Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 5678910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 93

Thread: Arctos flexing euro patent muscles

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,513

    Default

    Putting aside the fine points of case design and module lay out, the only pertinent issue is knife edging. This technique has been used for decades in imaging and field sampling. I do not believe it is used in any laser based video projectors. I have seen the insides of a couple, yet I may be wrong. Inserting a targeting/aiming beam into a LWIR laser beam has included included knife edging due to the incompatibility of the optical materials.

    The Chinese will ignore any patent infringement ruling no matter the result and so this is largely a waste of money and time.

    One snarky method of bypassing this "patent" for the vulnerable European manufactures arises from the simplicity of this so obvious technique. Sell your projectors sans knife edges and "informally" arrange (enable) with independent companies that can provide after market "upgrades". It's your projector, once you have purchased it, you can do whatever you want with it.

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    2,599

    Default

    If they truly have a patent on this then it would make a lot more sense to offer licensing than offering threats. Is the motive money or disruption? At least come forward and offer some kind of get out of jail offer to those in the market. It needs to reasonable of course and follow industry standards on this kind of arrangement. Then after that if people violate then they have reason to attack.

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by planters View Post
    I do not believe it is used in any laser based video projectors.
    Are you sure about that?
    https://sites.google.com/site/dtrlpf...fe-edge-arrays

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,513

    Default

    Was I sure that that was my belief? Yes. If those stepped bars hold or did hold mirrors for knife edging then I'm now better informed. This could strengthen the argument against granting a restrictive patent unless the claimant can prove that his invention preceded this application. If he can then the potential returns to him would be even greater. Bottom line, there needs to be clear proof that this idea did not originate with the patent holder and was used "generally" before he did. I bet that can be done.

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Send a message or email DTR, thats his website, he knows what hes selling. He should be able to tell whether it was for knife edging or something else and which projector it originated from.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    2,599

    Default

    The blue diodes in the Casio projectors were are knife edged. That is how the 24 diodes were are combined from the block but they are not combined to make a single point. It's a block of blue on a phosphor. Sort of combined but not what I think of when I think knife edge combining. To me that means with purpose to make a single beam as small and powerful as possible. This is more like combining in a solar collector. Is the kecked telescope a radial version of knife edging?

    Irony of kecked....telescope actual missed me✔️

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    90

    Default

    The patent laws usually require that, for an invention to be patentable, it must be:

    1) Patentable subject matter, i.e., a kind of subject-matter eligible for patent protection
    2) Novel (i.e. at least some aspect of it must be new)
    3) Non-obvious (in United States patent law) or involve an inventive step (in European patent law)
    4) Useful (in U.S. patent law) or be susceptible of industrial application (in European patent law)

    I don't see how is it novel and non-obvious. OK, the latter is very subjective since people tend to think something was obvious to them all along even though they never though of it themselves. I'll give them that. But if something is not novel its harder to argue it isn't obvious.
    I wouldn't say any knife edge used in laser projectors creates a single point, rather stacked points that diverge into one over distance.
    Last edited by Yerkat; 11-05-2017 at 07:27.

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    2,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yerkat View Post
    The patent laws usually require that, for an invention to be patentable, it must be:

    1) Patentable subject matter, i.e., a kind of subject-matter eligible for patent protection
    2) Novel (i.e. at least some aspect of it must be new)
    3) Non-obvious (in United States patent law) or involve an inventive step (in European patent law)
    4) Useful (in U.S. patent law) or be susceptible of industrial application (in European patent law)

    I don't see how is it novel and non-obvious. OK, the latter is very subjective since people tend to think something was obvious to them all along even though they never though of it themselves. I'll give them that. But if something is not novel its harder to argue it isn't obvious.
    I wouldn't say any knife edge used in laser projectors creates a single point, rather stacked points that diverge into one over distance.
    so whatever happened with this thread. Did the legal case go forward die or what?

  9. #89
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Rijen, NL
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kecked View Post
    so whatever happened with this thread. Did the legal case go forward die or what?
    Well in short, it went forward and has caused :

    - costs of several thousands of Euro's for law firms
    - the end of my company ( gave up on it )
    - a verdict that tells me to not sell lasers using that system for 2 years in Germany ( which I never ever did as all sales were done in The Netherlands )
    - a verdict for paying the costs of the legal case ( several thousands of euro's )

    IN the case itself all " evidence" was offered by Arctos and their "friends".
    Trying to debunk the credibility of the "fabricated evidence" or anything else in my defense was impossible as I did not have a German Lawyer and had to be at the proceedings - even without a lawyer - but to not be able to voice my concerns at said proceedings because they would only allow a German Lawyer to speak. In effect I did not go to he proceedings which were held over 1000 km away from me. Travel would have taken 8 hours drive by car. So actually they got their verdict by default.

    I am not paying a cent. Nothing, but I am sure that it all started with Kvant who paid Arctos a sum between 100.000 and 200.000 Euro as a licensing fee for the use of their so called " patent ". By doing this Kvant actually "bought" Arctos in the sense that Arctos now *had to* go after anyone who had not paid them, as otherwise Kvant would want their money back. So by paying arctos they bought their legal case as well and could remain in the back while arctos was fighting their battles.
    Sufficient to say that this will of course never be admitted, but the fact that the legal case was prepared by the same woman who - in her student times worked at Kvant - makes things overly clear.

    As for the patent, anyone who has legal backing could get rid of it, as it fails the 3 basic principles but as Germany has their own Patent laws they can kind of do as they please. The patent itself was never really investigated and Arctos lucked out with that.
    Patents that Kvant based on this and have asked to patent, were rejected because of these same 3 basic rules.

    Nice detail : Not so long ago HB Laser confirmed to me personally that the red diodes Arctos used in their designs ( the diodes with the pre mounted lens, in a black holder and grey teflon on it ) came directly from them, so the patent is based on pre-manufactured diodes that could and should never have been part of the patent. That alone shows you someone paid off someone at the German patent office to get the patent validated, but this is something nobody will ever be able to prove.

    So be ware what you're buying and whom you're buying it from, Kvant and Arctos are not trustworthy and they will pull one over you, even if you have been a customer of theirs....they don't care about anything or anyone...just about money .

    That's all I am writing about this.

    *= THE END =*

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,314

    Default

    It's not wise to talk about companies like that after having gone through a lawsuit.
    You closed doors to avoid a suit but many damn well knew what the outcome would be and the company (and many others) have tried to warn you to step out of a case like this and reason with your complainant.. but by jumping up and down and shouting and being stubborn you very much so encouraged this.

    Peter: You are the ONLY company to be sued.. and all this time before no single competitor has been sued by "2 companies."
    I'm very sure there is more to this then what you state and I think it really has to do with you comparing products and down talking products of competitors.. this in it's essence is already bad work ethics and I think a big company just had enough.

    Llaw isn't to be reasoned with especially if you do not have the funds or the means to pay for a proper lawyer.. but again: no competitor has been sued and this problem is bloated as an effort to have had people join your efforts/finance your case.

    This case should have NEVER been in existence, you should have had a chat privately between the manufacturer and you, rather then going all public and pointing fingers...

    You should learn that sometimes staying on the low down or working in a respectful manner with your competitors not only creates a more comfortable industry but also shows you that there is plenty of means to sell if you find your niches/markets within this industry.

Posting Permissions

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