Arctos flexing euro patent muscles

[masterpj]

problem is... since arctos is the one sueing here... I don't buy from them nor am I sure how many here do... will they feel the aftermath is what I wonder.

[norty303]

PJ I've got a bit lost in the details but I think what is being asserted is that Arctos was sold along with the patents to a company that, although not Kvant themselves, may be closely affiliated and operating in the European marketplace.
I'm sure Peter will correct me if I've grasped that wrong.

[planters]

Who does Arctos sell to? Obviously they must feel their sales/profits are threatened by competition (fair or not it is still competition). They must be made to fear the aftermath not feel it's aftereffects otherwise the delay means a lot of people have to change their behavior. That is not the goal. The reason you don't go to war is that both sides feel the other is too well armed. There should be pressure brought to the people who decided to pursue this. Obviously, if everyone came to HATE the company they would be put out of business. That is not the goal either.

Threatening letters from an attorney can seriously hurt and they can cause expensive alterations in the way a company does business. Let Arctos present it's case to the general public and try to convince us that their claim has merit. Maybe they can, yet as it stands the patent seems overreaching and the threat, petty.

[dave]

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 ).

The prisms have a mirror coating on the hypotenuse, so in your book, that makes them mirrors...

[WookieBoy]

Oh dear... this sounds familiar...

A few years ago a certain American moving light manufacturer tried to sue ALL the competition as they held 'patents' on entertainment remotely repositionable light fixtures...
They basically tried to bully most of the competition out of the market when their sales dropped below that of their cheaper competitors...
The outcome was a ban on importing a certain Dutch manufacturer's lights into the U.S. for a few months and some very very happy lawyers...

This U.S. company no longer exists as the legal costs put them out of business, however the cost of defending their position tied up all the cash flow from two of the other market leaders and stopped any major R&D for a good year or so, allowing the 'budget' companies to catch upas they were selling quantity cheap rather than quality for more.
The dutch co is now one of the major world leaders in the lighting market. The 'unknown' other European co is now hammering Clay Paky on quality design...

My point is that unless this Lawsuit is aimed at the manufacturer in China (which it can't be as China don't subscribe to Patent laws) it's really a bit pointless. Taking on a distributer will maybe stop supply for a while, but with the amount of Chi-Co's selling directly on eBay now, it's a bit like booting the stable door after the horse has eaten the hens... or whatever

The only ones who will profit from this are the Lawyers in the short term and the Chi-co's/other manufacturers who aren't tied down by the litigation in the long term... if Arctos aren't VERY careful, this could come back to bite them HARD! If they don't win this, the cost will probably destroy their R&D budget for years and a cunning defendant would counter-sue tying them up further...

Afterall, the laser market is a lot smaller than the stage lighting market and if a similar frivolous action can remove two or three of the major players from that industry, where there were fewer major players to begin with, what will happen to this market where there are twice the number of high end players and a third or less customers?

[planters]

it's a bit like booting the stable door after the horse has eaten the hens... or whatever

Gasp! That's good.

[dsli_jon]

...I think what is being asserted is that Arctos was sold along with the patents to a company that, although not Kvant themselves, may be closely affiliated and operating in the European marketplace...

Oh, good Gawd, PLEASE don't tell me we have *ANOTHER* poor 'victim of Count Lazerverld', the vampire of vampires..

..and, why could-they not - they 'ate' Swisslas, RTi, and - how horrible - I believe even MediaLas, so.. Wouldn't surprize me if they were the 'mystery-meat', here, Ugh.. Is there no stopping that Black Plague of a Co?? >_< OR.. is this just a cheap-shot by a 'local-competitor'? ie: Does 'Syncrovision' have any 'reason' to be-behind this? Well, if-so.. Did they 'send one to Joost'??

@ Peter: a) GREAT 'letter', in-reply.. MAKE THEM PRODUCE PROOF OF THIER ACCUSATION - the 'burden of proof' rests on them.. What you outlined, in your 'response-from-them' post, does NOT constitute PROOF.. Proof would be, ie: Photos - they, by an independent, and completely dis-connected 3rd party / investigator, etc - downloaded from *Your marketing material* / tech-drawings, etc, from *Your* website..

b) Are you the *Manufacturer* of the Product they are accusing you've 'infringed' with? No? Well, then they haven't got an 'infringement case', now have they. At MOST - IF it was Proven, you were, indeed, selling products that - directly - infringed on their Patent, the most they'd have is a cause to issue a 'mild cease and desist' (ie: 'Please don't re-sell these ChiCo rip-offs, since they are hurting this European-manufacturer / tainting the European-market', etc..) As others have-said, the 'real beef', here, is the ChOEM(s) that clone. (..And, they bloody Do..)

..if they sue without due cause..

Yep, you could turn that missile, right around (..but, yes, it would co$t You, and could-be quite a bit.. +_+ BUT - what I would do, is - First - 'explore due cause'.. DUE cause.. Already touched on one angle (proof of the claim..) but.. As 'planters' suggests, *Attack the Patent's validity at it's core*.. As others have quizzed.. IS IT EVEN VALID IN THE NL?? If so, Can you 'file a complaint' with the 'Registering / Validating Entity', over there? (ie: Here, we can file a 'complaint' with the USPTO / call for a 're-examination', and provide evidence you found / why you feel it should be invalidated / was-never valid.. ) Not sure what 'govering entity' is over there.. The Madrid System? I know that's thru-whom you file an International Trademark, but.. Not sure what 'teeth' they have.. (?)

Here's a good article (yes, albeit for US Patents, but.. I've gotta-believe there is similar 'feeling' / statutes, etc, over there / with Euro-patent governance, no? http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...ters-9007.html ..Fwiw..

..Also, 'fwiw', here's what I was able to (from here..) dig-up, in discussing them in the 'wow, what was that effect on tv', thread.. http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publi...009294U1&KC=U1 ..and, more-explicitly http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publi...002498A1&KC=A1

..So - yeah - They've (clearly..) got a 'legit beef' with the ChOEM cloners, but.. with You?? Pff, unless you're making these - just like that - Well.. like you've well-said in post #12.. Go flippin pound sand.. And, if this *is* somehow 'LW, behind this all', pfff... Thier end could not come soon enough for me, personally.. Stand on the backs of everyone else to 'rise up', lie, cheat, rob, defraud, and mock best-practices / the High-Road, in addition to mocking your Customers, whom they treat lower than their dogs.. The very Scum of Photonica.. >_<

PS - NOT endorsing 'cloning', of anyone's unique Product / ideas, in-so-speaking in Peter's 'defense'.. Just taking the position of the underdog, and NOT 'bowing to the bullies', especially if they're *wrong*.. Take a step back to do it 'intelligently' / calmly, but.. Bite back, and... bite hard..

<rant: end>
j

[slicklasers]

Question, didn't the patent say for only Single Mode Diodes? Aren't the lightspace projectors Multimode diodes?

[PeterB]

PJ I've got a bit lost in the details but I think what is being asserted is that Arctos was sold along with the patents to a company that, although not Kvant themselves, may be closely affiliated and operating in the European marketplace.
I'm sure Peter will correct me if I've grasped that wrong.

Let's correct this somewhat.

The patent was originally by the "inventor" who was the previous owner of Arctos.
He sold the entire company and left to do other things in life.

As the entire company was sold, so were the patents and all rights to them.
As I gathered from Kvant, they paid ( and/or are still paying ) Arctos to not get tangled in legal issues, so the current owner of Arctos got what he wanted....money...

The problem lies not in the usage of mirrors but in the far too generic language used to set the patent. At the time the patent was registered, there were no green laser diodes, only 640 or 650 reds at that time. Chances are that in the nearby future we may be seeing yellow, orange and perhaps even white laser diodes. Who knows ?
As the patent is currently written *any* color can fall under it. But there are caveats in the patent which can derail it and I am working on those.

[PeterB]

Question, didn't the patent say for only Single Mode Diodes? Aren't the lightspace projectors Multimode diodes?

Nope, it states " single-emitter" and in the RGB block in our systems are OpNext Reds.