Litepanels sues to stop all imports of LED Lighting!

David Jimerson said:
Talking about patents doesn't require references to Atlas Shrugged or Galt's Gulch, or other non-specific references to the political process or atmoshphere. And it really isn't even those things being said; I asked that it go no further than that.

We have the rule for a reason.
Click to expand...

I'm really not trying to belabor the point, nor trying to be argumentative. However the plot and themes of the fore mentioned literature is precisely and very specifically about the matters at hand. Ironically, the book, the film.... and it's themes are apolitical if not anti-political.

Heck, It's your rodeo, but IMO the interpretation of this rule strikes me as draconian and ill-considered.

Am I to assume that mention or at least discussion of politically themed films will also be under scrutiny ?

Enquiring minds would like to know.

Bim Saleh Bim, your wish is my command.
 
No, it's perfectly possible to have a fruitful discussion of Litepanels without opening a can of Ayn Rand worms, and yes, many political-themed films and filmmakers have produced threads which needed to be shut down. If a topic can't be discussed without discussing and debating the politics, then yes, the thread will be closed. Now, I don't think this topic is one of those, but if it really is, we can close the thread right here. But I really don't think that's necessary, is it?

Look, this is not new. The taboo against politics has been standing for years, for most of the existence of the board. We don't allow it because it rips the place apart. The site nearly destroyed itself once; we aren't going to let that happen again.

If you want to discuss and debate the politics of a topic, there are plenty of other places where you can do it. But this, DVXuser, isn't one of them.

Now, all that said, if you'd like to discuss moderation issues further, send me a PM.
 
Companies wage legal wars all the time. All the time. You have no idea. This is nothing new. Maybe it's new to some of the companies listed, as this might be their first 'bout in the legal rodeo... but this is very common in all sectors of business.

I can sympathize for those involved in lawsuits as they are not fun for either side. With that said, nobody here is a legal expert despite what things appear, and this happens often. More often than you know. Many times it's baseless and the courts eventually recognize that.

Panavision sued Canon, Kodak sued Panasonic, bla bla bla. It effects our industry just as much as the others.

If you're a big company, you are constantly fending off and waging multiple lawsuits at any given time. It's the atmosphere and business world we live in. Without really knowing the intimate details, this is really calling attention to a common act of business litigation, which may or may not hold any legit weight.

Hopefully, in the future, when we look back on our infringement laws and copyright protections we will find they have protected many more innocent people than have harmed them. Patent wars, and lawsuits are ways to disrupt a competitor or to rightfully claim infringement. It can be wielded for justice or to simply batter/drain an opponent.

Who knows which this is, but I can tell you lawsuits are nothing new. If anything, this should be a private matter these companies must contend, as it is their business... no pun intended... or is that literal?

Not sure what the fuss is about. There are many qualified and talented lawyers, judges and legal precedent to help this case be settled one way or another. Plus there are appeals courts which allows many more other qualified and talented individuals to revisit the issue and make further rulings.

Courts aren't always fair, but we have a very well designed system to allow for the highest probability of justice to be served or protected. Let's leave it to the experts for now. My $.02
 
Last edited:
I've been thinking of getting into some LED panels for some time now. My choices just got easier, one less to think about. :)
 
Even if Litepanels is right, or Litepanels is not right but wins the lawsuit, they heave already done more damage to their business, than the whole PR department can deal with.
Same experience like Apple and their "dirty round corner wars" against Samsung. You might sort of win the battle, but the price you pay - customers and fan base you loose - is not worth it. Looks like a loose-loose situation to me - not really wise, cause they could have see this coming.

Frank
 
It's too bad that in the US this is the easy way to easy money. However, it does keep the lawyers off the street, where they could get into more mischief. Seriously, this is a sue-happy country, that raises the cost of everything. How many lawyer ads did you see in the last week on TV? That's the name of the game; people think they can sue for just about anything, and win the lottery.

I just read that Harlan Ellison, science fiction writer sued the makers of the Terminator trilogy because he had written a couple of old 'Outer Limits' episode where people from the future popped into our time, and there was a robot involved in one of them. They settled for an undisclosed amount of money.

It's an extortion game in a some cases. (There are obviously exceptions) Companies and individuals sue thinking the other guy will throw some cash their way, being cheaper just to pay off the litigants.

Sad but true.
 
scottfs said:
I just read that Harlan Ellison, science fiction writer sued the makers of the Terminator trilogy because he had written a couple of old 'Outer Limits' episode where people from the future popped into our time, and there was a robot involved in one of them. They settled for an undisclosed amount of money.
Click to expand...

If you saw the episode in question you would have no doubts that Terminator was direct rip off.
 
For you they look nothing similar for me the first time i heard about this issue and saw "Soldier" i was laughing loudly at the similarities - for me Terminator is direct rip off, and thus there are courts as sometimes the case might not be a s simple as it appears at first, as in for you two different films, for me tow very similar ones.
 
bwwd said:
What this have to do with terminator i dont know, "future" is copyrighted term or "soldiers" ? They dont even look like ones*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxhqjC2eSmY

Maybe this was the problem
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/07/pl_prototypeglasshand/
Click to expand...


Here's the operative sentences...

------
But the famously combative Ellison believed that they were seen by someone on Cameron’s production team, and he brought suit over similarities between The Terminator and “Soldier.” The terms of the resulting settlement are sealed, but the movie credits now include the line, “Acknowledgment to the works of Harlan Ellison.”
------


'Famously combative...' in other words, having written so much, he can now sue almost anyone, and most large corporations will pay rather than continue paying lawyers. And of course large corporations will often file suit themselves on 'some property they've had in a vault for years that haven't been seen since they were first released (or for TV first aired...)... now that the Mickey Mouse laws have granted 'in perpetuity' rights to non-humans...

This sort of sue, or threaten suit, is used all the time in 'technology'... a company will go bust developing a widget or process... a group of 'investors' that look like a legal firm, buy the 'intellectual property' for pennies, then pay people to scour the trade journals for 'products' that sound like they could be based on the intellectual property. Most large companies will pay the license because that's cheaper than breaking the patent, and because large companies so easily kowtow, this enforces the 'validity' of the patent, and forces smaller companies to pay the piper.

These firm had absolutely nothing to do with the development of the property, and in fact the original developers often go empty handed, because they didn't have enough capital to make the transition into production... the lawyer firms are producing anything but sheets of paper...

The only way for a small company to deal with this is to pay, since gathering a consortium of similar companies dividing the legal costs, is usually not an option...

As it is I'm trying to boycott anything adapted from Ellison if I can help it...

On the other hand, I'll always watch a Stephen King adaptation, because King has granted limited licenses to his works for 'unknown' filmmakers, which have assisted in some of said unknowns becoming known...

Here's the Wiki quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_Baby
------
As King explained in his introduction to the published shooting script for Frank Darabont's The Shawshank Redemption (based on his Different Seasons novella Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption), "Around 1977 or so, when I started having some popular success, I saw a way to give back a little of the joy the movies had given me.
------
 
Last edited:
What I wonder is how the US patents office accepted such a claim from Litepanels.

Those LED panels existed long before Litepanels released any of their LED products.
 
Here's a couple of articles that explain the patent situation pretty well:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/04/patent-reform-congress_n_906278.html?ir=Technology

http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/07/11/how-patent-trolling-taxes-innovation/


Here's a quote that I think explains it pretty well:

The PTO receives over 520,000 patent applications a year. That’s about 1,425 applications a day. The agency’s approximately 6,500 patent examiners are overburdened; on average each patent gets only about 16 hours of review.

So when these things go to court, most just end up settling on some kind of royalty agreement to avoid a costly legal battle. It doesn't mean they were actually guilty, it means that both sides found a way to settle so the war wouldn't go on. The often-given case of the "gasoline engine mounted on a chassis" (a car, in other words) is a great example. Someone patented this idea around 1895 and he himself never actually built or marketed a car. He collected royalties for years (making cars more expensive than they needed to be) from many car makers until 1911 when Henry Ford was able to invalidate the patent in court due to the obviousness of the idea which is the most common defense. That could have gone on for years till you found someone strong enough and with the will and resources to actually get a patent struck down.



In other news, Cool Lights, IKAN and Flolight all filed a common response last Friday which was the deadline for the American respondents. Our defenses are many but most importantly alleging that prior art does in fact exist (to invalidate the patents in question) and we listed it in the complaint. Other companies named in the complaint appear to all be working separately on their own. I imagine all these responses from the various companies will be on the ITC website or if not yet will be soon for anyone interested in reading them.



This is not a traditional law suit over alleged patent infringement. Its a petition before the part of the government that deals with international trade to bar imports of all LED photographic lighting, alleging patent infringement as the reason, and not just the lighting of those specifically named in the complaint but all imports of LED lighting. There is no jury and the hearings are held in close door sessions between lawyers and the administrative law judges of the US ITC. Its spelled out specifically in the complaint, that they feel there are far too many competitors to name so they seek the "general exclusion order". Anyone not named in the complaint that is effected ultimately (other companies based outside of the USA) would have to come back to the US ITC and try their case later if these imports were banned so they could get their products re-allowed into the US market. Its kind of a mess for everyone in photographic LED lighting made outside of the USA including Europe, etc.

This doesn't happen every day, that a company seeks a monopoly in their market by a petition to the US ITC and names a bunch of small companies to represent an entire industry. The reasons they did that should be obvious--the smaller companies have less resources than the larger companies to fight such a battle. US ITC only heard 53 such cases in 2010 according to the statistics I've seen. This is an independent agency of the US government that decides U.S. policies for trade with other countries. The potential ramifications of the decisions here are so important to the US and its relations to other countries that the President of the United States has review of whatever decision the US ITC makes at the end of the process because their decisions can effect international relations. So its definitely not the average lawsuit taking place in some Federal district court.
 
I understand it may apply only to items that are IMPORTED INTO the US. My single question is what if the item (s) are made IN the USA, I mean from start to finish, that is : design, prototyping, assembly and distribution as well as sales from the US. And the led unit is not really a "panel" and does in no way resemble in any way shape or form to a panel type lighting and this start-up company may create jobs in the US. Will or can that be an "infringement". ??
The reason I ask is that I see the words "imported into the US" quite often in this patent topic.
 
You'd eventually have to consult a lawyer to get their opinions on all that.

US ITC only deals with imports into the USA and policies surrounding that as well as complaints about it. If a company was before the US ITC, like in this case, and they decided to start making things in the USA, they could nullify the complaint before the US ITC and that would certainly be a remedy that would take the teeth out of that part of it. Then any patent infringement that someone wants to try would have to be done in the traditional way, in a district court with jury, etc.

In other words, someone manufacturing something in the USA wouldn't be attacked in the same way. They'd go through traditional methods if they think you are infringing on a patent. That's based on what I know about all this.
 
There are some things that should be cleared up.

There is a significant difference between copyright and a patent. You can only patent structure, not concepts and you can't copyright structure.

So the terminator VS Ellison is a copyright issue and while interesting (I would have to side with Ellison) it has nothing to do with the light panel issue.

Also the light panel patents are close to useless. The reason is it's structure only so any difference in structure is automatically excluded from conflict. Now if they have some circuit that does something that is critical they may have an issue. A reflector that is being copied maybe.

Any "prior art" on a patent invalidates the patent, so there just isn't much they can protect in something like this.

Less than 10% of US patents stand up to a challenge. Getting a patent doesn't protect you it only (in the words of a patent attorney) gives you a license to litigate.

The problem here is not that they have patents but that they are trying to falsely use them to get a different agency to hinder trade because of supposed violations.

IF they had a valid patent issue they would have sued the companies in question on those grounds. They don't have any patent violations that would hold up in court so they are just trying to intimidate competition. It's actually a stupid move because they could loose big time.

Ashton Tate tried to claim a similarly wide ownership of Data Base technology (again this would be copyright not patent but a similar stance) and in there zealousness sued Fox software and lost everything including the copyrights they had owned. Lightpannels could inspire folks to challenge their patents, which I sincerely doubt would hold water and then they would not have anything left to argue about.

I don't actually think they think they can get a monopoly. They think they can slow the erosion of the market so they ca be the established leader and hold some market share even when there are cheaper alternatives.

That however doesn't make their actions any more ethical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top