless European law allows a defendant to sue for legal fees?)

    Adam

  5. #35
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Rijen, NL
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Datsurb View Post
    ...and if the patent states MIRROR(s), should it be valid when using PRISM(s)?
    Well that's a bit of an oddity...the patent states mirrors which in my book is a optic item covered with a layer of reflecting material which is mostly a metal based compound with aluminum. Yet in "patent-language" it may refer to any reflective material just as long as the material is reflecting the beam(s) of light. As far as I understand prisms they don't reflect light but refract light into it's components. ( afaik ).

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Bree North West, Middle-Earth
    Posts
    298

    Default

    All,

    I have unfortunately over the years had a great number of dealings with patent law, mainly in Europe, but also in the US and Asia. I think the main point to remember here is that this may be following a well known patent attorney tacktick. Often even if the person claiming infringement is doing so in an optimistic fashion and may not be able to defend the patent the sheer cost of the accused to defend why they have not breached the patent may be so high as to put them out of business. So even though the court may decide you have not infringed the patent or it is based on pre existing art the actual legal cost to defend your position may be too high to make it worth fighting. In my own limited experience this is the case in over 50% of all cases where someone claims you are using their invention. they say you are and you have to prove you are not, this means some very high legal costs with patent experts, maybe employing a couple of technology experts to confirm your claim of pre existing art etc and then maybe the actual cost of attending court. I have seen far too many companies fall to their competition in fighting a patent violation to not believe this could be the case here. remember in this case to some extent the normal legal system is turned on its head and you need to prove beyond doubt that you have not infringed a previously granted patent, which by mere virtue of the fact it has been published and accepted has a level of validity which puts the person being accused of infringement in the costly position to prove otherwise. This is why so many patent cases are settled out of court. Less to do with right or wrong, more to do with due process. don't agree with it, but it happens.

    Good luck to anyone who decides the best option is to defend your innocence, the one certainty is that it won't be cheap

    Cheers

    Steve

  7. #37
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Rijen, NL
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buffo View Post
    Sucks for the company that gets sued though, as they will be out the cost of the lawyer. (Unless European law allows a defendant to sue for legal fees?)

    Adam
    Dutch courts at least would allow the sued party to request the judge that the plaintiff , in case of a dismissal or if the case is lost by them, that they bare all the charges of the court , the lawyers and any other costs that are incurred.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Bree North West, Middle-Earth
    Posts
    298

    Default

    I think it is the same in the UK, if they sue without due cause then you can take them back to court and counter sue them for costs. The issue is that you have to pay the legal fees prior to this and often it si the drain on cashflow which causes the problem. I worked for one company once who had a patent infringement case bought against them in the US and the pre hearing preparation costs were over $1 million. They could not afford the cash to pay up front or the risk and had to close the business, even though it was turning over more than $5 million/year. Just does not really seem fair, but I am afraid is the reality of this type of commercial law

    Cheers

    Steve

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,314

    Default

    I have no idea about kvant going after people from what I read it should only be arctos?
    If they are though they are indeed in the wrong.

    Kvant's modules are compact yes but the methods used to combine and compose the modules are basic techniques we all use.. you can't claim something like that.. they put work in production but didn't have to invest in research in coming up with the product because the techiques were already there. Defending the creativity and combating people who do not have put money into research that needs to be covered with sales that's where a patent is majorily for. I'm all for defending creative minds but it's within reason.

    At max lightspace or whatever cloned the enclosure look.. but lets be honest a heatsink shaped anodized module block isn't really some "New technology" "Wow this is a reason to go after people" No it's seeking ways to be greedy and get money and combat competition the childish way. If they are doing it for that then they seriously need to get their act right and not act like a bully or some form of patent troll.

    I do want to see any proof of kvant going after this though and not just arctos and not just assumptions... Kvant? Input please???

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,513

    Default

    This is why I have posted what I have. The most effective and fair response to this attack is not legal. If the general community of users and customers expressed their outrage to the aggressors then they might decide to self limit this threat before anyone goes to court. It's all about the money.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •