FTC ruling verdict on them leds.
- Thread starter Norman99
- Start date
bclighting
Well-known member
Time to boycott Litepanels! I have about 3 studios to relight this year and I will install anything but litepanels. Color Kinetics did the same thing years ago and it crippled LED stage lighting.
Chris Santucci
Veteran
As far as I can tell, there are a number of other LED light manufacturers that will still be selling fixtures because they license from Litepanels:
"Of the fourteen (14) companies named in the complaint, all of the major manufacturers have taken the professional route and chosen to license its intellectual property to continue manufacturing LED lighting products for sale in the United States."
"Of the fourteen (14) companies named in the complaint, all of the major manufacturers have taken the professional route and chosen to license its intellectual property to continue manufacturing LED lighting products for sale in the United States."
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
That is what I noticed. Litepanels is going to get a cut of the pie for the stuff they have proved that they invented. This will probably keep prices up for licensed products for a while, but I still think that competition will exert a downward effect on prices sooner or latter.
Norman99
Well-known member
What happened to "Made in USA". The ban is, as I understand the wording, "prohibits the importation into the US" of LED.....ETC. The key word here is IMPORTATION.
So...a US company using ALL US components with US labor is in reality importing nothing. So..that ban is null to that regard and therefore exempt for those US companies.
The ban does not mention anything about exporting out of.. So.. them US products can be sold anywhere. Again my 2 cents.!
So...a US company using ALL US components with US labor is in reality importing nothing. So..that ban is null to that regard and therefore exempt for those US companies.
The ban does not mention anything about exporting out of.. So.. them US products can be sold anywhere. Again my 2 cents.!
Chris Santucci
Veteran
bclighting
Well-known member
The narrowness of the patent is what is ridiculous. Then they make the bold statement that they do not cover things like flashlights and emergency lighting. So if I light a scene with LED flashlights then that is excluded from the patent? What about if Coollights decides to market all of their LEDs as emergency lighting and specifically says they are not for use in image capture?
How exactly is the ITC going to keep items being bought on ebay from Hong Kong out of the US?
The licensing system is actually a form of legal extortion in the end.
I think that I may patent the use of natural light being bounced off a reflective surface for the exclusive use of image capture. The patent is bunk, the only way to stop these stupid things from happening is a total overhaul of the US patent system.
How exactly is the ITC going to keep items being bought on ebay from Hong Kong out of the US?
The licensing system is actually a form of legal extortion in the end.
I think that I may patent the use of natural light being bounced off a reflective surface for the exclusive use of image capture. The patent is bunk, the only way to stop these stupid things from happening is a total overhaul of the US patent system.
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
You guys have a distorted view of "legal system" assuming that is has something to do with legality (right or wrong) while in reality it simply establishing a system where the one with more power screws the one without.
Without getting too much into politics, this stuff was going on for centuries and will go on for centuries.
In said system label matter, so yes, CoolLIghts marketing their lights as emergency flashlights is very legit but as film lights it's not. It's called "loopholes" something that big guys were taking advantage of for decades.
Without getting too much into politics, this stuff was going on for centuries and will go on for centuries.
In said system label matter, so yes, CoolLIghts marketing their lights as emergency flashlights is very legit but as film lights it's not. It's called "loopholes" something that big guys were taking advantage of for decades.
Norman99
Well-known member
That last paragraph is full of ambiguity. One only has to read it carefully to see that.
http://www.litepanels.com/ip.php
“There are also companies in the industry who have taken it upon themselves to establish their own research and development initiatives to create new kinds of LED fixtures and other innovative forms of lighting. They are not infringing on our patents and continue to bring welcomed innovation and healthy competition to the market.“
industry. What industry ?, the commercial, industrial, domestic lighting industry or the...Film Video industry.( the one they often mention )? Big difference.
Them “ new kinds of LED fixtures“. Would that possibly imply that if the shape or form (or the look of the fixture) is different from theirs, then it's good to go ?
“ innovative forms of lighting“ that's a good one. Perhaps if it uses LEP plasma in them instead of LED it's innovative and also good to go.
http://www.litepanels.com/ip.php
“There are also companies in the industry who have taken it upon themselves to establish their own research and development initiatives to create new kinds of LED fixtures and other innovative forms of lighting. They are not infringing on our patents and continue to bring welcomed innovation and healthy competition to the market.“
industry. What industry ?, the commercial, industrial, domestic lighting industry or the...Film Video industry.( the one they often mention )? Big difference.
Them “ new kinds of LED fixtures“. Would that possibly imply that if the shape or form (or the look of the fixture) is different from theirs, then it's good to go ?
“ innovative forms of lighting“ that's a good one. Perhaps if it uses LEP plasma in them instead of LED it's innovative and also good to go.
Last edited:
Norman99
Well-known member
Right on. Smooth and flickerless dimming is elimentary as Sherlock Holmes said to Watson. Just use a CC driver (constant Current) that does not use the PWM scheme and voila says the French. Nothing new nothing invented . Requirements for alternate power capability is just the voltage range ( DC input ) that the driver can handle for it's requirements as either a buck or boost design. Again, nothing new nothing invented. By the way, Leds were patented like half a century ago ( GE) and most likely that patent ran out like 25 years ago. Again, nothing new , nothing invented. Leds for film and video and broadcast use ??? Just evolutionary and logical thinking that if you put more than one candle together, the light will be brighter, hence the led cluster invention, if you can call it an invention. Nothing new, nothing invented.
keylight
Veteran
You're misunderstanding the situation I think. Litepanels can shut down the unlicensed manufacture of panels made in the US. The US courts are available for that and it isn't hard to do. Stopping imports is much harder to do through the courts, but the ITC ruling has basically done just that. It'll also make it easier to remove all the unlicensed panels that are for sale via ebay, off of ebay.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Litepanels was the little guy (originally). I'm not saying I agree with this patent (I think it's ridiculous in fact, to patent existing technology for a specific but rather obvious use) but the premise of your argument is wrong.
Honestly, I can't begin to understand how this patent was ever granted because of its obviousness. There never has been a new type of light source that HASN'T been used for film/video/photo. And I bet you somewhere there is some prior art of someone using LEDs for film/video before they ever applied for the patent.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
From a rough estimate of the legal costs to pursue a patent issue, ranging from $1M to $6M for 'small issues'... I conjecture that Litepanels spent more on legal fees than on engineering. Further, a company that has the 'cash' to spend on legal fees to the tune of $1-6M is not 'little'.
keylight
Veteran
Well, you may be right. Then again, it isn't unheard of for the little guy to get investors to back something. Doesn't mean they didn't start out little. Honestly, I have no idea so I can't argue the point.
Having said that, I quickly read through the 2 patents that seem to be at issue and I for the life of me can't see how all panels violate their patents. From what I've seen, their patent covers a panel that has a hole in the middle to allow a lense to protrude through. A light ring in other words, but one made up of LEDs mounted to a circuit board. I'm thinking there have to be other patents involved, but it's the weekend and I'm too lazy to look!
These are the two I found:
http://www.google.com/patents/US7604361
http://www.google.com/patents/US7874701
Anyone know of others?
Norman99
Well-known member
Can anyone patent a specific use of a technology that has already been patented before ?
If their patent(s) is of the enclosure design and the use of plurality of leds, then the patent was not granted for the LED technology in the emitters.
Unless the patent(s) was granted for the specific use of that technology for the media industry. Which brings me back to the question of patenting a specific use of the light produced by the not so novel technology.
If their patent(s) is of the enclosure design and the use of plurality of leds, then the patent was not granted for the LED technology in the emitters.
Unless the patent(s) was granted for the specific use of that technology for the media industry. Which brings me back to the question of patenting a specific use of the light produced by the not so novel technology.
keylight
Veteran
Apparently you can. But I still don't understand why obviousness didn't block the patent.
bclighting
Well-known member
I also found it interesting that Litepanels is very quick to say that their patents do not cover LED fixtures that use a lensing system such as a fresnel lens. It almost makes me think that they are avoiding conflict with Arri and the like. There are also many more stage lighting manufacturers that have been using white LEDs for many more years than Litepanels that have patents on their own designs. Once again, they are targeting the little guys and avoiding getting into it with companies that could afford to challenge them. What's worse, I have thought Litepanels was overpriced and not really that great from the get go. Cinemills and Mole Richardson both have far superior LED panel products in my opinion.
From a theatrical standpoint, RJ45 for DMX? Really? That is the stupidest thing since 3 pin XLR's for DMX. That is one of the other reasons that I would avoid using them in a studio relight.
Litepanels may have been the little guy when they started, but since they became a Vitec company they are far from being the little guy.
From a theatrical standpoint, RJ45 for DMX? Really? That is the stupidest thing since 3 pin XLR's for DMX. That is one of the other reasons that I would avoid using them in a studio relight.
Litepanels may have been the little guy when they started, but since they became a Vitec company they are far from being the little guy.
Grug
Veteran
They say that simply because they don't have patents for those types of fixtures (and if they did, Arri would almost certainly licence that technology from them). They're protecting the patents they own, not forcing themselves upon everyone as the supreme leader of all things LED.
Are the patents perhaps overly broad in their coverage, yes. But that's nothing new in patents.
I find it very interesting that so many filmmakers (of all people) take issue with people protecting their IP - when filmmakers are more vulnerable than just about any other profession when it comes to the impact IP infringement has on their livelihood.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
As I indicated in the previous thread on this topic, I was involved in a patent dispute between the company that employed me, and a group who had split off. The 'technology' they were patenting, had been proven out about 20 years before, via government contract. Depending on the situation a work created by a contractor for the government or research done by or provided to the government may be "Public Domain". This was one such project.
In any case, the company spent money on lawyer fees, reduced engineering to minimal... and as it turned out... subminimal, and eventually had to sell itself to anyone who would cover the executives golden parachutes. I didn't wait to be the person who turned off the lights...
Before the group split off to form their own company, they registered a patent on their work at my company. When I was asked 'what is novel' in my portion of the equipment... My response was 'nothing'...
My attitude is wasting time on patents slows a group down, and the competition, not burdened by such rigamarole will only have the advantage.
"Trade Secret" is a far better way to hold a useful development than a patent, which by necessity publishes the process. For 'key employees', 'Trade Secrets' are better, as the way a trade secret is kept secret... is by making sure those who know the secret... are happy... A patent on the other hand, being public, there is no incentive to keep 'key' employees happy, just investors need be happified, who have little or no understanding of the process and its dependency on 'key people'...
In rapidly changing technology, the use of patents for 'small companies' is dubious unless they are 'intellectual property' developers almost exclusively. In my opinion had Litepanels wanted to keep on the leading edge of technology they would have funded 5 development groups for 'the next big thing'... as it is they seem to have chosen the path of 'mine this one idea to the hilt' and let the company fall in a few years as other companies surpass the current technology that is embodied in the current 'light panels'.
BrianMurphy
Veteran
I will be approaching my share holders and legal team this week to begin proceedings on protecting my soon to be granted patent for CC47 (Canadian C47)
