Bad news for solaris owners

[Whatigot]

yes.
the onus is on the consumer to prove dishonesty.
Just accept it all at face value...lol

It's one thing to outright make slanderous accusations, it's quite another to ask questions.

Believe me, I shop at JL a lot and am happy to give them my business, but at the end of the day thats all it is.
Business.

I believe in coincidences.
Sometimes.

[Frenchie]

I'm not slamming the company from what I haer they are a great company.

In my opininon the ethical thing for any buissiness to do when selling these lights is to tell people whats going on with the company before they drop major cash on something that may not have warranty anymore.

I think they did the right thing by pulling it off their site.

[lastlight]

I wasn't implying anything by saying it was a crap deal for buyers of the remaining J&L stock. Tho when I posted that today it was still on their front page and now is gone. For whatever reason that occured it's good that nobody will unknowingly buy OR sell these doomed lights.

This whole ordeal blows my mind. Feel so bad for the early adopters of what could have been a promising thing.

[GreenSpottedPuffer]

Originally Posted by mseepman

I certainly don't think that Marine LED's are a dead issue. Although I completely disagree with Orbitec's attempt to control the market, they themselves say that they will be introducing something with a main-stream aquarium supplier later this year.

I also don't know whether their patent is really much to worry about except for Solaris owners...it's very specific to LED's with controllable spectrums...unfortunately, this is the main feature in many of the Solaris products. Looking at the timing of patent applications and such suggests that PFO knew that they were treading a thin line. It's a shame to see them go down like this as they were a strong domestic supplier that you could count on for good products.

The patent is absurdly broad...basically any LED illumination system over a marine environment that will produce growth. Orbitec filed for the patent in 2004 and PFO should have known this...as you say they were really walking a thin line and if people want to blame anyone, it shoudl be PFO, NOT J&L or any other reputable shop.

Just thought I would mention though that the patent is not nearly as specific as you say...should not cover moonlights though

http://www.google.com/patents?id=mwW...um+LED+orbital

[Rbacchiega]

I've ordered from J&L many times, and have no problem with the company (although it may have seemed that way in my previous post)

I would like to hope that JL merely took them down to avoid any legal issues on their end, but *meh*.

It's a shame you might be stuck with a bum unit though Frenchie. LEDs look great, but for me at least, are more money than they are worth. I'll stick to MH or T5...

[Whatigot]

as I understand it, it's also largely to do with the way solaris is mounted to the tank...
meaning hanging fixtures might be exempt as well.
RC has a tonne of posts about this now, more all the time, even some patent lawyers piping in there.

[GreenSpottedPuffer]

Originally Posted by Whatigot

as I understand it, it's also largely to do with the way solaris is mounted to the tank...
meaning hanging fixtures might be exempt as well.
RC has a tonne of posts about this now, more all the time, even some patent lawyers piping in there.

If you read the patent, you will find not much mentioned about mounting. More about illumination of marine aquariums with LED lighting. As I said above, its very broad.

[mseepman]

In looking at the patent further...and in reading some of the responses that Orbitec has provided people who inquire, the patent lawsuit against PFO is more aimed at at the similarities between the Solaris product and the patented product. Though their claim on LED's over a marine aquarium sounds broad, I believe they would lose a claim which was singularly based upon that broad statement. As exemplified by so many people pointing out that such a product instead be sold strictly for "freshwater" aquariums. In this case they are targeting the product itself which has a controller that adjusts the spectrum of the lighting (the main benefit of LED of course). Notice that similar lawsuits have not been filed against some of the other LED products out there.

[Whatigot]

read the very first thing in the patent.
Number 1.
It refers to the way the fixture relates to the open top of the aquarium.
maybe you missed it, it's a little convoluted.
it's a little clearer if you click on the pdf image int he top left of that link you posted greenspot, go tp page 8, starting about line 27.

I have read that some of the issues with the patent are due to the similarities of the soalris design with this aspect of the patent.

[GreenSpottedPuffer]

Originally Posted by Whatigot

read the very first thing in the patent.
Number 1.
It refers to the way the fixture relates to the open top of the aquarium.
maybe you missed it, it's a little convoluted.
it's a little clearer if you click on the pdf image int he top left of that link you posted greenspot, go tp page 8, starting about line 27.

I have read that some of the issues with the patent are due to the similarities of the soalris design with this aspect of the patent.

Yes I missed that. Makes more sense now.

I just hope they do indeed continue to advance this technology as its something I was really hoping to try this year. Perhaps they can do a much better job too than PFO had done. The PFO fixtures left a lot to be desired. I have even heard of stories where the fixture arrived with rivets popping out. Seems the whole fixture was really poorly made (even after moving production to the US) which is too bad because the idea and technology are something that could really advance this hobby.