Maglite Sues Litepro

Status
Not open for further replies.

PocketLights.com

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jun 18, 2002
Messages
156
Location
Norcross, GA
I found out today that Maglite sued Litepro over the Spitfire 1. I was told that Maglite sued Litepro because they alleged that head of the Spitfire 1 is focusable (not true since the Spitfire 1 has Collimated Lens optics) and the tailswitch infringes on their trademark. Maglite is forcing Litepro selling any further Spitfire 1 flashlights.
 

joema

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 14, 2005
Messages
1,189
Location
Nashville, TN
I also don't get it. The Litepro Spitfire 1 is a non-focusing, 1x CR123A, LED light with a tail click.

Mag doesn't make an LED light, doesn't make a tail click, doesn't make a CR123A light, and doesn't make a non-focusing light. The Spitfire is as different as is possible.
 

beakman

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Mar 7, 2003
Messages
103
Location
Buffalo, NY
What a bogus lawsuit, the Spitfire I is NOTHING like any flashlight that Maglite makes! I have one, and while it's definitely not the smallest single CR123 Luxeon light (the large NON-FOCUSING head makes it more suitable for coat or cargo pocket carry than pants pocket carry), it's bright (more overall output than the Q-III and E1L, almost as much as the Peak Carribbean according to Quickbeam), throws pretty well (better than the Q-III and Carribbean and close to the E1L), and has a good regulated runtime (1 hr 44 min to 50%, better than the Q-III and E1L and almost as good as the Carribbean). And it costs about the same as a Q-III (I got mine for $36). I think it's a pretty darn good balance of price, runtime and brightness.

Sorry, I don't usually vent, but this got to me. Long live the Spitfire I!

the beakman
 

beezaur

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 15, 2003
Messages
1,234
Something's not right here. If lights are being taken out of production and destroyed, then something was wrong. Anyone have a direct source of information?

Scott
 

JonSidneyB

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Messages
3,423
Location
Greenfield In
This is normal operating procedure for them.

I also think that it was Eveready that created the focusable flashlight.
They win becuase people don't have to recourses to fight them.

They sued ARC, they sued tons of light makers many times with frivoulous lawsuits.
 

AlCanada1

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Mar 5, 2004
Messages
40
Don't be surprised if the violation of the patent is as simple as logo decoration on the head of an aluminum flashlight.
Mag aggressively defend patents, and Jon is right. The cost to fight is very prohibitive.
 

jtice

Flashaholic
Joined
May 21, 2003
Messages
6,331
Location
West Virginia
You guys dont get it...

Cuz theres nothing to get!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mag sues anyone that has a product that might compete with them. period.
it doesnt matter if they are right, they will bankrupt them with court cost.

Mag is one of the worst companies i ahave ever see, as far as morals and ethics goes.

I am waiting for them to sue everyone for making flashlights that are round.
Why not? they sue for all other stupid reasons you can think of,
they act like they are the definition of what a flashlight should be.

~John
 

JonSidneyB

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Messages
3,423
Location
Greenfield In
Here are some key questions,

How long is a patent good for? Not this long.
How did he get some of his patents? Many were prior art.

I am all for protecting intellectual property rights but I am also for experation of them as well.

You don't have to be right to win, if you have deep pockets, just drain them of funds while the defend themself or scare them into conceding.

You will note that they do not go after people with deeper pockets.
 

MicroE

Enlightened
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
951
Location
Northern NJ, USA
JonSidneyB said:
Here are some key questions,

How long is a patent good for? Not this long.
How did he get some of his patents?

Patents are good for 20 years from the date of application. (It used to be 17 years and lots of people will still quote 17.)
Maglite applied for their patents and argued with the USPTO for the broadest claims possible. Same as everybody else.

I don't hate Mag for suing everybody else. I hate them for stagnating their technology and trying to stagnate the rest of the industry through lawsuits.
 

JonSidneyB

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Messages
3,423
Location
Greenfield In
The problem is much of it was prior ART, and long ago.

They want to stiffle competition I think until there LED lights come out.

I am guessing that they will claim many ideas developed on CPF as there own as well as others peoples prior art as thier own.
 

MSI

Enlightened
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
368
Location
Mostly Staying Inside
How do they get frivoulous lawsuits to court? Do they bribe the judge? Isn't there anything in the legal system to protect people from frivoulous lawsuits?

When it comes to patents, has anyone sued USPTO yet for giving out invalid patents? Maybe a group lawsuit from a couple thousand small companies for a couple hundred billions dollars would make some changes to how USPTO operates.
 

beezaur

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 15, 2003
Messages
1,234
MSI said:
How do they get frivoulous lawsuits to court? Do they bribe the judge? Isn't there anything in the legal system to protect people from frivoulous lawsuits? . . .

Ah, the US legal system. It has nothing to do with the truth or ethics (or at least what most of us would consider ethics).

I know one particular attorney personally. He's a pretty nice guy, and goes out of his way to be what he considers ethics. He has done these things:

Had his wife sign someone else's name to documents. Claims this is not forgery because there was no money involved. Nothing wrong with it, and he continues to do it.

Writes numerous letters to the editor to effect political gain using other people's names. They sign the letters, so there's nothing wrong with it. Of course he would spit nails if anyone knew.

He obfuscated his own property line to his benefit. A surveyor came along, correctly surveyed the property. He attacks the credibility of the surveyor (slanders him endlessly) because the correct line isn't where he wants it.

He has sold cattle without vaccinations that are required by law. Claims this is proper for some obscure reason I can't remember.

And on and on.

As I said, the guy is actually a nice guy. Other attorneys are much worse. He just doesn't have the ethics that many of us would. From my own observation, it appears that attorneys make their livings pressing their client's case to the best of their abilities. That is their job and their duty. But somewhere along the line the truth gets lost. The guy mentioned above is expert at avoiding and obfuscating facts that are to his detriment and promoting ideas that are to his benefit. He is concerned with the truth only to the extent that it affects his argument. His "ethic" is the letter of the law, plus case law, to the extent that it can be construed to his benefit. There is no remnant of what your Sunday school teacher would hold as ethical in the legal profession, in my observation.

So that is where these "frivolous" lawsuits come from. There is a legal system which exists. This system is leveraged to greatest advantage by skilled practitioners. It is done so without any consideration for what "unsophisticated" people consider right or wrong. The only ethic is the law, and that rarely means what people think it means.

Pay attention when you vote. If you only read one thing in your voter's pamphlet, read the issues on reforming the legal system. They come up quite frequently. And vote for officials whose position it is to reform the courts. There are things that can be done to fix it. Certainly we cannot rely on atorneys to restrain themselves.

Scott
 

greenLED

Flashaholic
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Messages
13,263
Location
La Tiquicia
beezaur said:
As I said, the guy is actually a nice guy. Other attorneys are much worse. He just doesn't have the ethics that many of us would. From my own observation, it appears that attorneys make their livings pressing their client's case to the best of their abilities. That is their job and their duty. But somewhere along the line the truth gets lost. The guy mentioned above is expert at avoiding and obfuscating facts that are to his detriment and promoting ideas that are to his benefit. He is concerned with the truth only to the extent that it affects his argument. His "ethic" is the letter of the law, plus case law, to the extent that it can be construed to his benefit. There is no remnant of what your Sunday school teacher would hold as ethical in the legal profession, in my observation.

Sadly, in my limited experience with lawyers, that's how it's worked (2 relatively simple cases). It's great when they are working for you, but what happens when you're the "other party" and correct about where you stand (or what you did, etc.)?

I know not all lawyers are like that (because I know a couple of really ethical ones).

Why do we love to hit on lawyers so much?
 
Last edited:

spokes

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
45
Not all lawyers are bad. It's 99 percent that give the other 1 percent a bad name.:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top