LED Museum pages removed!

[Saaby]

Craig, care to share with us the meaning of this:

DUE TO POSSIBLE PATENT INFRINGEMENT ISSUES, THIS PRODUCT HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM WWW.LEDMUSEUM.ORG AT THE REQUEST OF L.R.I. STAFF AND LEGAL COUNSEL

 

[yclo]

I think it's because the products on those pages are pretty much photon knock-offs.

 

[Saaby]

I thought those were the little things with the Surface Mount LEDs, there was a blinker and a spinner...am I wrong?

EDIT: I stand corrected. I confused the Phyco Brights with the Phyco Blinker/Spinner. Still the question remains, what did the mean layers say to you?

 

[yclo]

You're right, but they were housed in a clear photon-like casing.

 

[The_LED_Museum]

I'm not at liberty to say what the mean 'ol lawyers said. But what I did should keep me off the homeless shelter waiting list and on top of the viaduct, rather than under it.

 

[Jonathan]

Did you agree to a settlement with the lawyers where you agreed not to disclose terms? Or did they simply _say_ that you couldn't tell others? I am not a lawyer, and don't even play one on TV, but it seems to me that their request _to you_ that you remove the pages is not confidential unless you _both_ agree that it be so.

Additionally, describing a patented device is explicitly _not_ a breach of patent, because the essence of patenting is that you publish the design. So I don't see how the description of a device which does infringe a patent could be an infringement of the patent. (The Psycho-Bright lights might infringe a patent, a description of the Psycho-Bright lights doesn't infringe the patent, IMHO.)

In any case, while I support patent protection, I don't support heavy handed lawyers squeezing out 'fair use' (not correctly applied here, but the same general idea) in the name of intellectual property. This little bit of lawyering will weigh heavily against my buying a Photon product.

-Jon

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Photon sucks. Buy Inova Microlights instead, they are better in every way; ease of battery change, design of switch, assembly of case.
The Photon folks are mean spirited, tyranical s.o.b.s. This seems like a case of intimidation vs. free speech -- wonder if the ACLU would be interested, or the local TV / radio station?

 

[hotfoot]

Yeah - where's the illegality of reviewing a product - even if its a fake or a rip-off? These lawyers.... *humph*

 

[arab]

Although I support Photo and their products, I would agree that this sounds very heavy handed. I wonder have they deleted all references to copycat lights in Ebay???

This is not the first time LRI have "Gone Legal". In his test of the P3, Craig said

UPDATE 06-01-01:
Someone didn't care for some of the commentary I had on this page.
Until I've done much more extensive testing, I've agreed to remove some of my "commentary" at least until the review is 100% finished. If the light really deserves it after that, back it goes.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Wonder who Someone is ???

 

[Quickbeam]

From what I'm getting, this is in regards to a product that was reviewed that has a similar appearance to an LRI product?

Companies and their lawyers send out nasty letters all the time. More often than not there is no legal ground for them to stand on, and they know it. It's just intimidation. Most of the time they can't do anything but send more nasty, empty-threat letters. Until you actually get papers from a court, it's all hot air.

Getting the lawyers involved may also imply that they LACK (or have very serious doubts about) the legal grounds for the request.

Seems to me, especially if you're doing a review and the review is your own personal opinion, there shouldn't be much they could do about it. You're not advertising the product, you're providing educational information for anyone who looks at your website. You didn't make the product, you don't sell the product, and all you provide is free information about the product. Their legal beef is with anyone who makes money from the product.

Of course, receiving revenue from the site could be your Achilles Heel - Technically you are making money from your review of the product (by attracting visitors who then see your advertising), even if it is not from the product itself.

Personally, if the company owner contacted me directly and asked politely to have the offending review removed, I wouldn't have a problem with it unless it was for purely selfish reasons. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

 

[Unforgiven]

Craig,

I believe the more popular your site becomes, the more of these "requests" you will get. I understand your point, but there are also possible repercussions at their end for making such threats.......ur...uh..requests. While I do not know the whole story, what I gather is aparently the same as the other posters. The LED Museum is your livelyhood and a valuable asset to the light industry as well as many of us here on CPF. Please don't let them take apart The LED Museum one piece at a time.

Just my honest opinion

 

[The_LED_Museum]

Originally posted by arab:
Although I support Photo and their products, I would agree that this sounds very heavy handed. I wonder have they deleted all references to copycat lights in Ebay???

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">They were polite about the whole thing, and according to them, yes, they *have* been pulling ebay listings for this type of knock-off as fast as they find them. I compared a Photon and one of the suspect lights, and it looks as though whoever makes the fakes bought a real P2 and used it to make the mould for the phoney ones.

 

[The_LED_Museum]

Originally posted by Quickbeam:
Personally, if the company owner contacted me directly and asked politely to have the offending review removed, I wouldn't have a problem with it unless it was for purely selfish reasons. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Like I just posted a minute ago, there were a lot more jars of honey here than there were bottles of sour vinegar. I could smell a hint of vinegar, but the bottle wasn't open.

So which bridge am I supposed to burn? The sturdy one here in the US, or the flimsy rattan one in China? In large part because of the polite nature of the request, I burnt the Chinese bridge because they're far less likely to do me any real damage in the event the legal fireworks start getting too close.

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Craig, how about suggesting to Photon they pay you to scout around looking for Photon knock offs?
Rolex watch employs dozens (at least) of people to do just this...

 

[Albany Tom]

Originally posted by Ted the Led:
Craig, how about suggesting to Photon they pay you to scout around looking for Photon knock offs?
Rolex watch employs dozens (at least) of people to do just this...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I'm sleepy, so I'll jump in. The Rolex thing is different, that's an issue of fraud, really, when people sell a fake Rolex as a real Rolex. In such a case the dealer is liable if he knows or should know (like they're way too inexpensive and sold off the back of a truck) that they're fake.

The sports people (NFL!) do the same kind of thing, but that's a trademark issue to them. (Ok, both fraud, and trademark)

The catch though is that while a review is harmless, even a free speach issue protected by the bill of rights, that doesn't stop somebody from bringing up a groundless lawsuit. Chances of that are probably very close to 0, but it's not my tail on the line.

Funny thought though, is that the Photon people's chances of stopping the Chinese from copying the lights are exactly 0, and I think that's cool. You shouldn't legally be able to patent such an obvious design, but that's America...land of the lawyers.

I do now feel *much* less guilty about having decided to not buy any more photons, and that's a good thing.

 

[LED-FX]

Hmm the US patent system, currently granter of the Patent on swinging a swing side to side, granted to 6 year old son of Osram`s patent attorney and other classics like:

5,443,036 Method of exercising a cat

look it up on www.uspto.gov

More seriously lot of people in LED land watching the current patent contest involving large and litigous manufacturer of LED products.

Adam

 

[Cutter]

All I know is that if any company tries to mess with Craig, they are gonna have a few thousand CPF'ers pissed off and mad as hell at them.....not to mention all the people who view his website.

I wonder if these companies truly think about that before they send these intimidating letters out?

 

[TrevorNasko]

Photon used to be such a good company before they got to big for their britches . Sad......