Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 93

Thread: Arctos flexing euro patent muscles

  1. #51
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Rijen, NL
    Posts
    115

    Default

    @dsli_jon

    Thanks for lifting my spirits with your nice " rant" Lovely to read, especially the "Laserverld" thing...still giggling about that

    As far as I know, no other Dutch laser company has been hit with these weird claims, no German, Belgian, French or any other country for that matter ( afaik ).
    It seems that I was " hand picked" to receive this " bonus".

    Even though this is a nuisance and then some....I do kinda feel special. Apparently the big boys ( Arctos and their customer Kvant ) feel that the systems I am selling in The Netherlands are of such quality that they feel they are a threat to theirs. So I must be doing some things right ...don't you agree ??


    As it is, i do not think " laserverld" has anything to do with this.
    My guess is my post in Laserist on FB , comparing our FD3040 with the Kvant ClubMax3000 during the Dutch LEM triggered some people to start some investigations.
    It was a harmless compare that was meant more as a joke then anything else, yet there was an undertone in it that stated that only the expert-laserist could see the difference, the general public can and probably will not see the difference. So it was all done with a smile.

    Nice fact by the way: The owner of the Kvant which was used for that comparison photo is now looking to sell his Kvant and want's two of mine....how's that for laughs.


    As for the letters and such. The first sign of trouble was some lawyer firm from Germany which was suddenly visiting my LinkedIN account very often. That felt odd and I tried to find out why but did not get any clear sign of how and what that until their first email arrived with the various statements they made.

    In short it stated that they believe I am in violation of patent laws and the showed their patent. I have read this thing over and over and it's full of holes. I am not going to diverge what holes there are in the patent as the " enemy " may be lurking around the corner, but there are things in the patent which can never ever belong to the patent or any patent whatsoever.


    So now I am working on my last and formal letter to this lawyer. I will read it back, and again, and again...until I am full satisfied that I have hooked every " nut and cranny" and will of course start to say that the letter is no confirmation of guilt in any way or form, but merely a respons to the allegations.

    Thanks to all for now and then for lending me your brain farts to solve this idiotic situation.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,513

    Default

    This may seem to be a trivial point, but for me has always been very important. Is Kvant the only company that relentlessly states their divergence as 1/2 angle. If not then I'll drop it, but if so then I find this very misleading

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    3,702

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterB View Post
    My guess is my post in Laserist on FB , comparing our FD3040 with the Kvant ClubMax3000 during the Dutch LEM triggered some people to start some investigations.
    My guess is that when you compare an original with a blatant copy, yeah people might get pretty pissed off....
    KVANT Australian projector sales
    https://www.facebook.com/kvantaus/

    Lasershowparts- Laser Parts at great prices
    https://www.facebook.com/lasershowparts/

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    SoCal / San Salvador / NY
    Posts
    4,018

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterB View Post
    ...there are things in the patent which can never ever belong to the patent or any patent whatsoever.
    ..Well, there you go.. IF the patent, does-indeed, 'include stuff from other patents', then it is invalid, and unenforceable.. Chop the tree down at it's root.. Take it to whatever 'EU-side' version of the USPTO exists, and 'lay out a case / attack the base'...

    Quote Originally Posted by dave View Post
    ..compare an original......
    I'm not condoning cloning.. (..boy, I'm on a roll, today! ..Just sayin that IF there's, in truth, a Patent that *shouldn't have been granted*, based on 'prior art' / other's ideas / existing techniques - and, I've gotta-believe there ARE - (ie: how are / were 'diode-bars' summed-into a fiber-core? Not ALL are 'indie-fibers pegged to each emitter', etc..) Do SP, Coherent, and a plethora of other Co's that have used similar-techniques, *way-predating* this "invention" pay royalties to 'TH'? I think not..

    ..And, I'd also think that if, indeed, there's not iron-clad proof of that Patent's validity - as something *truly unique* - Kv should be more than happy to know / not have to 'pay rent', any-more.. Did they 'investigate it's validity' / verify / agreee, and THAT'S 'why' they're paying? Or, was that just the 'path to least-resistance'? 'Grease the wheels' with some cash / 'Hush-hush, little-one'... and they can then, unbridled, go-on to *eclipse* Arc's market-penetration (which, I certainly believe they have..) But, if that's all been based on a 'foundation' that, itself, was a 'copy' / stood on the backs of others, well, then I'm not one for supporting bullies, 'intellectual', or otherwise..

    ....But, if this 'fight' is, indeed, more about a 'pj-clone war', well.. That's something twixt the fighters, I guess.. <shrug>

    .02
    j
    ....and armed only with his trusty 21 Zorgawatt KTiOPO4...

  5. #55
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Rijen, NL
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dave View Post
    My guess is that when you compare an original with a blatant copy, yeah people might get pretty pissed off....
    If it looks like a Duck and quacks like a Duck, it must be a Duck....right Dave ?

    Ever considered that it may be a design that is using commonly accepted design features ?

  6. #56
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Rijen, NL
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Friends,

    In this thread there 's an update:

    It seems A..... ( you can fill in the blanks yourself ) is under pressure from K....
    The latter is known to pay A for the patent and as such K probably demands that A attacks all those that do not pay A for this.

    As this thing is now at the lawyer I cannot divulge much more, don't want to offer the K or A lovers any chance to inform their patron.

    So if you are concerned about how this goes on, then by all means assist me in trying to prove that the initial laser patent - which is mentioned several times in earlier links - is invalid by posting your pre-2005 pictures and information - magazines and other related issues are best - stating that diode collimation has been prior art before 2005 and that combining beams using the knife-edging principle is also done earlier then 2005.

    Read the Patent well, as it is a time bomb for all of you as well.
    It does not only apply to red according the drawings, but could now also be applied for green and blue diodes and any other color out there as the used method is similar, so if they ever win this, they we're all f*cked...think about it and please offer help !

    Thank you

    Peter

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    381

    Default

    I mean, if I was paying good money to license a patent, and meanwhile the owner of the patent was not enforcing said patent broadly and fairly, I would be rather upset I would imagine.

    In the US, at least, if a company holds a patent, becomes aware of infringement and does NOT defend the patent; and later on another company infringes the same patent and the owner subsequently pursues them legally, the position of the patent owner is significantly weakened in court, to the point of the patent being unenforceable, if it can be proven that the patent owner had KNOWLEDGE of infringement yet chose not to pursue any sort of action.

    Being a legal patent (not wanting to bring up opinions on whether or not you think the patent is valid or not, LEGALLY it appears to be valid and enforceable), it is in the best interest of the owner and any licensees to see the patent enforced.

    When it comes down to it, this is a business decision, not a 'kumbaya' 'lets be nice to all the other manufacturers' decision. It is in any individuals best interest to protect an invention if the law allows. Sometimes this is easy, and sometimes it is more difficult to prove that something is non-obvious and unique, having personally dealt with this within my realm of employment. By patenting, the information is entered into the public domain of knowledge, stimulating others to come up with newer, better and more unique inventions.

    Note that in my own experience I have never played with diodes and have only ever personally applied power to a diode once in my life so when it comes to diode and laser sources my knowledge is limited at best. I'm just speaking from a patent and enforcability perspective.

    _________________________

    on another note - i find it personally amusing to see how many people bitch and moan about chinese copying/cloning/knockoffs/counterfeits/ruining the market /etc , et continue to support the chinese industry by buying these chinese products !!
    Sincerely,
    Ryan Smith
    ScannerMAX Mechanical Engineer
    ryan {at} scannermax.com

  8. #58
    mixedgas's Avatar
    mixedgas is offline Creaky Old Award Winning Bastard Technologist
    Infinitus Excellentia Ion Laser Dominatus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    A lab with some dripping water on the floor.
    Posts
    9,890

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by planters View Post
    This may seem to be a trivial point, but for me has always been very important. Is Kvant the only company that relentlessly states their divergence as 1/2 angle. If not then I'll drop it, but if so then I find this very misleading
    Many lab/professional solid state lasers were always quoted half angle in the past (YAG, Ti:Saph etc..) gas was always full angle..

    Steve
    Qui habet Christos, habet Vitam!
    I should have rented the space under my name for advertising.
    When I still could have...

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    3,702

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterB View Post
    that combining beams using the knife-edging principle is also done earlier then 2005.
    But thats the whole point - before Arctos revolutionized solidstate lasers using combined diodes, these techniques hadn't been used...
    KVANT Australian projector sales
    https://www.facebook.com/kvantaus/

    Lasershowparts- Laser Parts at great prices
    https://www.facebook.com/lasershowparts/

  10. #60
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Rijen, NL
    Posts
    115

    Default

    @Ryan

    I can understand that a patent holder would and perhaps even should enforce his patent where they feel it may be breached and as I stated before I am not against this, it's just that the same company where I ever bought my very first RGB for several thousands of Euro's back then is now trying to shut my company down on an alleged breach of patent, where others doing similar things are left untouched. So in coherence with what you are saying Ryan, I would expect them to go after each and every company that combines diodes - which is at this point in time any laser company not working with OPSL's or other sources - but apparently they don't !

    So I am quite sure that the reason lies not directly in the alleged breach of patent but has other reasons.

Posting Permissions

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