Canreef Aquatics Bulletin Board  

Go Back   Canreef Aquatics Bulletin Board > General > Reef

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-04-2010, 01:38 PM
StirCrazy's Avatar
StirCrazy StirCrazy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kamloops, BC
Posts: 7,872
StirCrazy is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron99 View Post
Hi Steve,



1. The first high power lumiled LEDs came out in 1998 or 1999 I believe. Yes they were expensive but they were already being incorporated into products such as flashlights by 2001. Orbitec filed their patent on December 15th, 2004 and IRRC they may have filed a PPA a year earlier so that would have been no earlier than December 15th, 2003.
Cheers,

Ron
um the patent I am reading by them was filed in early 2002, if they did a provisional that would put them early 2001, which means they were at the same time as the release of high power LEDs . now they do have two patents on theses so maybe the one your reading is the second one?

Steve
__________________
*everything said above is just my opinion, and may or may not reflect the views of this BBS, its Operators, and its Members. If cornered on any “opinion” I post I will totally deny having ever said this in a Court of Law…Unless I am the right one*

Some strive to be perfect.... I just strive.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-04-2010, 04:10 PM
Ron99's Avatar
Ron99 Ron99 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: South Surrey, BC
Posts: 1,018
Ron99 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StirCrazy View Post
um the patent I am reading by them was filed in early 2002, if they did a provisional that would put them early 2001, which means they were at the same time as the release of high power LEDs . now they do have two patents on theses so maybe the one your reading is the second one?

Steve
What's the patent number? I have two patents I am looking at:

1. 7,220,018 which was filed on Dec 15, 2004 (and I now see it lists a PPA filed Dec. 15, 2003) and issued on May 22, 2007.

2. 7,473,008 filed March 22, 2007 which is the new continuation where they are now trying to claim all LED lighting even without a controller.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-04-2010, 04:46 PM
StirCrazy's Avatar
StirCrazy StirCrazy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kamloops, BC
Posts: 7,872
StirCrazy is on a distinguished road
Default

ok so the first patent was applied for on dec 2003. the 2002 one was a supporting doccument. in there prior art statment they say there are many systems availble producing light capable of sustaining marine life, but none using LEDs as the light source. so that is a valid point.

one thing I have been wondering about is the anti trust laws pertaining to monopolies.. I think for them to get around this they would have to grant all licencing rights to companies willing to pay there fee.

proving prior art in court seams to be the only way to bust this patent but.. it costs 180.00us just to file your prior art for them to concider and prior art has to be certified by a qualified inspector at the time. so pictures of systems over our tanks 10 years ago doesn't cut it.

I would like to see this busted as much as anyone but I think that most big companies are just waiting for review years to see if they renew, or waiting till it expiers as it is to hard and very very expensive to fight a patent that is inplace.

Steve
__________________
*everything said above is just my opinion, and may or may not reflect the views of this BBS, its Operators, and its Members. If cornered on any “opinion” I post I will totally deny having ever said this in a Court of Law…Unless I am the right one*

Some strive to be perfect.... I just strive.

Last edited by StirCrazy; 02-04-2010 at 04:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-04-2010, 06:26 PM
Ron99's Avatar
Ron99 Ron99 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: South Surrey, BC
Posts: 1,018
Ron99 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StirCrazy View Post
ok so the first patent was applied for on dec 2003. the 2002 one was a supporting doccument. in there prior art statment they say there are many systems availble producing light capable of sustaining marine life, but none using LEDs as the light source. so that is a valid point.

one thing I have been wondering about is the anti trust laws pertaining to monopolies.. I think for them to get around this they would have to grant all licencing rights to companies willing to pay there fee.

proving prior art in court seams to be the only way to bust this patent but.. it costs 180.00us just to file your prior art for them to concider and prior art has to be certified by a qualified inspector at the time. so pictures of systems over our tanks 10 years ago doesn't cut it.

I would like to see this busted as much as anyone but I think that most big companies are just waiting for review years to see if they renew, or waiting till it expiers as it is to hard and very very expensive to fight a patent that is inplace.

Steve
Yes, the fact that no commercially available systems were out is a valid statement but you have to ask why that is? Is it because nobody thought of it or it wasn't an obvious application or because the costs would have been to high. The PFO solaris fixtures were thousands of dollars when they came out in 2005 or 2006. imagine what a decent LED fixture would have cost in 2003 or 2004? Would a 3' or 4' light fixture costing $10,000 have been a viable product? The fact nothing was commercially available does not make the idea patentable. Should I be able to patent a personal rocketship? No personal rocketships are available now because the costs would be astronomical (sorry for the pun), not because it is a new and patentable idea.

Apparently there are some moves afoot in the US for a third party submission to review the patent but it's not all public yet. It's tied into the recent request for prior art references on reefbuilders. There is some discussion of it on nano-reef as well. I'm happy to lend whatever support they need for that if I can. I think I should probably start a new thread for that later today when I have time...
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-04-2010, 07:56 PM
StirCrazy's Avatar
StirCrazy StirCrazy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kamloops, BC
Posts: 7,872
StirCrazy is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron99 View Post
or because the costs would have been to high. The PFO solaris fixtures were thousands of dollars when they came out in 2005 or 2006. ...
ya they were a couple K, but about 1 to 1.5K of that was probably profit for PFO. I actualy think PFO was stupid and let greed run there release of the solaris, as they new there was a patent aplication but they decided to cash in on it while they could befor the patent was granted, which is viable, but instead of just stopping production when the patent was granted they decided to figh it as the solaris was a cash cow for them..

they were using exhisting extrusions which cost them next to nothing, they were using off shore LEDs which are a fraction of the price of the cree. and they were driving them at lower levels which reduced the requirment for a heat sink. I would be willing to bet including labour there cost was under 500 bucks, and they probably sold the one unit to the stores for about 1700 and then the stores resold for about 2 to 2.5K

If they wouldn't have had as many problems they did with the cheep LEDs burning out they would have made a killing, but they had to many warenty issues which ate into there profit a little to much.

Steve
__________________
*everything said above is just my opinion, and may or may not reflect the views of this BBS, its Operators, and its Members. If cornered on any “opinion” I post I will totally deny having ever said this in a Court of Law…Unless I am the right one*

Some strive to be perfect.... I just strive.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-04-2010, 10:26 PM
Ron99's Avatar
Ron99 Ron99 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: South Surrey, BC
Posts: 1,018
Ron99 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StirCrazy View Post
ya they were a couple K, but about 1 to 1.5K of that was probably profit for PFO. I actualy think PFO was stupid and let greed run there release of the solaris, as they new there was a patent aplication but they decided to cash in on it while they could befor the patent was granted, which is viable, but instead of just stopping production when the patent was granted they decided to figh it as the solaris was a cash cow for them..

they were using exhisting extrusions which cost them next to nothing, they were using off shore LEDs which are a fraction of the price of the cree. and they were driving them at lower levels which reduced the requirment for a heat sink. I would be willing to bet including labour there cost was under 500 bucks, and they probably sold the one unit to the stores for about 1700 and then the stores resold for about 2 to 2.5K

If they wouldn't have had as many problems they did with the cheep LEDs burning out they would have made a killing, but they had to many warenty issues which ate into there profit a little to much.

Steve
I don't think that is a completely fair assessment. PFO used Phillips Luxeon emitters in their fixtures from day one. Now I have spent around $1200 to $1300 so far to buy parts for my DIY 48" fixture and that is with very good volume pricing through the nano-reef group buy for alot of it and also includes a free housing and cheap used heatsinks from eBay.

So I would be surprised if the cost of materials for a Solaris fixture was significantly less than that in 2006 even with their crappy excuses for heatsinks (which were probably responsible for the emitters burning out). now that also doesn't account for the R&D work to create a commercial fixture, tooling for bespoke parts if necessary, labour (even if it is cheap in China), shipping from China (not cheap), and any safety/electrical certification they required in North America. And then you have your operations cost in North America for offices, warehouses, staff etc.

Now normal retail markup is 40% so if the retail was $3500 then the wholesale price from PFO was probably $2100. I don't think it is unusual for a manufacturer to have a markup of 100% over the cost of materials therefore I don't think the pricing was wildly out of line. You may want the manufacturers to have razor thin margins but they won't bother if they can't make any money.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-04-2010, 11:15 PM
StirCrazy's Avatar
StirCrazy StirCrazy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kamloops, BC
Posts: 7,872
StirCrazy is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron99 View Post
I don't think that is a completely fair assessment. PFO used Phillips Luxeon emitters in their fixtures from day one. Now I have spent around $1200 to $1300 so far to buy parts for my DIY 48" fixture and that is with very good volume pricing through the nano-reef group buy for alot of it and also includes a free housing and cheap used heatsinks from eBay.

.
how many LED's you putting on that sucker ?? I think I am spending 600.00 total on a 30" long unit using 40 degree optics, and nothing was free or cheep..

the luxton stars were 1 watt leds, and at the time they were making the solaris they were cheeper than we can get the crees for, but that doesn't matter much.. what we get as a group buy is nothing compared to what a company can get things for. I know when I had my company going and I was looking at buying a significant quantity of something if I couldn't get it for about 1/3 of the retail price I would shop elsewhere. I never had to look around much. generaly I found there are 3 price ranges, retail, wholesale, and distrubitor. I am working on a deal right now that will get me distrubitor+ pricing on a produce that the rights to BA/AB with a few exclusions. nothing to do with the aquarium industry but the structure is the same.

Basicly I know a guy who has the canadian distrubution rights to a line of products, he has a few avenues that he sells directly to in a specific industry. I can sell to any industry but the one he sells directly to and my cost is his cost plus 10%. when I sell to a company I am oblagated to sell at a lower price than if I sold directly to the public otherwise why would a company buy the product to resell. so lets pick a number of 100 bucks. I buy the product for 110.00 because of my deal, so for wholesale I sell at 180 to 200. for retail I would charge 280.

with the group buys we are involved with in the diy fish tank things, we are dealing with retailers so the price we get is going to be better than if you go to a store and buy a product, but not anywhere near wholesale and distrubitor. now what would be ideal is if we had some one with a reg company that could contact cree sales directly and order a large volume. you would probably see the price down about 2 bucks a LED. same thing would apply to the heat sink, if I knew I would use 100 30X10 heat sinks, you could probably get at least 50% off the regular price and if you were to do some digging and find the smelter that actualy makes them and they are a generic die, not customer owned you could get them cheeper.

at anyrate I digress. the company PFO makes it, sends it to there distrubitors and then the distrubitors sell to the stores so something that costs 3500 in the store probably cost the store about 2500-3000 (usaly less mark up on expensive stuff), would cost the distrubitor rep about 1500 to 2000, and the company about 700 to 1000. if there made off shore then you can cut that number way down. I am just pulling numbers out of my a$$ here, but the idea is that there are usaly 3 or 4 steps along the way and usaly each one of thoes steps is 50 to 100% mark up on pricy things, and more on cheep things.

Steve
__________________
*everything said above is just my opinion, and may or may not reflect the views of this BBS, its Operators, and its Members. If cornered on any “opinion” I post I will totally deny having ever said this in a Court of Law…Unless I am the right one*

Some strive to be perfect.... I just strive.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.