what about them lawsuits ...

[jonnythan]

In all industries, especially the small ones, word of lawsuits gets around quickly. In paintball, it's Smart Parts suing several companies.. in scuba, it's Sartek and Halcyon.

It seems like every time a company sues another over patent infringement, the vocal people rise up and want to boycott the company, or lament over how much it's going to cost the consumer.

Fact is, in all cases, you have no idea whatsoever (and you probably never will) how hard Sartek tried to negotiate with Halcyon or whoever. After hearing what Reef had to say, the patent sounds like a genuinely decent patent, unlike some others. Certainly they were on the edge of their seats waiting for the patent to be granted so their endless demands had some legal muscle.

If they came up with the idea and got the patent, good for them. The other companies should either figure out another way or pay up. So Halcyon and Terkel and OMS have been violating Sartek's patent between the time of their filing and the time of granting? Time to pay up, boys. That's how it goes, and good for them.

 

[gj62]

Has something changed? I thought that patent applications (which are "pending" patents) were not available. It's only once a patent is granted that it becomes public. I'm interested mainly from the perspective of software patents and this has been debated continually when a patent is granted for something "obvious" that wasn't previously covered by a patent (because patents weren't used for protection of software until fairly recently).

I don't know what the proper procedure is, but filing a lawsuit first and then negotiating might be required in order to protect one's patent rights when the alleged infringment has already occured.

-Rob

Sorry - you're right - they are only public after 18 months, not immediately. At that time, the public can request a copy of the application file. This gives a 6-month lead time, as the usual wait is 24 months (and getting longer).

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Perhaps your acquaintance with the principles clouds your own objectivity a bit. Or did you also raise these questions in the other scuba-related patent suits that were filed?

Just curious.

As we know, the filing of a lawsuit does not mean it will get to court. Most lawsuits are settled before the first day of court.

To be fair, I'm certainly not being objective here. AUL won't be the last to go out of business over this lawsuit. Many of the principles named as defendents are small business with little working capital and no money to either pay the demanded settlement or legal fees to negotiate better terms. They'll have little choice but to close shop. I do not for a moment believe that Sartek is unaware of this.

To answer your question, I have similar feelings about Halcyon's suit. I stayed out of that discussion on this board because by the time I even read about it the discussion was far advanced into a slugfest, and I chose discretion over valor. My personal feelings are the same, however.

I have no financial stake in the outcome of either lawsuit ... other than that of a customer who expects to see prices for the gear I purchase rise because of them.

I will note, however, that those who responded above made no attempt to respond to the substance of my comments, choosing instead to either question my motives or impugn my character for trying to open a discussion on the topic.

I'm a bit surprised by that.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[TechBlue]

First of all I was under the impression that Welch Allyn provides the 10 watt HID with the ballast attached, are they now named in the suit or is this purely an underwater application? I know that Carl has had the patent on his lights for quite a few years and yes Halcyon did resell his lights until they copied them, made some slight modifications and called it their own. I think that they actually got the ball rolling on this one because they tried to sue Sartek for a light he already held a patent on, so this should be construed as self defense rather than self serving. It is unfortunate that this has now become SOP in a section of the dive business which prior to this had been more sharing of their knowledge in the interests providing a better product for everybody's benefit.

 

[TTSkipper]

The patent can be seen here on the USPTO.gov website:
Patent 6,679,619

From what I can tell it is related specifically to underwater HID lights with the ballast attached to or near the bulb. I am not sure if I am entirely correct as I do not speak legalese.

 

[gj62]

I will note, however, that those who responded above made no attempt to respond to the substance of my comments, choosing instead to either question my motives or impugn my character for trying to open a discussion on the topic.

I'm a bit surprised by that.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

I think people did respond to the substance of your comments. Unless you are saying that the patent process itself should be called into question, availing oneself of this protection is mandatory if you wish to protect your IP - in any industry.

A few other notes: If you fail to enforce your patent, you can lose it. A common method is to file suit, thereby going on record, as soon as you know of an infringement. Yes, the lawyers are now involved - but they were involved anyway. Generally speaking, there will be a settlement more often than not. The little guy need not go out of business - they can either adapt their products, or work out a royalty arrangement. Granted, the patent holder may not wish a royalty situation - at that time, you can slam the holder all you want. Until then, nobody is the "bad" guy - someone is just protecting their rights. You may not see it that way, unless you deal in an industry where patents are normally used to protect your investment in research...

 

[jonnythan]

I will note, however, that those who responded above made no attempt to respond to the substance of my comments, choosing instead to either question my motives or impugn my character for trying to open a discussion on the topic.

I'm a bit surprised by that.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Pardon me, but your post was, in a nutshell, "Dude, Sartek sucks, they're going to make everything more expensive for no reason.. selfish b*****ds... go straight to a lawsuit..."

Several of us responded by saying that you're probably uninformed, jumping to conclusions, and bashing Sartek on very thin information. Reef made a very clear case for the other side, and I think Sean's point was well made and, frankly, polite.

Oh yeah, didn't respond to the substance of your comments? Are you crazy? That's way out of line - many of us did exactly that in a clear, concise manner. I'm personally offended, and I think Reef should be too, especially.

 

[jonnythan]

A few other notes: If you fail to enforce your patent, you can lose it. A common method is to file suit, thereby going on record, as soon as you know of an infringement.

That only applies to trademarks, not patents. Patents do not "go away" with unenforcement. Many companies sit on their patents until companies violating them have enough money to make it financially feasible to go after them.

 

[gj62]

That only applies to trademarks, not patents. Patents do not "go away" with unenforcement. Many companies sit on their patents until companies violating them have enough money to make it financially feasible to go after them.

OK, I'm not an attorney, but I do play one on TV (actually, my work requires that I work closely with our attorneys).

There is something called the Defense of Laches - which basically states that if the patent holder (laches is not just for patents) delays too long on a known infringement, then the defense can avoid a majority of the liability of the infringement. We've been counseled that since we are in a small, tightly knit industry, we should pursue any patent infringement claim against known competitors with little delay. It is different for IBM who may never have heard of the company that is infringing...

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Pardon me, but your post was, in a nutshell, "Dude, Sartek sucks, they're going to make everything more expensive for no reason.. selfish b*****ds... go straight to a lawsuit..."

Several of us responded by saying that you're probably uninformed, jumping to conclusions, and bashing Sartek on very thin information. Reef made a very clear case for the other side, and I think Sean's point was well made and, frankly, polite.

Oh yeah, didn't respond to the substance of your comments? Are you crazy? That's way out of line - many of us did exactly that in a clear, concise manner. I'm personally offended, and I think Reef should be too, especially.

Hey Johnny ... get a grip. I said nothing of the sort.

If you want to get into name-calling, then I'm going to take you to task for TOS violation. Consider yourself warned ... your next violation will earn you a vacation. If you want to take issue with what I say, go for it. If you want to call me crazy, you'll be saying it somewhere else. Kapish?

As to my point ... Tech Blue said it well ...

It is unfortunate that this has now become SOP in a section of the dive business which prior to this had been more sharing of their knowledge in the interests providing a better product for everybody's benefit.

That is EXACTLY the point of my initial post.

The rest is what you choose to read into it.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)