HDS_Systems
Enlightened
The young man contacted me in the latter part of 2002 to request my assistance in defending his company from a potential suit from a competitor. Since I have been developing regulated LED flashlights (headlamps) since 1997, I was in the unique position of owning much of the pre-existing artwork needed to invalidate recent LED flashlight patents. Others have artwork dated even earlier. I provided this young man with the needed documentation without reservation. As an aside, the LED Museum reviewed the CMG Infinity (regulated LED light, single AA) in April of 2000, Arc Flashlight LLC was formed in February of 2001 and the LED Museum reviewed the ArcAAA (regulated LED light, single AAA) in April of 2001.
It was clear during early conversations that there was a lack of engineering in the company. The company was represented as a small but high quality manufacturing firm and had a nice setup to perform order fulfillment. As they were having problems getting their new flashlight into production, I agreed to help them for my normal hourly fee - a clear work for hire arrangement. The existing "engineer" was let go 2 weeks later when I had the most serious of the design flaws fixed. Bandages could be applied to resolve the other problems, but a total redesign was needed to fix most of the remaining problems. And as long as you are redesigning the light, adding all the features from the Action Light III would certainly be a crowd pleaser.
At the same time I was thinking that perhaps this organization could do the manufacturing for the Action Light III along with order fulfillment.
The Action Light III (the third generation) was already designed around the Luxeon emitter using a reflector. The power supply was a constant power design and completely microprocessor controlled. The microprocessor also handled the large range of brightness settings (over a 1000:1 range), tint control, thermal regulation, quick access preset brightnesses and more - technologies I pioneered. And most of the code had already been implemented on a Pic 16-series microprocessor. The only thing needed was a change in form factor.
The young man liked the idea and wanted to own the technology outright. I said absolutely not. I suggested partnering - he said absolutely not. He asked me for design details. I said not until there was an agreement and non-disclosure - my designs were far more advanced than anything he had come up with. Finally in March 2003, we agreed on a non-binding letter of intent as a way to break the deadlock. This must be the "contract" the young man keeps referring to. The first paragraph states: "This document is not binding on either party..." The young man insisted on including that phrase so he could back out at any time. Under the terms of the letter, we would try to put together a formal agreement whereby I would supply a flashlight implementation and the young man's company would receive a license to manufacture and sell the implementation. There is nothing in the letter that implies a "for hire" arrangement and all written correspondence and actions before and since confirm that a "for hire" arrangement was absolutely out of the question with my participation and did not exist. Thus the reference to me as a "contractor" and the work as "commissioned" in connection to this project is inappropriate.
The young man also signed a non-disclosure. The young man has tried to wiggle out of the non-disclosure by referring to his log book of sketches and ideas. For instance, a flashlight with a reflector is depicted prior to the non-disclosure. True, the idea of using a reflector to concentrate rays of light goes back over 100 years. The intellectual property is in the design of the actual reflector surface and the production processes needed to create that surface. How about regulating temperature? It has been a problem for years and there is no doubt an entry in there saying that temperature should be regulated. The intellectual property is in the thermal design and algorithms used for regulation and the code that implements it. The young man did not even know how the thermal regulation worked until I sent him an e-mail explaining it to him in detail - which he posted on CPF in direct violation of the non-disclosure agreement.
I was not worried about the timetable to come up with the written agreement because I had to finish the development work on the Action Light III headlamp anyway as well as do the additional work needed to cram everything into the smaller form factor. That was going to take 9 months - plenty of time to hammer out an agreement. If we failed to get an agreement, I still owned all the intellectual property including the flashlight implementation and I could go my own way and not have lost anything. Over the next 12 months, whenever the subject came up, the young man was always too busy and had not been able to get with his lawyer - he would start work on the written agreement next week - he always had a plausible excuse to put it off. I had already laid out my requirements in writing so my requirements were well know to the young man and his lawyer.
The development went ahead. I did all the work myself. I have no idea who those other engineers are that the young man said he hired to work on the project. I never saw or used any such resulting work. I made all of the design decisions. I would ask people, including the young man for opinions on certain matters like interface issues, but in the end I made the final decision on how things would work. The whole design is mine - electronics, optics, thermal, mechanical, interface and software. The young man may be good at marketing, but he is no engineer. What he knows about the light is from the countless hours I have spent trying to explain to him how the various systems work and why they should work that way. I also paid all the expenses associated with the development. The courts have consistently upheld that he who does the work and pays for the work is the rightful owner of the work.
Weeks went by. Then months. Than a year. Over the course of that time, I became aware of issues that were very disturbing. Things started to deteriorate much more rapidly when the flashlight went into production. Under the deteriorating conditions and obvious intent to take my technology, I came to the conclusion I could no longer work with the young man and have since terminated all business relationships with him. The young man has received a cease and desist letter notifying him to stop manufacturing and sales of my flashlight design. The continued manufacture and sale of my copyrighted material is illegal. I hope others will refrain from being accessories to this crime.
As a final attempt to salvage the relationship, I went to the trouble of putting together a business plan that would have allowed the young man's company the opportunity to continue to sell my products and designs, pay off his considerable debts in a relatively short period of time and emerge as a financially strong company. I even found investors to fully fund the business plan. When the plan was rejected with harsh words, I knew there was nothing left to salvage.
And the patent? The young man thought that having a patent would be beneficial. Actually, he wanted two if at all possible. I finally agreed to allow the young man to pay for the application and enforcement of the patents on my technology - they had been trade secrets up till then - but I would not be willing to assign the patent to the young man or his company under any circumstances. I made that clear to his lawyer who was sitting next to me at the time. The information for both patents was provided under non-disclosure and was documented as such. The technology was developed by me. The young man had nothing to do with the development and he should never have added his name to the patents, but since he was paying for it, I did not object at the time. I should have - it was another sign of things to come.
Henry.
From CPF #550147 - 04/28/04 02:08 AM (Klaus)
As fas as we know yes, yes and yes - the ARC4 is kind of an ARC housing with Henrys Action light electronics implemented, the guy from Peters former AAA/AA machine shop who now claims copyright to the AAA/AA design mentioned Henrys copyright notices where all over the ARC4 drawings too - wonder if we´ll see a "da capo" on that copyright discussion with the ARC4 too as Peter just mentioned that Henry is no longer working with ARC
This is from Curts post and I have no reason to believe that Curt is telling BS here - interestingly Peter never disputed what Curt was telling us on the issue ....
If he does not have a contract that the new design belongs to this young man's company, than the intellectual property is owned by the engineer and he may at any time present a cease and desist letter to stop manufacture and sales. This engineer and his company have copyright notices on all of the prints I have seen in regards to the wiz-bang. If this is the case, he may also at any time do what he wants with the property, including selling it to another company for cash, and royalties on every wiz-bang sold.
Klaus
From CPF #550388 - 04/28/04 10:40 AM (Gransee)
Hello Klaus.
Am I supposed to refute every bogus claim made?
The Arc4 is a continuation of my Arc-LS design. Henry was one of the engineers we contracted with to do some of the nuts and bolts work. The technology in his Action Light is not patented but the key technology in the Arc4 (which is different than the technology in the AL) has patents applied by Arc with my name on the list of inventors.
Yes, he attempted to claim a copyright on the engineering drawings he did for us while under contract, even after I asked him repeatidly to stop. It turns out, he can't claim a copyright to something he never owned in the first place. He never owned it because it was a commissioned work before he even produced one drawing for us.
It is wrong for a contractor to do work for another and then claim that work is not the property of the one who contracted for it.
As per our contract, Henry was responsible for the prototype costs. He is now claiming that this makes him the owner of the implimentations. But since he was paid under the terms of that contract for his work and expenses, that work is property of Arc Flashlight.
It is an insult for me to plan for this flashlight (with drawings, etc) for almost a year before I met Henry and now he is claiming it is his idea. His reason for trying to take this from me? He wants more money than what he previously agreed to. His work is paid for under a commission agreement. I have paid him all that we agreed to pay when we signed our contract.
I rather not talk about this because it is an unpleasant topic. Arc will continue to innovate as it has in the past regardless of the action of some people I thought I could trust.
Peter
It was clear during early conversations that there was a lack of engineering in the company. The company was represented as a small but high quality manufacturing firm and had a nice setup to perform order fulfillment. As they were having problems getting their new flashlight into production, I agreed to help them for my normal hourly fee - a clear work for hire arrangement. The existing "engineer" was let go 2 weeks later when I had the most serious of the design flaws fixed. Bandages could be applied to resolve the other problems, but a total redesign was needed to fix most of the remaining problems. And as long as you are redesigning the light, adding all the features from the Action Light III would certainly be a crowd pleaser.
At the same time I was thinking that perhaps this organization could do the manufacturing for the Action Light III along with order fulfillment.
The Action Light III (the third generation) was already designed around the Luxeon emitter using a reflector. The power supply was a constant power design and completely microprocessor controlled. The microprocessor also handled the large range of brightness settings (over a 1000:1 range), tint control, thermal regulation, quick access preset brightnesses and more - technologies I pioneered. And most of the code had already been implemented on a Pic 16-series microprocessor. The only thing needed was a change in form factor.
The young man liked the idea and wanted to own the technology outright. I said absolutely not. I suggested partnering - he said absolutely not. He asked me for design details. I said not until there was an agreement and non-disclosure - my designs were far more advanced than anything he had come up with. Finally in March 2003, we agreed on a non-binding letter of intent as a way to break the deadlock. This must be the "contract" the young man keeps referring to. The first paragraph states: "This document is not binding on either party..." The young man insisted on including that phrase so he could back out at any time. Under the terms of the letter, we would try to put together a formal agreement whereby I would supply a flashlight implementation and the young man's company would receive a license to manufacture and sell the implementation. There is nothing in the letter that implies a "for hire" arrangement and all written correspondence and actions before and since confirm that a "for hire" arrangement was absolutely out of the question with my participation and did not exist. Thus the reference to me as a "contractor" and the work as "commissioned" in connection to this project is inappropriate.
The young man also signed a non-disclosure. The young man has tried to wiggle out of the non-disclosure by referring to his log book of sketches and ideas. For instance, a flashlight with a reflector is depicted prior to the non-disclosure. True, the idea of using a reflector to concentrate rays of light goes back over 100 years. The intellectual property is in the design of the actual reflector surface and the production processes needed to create that surface. How about regulating temperature? It has been a problem for years and there is no doubt an entry in there saying that temperature should be regulated. The intellectual property is in the thermal design and algorithms used for regulation and the code that implements it. The young man did not even know how the thermal regulation worked until I sent him an e-mail explaining it to him in detail - which he posted on CPF in direct violation of the non-disclosure agreement.
I was not worried about the timetable to come up with the written agreement because I had to finish the development work on the Action Light III headlamp anyway as well as do the additional work needed to cram everything into the smaller form factor. That was going to take 9 months - plenty of time to hammer out an agreement. If we failed to get an agreement, I still owned all the intellectual property including the flashlight implementation and I could go my own way and not have lost anything. Over the next 12 months, whenever the subject came up, the young man was always too busy and had not been able to get with his lawyer - he would start work on the written agreement next week - he always had a plausible excuse to put it off. I had already laid out my requirements in writing so my requirements were well know to the young man and his lawyer.
The development went ahead. I did all the work myself. I have no idea who those other engineers are that the young man said he hired to work on the project. I never saw or used any such resulting work. I made all of the design decisions. I would ask people, including the young man for opinions on certain matters like interface issues, but in the end I made the final decision on how things would work. The whole design is mine - electronics, optics, thermal, mechanical, interface and software. The young man may be good at marketing, but he is no engineer. What he knows about the light is from the countless hours I have spent trying to explain to him how the various systems work and why they should work that way. I also paid all the expenses associated with the development. The courts have consistently upheld that he who does the work and pays for the work is the rightful owner of the work.
Weeks went by. Then months. Than a year. Over the course of that time, I became aware of issues that were very disturbing. Things started to deteriorate much more rapidly when the flashlight went into production. Under the deteriorating conditions and obvious intent to take my technology, I came to the conclusion I could no longer work with the young man and have since terminated all business relationships with him. The young man has received a cease and desist letter notifying him to stop manufacturing and sales of my flashlight design. The continued manufacture and sale of my copyrighted material is illegal. I hope others will refrain from being accessories to this crime.
As a final attempt to salvage the relationship, I went to the trouble of putting together a business plan that would have allowed the young man's company the opportunity to continue to sell my products and designs, pay off his considerable debts in a relatively short period of time and emerge as a financially strong company. I even found investors to fully fund the business plan. When the plan was rejected with harsh words, I knew there was nothing left to salvage.
And the patent? The young man thought that having a patent would be beneficial. Actually, he wanted two if at all possible. I finally agreed to allow the young man to pay for the application and enforcement of the patents on my technology - they had been trade secrets up till then - but I would not be willing to assign the patent to the young man or his company under any circumstances. I made that clear to his lawyer who was sitting next to me at the time. The information for both patents was provided under non-disclosure and was documented as such. The technology was developed by me. The young man had nothing to do with the development and he should never have added his name to the patents, but since he was paying for it, I did not object at the time. I should have - it was another sign of things to come.
Henry.
From CPF #550147 - 04/28/04 02:08 AM (Klaus)
As fas as we know yes, yes and yes - the ARC4 is kind of an ARC housing with Henrys Action light electronics implemented, the guy from Peters former AAA/AA machine shop who now claims copyright to the AAA/AA design mentioned Henrys copyright notices where all over the ARC4 drawings too - wonder if we´ll see a "da capo" on that copyright discussion with the ARC4 too as Peter just mentioned that Henry is no longer working with ARC
This is from Curts post and I have no reason to believe that Curt is telling BS here - interestingly Peter never disputed what Curt was telling us on the issue ....
If he does not have a contract that the new design belongs to this young man's company, than the intellectual property is owned by the engineer and he may at any time present a cease and desist letter to stop manufacture and sales. This engineer and his company have copyright notices on all of the prints I have seen in regards to the wiz-bang. If this is the case, he may also at any time do what he wants with the property, including selling it to another company for cash, and royalties on every wiz-bang sold.
Klaus
From CPF #550388 - 04/28/04 10:40 AM (Gransee)
Hello Klaus.
Am I supposed to refute every bogus claim made?
The Arc4 is a continuation of my Arc-LS design. Henry was one of the engineers we contracted with to do some of the nuts and bolts work. The technology in his Action Light is not patented but the key technology in the Arc4 (which is different than the technology in the AL) has patents applied by Arc with my name on the list of inventors.
Yes, he attempted to claim a copyright on the engineering drawings he did for us while under contract, even after I asked him repeatidly to stop. It turns out, he can't claim a copyright to something he never owned in the first place. He never owned it because it was a commissioned work before he even produced one drawing for us.
It is wrong for a contractor to do work for another and then claim that work is not the property of the one who contracted for it.
As per our contract, Henry was responsible for the prototype costs. He is now claiming that this makes him the owner of the implimentations. But since he was paid under the terms of that contract for his work and expenses, that work is property of Arc Flashlight.
It is an insult for me to plan for this flashlight (with drawings, etc) for almost a year before I met Henry and now he is claiming it is his idea. His reason for trying to take this from me? He wants more money than what he previously agreed to. His work is paid for under a commission agreement. I have paid him all that we agreed to pay when we signed our contract.
I rather not talk about this because it is an unpleasant topic. Arc will continue to innovate as it has in the past regardless of the action of some people I thought I could trust.
Peter
