Peak LED press release:

[BentHeadTX]

Mr.,
True, the concept is to protect the look of the light so not to be drained by copy cats. I think it is very petty to sue for a configuration of LEDs though, it is rather OBVIOUS to increase the output of a single LED light is to add more LEDs.

I have an idea, I should patent MULTI-cylinder engines! MULTIPLE jet engines, MULTIPLE wheels, MULTIPLE screws etc.

When I was on my recent trip, I was given an Inova X5 which was rarely used. My preference is Luxeons for brightness and single-cell muliple LED lights for less power.

One day, I was using a Peak 5 LED AA white on the end of their clamp/magnet/loc-line adapter and someone thought Inova came out with a new light. Granted, the Peak was brass, did not have a tail switch and ran on one AA but the heads have the "Inova" look. (to a non-flashaholic anyway) Maybe Peak's 7 LED stainless head looked too much like the X5's stainless cap on the top.

I would be very aggitated about all this except for one thing, the multiple-LED heads are just a step in the Luxeon (or newer 60 lm/W Nichias) Those 100mA LEDs can fit in the middle ground if need be.

Peak can bounce back quickly by using variable multiple output high flux LEDs. That was their plan (speculation on my part) Why should they fight a patent that is obsoleting as we speak? I would rather press on with technology that does not infringe a patent and beat them at their own game.

 

[JonSidneyB]

The Patent laws are based on the idea of not limiting innovation. Those that innovate are less likely to try if they are not able to potentially benefit from it. Its a basic economic principle.

 

[MrBenchmark]

[ QUOTE ]
BentHeadTX said:
Mr.,
True, the concept is to protect the look of the light so not to be drained by copy cats. I think it is very petty to sue for a configuration of LEDs though, it is rather OBVIOUS to increase the output of a single LED light is to add more LEDs.

Peak can bounce back quickly by using variable multiple output high flux LEDs. That was their plan (speculation on my part) Why should they fight a patent that is obsoleting as we speak? I would rather press on with technology that does not infringe a patent and beat them at their own game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree about the seeming pettiness of all this. As I said before, the only really legitimate reason I can see to do it is as an opening gambit in a bigger case against a competitor that's bigger than you. Having other people in the same industry recognize the legitimacy of your patent by licensing it in some way is a powerful argument in court when you face someone who contests the patent. If it was just because of the Forbes article, than, yeah, that pretty much sucks bigtime.

I also totally agree with you that the way to deal with this is just to invent something better.

 

[matrixshaman]

The intent of Patents may be to protect the little guy or anyone else but in the real world it does not work that way. It is all about who has the best lawyers in court. And with lawyers getting $1000 to $4000 per hour and up in many situations just when is the little guy ever going to win. The patent process has it's place but it is seriously abused. There should be a minimum amount spent on research or a minimum complexity to get a patent. As some others above have said when you start patenting some ideas that are very simple and obvious you are just using your financial and legal prowess to STIFLE every one else and that is very wrong and the opposite of free enterprise. If we want this world to advance into a higher level of consciousness and better levels of living we should not be doing these things out of greed. There are better ways to make money.

 

[MrBenchmark]

[ QUOTE ]
matrixshaman said:
The way I and most of these people see it is that if you are a big company (take Xerox for example - one of the biggest patent takers out there) then you can afford to patent almost anything - which is the way you STIFLE the competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, big companies do this sometimes. Yeah, this situation sucks for us. No argument there.

Comparing EE to Xerox or big Oil is just plain silly. I'm sorry MatrixShaman - that just makes no sense. Yeah, EE (if that's who it is) is way bigger than Peak. As companies go though, it's not very large I don't believe - it's got to be at least two or three orders of magnitude smaller (in terms of revenue) than Xerox or especially big oil companies. This isn't like billionaires trying to protect their legacy into perpetuity, or to prevent change because doing so is in their interest. I'd guess the EE folks are pretty regular guys, trying to run a company, keep people employed, and make a few bucks.

 

[Finbar]

Xerox should be patent prolific. Aple stole the GUI from them and Microsft stole it from Aple.

Now look at the rusty ol' product being offered by the world's most dominant sftwarez maker. Gates himself has said that Aple makes the best computer.

Aple is so much more intuitive than the soft ones products...yet, it still dominants the world's useage.

It does not matter who invents something - it matters who patents the idea first. Such is the law of the business jungle.

Even if there is a prior patent on an idea, why not offer a compromise? Say, an agreement where X$ are offered per unit sales. It seems that the patent holder would have much more money to gain by allowing a popular selling product to continue production and thus earn more money for the patent holder without ever having to produce any work.

This is the model that Microsft uses. For each PC sold he gets a cut. I think it is because the softwarez are included.

Maybe a well known flashlight maker could attain some agreement with a larger maker to reusme production of a popular model that used "circumferentiAl pRinting" on their produCt.

Off to file me patents on things that go "BOOM™", things that are "green™", things that "taste good™", "breathable air upon surface of third rock from the sun™", "sunlight™", "rainy days™", "rainy day fun™", "sunny day fun™" "fun day fun™", "funny day™", "funny day fun™", "funny™", "that's funny™", "that's not funny™", "yes™", "no™", "maybe™", "Hello™", "beer™", "bier™", "food™", "toilet paper™", "soap™", "device with four wheels that allows freedom of movement between point A to point B™", "water™" and "one hundred dollar bill™".

If anyone is aware of any infringements upon my patent pending, trademarked or copyrighted ideas...there will be a "reward™" "comming your way soon™".

All Me Best™,
Finbar™
Fin™
bar™
F™

 

[matrixshaman]

[ QUOTE ]
JonSidneyB said:
The Patent laws are based on the idea of not limiting innovation. Those that innovate are less likely to try if they are not able to potentially benefit from it. Its a basic economic principle.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would have to say that is an idealistic non-reality. Sorry - I agree that is the way it should be but not the reality. A company can easily come up with a new innovation, market it properly and they will have great financial gain. Others might try to copy but by the time others get some ready to sell the innovating company will already have a good foothold in the market if they have marketed it properly. And the competition may never get off the ground. This is the way it should work but if the innovating company keeps improving it's product it will likely be the winner. Take the Leatherman company for example. Look at all the companies that have copied their patented designs. But who is still improving their Leathermans and selling the most? Leatherman - a great product that does well because of continued quality and innovation. I personlly own a couple Peak lights and one Inova. Assuming Inova is who we are talking about I'll say The Inova IMO is the most worthless light I have - in fact I tore it apart last week knowing I might ruin it but it really didn't matter as I didn't like it the way it was. I am still trying to make it a useful light I like. I've never been impressed by anything that Inova has. In fact now that I think about it my first Inova was a Photon light clone - sure it looked just a little different but it was exactly the same basic idea. Did Photon sue Inova? Anyway - rant mode off - it's a beautiful sunny day out. I guess I am so frustrated over this because I have been trying to get some Peak lights for 2 1/2 months now and because of an almost bizarre string of situations I still don't have the ones I was ordering. Still working on it though...

 

[MrBenchmark]

[ QUOTE ]
Finbar said:
Even if there is a prior patent on an idea, why not offer a compromise? Say, an agreement where X$ are offered per unit sales. It seems that the patent holder would have much more money to gain by allowing a popular selling product to continue production and thus earn more money for the patent holder without ever having to produce any work.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very common arrangement, really. Sometimes the price asked is small enough to where the competitor can still build a product that's competitively priced, sometimes it's not.

 

[JonSidneyB]

I never said that they worked. I said that was the spirit of the original laws. If the original laws worked as planned they would have likely been corrupted by now to no longer function as originally drafted. Many many patent holders have failed and lost on a product. There are several reasons why. Often another can find a different way of doing the same thing. That patent period was shorter than the payback period of the item. The patent holder does not have the recourses to defend his work. RCA and the optical disk I think is an example of a technology where the creators never made a dime on it but had huge expenses.

Also just because a patent holder has a viable product, they should still be innovating if it has a positive net present value to the innovotions unless there is something else that is better use of the opportunity costs.

 

[MR Bulk]

I got a very nice letter (e-mail) from an light mfr. notifying me that the VIP infringed not only on their product name, but their use of a multi-position switch. I explained that the name was not actually "VIP" but rather something akin to, "Var-I-Pin" or "Variable Illumination Photonic" device (which they were), however the initials were so catchy and compelling that they naturally came up and were used ever since. And also that multi-position switches have been, are now, and likely forever will be, used in a *Multitude* of things, not just flashlights. And that mine served to vary intensity levels while theirs served to switch through different colored bulbs or LEDs.

But in the end I caved and said I would no longer make the VIP, which was the truth as they were so difficult to actually assemble anyway that once the run of 313 units was over, it was over for good.

And after I took a step back and looked at the big picture, I realized that they were simply protecting their IP as they perceived it, and no malevolence toward me was ever intended.

 

[powernoodle]

[ QUOTE ]
davidra said:
Now that I've got my order placed....a reminder that Peak has a US dealer....and he has lights in stock.

[/ QUOTE ]

RMSK, Inc. is only a few miles from my secret underground bunker. Went ahead and ordered a stainless McKinley 7LED hi-power for giggles. The gentleman at RMSK was very nice, even calling to arrange an inperson delivery if I wanted. Sd he has plenty of stock left, though he's sold a hundred or so in the past couple of days.

best regards

 

[matrixshaman]

powernoodle, thanks - Where can I find RMSK? online? phone?
- Guess I could have looked myself - found it - thanks for bringing it to my attention. I think I've gone on a multi-LED light buying binge here this last week. One 8 LED light on ebay for 39 cents - looks like a Peak or Inova - we'll see how that one works out. And a Nightcutter 5 LED from Ebay - another multi-LED clone at only $22 looks like a good deal. And now one more try to get a McKinley - going on 2 1/2 months of failed deals. If things work out though on some deals in the last week I may end up with 2 or 3 McKinleys as well as other clones along that line. I have to wonder if Inova (or whoever it is) will be going after Nightcutter and the other similar lights.

 

[Raybo]

If this whole debacle is about using multiple leds....... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crackup.gif

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/nana.gif

 

[matrixshaman]

Yep - I agree - Luxeon Star type lights are the way to go but multiple LED lights tend to still be a bit cheaper now and can provide a lot of light (but not especially throw) for the buck.

 

[lahjik]

I didn't see this mentioned before, so forgive me if I am repeating.

The patent isn't about an array of multiple LEDs, it is for sinking individual LEDs in an array into their own individual holes in an otherwise solid head.

The patent is clearly titled "Flashlight head with isolated lighting elements" and further defines that as a "unique flashlight head construction that includes an array of lighting elements individually arranged in a corresponding array of reflector cups." (emphasis added)

That is definately a shared feature between the Inova X5 and the Peak multi-LED lights. The NightCutter SportLight line, on the other hand, has the LEDs arrayed in a circle around a central nub, but not in individual "reflector cups." The difference means the NightCutter is the lesser in both cost and (probably) durability. The purpose of Inova's patent, as they say in their initial summary, is to protect an "invention [that] provides a unique structure that facilitates the sealing of the flashlight head to enhance the manufacture of a durable and waterproof flashlight."

[Whoops...went to my truck and took a closer look. NightCutter may be running into the same problems as they are sunk in individual cups as well. It just has the whole think sunk down into a slight cup instead of a flat head.]

While I agree that I don't like it, this wasn't quite as frivilous a patent as say the attempted patent on hyperlinks. The problem isn't with the patent or patent protection, it is with patent (and copyright) lengths. Inova needed and enjoyed protection while it grew with its new invention. Their market penetration into Discovery channel stores shows that they are enjoying a high level of success. Maybe if patents expired in 5-7 years instead of 20 years there would be more opportunity for continued growth. On the other hand, according to the patent information it took from Feb. 22, 2001 until Jan. 11, 2005 for the patent to be approved. This may be why Inova is now starting to move forward with patent protection...now they have the patent approved and can protect it.

Just some thoughts...I really don't know much at all, I just read the things as librarians tend to do.

chris /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon3.gif

 

[3rd_shift]

Now I see why some flashlight retailers are reselling lights imported from overseas,
designed and made where foreign legal experts representing competitors are not so welcomed. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/evilgrin07.gif

 

[davidra]

Well, my 3-led peak head does not have "reflector cups". The LED's are each down in a hole, but there is no "reflector" and no cup, unlike the X5 I also have. I don't see the similarity, really.

 

[lahjik]

That is the point. Each LED is down in its own hole. Those are the "reflector cups" that Inova talks about. That is, in fact, the whole idea of the patent, a flashlight head that presents a multi-array of LEDs where each LED is secured in a seperate hole thereby increasing the overall strength of the head because of a greater density of metal with internal reinforcements from small holes rather than a single large indentation. "Reflector cup" seems to just be the term used to define the sinking of LEDs individually rather than in a single well as in many other models.

 

[scott]

I was the first to suggest that the other company might be Inova (I did it on the Underground forum.) By now, lots of us think it might be Inova. The thing is, we think this for a reason. While there are other companies making multi-LED lights, we obviously realize that Peak's lights do have form factors similar to the Inova X5. We wouldn't be accusing Inova if we didn't see the similarity in design ourselves.

On another note, there is the Spyderco hole. It's brilliant, rediculously simple, and its patented. Yes, it seems so obvious, yet it took hundreds of years for someone to think of it.

Scott


http://scottridgeway.net

 

[tvodrd]

I have to agree with lahjic's read of the patent. The "reflector" is the bore's sides. Whether Emissive's patent would hold up in court is anybodys guess, but they were granted it and Peak's designs appear to me to infringe. Were Peak to bore their heads, (would probably require the addition of a lens) they would be in the clear. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon3.gif

Larry