Quote:
Originally Posted by StirCrazy
and to play devils advocate, they do have an invention of a novel idea that is usefull. and they regestered for a patent befor anyone else had applied or was even using such a system comercialy.
personaly I think looking into this is a waist of your time, but if you have time to waist.... PFO had there court battle claiming it was to broad and encompasing and tried to have the pattent revoked and lost..
Pattents serve a purpose and I suport them.. we can't just arbatrarly not honor the ones that incoveniance us. that would be like me taking you to court to have your patent revoked because we don't like the fact that we can't do it to.
Steve
|
Well see my last post to decide whether they have an invention or not. Some say yes, some say no.
I do support patents wholeheartedly but the patent system has its flaws and sometimes stupid patents like this one get through that cause problems for an industry and favour people who really invented nothing (ever heard of patent trolls?). Sorry, using LEDs for aquarium lighting is not an invention, it is obvious. You can't patent something that is obvious or an obvious improvement on existing technology. At the risk of repeating myself it HAS to be non-obvious and novel.
In pharmaceuticals if there is a drug out that treats arthritis by an anti-inflammatory mechanism we cannot patent that drug for the treatment of another autoimmune disease by means of anti-inflammatory activity. That would be an obvious extension of its utility. We could however, file a use patent on that drug if we found that it had another activity besides being an anti-inflammatory that say prevented hair loss. The hair loss prevention is unrelated, unknown and unexpected in relation to the anti-arthritis activity. So I fail to see how using a light source to light an aquarium is not obvious
Now if Orbitec have some specific control scheme or can demonstrate that specific spectra over specific time periods enhance growth then that would be an invention. They have not done that. They have simply stated that throwing a controller on an LED array to control colour spectrum and time is something new that wasn't obvious and and they were the first to think of it. That's BS.
And as mentioned above, the PFO lawsuit never reached its conclusion because they went belly up.