Halcyon sueing OxyCheq, US Divers and others? [Archive]

scubasean

February 3rd, 2004, 09:13 AM

I just read a post on a website that the owner of Halcyon has sued OxyCheq, US Divers and other companies for patent violations (weight integrated pockets?), but if I'm reading between the lines right, that Halcyon has settled with other companies for money, but wants some companies' entire stock of wings and oxygen analyzers! It sounds like Halcyon is trying to force it's competitors out of business by sueing them?

That just sounds un-American to me!!! :frown2:

You might want to get confirmation of all of this before passing it on....Settling for money is certainly not out of the realm of possibility, but getting the inventory is unusual. Getting the inventory is tantamount to getting an injunction against future sale which is something I would think folks would fight in court before just giving up....and I see no evidence that Halcyon is trying to put the manufacturers out of business...Rather, they might just want the licensing revenue.

(I'm not saying that Halcyon isn't doing it, I'm just saying I haven't seen any evidence of it...not that I've looked high and low for it.) And, the patents cited elsewhere aren't related to oxygen analyzers, so far as I know...So I see no reason the analyzers would be involved in any way...Anyone know?

And, are you indicating that litigation is unAmerican? Where have you been? heh

Actually, patent lawsuits are filed every day, and often involve amounts of money into the millions...and are very costly to wage, as well as to fight.

:banana:

Northeastwrecks

February 3rd, 2004, 09:21 AM

Halcyon is not a named plaintiff in the lawsuit. The corporate plaintiff is an entity called Carleigh Rae.

Let's see. First post is on this issue? Why do I think that something is a little off here.

iflyprops

February 3rd, 2004, 09:35 AM

oops, nevermind. For some reason I thought Halcyon was British, they are in fact based out of High Springs, FL (according to the contact info on their website).

Sorry about that! :wink:

5615mike

February 3rd, 2004, 09:47 AM

yea..........oops

MonkSeal

February 3rd, 2004, 11:16 AM

That just sounds un-American to me!!! :frown2:

No offence but it sounds just American to me. Or maybe it's the picture that we in Europe have about lawsuits in US.

baenglish73

February 3rd, 2004, 04:03 PM

No offence but it sounds just American to me. Or maybe it's the picture that we in Europe have about lawsuits in US.

That's funny because whenever I stereotype a country to a foreigner, then I'm uncultured or provincial. C'est la vie.

OneBrightGator

February 3rd, 2004, 04:47 PM

I have a scanned pdf copy of the complaint, but it's too big to upload, if somebody has a way to break it into to two pieces I'd be glad to pass it along.

PM me.

Ben

mempilot

February 3rd, 2004, 05:11 PM

No offence but it sounds just American to me. Or maybe it's the picture that we in Europe have about lawsuits in US.

The only picture I have of Europeans are the one's imprinted in my mind from meeting them on my travels. Some are good, some are bad, but mostly good. Monk, if you've been to America and spent a reasonably amount of time here, then feel free to judge. If not, don't rely on the press to give you an accurate portrayal of what Americans are like. Some are good, some are bad, but mostly good. :)

As for being a sue happy country, the US kicks out more patents than all other countries combined. There's bound to be copyright and patent infringment in a capitalistic society.

Who cares who is suing who, unless you own one of these tiny companies. Competition breeds superior products.

Saturation

February 3rd, 2004, 06:26 PM

OBG's copy of the lawsuit has a great deal of information and bottom line, it covers weight pockets and trim devices. The key is what the issued patents contain, and can be found from the US Patent server on details on:

#5,855,454: Water safety and survival system (January 5, 1999)

#6,530,725: Water Safety and Survival System (March 11, 2003)

#6,558,082: Combined ballast and signalling device for a personal flotation device (May 6, 2003)

________________________________

Genesis

February 3rd, 2004, 06:31 PM

Boycott time.....

Boogie711

February 3rd, 2004, 06:46 PM

Boycott who? Halcyon? USD? Do you even know what the lawsuit is about?

I'm no Halcyon devotee, but come on - spare me the rhetoric. That's a little fly off the handle-ish don't you think?

Whatever. I can foresee a 12 paragraph reply. Spare your fingertips - I won't read it.

OneBrightGator

February 3rd, 2004, 08:07 PM

Wanna know what it's about?

Halcyon (hidden behind a name-only corp.) claims a "buoyancy compensator with 'non-releasable' weight" is their idea when trim weights were around long before these patents were applied for, it's razor thin at best.

So far, they've served DiveRite, OMS, Cressi-Sub USA, Tabata USA (TUSA), Deep Outdoors, DiveTek, Hughco Sales, Custom Buoyancy and International Divers (IDI) and they served Sherwood, Abysmal and OxyCheq at DEMA, distasteful at best and probably a violation of DEMA policy.

Review the information for yourself, the links posted earlier in the thread are the patents listed in the suits.

A friend of mine that told me about this said this:
"Better gear is available from better people."

After throughly reviewing the material, I'm inclined to agree.

Ben

Genesis

February 3rd, 2004, 08:34 PM

The cute part of it is that some of the people they went after aren't even making the devices cited in the patents; that is pretty clearly harassment at best.

Like I said - its boycott time.

(I've known about this since it happened, and sold my Halcyon kit shortly after I heard about it. I won't have anything to do with those clowns, or anything that JJ has his fingers in - after this.)

Warren_L

February 3rd, 2004, 08:41 PM

Hmmmm ... it would seem he's more money driven than I originally gave him credit for.

cornfed

February 3rd, 2004, 08:45 PM

Boycott time.....
It took you fifteen posts to get this out! Damn, Karl... you're slipping! ;)

cornfed

February 3rd, 2004, 08:48 PM

distasteful at best and probably a violation of DEMA policy.

Why would it be violation of DEMA policy?

Genesis

February 3rd, 2004, 08:49 PM

CF, I was asked to keep this under my hat when I was told about it, and I did.

Since its now been brought out......

mempilot

February 3rd, 2004, 08:51 PM

I just put 2 Halcyon trim weight pockets on my OMS BP/Harness. Funny thing was, the only reason I bought theirs was that they didn't mangage to put a H logo on them. I didn't buy the OMS ones because I couldn't stand having any more red and yellow OMS badges on my gear.

Maybe the cash they get from the lawsuit will let them price their gear back down where it belongs. Right. Gotta pay for that DIR copyright somehow.

cornfed

February 3rd, 2004, 08:55 PM

CF, I was asked to keep this under my hat when I was told about it, and I did.

I'm just giving you crap... :54:

OneBrightGator

February 3rd, 2004, 08:59 PM

Why would it be violation of DEMA policy?

The bylaws of DEMA state:

"A Member may be suspended, based on the good faith determination by the Board, or a committee or person authorized by the Board to make such a determination, that the Member has failed in a material and serious degree to observe the Association's rules of conduct, or has engaged in conduct materially and seriously prejudicial to the purposes and interests of the Association. A person or entity whose Membership is suspended shall not be a Member during the period of suspension." (my emphasis)

Check the Mission Statement of DEMA (http://www.dema.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1) specifically no. 2:

"2. To engage in marketing programs which promote the industry, create new customers, drive business into retail stores and resorts and promote diver retention."

Something tells me serving lawsuits at a "public" expo, in fact, probably the largest scuba-related expo each year is a violation of policy.

Ben

MikeS

February 3rd, 2004, 09:00 PM

No offence but it sounds just American to me. Or maybe it's the picture that we in Europe have about lawsuits in US.

You're right, they should follow the Croation model; kill as many divers wearing OMS gear as they can untill the UN Peace Keepers show up. No offense. :sappy:

mempilot

February 3rd, 2004, 09:06 PM

You're right, they should follow the Croation model; kill as many divers wearing OMS gear as they can untill the UN Peace Keepers show up. No offense. :sappy:

I'd better tape over my targets! OMS and Halcyon manage to put those damn logos everywhere so that they're viewable from every angle. The UN won't get there until the carnage is on the decline, so everyone for themselves!

BTW, although I've never landed in Croatia, I flew a plane over the area a few times. Just doing what Americans do best. :54:

chrpai

February 3rd, 2004, 09:11 PM

You're right, they should follow the Croation model; kill as many divers wearing OMS gear as they can untill the UN Peace Keepers show up. No offense. :sappy:

I seem to remember one time in Croatia where they almost did kill a diver. I'm not sure if he was wearing OMS gear or not though.

Genesis

February 3rd, 2004, 09:11 PM

Yeah, and if the dive industry as a whole wasn't more crooked than Tricky Dick JJ's crew would have been sent packing by DEMA the next morning.

They weren't and that says all I need to know about DEMA - which, by the way, sprung up after the SRA was sued out of existance (literally!) by the federal government (the FTC) over their attempt at blackballing a snorkel manufacturer who had the audacity to want to sell via mail order.

LUBOLD8431

February 3rd, 2004, 09:38 PM

Not to let JJ off the hook (because he is involved) but Robert Carmichael has to take some heat for this too (he owns part of Halcyon too, along with JJ).

Well, hopefully people will start seeing Halcyon as they truly are: Satan in a DIR rig.

Genesis

February 3rd, 2004, 09:55 PM

Oh I know.

The entire thing stinks to high hell. I've done some low-level digging around the corporate records and patent applications involved, and there's a spider-web (very intentionally-created) of entities in this thing.

Its too clever by half, actually. It doesn't really prevent anyone from figuring out who's connected to what, but what it DOES do is make getting recompense for harassment-by-lawsuit far more difficult.

IMHO there are good reasons to use this kind of multiple-entity thing (e.g. a dive boat owned by the same folks who own a dive SHOP) but this isn't one of them.

FFMDiver

February 3rd, 2004, 09:59 PM

I just bought a used halcyon plate & harness. Looks like I'll be "doing it right" by finishing it off with an Oxycheq wing...

d33ps1x

February 3rd, 2004, 10:04 PM

I see no link to documents, etc...

caveseeker7

February 3rd, 2004, 10:35 PM

Companies served:

So far, they've served DiveRite, OMS, Cressi-Sub USA, Tabata USA (TUSA), Deep Outdoors, DiveTek, Hughco Sales, Custom Buoyancy and International Divers (IDI) and they served Sherwood, Abysmal and OxyCheq at DEMA, distasteful at best and probably a violation of DEMA policy.

Products sold at EE:
Aqualung/Apeks/Suunto, Brownies Third Lung; DUI International, Halcyon, Mares, Scubapro/Uwatec

Products sold by Brownies Southport Divers:
Halcyon; DUI International, Mares, Scubapro/Uwatec

Guess they both realize empty store shelves aren't good and Halcyon/Brownies alone ain't gonna cut it.

gj62

February 3rd, 2004, 10:43 PM

I don't know Halcyon's size and while not a patent attorney, I've been involved in patent fights - here's my guess...

If it was a "clean win" - infringement without a doubt - it would be settled before now for license fees or a voluntary injunction.

Unfortunately, during the pending process (you've all seen "patent pending", right?) nobody from a competitor came forward to indicate why the patent shouldn't be granted. In point of law, that does not matter - if anyone can prove that the idea existed before the patent, the patent will be voided. However, that is not nearly as simple (read: cheap) as it sounds once the patent has been approved.

My guess is that this is a power play by a company that has had some success (and either money or deep pockets) that wants to try and shut the door on competitor(s).

At best, these things are normally handled out of the press, and even without a suit. At worst, it will only (a) make attorneys some $$$s and (b) lessen each company's commitment to their products. Why (b)? Would you keep investing in a product you could lose the rights to, or not have a clear advantage in?

I don't recommend doing anything drastic in the next few days, but if I were buying equipment (which, in fact, I am), I might wait a little while (which, in fact, I will) before buying from these companies (on either side of the suit). I get the idea none of them exactly have the resources for protracted legal battle. If so, they'll probably try to settle, which will cost the companies money (only the attorneys will win).

In a word, "Damn" (sorry for the language...)

d33ps1x

February 3rd, 2004, 11:07 PM

Is there any links to anything or is this yet another stop on the Cyberlaw Institute of North America lecture circuit.

LadyHog283

February 3rd, 2004, 11:10 PM

I can't say much about the others pockets, but Aqualung is owned by Air Liquide http://www.airliquide.com/ and I'll bet their pockets are a lot deeper than Halcyon's.

Scubaroo

February 3rd, 2004, 11:11 PM

Is there any links to anything or is this yet another stop on the Cyberlaw Institute of North America lecture circuit.Ben (OneBrightGator) has already said he has a PDF available that's too large to upload to ScubaBoard (and it probably shouldn't be uploaded here anyway), and that people can send him a PM to request it.

I'm keeping my nose out of this one as it's too close to home and the lawsuit is still pending.

GDI

February 3rd, 2004, 11:12 PM

Hey are they Doing it right?

nyresq

February 3rd, 2004, 11:36 PM

yes, I belive all the lawyers have a little blue "H" on their briefcases.... They must be DIR...

DCDivenut

February 3rd, 2004, 11:39 PM

Hey are they Doing it right?

Okay.. I have bene looking at getting into a BP/wings setup. I found a great shop in VA that carries Halcyon, OMS, Zeagle and more. They basically said they Zeagle BP is overpriced and not that great and the OMS/Abyss is designed more for NE wrecks than anything else.
So here's the rub, they were going to let me rent a Halcyon setup for a weeke in Cozumel and then if I decide to buy deduct the rental cost from the retails. Seems like a good deal but now I am having some second thoughts about Halcyon, well actually second thoughts are making a third trip...
The reason I like Halcyon is that Icould everythgin I wanted in one package. I honestly don't think I like the OMS stuff so I am kind of stuck...
If I were to put it togerther from bits and got a Fred T plate, where would I get the wing, harness, inflator from?

jonnythan

February 3rd, 2004, 11:41 PM

I sent Gator a request for the PDF, and if he sends it over I'll put it up on my webserver and give you guys a link.

LUBOLD8431

February 3rd, 2004, 11:41 PM

Have you looked at Oxycheq yet? Thats one stop shopping as well. www.oxycheq.com --> Angel in white...

jonnythan

February 3rd, 2004, 11:42 PM

Okay.. I have bene looking at getting into a BP/wings setup. I found a great shop in VA that carries Halcyon, OMS, Zeagle and more. They basically said they Zeagle BP is overpriced and not that great and the OMS/Abyss is designed more for NE wrecks than anything else.
So here's the rub, they were going to let me rent a Halcyon setup for a weeke in Cozumel and then if I decide to buy deduct the rental cost from the retails. Seems like a good deal but now I am having some second thoughts about Halcyon, well actually second thoughts are making a third trip...
The reason I like Halcyon is that Icould everythgin I wanted in one package. I honestly don't think I like the OMS stuff so I am kind of stuck...
If I were to put it togerther from bits and got a Fred T plate, where would I get the wing, harness, inflator from?

FredT will sell you the harness along with the plate, COVCI will sell you the Oxycheq wing (which comes with an inflator).

COVCI will also sell you a complete Oxycheq package for $35 less than you'll pay for a complete Halcyon setup.

ElectricZombie

February 4th, 2004, 12:14 AM

Doc Intrepid

February 4th, 2004, 12:30 AM

I've found it to be true that there are generally two sides to every story.

Before leaping to conclusions, why don't we see what develops?

It may be that there is some validity to some of the claims.

Do any of you have any irrefutable evidence to the contrary?

d33ps1x

February 4th, 2004, 12:57 AM

I've found it to be true that there are generally two sides to every story.

I find there are usually three sides to every story. Side A, Side B, and somewhere in between lies the truth.

MonkSeal

February 4th, 2004, 05:15 AM

The only picture I have of Europeans are the one's imprinted in my mind from meeting them on my travels. Some are good, some are bad, but mostly good. Monk, if you've been to America and spent a reasonably amount of time here, then feel free to judge. If not, don't rely on the press to give you an accurate portrayal of what Americans are like. Some are good, some are bad, but mostly good. :)

As for being a sue happy country, the US kicks out more patents than all other countries combined. There's bound to be copyright and patent infringment in a capitalistic society.

Who cares who is suing who, unless you own one of these tiny companies. Competition breeds superior products.

Agree with you. I've been to States but I can't tell if I've spent enough time to catch everything. My point was (as I wrote) that I was probably a victim of prejudice about US as many Europeans.

MonkSeal

February 4th, 2004, 05:21 AM

You're right, they should follow the Croation model; kill as many divers wearing OMS gear as they can untill the UN Peace Keepers show up. No offense. :sappy:

A glass of black humor is always welcomed. :coke:

RobK

February 4th, 2004, 05:31 AM

<Snip>
As for being a sue happy country, the US kicks out more patents than all other countries combined. There's bound to be copyright and patent infringment in a capitalistic society.

<Snip>

*ahem* not true.

I think Japan is leading the field in patent applications ATM

See http://www.european-patent-office.org/tws/tsr_2001/ch3/3.2.php

Cheers,
Rob.

cornfed

February 4th, 2004, 08:00 AM

I seem to remember one time in Croatia where they almost did kill a diver. I'm not sure if he was wearing OMS gear or not though.
"They"?

Who... the UN? LOL

MikeS

February 4th, 2004, 09:03 AM

I just bought a used halcyon plate & harness. Looks like I'll be "doing it right" by finishing it off with an Oxycheq wing...

Wait, let me get this straight; rather than buying the best wing for your application, you�re going to buy something less because you read about a lawsuit(s) on the Internet? That sounds smart! Isn�t it customary to have the hanging after the trial?

cornfed

February 4th, 2004, 09:04 AM

Isn�t it customary to have the hanging after the trial?
Legally, yes. However the court of public opinion has it's own rules...

Warren_L

February 4th, 2004, 09:08 AM

Wait, let me get this straight; rather than buying the best wing for your application, you�re going to buy something less because you read about a lawsuit(s) on the Internet? That sounds smart! Isn�t it customary to have the hanging after the trial?

After doing research for the wing that I've recently ordered, the Oxycheq was the best for me. Forget Halcyon.....

Scuba Cowboy

February 4th, 2004, 09:18 AM

Interesting. I think weight pockets and trim weights have been around long before Halcyon started making them.

However, Halcyon certainly does have a legitimate complaint against OMS. The new OMS wing looks like an exact copy of the Pioneer. I'm not familiar with OxyCheq products so, I don't know if they are really copying Halcycon gear or not. I have seen a few pictures of their wings online, and the single tank wings do look similiar to the Pioneer.

I dont' see any need to boycott Halcyon as we don't know enough details concerning the suit. For all we know, their claim may be justified.

Regardless, I'll keep buying their products until something better is made.

Something better IS made. IMO, OMS, Abyss, & Oxycheq make better products than Halcyon. The only wing failures I've heard about have been Halcyon wings. Its also been my experience that the company with the inferior product is the one who files suit. Looks to me like Halcyon is afraid of the competition, and they should be.

OneBrightGator

February 4th, 2004, 09:20 AM

However, Halcyon certainly does have a legitimate complaint against OMS. The new OMS wing looks like an exact copy of the Pioneer. I'm not familiar with OxyCheq products so, I don't know if they are really copying Halcycon gear or not. I have seen a few pictures of their wings online, and the single tank wings do look similiar to the Pioneer.

The suits are not for wing design, just weight-integration and a surface survival system.

Ben

OneBrightGator

February 4th, 2004, 09:21 AM

Wait, let me get this straight; rather than buying the best wing for your application, you�re going to buy something less because you read about a lawsuit(s) on the Internet? That sounds smart! Isn�t it customary to have the hanging after the trial?

Not so, better equipment is made by better people. Dive Rite, Oxycheq and Abyss to name a few make better wings cheaper.

Ben

reubencahn

February 4th, 2004, 09:22 AM

Companies served:

Products sold at EE:
Aqualung/Apeks/Suunto, Brownies Third Lung; DUI International, Halcyon, Mares, Scubapro/Uwatec

Products sold by Brownies Southport Divers:
Halcyon; DUI International, Mares, Scubapro/Uwatec

Guess they both realize empty store shelves aren't good and Halcyon/Brownies alone ain't gonna cut it.

Brownies also carries Cressi-Sub.

OneBrightGator

February 4th, 2004, 09:22 AM

Jonnythan has offered to host the complaint file for me, it should be up shortly, watch this thread for a link.

Ben

MikeS

February 4th, 2004, 09:24 AM

After doing research for the wing that I've recently ordered, the Oxycheq was the best for me. Forget Halcyon.....

And your point would be?

Buying an Oxycheq wing based on research makes sense to me. Ruling out potential choices because you read about a lawsuit on the Internet makes no sense to me.

CRDiver

February 4th, 2004, 09:26 AM

Especially when there's absolutely no proof that the lawsuit even exists....

Warren_L

February 4th, 2004, 09:28 AM

And your point would be?

Buying an Oxycheq wing based on research makes sense to me. Ruling out potential choices because you read about a lawsuit on the Internet makes no sense to me.

I never ruled out Halcyon. I looked at OMS, Halcyon, Dive Rite and Oxycheq. I've never read anything about the lawsuit. I put my order in a couple of weeks ago on the Oxycheq before any of this even came out. Because I didn't choose the Halcyon doesn't mean I didn't consider it or rule it out from the beginning.

sapphire

February 4th, 2004, 09:40 AM

Especially when there's absolutely no proof that the lawsuit even exists....

I have the document, if you PM me with your email address I can send it to you.

MikeS

February 4th, 2004, 09:41 AM

I never ruled out Halcyon. I looked at OMS, Halcyon, Dive Rite and Oxycheq. I've never read anything about the lawsuit. I put my order in a couple of weeks ago on the Oxycheq before any of this even came out. Because I didn't choose the Halcyon doesn't mean I didn't consider it or rule it out from the beginning.

So what�s your point in the context of this thread about a lawsuit(s) originated by Halcyon?

Warren_L

February 4th, 2004, 09:44 AM

Wait, let me get this straight; rather than buying the best wing for your application, you�re going to buy something less because you read about a lawsuit(s) on the Internet? That sounds smart! Isn�t it customary to have the hanging after the trial?

I guess my point is that Halcyon isn't necessarily the "best" as it depends on a great degree on individual preferences and requirements as far as application is concerned. I don't think these decisions are necessarily swayed either way by reading about any lawsuits, at least for me it isn't.

Boogie711

February 4th, 2004, 09:45 AM

Let me just say this once, and for the record. I'm not DIR, and I have never purchased anything from Halcyon. However:

Business is business. Patents are filed, prices are determined, lawsuits are filed and threatening letters are sent each and every day. It's called business. As a business owner, I've considered filing suit against former clients over financial issues - does that make me mean and evil? Heck, I hope not.

I will make my purchasing decisions, now, and in the future, on the best gear available at the best price. The only other factors I'm willing to consider are all entirely dive related. I don't support OMS, for example, because they manufacture a 100 pound wing, and that doesn't fill me with confidence over the rest of their lineup (although their BP's are very nice.)

To boycott a company over a legal issue is tantamount to not purchasing Abyss gear because they are headquartered in Arizona. Obviously, Arizona is landlocked, so Abyss must have no clue what their doing, huh? Obviously not! Such an argument lacks logic.

So does boycotting a company over a legal issue - ESPECIALLY in the United States where with an independant judicial system, these things have a way of working themselves out. Either Halcyon wins and gets money because they deserve it, or they lose because they don't deserve to win. And I won't accept the argument of expensive lawyers beating up on expensive lawyers here - I KNOW Air Liquide could run circles around Halcyon's legal team based on legal funding alone.

Ultimately, you can always choose to dive with everything from a pink snorkel and Air2's to a fully DIR compliant rig - I don't care. But to not use Halcyon products simply because of a business/legal issue is just ludicrous. It reeks of knee-jerk reactionism, and I think most of you have more common sense than that.

mempilot

February 4th, 2004, 09:54 AM

*ahem* not true.

I think Japan is leading the field in patent applications ATM

See http://www.european-patent-office.org/tws/tsr_2001/ch3/3.2.php

Cheers,
Rob.

Cool graph. My graph must have been from the 'Industrial Era'! LOL

They must have a lot of patents on the electronics industry. I actually looked up mechanical design patents. Sorry I didn't clarify.

Boogie711

February 4th, 2004, 10:04 AM

rcrs007

February 4th, 2004, 10:21 AM

Boogie, thanks for the smack in the face, I'll wake up now and look at this from a different point of view.

One question though, have there been any other big lawsuits between scuba gear makers before? Maybe people have a bad feeling towards Halcyon because they took the diving industry into the "perpetual-legal-mumbo-jumbo-pit-of-doom". Suits may be the norm of other industrys, but if it wasn't the norm in the diving industry then I guess I could understand why there would be displeasure.

Ryan

weekender

February 4th, 2004, 10:26 AM

You're right, they should follow the Croation model; kill as many divers wearing OMS gear as they can untill the UN Peace Keepers show up. No offense. :sappy:

I know your kidding but it would be funnier if you actually pick on an enemy of the USA. We bombed the Serbs and Montegnegro as I remember. Croatia is on good diplomatic relations with the US. Actually its a great place to go dive. I went a few years ago and loved it. It is a quiet friendly country with a favorable exchange rate. They also are very friendly to Americans because we attacked their enemy and as I understand aided in their independence. I could look up the dive operator I used if anyone is interested, she was Croatian American and very nice. And no, I don't work for the Croatian Tourist Board, just a fan of good diving and historical accuracy.

hvulin

February 4th, 2004, 10:28 AM

BTW, although I've never landed in Croatia, I flew a plane over the area a few times. Just doing what Americans do best. :54:

come in late, and leave too soon?

sorry, just another black humor representation... :-)

I don't think anyone should be boycotted... simply buy it if you like, and don't if you don't like it... let the courts do the rest... (regardless of the fact that suing anyone you can IS sick)

mempilot

February 4th, 2004, 10:37 AM

We bombed the Serbs and Montegnegro as I remember. Croatia is on good diplomatic relations with the US.

If you go back and read the gest at Americans, you'll understand he was poking fun since we did step in to help them. It's like, we need help, but then when it's all over - back to despising the American way.

Kind of like the French times deux.

It's all kind of humerous. The Iraqi's a few generations from now will despise American's again too. Even though we are eradicating their nemesis now, they will forget. It's the easy thing to do.

Funny, how there's lot's of Croats in Wisconsin and other states. They have a very different opinion of Americans than those looking at us from across the pond.

Some of us American's risk our lives to defend other's freedoms. There's nothing wrong with a little gest when it's not always appreciated by the minority.

This is off topic. Sorry.

mempilot

February 4th, 2004, 10:41 AM

come in late, and leave too soon?

sorry, just another black humor representation... :-)

Came in when asked, left when the mission was accomplished. Things better today than before I showed up?

I know you're just kidding! Me too. I'd like to get back and try some diving, but I'll have to land this time. I'm not good at leaving airplanes in flight, especially in full scuba!

OneBrightGator

February 4th, 2004, 10:52 AM

Oh - and by the way - other companies that have sued their competitors:

Coca-Cola/ Pepsi/RC
GM/Ford/Chrysler/Honda/Toyota/Mitsubishi/Nissan/Subaru/BMW/Volkswagen
Microsoft/Apple/Sun/IBM/Dell/Palm
Nike/Adidas/Reebok/Brooks/Puma
McDonalds/Burger King/Wendy's/White Castle/Subway
JVC/Sony/RCA/Philips/Magnasonic/
NASCAR/FIA/MLB/NFL/NHL/NBA

Need I go on???

You would have a point if this wasn't a illegitimate lawsuit. The suit is over trim weights for god sake, I don't know which patent covers it specifically, but the earliest one was in 1999, trim weights were around long before that.

It's not the action of the suit that bothers me, it's the fact that they are trying to subvert their competition with baseless lawsuits.

Ben

rcrs007

February 4th, 2004, 10:52 AM

This is off topic. Sorry.

Off topic yes.

Little jokes here and there are fun, also you can't and shouldn't censor yourself to display no pride in your country. But come on, unless you want to create conflict/provoke, don't post messages like that.

Ryan

scubasean

February 4th, 2004, 11:00 AM

One question though, have there been any other big lawsuits between scuba gear makers before?

I'm not sure what you mean by "big"...But I think this qualifies....

There are at least two patent lawsuits pending right now in the dive industry involving computer manufacturers. (Suunto, Johnson Outdoors...)

So, the dive industry is like many others, and not devoid of lawsuits like the public may think...Often, it is just that we don't know they exist, but they do.

rcrs007

February 4th, 2004, 11:14 AM

I'm not sure what you mean by "big"...But I think this qualifies....

There are at least two patent lawsuits pending right now in the dive industry involving computer manufacturers. (Suunto, Johnson Outdoors...)

So, the dive industry is like many others, and not devoid of lawsuits like the public may think...Often, it is just that we don't know they exist, but they do.

Alright, thanks for confirming. Guess that the debate has 2 sides then:

1. People are neutral to H because they believe that until the lawsuit is solved they have no right to judge/they know that sueing is an industry norm

2. People dislike H because they know enough to (in their mind) believe that it's a lawsuit that has no basis and is a dishonerable business tactic

Hmm, now I don't even know which side I'm on ?
Meh, I'll keep the H gear I bought recently and wait for more info before I do anything drastic with my first bp/wing.

Are there any other information sources, other than SB, TDS and that PDF file Gator has ?

Ryan

ElectricZombie

February 4th, 2004, 11:18 AM

Something better IS made. IMO, OMS, Abyss, & Oxycheq make better products than Halcyon. The only wing failures I've heard about have been Halcyon wings. Its also been my experience that the company with the inferior product is the one who files suit. Looks to me like Halcyon is afraid of the competition, and they should be.

OMS should not even be in the same sentence as Halcyon. OMS products are a joke, plain and simple. Funny, I have two Halcyon wings and so does my usual buddy...zero problems between us. I don't know about Abyss wings, but based on what I have seen online, I don't want an Oxycheq either.

scubasean

February 4th, 2004, 11:20 AM

Alright, thanks for confirming. Guess that the debate has 2 sides then:

1. People are neutral to H because they believe that until the lawsuit is solved they have no right to judge/they know that sueing is an industry norm

2. People dislike H because they know enough to (in their mind) believe that it's a lawsuit that has no basis and is a dishonerable business tactic

Ryan

A third possibility (and there are probably fifth, sixth and seventh ...) is that some folks don't form an opinion of either way as to the companies products regardless of the state of any lawsuit involving patents.

One could say on one side that a company is protecting its intellectual property...On the other side, the big mean company is suing on something that may have existed many years ago...(By the way, have the folks that believe this actually looked at the claims of the patents? I have not...) Either way, it won't likely change the goods that they produce...

I have no connection good or bad with Halcyon, and don't have a stake in whether they win or lose.

I seem to recall that Suunto is being sued for patent infringement, and nobody seems to care...Why is the Halcyon suit so popular?

Are there any other information sources, other than SB, TDS and that PDF file Gator has ?

Certainly...What info are you looking for?

mempilot

February 4th, 2004, 11:24 AM

Hmm, now I don't even know which side I'm on ?
Meh, I'll keep the H gear I bought recently and wait for more info before I do anything drastic with my first bp/wing.

Ryan,

Why would you do anything drastic with your bp/wing regardless of the outcome of this lawsuit? You have the equip, whether you like the company or not - it is still good equip.

OneBrightGator

February 4th, 2004, 11:25 AM

OMS should not even be in the same sentence as Halcyon. OMS products are a joke, plain and simple. Funny, I have two Halcyon wings and so does my usual buddy...zero problems between us. I don't know about Abyss wings, but based on what I have seen online, I don't want an Oxycheq either.

Hmmm... is that Grape or Strawberry I smell??? :rolleyes:

Ben

mempilot

February 4th, 2004, 11:28 AM

OMS should not even be in the same sentence as Halcyon. OMS products are a joke, plain and simple.

Really scientific Zombie. Put a OMS bp/harness next to a Halcyon. There is absolutely no difference. Put their wings next to each other, there is absolutely no difference. If there is a decernable difference, it is defineatly not big enough to warrant your comment. Sounds like the old Ford vs. Chevy debate.

MikeS

February 4th, 2004, 11:32 AM

I know your kidding but it would be funnier if you actually pick on an enemy of the USA.

I didn�t mean to pick on anyone. It was intended as a �poke� at stereotypes based on nationality.

ElectricZombie

February 4th, 2004, 11:35 AM

Really scientific Zombie. Put a OMS bp/harness next to a Halcyon. There is absolutely no difference. Put their wings next to each other, there is absolutely no difference. If there is a decernable difference, it is defineatly not big enough to warrant your comment. Sounds like the old Ford vs. Chevy debate.

A BP is a BP...pretty hard to screw up other than the harness. The outer shell of the wings are similiar, but the inner bladder of the Halcyon is tougher. Many OMS wings have bungees, multiple dumps and long inflators. I can dive a Halcon right out of the box with zero modifications.

ElectricZombie

February 4th, 2004, 11:36 AM

Hmmm... is that Grape or Strawberry I smell??? :rolleyes:
Ben
Cherry...want some? :overlord:

CRDiver

February 4th, 2004, 11:40 AM

It's that sort of anti-every-company-that-isn't-Halcyon-or-doesn't-bow-down-to-GI attitude that has created such a vocal opposition to Halcyon as a company.

rcrs007

February 4th, 2004, 11:43 AM

Certainly...What info are you looking for?

Just articles, press releases on the subject. Maybe they'd have more pertinant info as they're closer to the lawsuit.

Some did say this lawsuit has been kept quiet, maybe there are no "non 2nd hand 3rd hand etc" sources of info ?

Ryan

OneBrightGator

February 4th, 2004, 11:50 AM

Just because some OMS products have features you don't like doesn't mean everything they make is poop, In fact I'm sure you can get a wing with the correct amount of lift, the right number of dumps and the correct length inflator from every manufacturer right out of the box and cheaper than a Halcyon wing to boot!

Zombie indeed :winky:

Ben

mempilot

February 4th, 2004, 11:57 AM

A BP is a BP...pretty hard to screw up other than the harness. The outer shell of the wings are similiar, but the inner bladder of the Halcyon is tougher. Many OMS wings have bungees, multiple dumps and long inflators. I can dive a Halcon right out of the box with zero modifications.

Just order the OMS without the bungees and with the standard inflator hose. Every wing OMS sells comes either way. They're just giving you the same quality product with an option. I don't like bungees either, so I didn't get them. My inflator hose is shorter than my old BC's. Actually, this is a personal preference based on body size, so again an option. I looked at both Halcyon and OMS. Apples to apples, no difference. As for the bladder being tougher...?

weekender

February 4th, 2004, 12:04 PM

I didn’t mean to pick on anyone. It was intended as a “poke” at stereotypes based on nationality.

I got that. No worries, i was kidding around also.

Zombie if you go to the OMS site you'll see that you can get a bladder you just described. I dive in the NE where oms is popular and based. im always amazed how many people on this site bash their products. i had no idea all of us up here had junk for gear and are unsafe divers because of it. thanks for the thoughtful input.

mempilot

February 4th, 2004, 12:17 PM

I got that. No worries, i was kidding around also.

Zombie if you go to the OMS site you'll see that you can get a bladder you just described. I dive in the NE where oms is popular and based. im always amazed how many people on this site bash their products. i had no idea all of us up here had junk for gear and are unsafe divers because of it. thanks for the thoughtful input.

Weekender,

I am from SE FL and dive with OMS gear. Imagine the beating I take when I go out on Brownie's boat! They all tend to repel away from me like I have the plague. It's cute though, how they all look like lemmings when they giant stride one right after the other into the ocean! :)

mars2u

February 4th, 2004, 12:24 PM

sorry for the long post...

Well what about Seaquest BCD's that have an integrated weight system? Wouldn't that fall under the same patent infringement?

I think we've gone off topic here in a number of instances. But just to put my .02 worth...this all really depends on how strongly to feel in either case. If the lawsuit really is a burning issue with you than you have the right to choose equipment based on your feelings. After all, it wouldn't be the first time in US history that people have chosen to boycott a business due to it's practices. If however, you feel the suit is irrelevant in your decision making process than by all means include Halcyon as a possible vendor.
Just as an example...remember when PADI was forced to pay nearly 200K to Diverlink for court fees because of a ludicrous lawsuit? In my mind it didn't make people (including myself) get rid of their PADI cards albeit it made me bash their stupidity.

This happens in our society among companies. You just need to decide what's more important to you. Halycyon vs. other products. Nike's made in Vietnam vs. New Balance made in the U.S., Ford's vs. Chevy, etc.

Oh and one more thing that's off topic...being a Croatian-American...comparing Croatian views of Americans with that of the French is ludicrous. I've lived in Croatia, have many friends there and have discussed (in Croatian) mind you their views on us here. They are wrong in some instances, but that's because they don't like my conservative views concerning for example lying under oath...ahem, but loved our Dem.'s. Anyway, I've never seen any of my Croatian freinds "bash" American tourists...just make fun of our policies which is no more than we do ourselves. The only Anti-American sentimitism I felt was due to my conservative nature.

Jos jedna stvar...ne kaze se "Black humor" nego "Dark Humor". Ako se bukvalno prevodi onda ste u pravu...ali to nije izreka koja se upotrebljava....just FYI.

OneBrightGator

February 4th, 2004, 12:30 PM

Well what about Seaquest BCD's that have an integrated weight system? Wouldn't that fall under the same patent infringement?

Yes, but Dive Rite, OMS, Abysmal and Oxycheq are direct competition for Halcyon (backplates, double and single tank wings and lights in DR and OMS's case), Aqua Lung and the like aren't, not to mention Apeks seem to be the choice regs.

Ben

mempilot

February 4th, 2004, 12:31 PM

Oh and one more thing that's off topic...being a Croatian-American...comparing Croatian views of Americans with that of the French is ludicrous. I've lived in Croatia, have many friends there and have discussed (in Croatian) mind you their views on us here. They are wrong in some instances, but that's because they don't like my conservative views concerning for example lying under oath...ahem, but loved our Dem.'s. Anyway, I've never seen any of my Croatian freinds "bash" American tourists...just make fun of our policies which is no more than we do ourselves. The only Anti-American sentimitism I felt was due to my conservative nature..

You misread. No one put an = between French and Croatia. The French have much better food. :bonk: Read all the posts. There was some ribbing going on between the posters. Everyone else is making it into something it wasn't.

rcrs007

February 4th, 2004, 12:40 PM

Ryan,

Why would you do anything drastic with your bp/wing regardless of the outcome of this lawsuit? You have the equip, whether you like the company or not - it is still good equip.

Yup, still good equipment. But I want to keep the possibility open that I'd sell my/not buy a company's gear if what they do business-wise does not aggree with my morals.

I wouldn't want to support something/someone I though was bad.

Ryan

Genesis

February 4th, 2004, 12:43 PM

Yes, but Dive Rite, OMS, Abysmal and Oxycheq are direct competition for Halcyon (backplates, double and single tank wings and lights in DR and OMS's case), Aqua Lung and the like aren't, not to mention Apeks seem to be the choice regs.

Not only that, but if you read the patents it appears to cover only weight integration with fastex clip releases (unless I've missed something)

Now, among those served, find those that do not make such a device.

If you find any such examples, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this is an attempt to drive competitors from the market, rather than legitimately enforce a patent.

Also, FWIW, perjuring yourself by filing a patent application without listing all known prior art (which you are required to do) is also a problem of ethics at minimum.

There is a relatively simple change that could be made to patent law to fix this kind of abuse - if your patent is thrown out due to undisclosed prior art, you are responsible for all costs incurred by those who you tried to enjoin as a matter of statute (that is, its not a matter of discretion); you should already be held responsible for suing someone for patent infringement that doesn't even manufacture the device you claim is bring infringed (but to the extent that such sanctions are discretionary, they need to be made mandatory)

That would make frivolous patent games EXTREMELY dangerous to play.

Until those changes are made in the law the only reasonable response to people pulling this kind of thing is to boycott their products and services.

BTW, Cronin "got his" for his frivolous suit against Diverlink. Not only did they get popped for fees and costs under California's Anti-SLAPP statute, but Cronin himself personally expired shortly thereafter.

During the time this was pending and up until justice was done, I indeed did boycott PADI.

mempilot

February 4th, 2004, 12:44 PM

Jos jedna stvar...ne kaze se "Black humor" nego "Dark Humor". Ako se bukvalno prevodi onda ste u pravu...ali to nije izreka koja se upotrebljava....just FYI.

U redu. Jako mi je �ao. Vidimo se! Let's dive together sometime. :)

scubasean

February 4th, 2004, 12:53 PM

Just articles, press releases on the subject. Maybe they'd have more pertinant info as they're closer to the lawsuit.

Some did say this lawsuit has been kept quiet, maybe there are no "non 2nd hand 3rd hand etc" sources of info ?

Ryan

Lawsuits, when filed, are generally public record...As for being kept quiet, there may just be no interest in writing about it...Not sure why there would be a press release, unless there was a favorable disposition for the person making the release.

I haven't seen the Suunto lawsuit or any press releases, etc. on it, but am aware of it because I came across it by accident through routine work I do.

OneBrightGator

February 4th, 2004, 12:59 PM

BTW, Cronin "got his" for his frivolous suit against Diverlink. Not only did they get popped for fees and costs under California's Anti-SLAPP statute, but Cronin himself personally expired shortly thereafter.

That's a low blow Karl, being happy about who was right winning is one thing, being happy that person died is digusting.

Ben

scubasean

February 4th, 2004, 01:00 PM

Also, FWIW, perjuring yourself by filing a patent application without listing all known prior art (which you are required to do) is also a problem of ethics at minimum.

Well, to clarify, a US patent applicant is required to submit relevant prior art of which they are aware, but they are not required to do a search to find art they don't already have.

If such prior art is obvious in the industry, you'd think that the lawsuit(s) would go away quickly...Someone mentioned that some defendants have settled for hundreds of thousands of dollars...Seems to me that one could reasonably draw an inference from that (assuming it is true) that the settling defendants didn't believe they had a defense to mount that would cost less than the settlement amount...

mars2u

February 4th, 2004, 01:01 PM

U redu. Jako mi je �ao. Vidimo se! Let's dive together sometime. :)

ROFLMAO...nema problema. I'll dive if we go flying first...because of the flying after diving issues :)

Do not give into the dark side young paduin!!! lol

I've got a good story about a couple of girls sitting at a table next to me that didn't know I spoke Croatian. They said some things :wink: about me and I didn't let on...until I got up to leave. Talk about some red faces and the smile on my face....hehehe.

mempilot

February 4th, 2004, 01:14 PM

ROFLMAO...nema problema. I'll dive if we go flying first...because of the flying after diving issues :)

Do not give into the dark side young paduin!!! lol

I've got a good story about a couple of girls sitting at a table next to me that didn't know I spoke Croatian. They said some things :wink: about me and I didn't let on...until I got up to leave. Talk about some red faces and the smile on my face....hehehe.

I'd love to hear the story! I only know a little, but I'm a quick learner. You're on for the flying and diving. PM me if you make down to my neck of the sunshine state.

d33ps1x

February 4th, 2004, 02:17 PM

OneBrightGator

February 4th, 2004, 03:13 PM

Damn. I guess I have to write them all off. I really can live without a lot of them...But White Castle? It's what makes crossing the border worth it! :(

It's not the action of the lawsuit, it's why and how. Is there an echo in here? :rolleyes:

Ben

CRDiver

February 4th, 2004, 04:37 PM

Someone was nice enough to forward me a slightly altered (certain names whited out) scanned copy of the lawsuit in question. For those who are interested, Halcyon is apparently claiming the defendants violated 3 patents - No. 5,855,454, No. 6,530,725 and No. 6,558,082 - and is seeking damages. If you go to http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/srchnum.htm , and enter the numbers, you can find extensive descriptions of the patented items themselves.

OneBrightGator

February 4th, 2004, 04:41 PM

Saturation's post on the first page of the other "Halcyon Lawsuit" thread lists the patent numbers AND what they cover.

Ben

padiscubapro

February 4th, 2004, 04:52 PM

Well, to clarify, a US patent applicant is required to submit relevant prior art of which they are aware, but they are not required to do a search to find art they don't already have.

If such prior art is obvious in the industry, you'd think that the lawsuit(s) would go away quickly...Someone mentioned that some defendants have settled for hundreds of thousands of dollars...Seems to me that one could reasonably draw an inference from that (assuming it is true) that the settling defendants didn't believe they had a defense to mount that would cost less than the settlement amount...

The people I have hear that settled did so for only a few thousand dollars or less.. Personally I think they will be burried once it gets to court.. there is plenty of prior art out there.. a popular bc in the 80s was the ATpak, it had both weight pockets AND a ballast system in the rear..

The only two that I know settled for sure was deep-outdoors and abysmal.

CRDiver

February 4th, 2004, 04:53 PM

Ok cool... The thread was getting so long, I obviously skipped it. In any event, the patent office link contains *very* extensive descriptions.

Northeastwrecks

February 4th, 2004, 05:22 PM

Just out of curiosity, the lawsuit I found on the website for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida that concerns the patents-in-suit identifies an entity called Carleigh Rae, not Halcyon, as the plaintiff.

Purported common ownership aside, it seems to me that people should get their facts straight before sounding off.

PurduEE

February 4th, 2004, 05:26 PM

*ahem* not true.

I think Japan is leading the field in patent applications ATM

See http://www.european-patent-office.org/tws/tsr_2001/ch3/3.2.php

Cheers,
Rob.

US leads in applications granted, which I think is what you meant. If not, I can't think of a reason that applications (and not applications granted) would be important when discussing who generates more patents... After all, if it's not granted, you can't use it as a stick against your competition.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/tws/tsr2002/ch4/4_3.html

Here's an exerpt:
"The USPTO has also experienced an increase in the number of patents granted, with 167,334 registrations in 2002, an increase of 0.8% over the previous year. This is the highest number of grants among the Trilateral Offices. "

Trilateral being Japan, EPC, USA. Japan has been on a decline since 2000, and EPC granted less than 1/3 of the US number.
*ahem*

HawaiiDiver

February 4th, 2004, 05:35 PM

OK stud thanks for teaching everyone a lesson!

OneBrightGator

February 4th, 2004, 05:52 PM

The named corporation is owned by Robert M. Carmichael, who is an corporate officer in the "empire" that is GUE/Halcyon

Carleigh Rae Corp.:
http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?a1=DETFIL&n1=P96000032739&n2=NAMFWD&n3=0000&n4=N&r1=&r2=&r3=&r4=CARLEIGHRAE&r5=

In fact his name is listed under GUE and Brownies:
http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?a1=DETFIL&n1=N01000000098&n2=OFFFWD&n3=0003&n4=P&r1=&r2=&r3=&r4=&r5=&r6=&r7=CARMICHAELRO&r8=

http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?a1=DETFIL&n1=P01000040294&n2=OFFFWD&n3=0001&n4=P&r1=&r2=&r3=&r4=&r5=&r6=&r7=CARMICHAELRO&r8=

Anything else I can help you with?

Ben

d33ps1x

February 4th, 2004, 06:26 PM

OK stud thanks for teaching everyone a lesson!

Again for good measure...???

Northeastwrecks

February 4th, 2004, 07:11 PM

OneBrightGator

February 4th, 2004, 07:26 PM

jonnythan

February 4th, 2004, 08:07 PM

Apologies. I was at work all day and missed the fun.. I wasn't able to get the file until just now.

http://jonnythan.com/SDOC0049.pdf

There's not much there, but it's worth looking at.

jonnythan

February 4th, 2004, 08:18 PM

http://jonnythan.com/SDOC0049.pdf

Northeastwrecks

February 4th, 2004, 08:50 PM

Thanks for posting that, Jonnythan. Any idea why someone redacted it?

OBG, you've identified common officers, not common ownership.

OneBrightGator

February 4th, 2004, 08:52 PM

OBG, you've identified common officers, not common ownership.

And common interest.

Thanks Jon, that's a beautiful thing :winky:

Ben

jonnythan

February 4th, 2004, 08:53 PM

Notice that it's dated September 26 of last year.

I just got the file from Gator, so you know as much as I do.

leadweight

February 4th, 2004, 09:43 PM

Someone want to tell the rest of us exactly what is going on here without a flame war? Like, what exactly is do the patents cover? This is really going to be fun if the DIR guys start to patent things like the long hose, bolt snaps and so forth.

Genesis

February 5th, 2004, 09:45 AM

Well, technically I suppose you're right, but then, a corporation can't really file suit, it's not a tangible entity, but then, I doubt Mr. Carmichael did either, I mean, I'm sure he's a very busy man, so we should really say their lawyers have filed the suit!

Give me a break, this is exactly the reason the Carleigh Rae Corp. exists, to give all those involved a wall to hide behind and play shadow games, sorry I showed you who's behind the wall, but I was only doing what you asked and I would think you, of all people, would understand that, especially since lowly old illiterate me got it right off the bat. :winky:

Ben

Ssshhhh.... you're pointing out why certain groups of people tell their clients to do things like that Ben.... you know, its why they think their advice is worth $300/hour.

In truth, the better path as a businessperson is to be forthright and play straight. If people research my former corporate organization, they will find no "shell games" played; I don't believe in it.

IMHO such an organization says, to me, that the organizers of the firm in question are LOOKING for cover (and so are their counselors!)

Now if you're a forthright businessperson engaged in a legitimate enterprise, exactly what is it you're looking for cover FROM? Hmmm.....

Scubaroo

February 5th, 2004, 05:05 PM

Did the "other" Halcyon thread do a Johnny Cochran? It's nowhere to be seen.

Arnaud

February 5th, 2004, 06:53 PM

Is Carmichael still a shareholder of Halcyon?

DivePartner1

February 5th, 2004, 07:22 PM

I have a scanned pdf copy of the complaint, but it's too big to upload, if somebody has a way to break it into to two pieces I'd be glad to pass it along.

PM me.

Ben

Could you identify the court and caption?

sapphire

February 5th, 2004, 08:20 PM

Could you identify the court and caption?

It's the US District Court, Southern District of Florida. Sorry, I don't know what "caption" means or I would look for that on the document...

d33ps1x

February 5th, 2004, 08:30 PM

I've decided not to boycott White Castle. It gives me something to do in Detroit besides hockey games.

Otter

February 5th, 2004, 08:36 PM

Ssshhhh.... you're pointing out why certain groups of people tell their clients to do things like that Ben.... you know, its why they think their advice is worth $300/hour.

<snip>

Now if you're a forthright businessperson engaged in a legitimate enterprise, exactly what is it you're looking for cover FROM? Hmmm.....

I agree with your Philosophy, unfortunately in our legal system even those who NEVER commit a crime can still get sued and must endure the expense, time, and frustration in dealing with it. Even if they win, they are still out time and potentially goodwill.....thats why many cave in and settle which renforces this ugly cycle and those type of lawsuits continue.

To be clear, I am responding in general and not to the specific allegations in this case -- of which I have NO knowledge.

AzAtty

February 6th, 2004, 12:04 AM

A bunch of them, DP. Did a PACER search in the Southern District of Florida under "Carleigh Ray" and found 15 suits. The following 12 are probably the patent suits. Two others (Mares and Aqualung) are copyright infringement. Another against Abysmal is probably a patent suit.

0:03cv61798 Carleigh Rae Corpora v. Custom Buoyancy, Inc 09/30/03 02/03/04
0:03cv61799 Carleigh Rae Corpora v. International Divers 09/30/03 01/21/04
0:03cv61800 Carleigh Rae Corpora v. Watermark Scuba, Inc 09/30/03 01/21/04
0:03cv61801 Careigh Rae Corpora v. Sherwood Scuba, LLC 09/30/03 02/04/04
0:03cv61802 Careigh Rae Corpora v. Hughco Sales Company 09/30/03 01/05/04
0:03cv61803 Carleigh Rae Corpora v. Ocean Management 09/30/03 01/20/04
0:03cv61804 Carleigh Rae Corpora v. Tabat USA, Inc. 09/30/03 10/01/03
0:03cv61806 Carleigh Rae Corpora v. Deepoutdoors, Inc 09/30/03 01/29/04
0:03cv61807 Carleigh Rae Corpora v. Duffy 09/30/03 02/04/04
0:03cv61808 Careigh Rae Corpora v. Divetek, Inc. 09/30/03 01/30/04
0:03cv61809 Carleigh Rae Corpora v. Lamartek, Inc. 09/30/03 01/21/04
0:03cv61811 Careigh Rae Corpora v. Cressi-Sub U.S.A. 09/30/03 02/02/04

LUBOLD8431

February 6th, 2004, 12:23 AM

Hmmm... I wonder if its just coincidence that IDI went out of business just a few months after the lawsuit was filed???

Scubaroo

February 6th, 2004, 12:25 AM

Didn't IDI of Turtle Fin fame just go bankrupt as the result of a lawsuit? Would that be "International Divers" mentioned above?

[edit] - double post, same question as Chuck. Didn't see his post.

LUBOLD8431

February 6th, 2004, 12:40 AM

I believe they are one in the same. This is not good. Halcyon is going for world domination...

d33ps1x

February 6th, 2004, 12:52 AM

I believe they are one in the same. This is not good. Halcyon is going for world domination...

Before you see Bill Gates and JJ doin' lunch.

Scubaroo

February 6th, 2004, 02:47 AM

People keep mentioning "JJ" in this thread - assuming you are all referring to Jarrod Jablonski, I am yet to see his name mentioned anywhere in the limited documents in the public domain, or hear of his involvement in any manner.

It would probably be a good idea for people to *stop* mentioning his name in connection with the lawsuit, and have a good hard think of the potential consequences of continuing to do so.

Seeing as this lawsuit is not yet concluded, I guess we will all just have to await a verdict (or whatever legal mumbo-jumbo happens) as to the validity of the claims and the ramifications for all involved.

chrpai

February 6th, 2004, 07:41 AM

Potential consequences? Are you saying people in this forum are now going to be intimidated into censorship?

JJ is the CEO of Halcyon so how can you have a conversation about Halcyon filing a lawsuit without talking about its agents?

Scubaroo

February 6th, 2004, 08:32 AM

Genesis

February 6th, 2004, 09:27 AM

The corporation that filed the suit is "owned" by Robert Carmichael. Robert has a number of "shell" corporations - a common game played in the corporate world.

Among the "others" Robert's name is "connected to" are Global Underwater Explorers and Brownies. GUE lists JJ as its registered agent and on its corporate officer list.

This is PUBLIC INFORMATION and can be found at www.sunbiz.org.

When you sleep with dogs, you wake up with fleas.

Go digging around on the Florida Corporate web site if you'd like.

chrpai

February 6th, 2004, 09:51 AM

Censorship? I'm not a freaking moderator anymore - I can't intimidate anyone into anything.

Apparently it's not Halcyon's lawsuit - it's a lawsuit filed by a corporation owned by someone other than "JJ". So yeah, mentioning "JJ" might have consequences - not just for the posters posting it, but for ScubaBoard. An Australian scuba forum was recently threatened with legal action because of posts a user made there (totally seperate matter), I'm guessing in litigation-land it's even more likely.

Thats exactly what I'm talking about. Your trying to intimidate the owners of Scubaboard into censoring this thread.

"litigation land" ... why don't you come live here before claiming you know anything about here.

Big-t-2538

February 6th, 2004, 10:00 AM

Thats exactly what I'm talking about. Your trying to intimidate the owners of Scubaboard into censoring this thread.

"litigation land" ... why don't you come live here before claiming you know anything about here.Ummm...he did...for like 2 years...he just recently moved back to Oz. Would you like a crobar to remove your foot from your mouth?

Boogie711

February 6th, 2004, 10:23 AM

Thats exactly what I'm talking about. Your trying to intimidate the owners of Scubaboard into censoring this thread.

"litigation land" ... why don't you come live here before claiming you know anything about here.

OMG - too funny. Ben just moved to Oz from San Francisco, or somewhere like that...

Dude - I've said it before, I'll say it again - you REALLY need some anger management counseling.

Now be a good boy and apologize to Scubaroo.

Genesis

February 6th, 2004, 10:24 AM

Oh, here's the other funny part of this.

If you read the patents, they appear to cover non-ditchable weights attached to a cylinder or person to insure that their airway remains clear on the surface.

In other words, on their back, face-up.

Which, by the way, is a body position that is the antithesis of the "DIR-style" of diving :D

Now you could argue that a "V-weight" or "P-weight" would violate these "patents", as its (1) non-ditchable and (2) located before submersion and not able to be moved during the time underwater. And I put "patents" in quotes specifically because people have been using such weighting arrangements long before anyone decided to try to claim a patent on them, and those who made the claim had to know that such arrangements were in common use long before the so-called invention was devised. Of course they didn't (typically) use them for airway protection though..... at least not in a diving application.

There might be a novel claim for this sort of thing in a lifejacket application.... maybe.

But IMHO there is nothing novel at all about non-ditchable trim weights in a diving application. Indeed, non-ditchable trim weighting dates back before BCs existed.

BTW I did hear that IDI went under in no small part due to a lawsuit, but the details have not been made clear - specifically, if THIS suit was in any way related to that. If this little game caused Turtles to "go away", I suspect that a large number of DIR-style divers (all potential customers of one of Carmichael's buddies) might be REAL pizzed off. (I'm glad I own my two pair of Power Fins already!)

Anyone know if there's a connection between this suit and IDI's apparent demise?

weekender

February 6th, 2004, 10:35 AM

this is an interesting thread. i don't know anyone who is GUE certified. so what I know about them is from their website and SB. am I correct in what I read, Mr. Jablonski is affiliated with GUE and Halcyon? also from what ive read; again not from what he or anyone from GUE have told me personally, the GUE/DIR set is rather aggressive at marketing Halcyon products. If this is true, doesn't this make anyone wonder about their motives when recommending gear? Now before anyone flames on me about this I feel its a legit question. im in no way trying to discredit GUE and dir's philosophy, teaching or anyone's diving ability. im just asking about marketing motives. im an instructor but always make a point of disclosing that im paid nothing by anyone to use or sell their gear. this makes me feel im giving an honest opinion. if i found out my instructor was paid to sell me gear i would take his recommendation with a grain of salt. similar to a broker telling me to buy a stock their firm has banking relationships with. am i at all correct? if im not then i must have read something wrong. if im right, am i the last diver on earth to know this? again not a dig on dir or gue just an honest question about people im not that familiar with.

Boogie711

February 6th, 2004, 10:36 AM

Genesis - with respect, dude - you're REALLY reaching here. You're running around connecting a lot of dots just on your own whims and fancies - and now you're trying to blame Halcyon for killing IDI?

For heaven's sake - there is a judicial system. Why don't you stop passing judgement and let the Judge do that?

And Weekender - no. I have never heard a DIR instructor tell people to buy Halcyon. Ever. I know they like it for a variety of reasons, but you can be totally DIR compliant without a single stitch of Halcyon gear.

In fact, I challenge you to find ANY GUE graduate who would say their instructor told them to buy Halcyon anything. Certain components may have been recommended, and Halcyon perhaps provided as an example of a wing that does meet those components, but for the most part, they're actually quite careful around the "H" word.

weekender

February 6th, 2004, 10:53 AM

Genesis - with respect, dude - you're REALLY reaching here. You're running around connecting a lot of dots just on your own whims and fancies - and now you're trying to blame Halcyon for killing IDI?

For heaven's sake - there is a judicial system. Why don't you stop passing judgement and let the Judge do that?

And Weekender - no. I have never heard a DIR instructor tell people to buy Halcyon. Ever. I know they like it for a variety of reasons, but you can be totally DIR compliant without a single stitch of Halcyon gear.

In fact, I challenge you to find ANY GUE graduate who would say their instructor told them to buy Halcyon anything. Certain components may have been recommended, and Halcyon perhaps provided as an example of a wing that does meet those components, but for the most part, they're actually quite careful around the "H" word.

fair enough. sounds good. again i have no beef with anyone, was just asking.

scubasean

February 6th, 2004, 10:58 AM

In fact, I challenge you to find ANY GUE graduate who would say their instructor told them to buy Halcyon anything. Certain components may have been recommended, and Halcyon perhaps provided as an example of a wing that does meet those components, but for the most part, they're actually quite careful around the "H" word.

So, the instructor "recommends" the gear but they aren't making the gear purchase mandatory...In the eyes of the newly educated student, I fail to see much of a difference, unless they talk about other manufacturers' gear as also being compliant...Do they do that?.

I'm actually not for or against Halcyon, and am not Gue trained but have adopted many of their practices, but was commenting on the comment...LOL

:banana:

Genesis

February 6th, 2004, 10:58 AM

Genesis - with respect, dude - you're REALLY reaching here. You're running around connecting a lot of dots just on your own whims and fancies - and now you're trying to blame Halcyon for killing IDI?

There is no "whim and fancy" about Carmichael and JJ's association, nor with how Brownies more-or-less started (via/through JJ and GI) what turned into GUE/DIR and Halcyon. Some links are clearly documented to this day, including Carmichael's listing on GUE's officer list (available through their public filings), ownership of Brownie's, etc.

OWNERSHIP of private corporations (e.g. who owns the stock) is much tougher to establish. That is not reportable, generally-speaking. Sometimes, but not always, such a person has an officer seat and thus shows up on corporate reports. There were two "silent owners" of my corporation that appeared NOWHERE on the corporate records, but they did own shares of the company. That is extremely common and is in no way improper. Beyond the officers and/or directors of a corporation, the "owners" have no voice other than their vote at shareholder meetings (which can include removing the directors!) This is all part of how corporations "work".

Halcyon Manufacturing is the corporation in High Springs; "Halcyon" is a registered fictitious name of the company. The only officer listed in Halcyon's public filings is JJ. You can call the Secretary of State's office and get a copy of any corporation's articles as filed currently (for a price), but the online info available is more limited - usually you can get officers, the registered agent (for service of process) and in many cases annual reports, which are typically a single-page form and contain little real information other than that the firm is a going concern.

Like I said, I do not know what suit caused IDI to take a dirtnap, but I heard about it happening back towards the end of last year and as I was looking for a second pair of Power Fins (larger, for my drysuit) I made sure I got them FAST. There are also rumors that the IDI death was only partially caused by a suit, and also partially by infighting among the owners/shareholders, so exctly what happened there I do not know - which is why I asked if anyone else did (and was willing to talk!)

You're off the deep end with your accusations Boogie.

In no way did I state that Halcyon caused IDI to take a dirtnap, but it is curious indeed that IDI's folding is coincident in TIME with these suits. I am quite curious about exactly WHY IDI went down; so far I have been unable to get a straight answer from anyone, and there are some folks who DO know but aren't talking. As such I asked a question, and pointed out the irony of a possible connection between these suits and IDI's demise.

Finally, as has been pointed out, Halcyon "proper" did not file these suits; a holding company did.

chrpai

February 6th, 2004, 11:25 AM

OMG - too funny. Ben just moved to Oz from San Francisco, or somewhere like that...

Dude - I've said it before, I'll say it again - you REALLY need some anger management counseling.

Now be a good boy and apologize to Scubaroo.\

California IS NOT the United States....

OneBrightGator

February 6th, 2004, 11:32 AM

Seeing as this lawsuit is not yet concluded, I guess we will all just have to await a verdict (or whatever legal mumbo-jumbo happens) as to the validity of the claims and the ramifications for all involved.

We're not allowed to look at the material presented and make a decision on our own? Pretty much all the information a judge will have is public. Besides, I haven't passed judgement on who is right or wrong in the suit, but that the suit itself is illegitimate.

Ben

caveseeker7

February 6th, 2004, 11:33 AM

Jeez, this is a heated debate. Everytime I hit refresh there are new posts ... .

I was at DEMA and heard of the rumor that Halcyon served atendees. And as it turns out they were just rumors.

Quite frankly I find it highly objectionable and legally questionable that either Halcyon or JJ gets slammed here for a lawsuit filed by another party.
If I were JJ or in any way associated with ownership in Halcyon I'd be p!ss!ng bricks by now ... . Calling for a boycott based on that suit is somewhere between unreasonable and stupid.

Patents were granted to Carmichael and Courney. Not JJ. Not Halcyon. Not EE, GUE or WKPP. I realize that whenever any of those abreviations, names or DIR or GI3 are mentioned two exteme sides are quickly formed and the flame throwing starts. But why here, other than the thread's title?

Jeggles (who started the thread with his 1st post on the board!?) obviously was fairly clueless about the nature of the suit, the people and business entities involved, and just repeated a rumor he picked up somewhere else.

Now with a copy of the suit floating around and a list of plaintiff and defendents posted, as well as the links to corporations and their officers both JJ and Halcyon should be out of the debate. The only connection between JJ, Halcyon and the lawsuit is the fact that Carmichael holds a postion on the board of GUE. A training agency which did not bring the suit (or, as a legal person, has any involvement with the patents that I can see).

So maybe it's time for some of you to cool it (if you need further help try cool aid :D ) and make an honest approach to think straight.
Stop slamming the guy and his company for something that's not his doing !

Finally, for the record, I own neither Halcyon equipment nor any shares in the company. I'm not on JJ's christmas list either.
I'm concerned about the lawsuit, and the damage or financial hardship they may cause some of the defendents. I own and use equipment made by three of them, DiveRite, Oxycheq and Deep Outdoors. I like all of it, in DiveRite's case also the excellent customer service, in Duffy's all the help he has provided over the years to RB divers. So yes, I'm very unhappy about them being named defendents. But why let it out on JJ and/or Halcyon?

cornfed

February 6th, 2004, 11:42 AM

California IS NOT the United States....
Of all the childish and back-handed ways of getting out of admitting a mistake this one takes the cake!

NWGratefulDiver

February 6th, 2004, 11:42 AM

FWIW - IDI's legal trouble had nothing to do with Halcyon ... it was a suit filed by the company's former owner. I got that information from the letter IDI sent out to it's dealers.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

OneBrightGator

February 6th, 2004, 11:44 AM

The only connection between JJ, Halcyon and the lawsuit is the fact that Carmichael holds a postion on the board of GUE. A training agency which did not bring the suit (or, as a legal person, has any involvement with the patents that I can see).

If you can't see the nepotism in the whole organization you must be blind.

Ben

Capt Jim Wyatt

February 6th, 2004, 11:46 AM

It would probably be a good idea for people to *stop* mentioning his name in connection with the lawsuit, and have a good hard think of the potential consequences of continuing to do so.

Please explain the consequences you have thought of.

Boogie711

February 6th, 2004, 12:09 PM

Genesis - guess what buddy - the entire world is not one giant conspiracy theory.

I know this is going to come as a shock to you. I know you won't believe me, and are just as likely to launch into a 6 paragraph rebuttal, but let me just take this short and sweet - the entire world is not one giant ongoing conspiracy theory. Chill out, dude.

And while you may not have directly accused Halcyon of trying to bankrupt IDI, I sure as heck insinuated it from reading your posts. Heck - you were just pontificating on the consumer backlash from DIR divers about killing Turtle fins! That's a hefty insinuation, don't you think???

Whatever. I give up. It's like trying to preach to the wall sometimes. There is a legal system. If the suit is without merit, it will fail. Let's leave all the pontificating until then, shall we?

Sheesh.

rjchandler

February 6th, 2004, 12:26 PM

Halcyon is obviously going to rely on the patents at least as a licensee so they are involed in some way.

The patents involve more than keel weights and BCs. It involves all manner of in water flotation devices. It looks like they patented their Multifunction Compensator (or whatever they call it) as one application. This would include the method of attaching thr keel weights to the cylinder, the design of the wing with a the air cell larger behind the neck, and the life raft and all the other stuff attached by a pouch. they also claim to be extensions of preexisting patents held by Courtney dating back to 1986.

The above is based on ONE reading of the links OBG posted with eyes severely glazing over.

LUBOLD8431

February 6th, 2004, 12:42 PM

caveseeker7

February 6th, 2004, 12:46 PM

California IS NOT the United States....

FYI, California became the 31st state on September 9, 1850.
Just in case you really didn't know ... . :D

If you can't see the nepotism in the whole organization you must be blind.

Ben, I didn't say there wasn't any nepotism. I don't know if JJ knew about it beforehand or if he condones it. Maybe you should ask him.
Halcyon isn't named as a defendat, but neither are Scubapro, Aqualung nor Mares. Does the nepotism extend to them, too? Genesis, are they part of the conspiracy? Do they also deserve to be boykotted?

I'm neither blind (you think I have some one reading threads to me and the dictate post?), nor do I lack imagination. I just pointed to some of the facts, including those you provided (thanks for that, btw) and reminded people that "even" JJ and Halcyon deserve some fairness.

On the merits of the case I can't and won't comment as my legal knowledge doesn't go remotely far enough. However I do remember a bit about people being not guily until found so in a court of law. To me, that goes both ways, the defendants in the legal case, as well as the defendants in the public opinion. So far no one has shown actual proof of JJ's or Halcyon's involvement.

Dude, wake up and smell the coffee. If you cant see the connection between JJ and Carmichael, you must be blind. It is a widely known fact that Carmicheal has some connection, or even part ownership in Halcyon. Dating back to the beginnings of Brownies.

In some way or another Halcyon is connected to this. JJ is not as innocent as you make think in all of this...

I'm up, smelled the coffe and had two cups. It is a widely known and In some way or another just don't cut it for me when judging peole or asking for/joyning a boykott. JJ might not be as guilty as you may think he is.

Genesis

February 6th, 2004, 01:00 PM

The court of public opinion is not held to the same standards as the court of law.

Nor should it be.

A lot of things that are not actionable (or criminal) in the legal sense are nonetheless distasteful, and the consuming public have every right to pass judgement on those actions.

If I had a person working for me who was doing something ethically bankrupt in a potential customer's opinion, that person would be within their rights to refuse to do business with me on that basis. Once I become aware of it as the owner of a corporation it is my decision whether or not to continue onward with my associations - including those of my staff - or sever them.

You have an absolute right to associate with whoever you wish. I have an equivalent right not to associate. That includes but certainly is not limited to the expenditure of money in my wallet.

I am free to draw any associations that I wish as a consumer. Those who wish to distance themselves from the actions of their associates are free to do so by severing those connections in a publically-visible manner. Witness what happened to Janet Jackson here in the last few days for exactly how organizations can - and sometimes do - distance themselves from "associates" who step over the line.

chrpai

February 6th, 2004, 01:04 PM

Speaking of nepotism and the supposed seperation of Halcyon and GUE, and the supposed notion of "you don't have to own Halcyon gear to be DIR" and the supposed notion that GUE instructors are vendor independant.....

Guess who posted this once:

Originally Posted by (Guess Who)

It seems as though our friends at OMS finally figured out that what they
were offering was ridiculous so rather then come up with their own ideas
their attempting to steal the DIR system..

To me this is laughable to announce that the only way they could compete is
to steal from their competitor and then announce that they are now
attempting to mirror what Halcyon does.. I guess we can assume that even the
management at OMS doesn't believe in their own products...

I always knew it was B.S.... then first we had Halcyon applying for the DIR trademark and now we have applying for patents and legal action against the rest of the industry.

rjchandler

February 6th, 2004, 01:08 PM

i don't think there is a question of "guilt" here. If you have a license to use a patent you expect the owner to defend its patent. And I think they are after a bigger market than the scuba industry.

caveseeker7

February 6th, 2004, 01:10 PM

The court of public opinion is not held to the same standards as the court of law.

I know, Genesis. But fairness and common sense ought to be part of it.

A lot of things that are not actionable (or criminal) in the legal sense are nonetheless distasteful, and the consuming public have every right to pass judgement on those actions.

Then judge those actions. My post was largely about the fact that so far no one has shown any proof that either JJ or Halcyon have taken any direct actions. Remember, neither filed the suit.
If you want to judge Carmichael and/or his business(es) go right ahead.

I never met the guy (not that I'm aware of, anyway), and don't have the legal knowledge to judge the merits. So I don't judge him, which is my right I believe.

Hallmac

February 6th, 2004, 01:11 PM

\

California IS NOT the United States....

Way I hear it if the folks in Washington and Nevada had a say in it. California would not BE in the United States..

Sorry Back to the regular programming

Hallmac

Genesis

February 6th, 2004, 01:12 PM

I am judging Carmichael..... and who he is associated with.

Those who are associated with him through known links in the diving industry are free to repudiate those associations any time they'd like. If/when they do, then they will no longer be painted with his brush.

Until then they're standing right beside him and the spraygun full of black paint will naturally leave some overspray - IMHO, right where it belongs.

5615mike

February 6th, 2004, 01:13 PM

OneBrightGator

February 6th, 2004, 01:31 PM

neither are Scubapro, Aqualung nor Mares. Does the nepotism extend to them, too?

I don't know why they aren't named, but I doubt whoever is behind this whole suit has the financial power to battle them nor are they direct competition, whereas they would small companies that are in direct competition. Also, EE is a dealer for SP and AL, maybe that has something to do with it, maybe it doesn't, but the fact still exists.

You want to talk of common sense but yet still refuse to see the obvious connections. You are judged by the company you keep.

Ben

5615mike

February 6th, 2004, 01:40 PM

Genesis - with respect, dude - you're REALLY reaching here. You're running around connecting a lot of dots just on your own whims and fancies - and now you're trying to blame Halcyon for killing IDI?

For heaven's sake - there is a judicial system. Why don't you stop passing judgement and let the Judge do that?

And Weekender - no. I have never heard a DIR instructor tell people to buy Halcyon. Ever. I know they like it for a variety of reasons, but you can be totally DIR compliant without a single stitch of Halcyon gear.

In fact, I challenge you to find ANY GUE graduate who would say their instructor told them to buy Halcyon anything. Certain components may have been recommended, and Halcyon perhaps provided as an example of a wing that does meet those components, but for the most part, they're actually quite careful around the "H" word.

Did you just finish that Gallon of Cherry Aid? Dude, your coming close to becoming your own worst enemy here. What in the world do you think DIR is for? GUE and "DIR" are nothing more than H's marketing ploy/dept. Doing it Right - The Fundementals is a book that many have read. They have H's gear throughout the book. There is not a picture of gear w/o an H on it! Don't tell me there actually quite careful areound the "H" word. Wake UP and quit drinking that fluid.

The Fresh Prince

February 6th, 2004, 01:44 PM

Did you just finish that Gallon of Cherry Aid? Dude, your coming close to becoming your own worst enemy here. What in the world do you think DIR is for? GUE and "DIR" are nothing more than H's marketing ploy/dept. Doing it Right - The Fundementals is a book that many have read. They have H's gear throughout the book. There is not a picture of gear w/o an H on it! Don't tell me there actually quite careful areound the "H" word. Wake UP and quit drinking that fluid.

Wake up and take the class. Did Fundies last year and never heard Halcyon mentioned once. To top it off, I was the only one w/a halcyon wing. You sure are quick to jump into insults without basis.

5615mike

February 6th, 2004, 01:48 PM

Wake up and take the class. Did Fundies last year and never heard Halcyon mentioned once. To top it off, I was the only one w/a halcyon wing. You sure are quick to jump into insults without basis.

Did not say a thing about the instructional classes steffen now did I. There are certainly 100 fold more who have bought that book than who have taken the class.....and you mean with bias don't you?

The Fresh Prince

February 6th, 2004, 01:59 PM

Did not say a thing about the instructional classes steffen now did I. There are certainly 100 fold more who have bought that book than who have taken the class.....and you mean with bias don't you?

No, I mean basis, as in basis in fact. Your Kool aid reference was enough insult which you reached for in knee jerk fashion. You attribute DIR as solely based on Halcyon Gear and cite their "Fundamentals" book as support for your position. Then, when argument is proffered in opposition to your viewpoint, you flame someone. The thread was started discussing a law suit in which a manufacturer is claiming patent infringement. This suit will work its way through a long judicial process before sufficient facts to support or deny their claim is at hand. You argue the merits of the case strictly on hearsay and turn it into an "us" vs. "DIR" argument. Why not wait and see the facts as presented in court before solidifying your opinion one way or the other?

Boogie711

February 6th, 2004, 02:11 PM

Mike, I'm going to ignore the insults from you here because I know you know better, and I think higher of you than that.

Let me just say this - please provide an example of any DIR instructor who tells their students to purchase anything made of Halcyon. Ever. Furthermore, please provide an example of something required in order to be DIR which is only available from Halcyon. Anything at all.

Thank you.

5615mike

February 6th, 2004, 02:21 PM

No, I mean basis, as in basis in fact. Your Kool aid reference was enough insult which you reached for in knee jerk fashion. You attribute DIR as solely based on Halcyon Gear and cite their "Fundamentals" book as support for your position. Then, when argument is proffered in opposition to your viewpoint, you flame someone. The thread was started discussing a law suit in which a manufacturer is claiming patent infringement. This suit will work its way through a long judicial process before sufficient facts to support or deny their claim is at hand. You argue the merits of the case strictly on hearsay and turn it into an "us" vs. "DIR" argument. Why not wait and see the facts as presented in court before solidifying your opinion one way or the other?

In no way is this an us vs. DIR on my part. In fact, I agree with most of the "DIR" principles as well as gear configuration. I certainly don't hang on every word and believe everything they say or believe is gospel. My beef with the whole thing is just that, my beef. Listen steffen, my post was not directed at you in the first place. Boog is a big boy and he can handle himself just fine. No I don't attribute DIR as solely Halcyon Gear but they seem to think so. The whole attitude that the group is that if you don't use their principles and or gear your an accident waiting to happen and "we are far superior" I'm so tired of it I could throw up. They act like they created this "New" way of diving and it's just not true. They made some changes to principles that have been used by many for years and called it their own.
See steffen, if you would actually read ALL the posts leading up to my comment you might have a better grasp on my point at hand.

Boog said that Halcyon was "actually quite careful around the "H" word". My point to him was that is obviously not true when you see their printed material.

OneBrightGator

February 6th, 2004, 02:30 PM

The Fresh Prince

February 6th, 2004, 03:01 PM

Why wait? the information is out there, read it for yourself, there's a link to the suit and to the patents involved in it, no need to wait to see what is right in front of your face.

Ben

Ben, because the filing of a suit will have a prayer claiming several issues attached. This filing would not in turn be a "fact" on which I would form judgement. The defendant in the suit would also file a return prayer indicating their position. The "facts" would be decided on in court and then would be the basis on which "I " would form my uneducated opinion. There are always two sides to every story, I like to wait until I hear them both.

caveseeker7

February 6th, 2004, 03:13 PM

Why wait? the information is out there, read it for yourself, there's a link to the suit and to the patents involved in it, no need to wait to see what is right in front of your face.

Ben, I don't know what you do professionally, are you a player in the legal arena? You seem to know where to find that sort of info quite well. So you might well grasp the issues better than I do.

As I from my amateurish point of view see it, there are two issues:
1. Were the patents granted properly?
2. Were the patents infringed?

While I read through the pdf file, and looked at the links, it's still all somewhat abstract for me. On TDS someone posted that non-removable weights were used on the Sea Hunt TV show a long time ago. If that's the case it should be easy enough to prove, and might well mean the patent shouldn't have been granted.
If the patents are rightfully granted, and were infringed upon, Carmichael has case, and I'm suprised it took him as long to enforce his patent.

Anybody would do so. I'm a photographer, I almost always keep the copyright to my images. If I see one of my pictures used for profit(making) without my permisson and/or due compensation I enforce that copyright.

Mike, there are a couple of OMS rigs in the Fundies book that are used to show how it's done wrong. ;)

AzAtty

February 6th, 2004, 03:28 PM

Why not wait and see the facts as presented in court before solidifying your opinion one way or the other?

Why wait? the information is out there, read it for yourself, there's a link to the suit and to the patents involved in it, no need to wait to see what is right in front of your face.

Ah yes, the only rule of the Court of Public Opinion: Crucify the innocent, canonize the guilty, all in perfectly ignorant bliss.

The fact of the matter is, no one here knows anything more than the bare allegations of the complaints and his or her subjective interpretation of the claims made in the patents. At least I haven't seen anything about the factual basis for the claims or defenses raised in the suit; just the standard Chicken Little cries of "the sky is falling."

There's a lot more to a patent suit than reading the complaint and looking at the patents. I've litigated a couple patents. The complaint tells you jack squat--especially the one jonnythan posted. Even the claims in the patent don't tell you what other products will necessarily infringe. The courts have an entire procedure for determining the scope of the claims after substantial discovery and expert testimony. Shoot, we're analyzing the issue in a vacuum, and the analysis is precisely what you'd expect to get in a vacuum--it sucks.

But what the heck? Let's all grab pitchforks and torches.

LUBOLD8431

February 6th, 2004, 03:31 PM

But what the heck? Let's all grab pitchforks and torches.

I agree. Lets also bring some OMS bungee wings and some deluxe harnesses with ABS BP's, and steel stage bottles and make a big pile right in front of Halcyon and then lite the whole pile on fire... (kidding, BTW, otherwise, I might be sued by the big H).

scubasean

February 6th, 2004, 03:38 PM

I agree. Lets also bring some OMS bungee wings and some deluxe harnesses with ABS BP's, and steel stage bottles and make a big pile right in front of Halcyon and then lite the whole pile on fire... (kidding, BTW, otherwise, I might be sued by the big H).

Sued for setting their competitors' gear on fire? Doubt it...

scubasean

February 6th, 2004, 03:39 PM

Let's all grab pitchforks and torches.

I especially like the part about the torches...I don't have a pitchfork.

:banana:

Northeastwrecks

February 6th, 2004, 03:42 PM

I'll loan you mine.

AzAtty

February 6th, 2004, 04:03 PM

...pitchforks to puncture the double bladder wings, torches to burn off the bungees.

I knew you were a pyro at heart, 'sean.

OneBrightGator

February 6th, 2004, 04:18 PM

caveseeker7,

Those are the legal issues in the case:
No, the patents were not granted properly
Yes, they are being infringed upon, actually by most every company that manufacturers scuba equipment.

The other issues I see in the case are is the suit ethical and why the defendants listed, which I've covered previously in this thread.

Ben

SubMariner

February 6th, 2004, 04:21 PM

Whoa, people... cool down.

If I could tap this stuff I could heat my house for a month in the dead of winter.

Lighten up, eh?!

Just a request from one of your friendly neighbourhood Mods.

OneBrightGator

February 6th, 2004, 04:26 PM

The fact of the matter is, no one here knows anything more than the bare allegations of the complaints and his or her subjective interpretation of the claims made in the patents. At least I haven't seen anything about the factual basis for the claims or defenses raised in the suit; just the standard Chicken Little cries of "the sky is falling."

Bare allegations? are we supposed to look for clothed allegations? maybe furry ones. Allegations are simply what they are, they're listed in the suit, nothing more, they aren't secretly hidden somewhere.

There's a lot more to a patent suit than reading the complaint and looking at the patents. I've litigated a couple patents. The complaint tells you jack squat--especially the one jonnythan posted. Even the claims in the patent don't tell you what other products will necessarily infringe. The courts have an entire procedure for determining the scope of the claims after substantial discovery and expert testimony.

That's all part of the issue, the complaint doesn't specifically list what products violate the patent, the Carleigh Rae Corp. doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on to file the complaint, but no one crying wolf about jumping to conclusions has had an issue with jumping to the conclusion that the suit is legit... odd.

Ben

Northeastwrecks

February 6th, 2004, 04:40 PM

As a matter of law, the Complaint does not need to allege which products infringe the patents-in-suit. Its actually somewhat unusual to do so.

As another matter of law, patents are presumed valid. They can be invalidated only by clear and convincing evidence, which is a higher standard than the traditional civil standard of a preponderance of the evidence.

As still another matter of law, the plaintiff has an affirmative duty to conduct an investigation into the basis for its infringement claims prior to filing an infringement suit. However, the details of the investigation do not need to be set forth in the Complaint.

Finally, an infringement analysis is a two step process. First, the Court construes the claims of the patent-in-suit by examining the claims, the specification and the intrinsic evidence of record, particularly including the prosecution history. Construing claims is a matter of law that is done by the Court.

Second, the properly construed claims are compared to the accused device (which are usually identified in pleadings other than the Complaint) to determine whether infringement exists, either directly or under the so-called Doctrine of Equivalents.

In other words, this process is far more complex than a cursory reading of the patents-in-suit and the Complaint.

Genesis

February 6th, 2004, 04:42 PM

OBG, this is what you get when everything becomes relative.

Tends to happen sometmie around the point where you add "JD" to your name..... unfortunately.

scubasean

February 6th, 2004, 04:52 PM

That's all part of the issue, the complaint doesn't specifically list what products violate the patent, the Carleigh Rae Corp. doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on to file the complaint, but no one crying wolf about jumping to conclusions has had an issue with jumping to the conclusion that the suit is legit... odd.

Ben

I'm not clear as to why you believe the suit isn't legit...The comment above seems to suggest that your beef is that you think that the complaint needs more specificity...but I wonder how many legal complaints you've read...

Also, are you this outspoken about other lawsuits filed that have the same issue? Or does this one strike you as special?

OneBrightGator

February 6th, 2004, 04:59 PM

AzAtty

February 6th, 2004, 05:00 PM

No, this is what you get when people who have no clue about patent enforcement or federal court procedures in general try to make authoritative statements about whether a patent suit has merit.

Complaints are not drafted to provide comprehensive information to, and entertainment for, the public. A complaint serves two limited purposes: (1) to initiate suit and (2) to provide the defendant with a general notice for what he is being sued. If the defendants thought the complaint was legally insufficient, they would have filed a motion for a more definite statement or even a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. But none was filed within the time allowed.

NEWrecks is dead on with his comments. Maybe that's because he litigates intellectual property issues for a living and knows how it's done. To suggest that anyone can make an authoritative evaluation of the merit of a suit merely on a complaint is sheer idiocy. But that shouldn't prevent the peasants from concluding there's a monster in the castle on the hill, as this thread has so elegantly demonstrated.

AzAtty

February 6th, 2004, 05:03 PM

sigh... the patents aren't legit, it.

Ben
Tell us, Ben, how the patents aren't legitimate. As NEWrecks noted, an issued patent is presumed to be valid, and that's a strong presumption. Specific references to the U.S. Code sections governing issuance of patents would be helpful. Enlighten us.

Northeastwrecks

February 6th, 2004, 05:06 PM

Tell us, Ben, how the patents aren't legitimate. As NEWrecks noted, an issued patent is presumed to be valid, and that's a strong presumption. Specific references to the U.S. Code sections governing issuance of patents would be helpful. Enlighten us.

A Markman claims construction wouldn't hurt either. But good luck.

OneBrightGator

February 6th, 2004, 05:10 PM

You don't have to a lawyer to understand what this is about. Corp. A owns the rights to something, they are claiming Corp. B has made the same thing after Corp. A reserved the rights.

They're illegitimate because there is blatant evidence of prior art, non-ditchable weight has been around much longer than these patents.

35 U. S. C. Section 102 - A person shall be entitled to a patent unless . . . (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent.

That about cover it?

Ben

Genesis

February 6th, 2004, 05:11 PM

I'm not clear as to why you believe the suit isn't legit...The comment above seems to suggest that your beef is that you think that the complaint needs more specificity...but I wonder how many legal complaints you've read...

Also, are you this outspoken about other lawsuits filed that have the same issue? Or does this one strike you as special?

The issue is that patenting something requires that it be novel (that is, not done before), that you invented it, and that certain time limits are met between the events of invention, exploitation and filing.

The problem is that this patent is in no way "novel" in both my and OBG's view. Non-releasable weight has been a part of diving's kit since diving, to be blunt. The positioning of weight to affect trim is a basic part of setting up a dive kit; there is nothing novel about it. Nor is there anything novel about people using non-ditchable weight - what's a backplate or even a steel tank, after all? Gonna ditch that eh? :D

Now, such a "counterbalance" system for life jackets might be a novel idea (or it might not) but a liberal reading of the claims of these patent claims would make any backplate or V-weight an infringement! Indeed, even negative-buoyancy TANKS could be read to be an infringement, as their placement BELOW the buoyancy of the diver would tend to keep your airway protected on the surface!

I'm no patent lawyer, but I can read, and this claim in this context (diving equipment) looks like pure, unadulterated BS to me.

THAT is what some of us are reacting to.

scubasean

February 6th, 2004, 05:16 PM

sigh... the patents aren't legit, the reasons for filing the suit are slimey, a one-two combination in my book.

I don't stay tuned to every new lawsuit filed, this one came to my attention and I have issue with it.

Ben

So, you've formed the opinion that all the claims of the patent are invalid? Have you actually read them all and been able to come up with prior art for all of them?

If so, I urge you to provide that info to the defendants.

scubasean

February 6th, 2004, 05:20 PM

The issue is that patenting something requires that it be novel (that is, not done before), that you invented it, and that certain time limits are met between the events of invention, exploitation and filing.

The problem is that this patent is in no way "novel" in both my and OBG's view. Non-releasable weight has been a part of diving's kit since diving, to be blunt. The positioning of weight to affect trim is a basic part of setting up a dive kit; there is nothing novel about it. Nor is there anything novel about people using non-ditchable weight - what's a backplate or even a steel tank, after all? Gonna ditch that eh? :D

Now, such a "counterbalance" system for life jackets might be a novel idea (or it might not) but a liberal reading of the claims of these patent claims would make any backplate or V-weight an infringement! Indeed, even negative-buoyancy TANKS could be read to be an infringement, as their placement BELOW the buoyancy of the diver would tend to keep your airway protected on the surface!

I'm no patent lawyer, but I can read, and this claim in this context (diving equipment) looks like pure, unadulterated BS to me.

THAT is what some of us are reacting to.

All I can say is that if you have prior art, send it to the defendants...They would probably love to have the prior art, if they don't already have it.

As for neg. buoyant tanks tanks being prior art, that may be true, but only if there is a different cylinder, right? I seem to recall a cylinder being necessary, in addition to the weight...

Please send your prior art in to the defendants...It would help them.

AzAtty

February 6th, 2004, 05:27 PM

Now we're getting somewhere. You used a magic word: "prior art." The mere fact that an invention improves on or uses the prior art does not make the patent invalid. Very few inventions could be patented if that were the case. Carleigh Rae does not claim all non-ditchable weight systems as protected. Not even the most myopic examiner would allow that sort of patent. Instead, it is a specific application or method disclosed in the patent that is protected.

Here's a good example: Drywall joint taping. There's a "method" patent out there that covers a particular process for taping drywall joints. It's nearly impossible to enforce it directly, so the patent holder has a royalty arrangement with the producers of the tape used in the process.

Here's another example: my jeweler has a patent on a particular method for mounting diamonds and other gems in platinum prongs. The prongs have been around for eons. Mounting has been around for eons. It's the new application or method that is patented, not the materials or components themselves.

The Carmichael patent discloses particular methods of attaching weights to buoyancy devices using certain equipment. So just to say "it's a ditchable weight, invalid patent" isn't correct.

However, if the invention was clearly contemplated by the prior art, such that the invention is "obvious," it won't be patentable. So if your assertion of obviousness is true, then you're absolutely right--the patent is invalid. But the fact is, until you research the file wrapper, examine the patented products, and analyze the infringing products, no one can say that the patent is invalid just because some prior art exists.

OneBrightGator

February 6th, 2004, 05:28 PM

So, you've formed the opinion that all the claims of the patent are invalid? Have you actually read them all and been able to come up with prior art for all of them?

If so, I urge you to provide that info to the defendants.

The claims of the non-ditchable weight patent is invalid.

Yes.

Why? some of the prior art is their own products, they don't need me, they have lawyers... errr... maybe they do.

Ben

Northeastwrecks

February 6th, 2004, 05:30 PM

The claims of the non-ditchable weight patent is invalid.

AzAtty:

Correction. You can say it, it just won't represent anything beyond a semi-random joining of ascii characters. See, e.g., above

Boogie711

February 6th, 2004, 05:31 PM

Ben - I like you, but with all due respect - you're totally disparaging yourself here.

Listen to those here with a legal background. Understand that the complaint doesn't have the info you claim to be making judgements on.

For you to just blindly sit there and say "No. Patent's invalid. Done deal" is the equivalent of a 3 year old running around with his fingers in his ears yelling "I'm not listening... I'm not listening." It has about the same amount of logic.

OneBrightGator

February 6th, 2004, 05:34 PM

Well, good thing one of us brought up the legal issues and codes involved.

The patent covers tank mounted integrated weights using fastex buckles, almost every SeaQuest BC made has come with those for years. Specific or not, prior art exists.

Ben

OneBrightGator

February 6th, 2004, 05:37 PM

Boogie, I'm glad you like me, thanks.

I'm listening, I have been listening, but I don't see facts, I see intentionally obtuse legal jargon, in fact, I'm the one bringing up the codes and the specific wording for what makes or breaks this patent.

btw... I'm headed out the door right now for the evening, so don't expect anymore responses today, PM me if you (anyone) like.

Ben

scubasean

February 6th, 2004, 05:47 PM

nm

We aren't going to agree, it seems....

ElectricZombie

February 6th, 2004, 06:30 PM

It really does not matter if something has been around for years...if you patent it first, it's yours. That said, I still think that trim weights were a stupid thing to patent.

jonnythan

February 6th, 2004, 06:47 PM

Just because there's a connection between JJ and Carmichael doesn't mean that JJ condones or even cares about Carmichael's actions

chrpai

February 6th, 2004, 07:16 PM

jonnythan

February 6th, 2004, 07:23 PM

You zealots are too funny. The parent company of an equipment manufacturer is suiting competitors over alledged patent violations, and now your telling me the CEO of the manufacturer would just be passively in the background not condoning that action?

JJ said it himself on this veryboard has admitted to "Yes, we have initiated some defense of the term DIR because of the rampant misuse of this name." And he has also complained repeatedly of companies "copying" their course and gear. They have obviously now taken the next logical step of trying to protect not only IP but also "inventions". Repeatedly we have seen GUE instructors like MHK bitterly complain about other manufacturers ( namely OMS ) "stealing" from Halcyon. This from a guy who is allededly supposed to be telling students "brand doesn't matter".

Come on, the truth is obvious if you would just put down that plastic kiddie cup.

If it is JJ behind this, @#!%! him. That's retarded. I very very rarely decide not to buy stuff from a company because of legal actions taken by them, but it's one more reason to recommend Oxycheq/Sartek/OMS/FredT over them. Those damn blue H's on everything is another big one.

I do think that OMS and even Oxycheq have "stolen" the idea of the low profile donut singles wing from Halcyon. AFAIK, they more or less invented it. But the patents in question seem to have nothing to do with that. Oh well, we'll have to wait and see what happens.

Still, perhaps JJ is vehemently against the action, but is powerless to do anything in the face of the rest of the corporate higher-ups. I happen to think JJ is a peachy keen guy, so I'll give him personally the benefit of the doubt til we hear something more substantial.

chrpai

February 6th, 2004, 07:24 PM

Also if you do a search you'll notice that I was the first one to notice that Halcyon had filed for a trademark on DIR

http://www.scubaboard.com/t35054.html ( this was August 23)

Now according to what I've seen the patent lawsuits were filed in September. This was the same time JJ came on here and said:

http://www.scubaboard.com/showpost.php?p=383526&postcount=1 ( September 6 )
"Yes, we have initiated some defense of the term DIR because of the rampant misuse of this name."

Notice he says "we" (Since its Halcyon filing the trademark we can only assume he means Carmicheal) and "defense of the term"..... I submit he new damn well that they weren't just filing a trademark but that they were also starting patent litigation. He only admitted to the first part since I had outted him and was keeping the rest as quiet as he could.

Scubaroo

February 6th, 2004, 07:28 PM

Just a quick clarification - the reason I passed on my concern about mentioning JJ is that he's not mentioned on any of the limited court documents that have surfaced. As someone said, he could be "passing out bricks" right now. There's plenty of interesting discussion going on in this thread, and I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be discussed in public like this - but as convenient as it sounds to blame Halcyon for this lawsuit, it's not their name on the document. If my initials were "JJ" I'd be right pissed off that my name had been dragged into this conversation.

But it would be impossible to have a conversation around this without looking at business associations and the history of those involved. I'll leave that to the people that appear to know a lot more about it.

I was not trying to get ScubaBoard to censor this thread - it would suck it if was "disappeared" which apparently happened to the second thread someone started on the subject. But it might be prudent for people to be careful about what they say - I was just thinking of the way some of this could be viewed as defamation.

Hmmm, California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, and Georgia. Didn't see much of the US at all in my couple of years there. Maybe I'll see some more when I return in June for my wedding in Maryland.

scubasean

February 6th, 2004, 08:08 PM

It really does not matter if something has been around for years...if you patent it first, it's yours. That said, I still think that trim weights were a stupid thing to patent.

Sorry, but had to weigh back in...excuse the pun...

The statement above is likely meant to be sarcastic, since it certainly isn't fact.

caveseeker7

February 6th, 2004, 08:59 PM

That said, I still think that trim weights were a stupid thing to patent.

Not if everybody uses them, that's where the licensing $$$ are.
Just checked a couple of '04 catalogs: Oceanic 5, Scubapro 6, SeaQuest (Aqualung) 11. Those are the numbers of BCDs with backmounted non-releasable weights. I wonder if they all paid to use that design?

AzAttorney & the guy from S.F.: Can you loose the right to a patent like you can to a trademark (e.g. Aspirin)? If so, wouldn't the owner of the patent have to enforce it across the board?

scubasean

February 6th, 2004, 11:38 PM

AzAttorney & the guy from S.F.: Can you loose the right to a patent like you can to a trademark (e.g. Aspirin)? If so, wouldn't the owner of the patent have to enforce it across the board?

No...Trademarks and patents are very different.

There is no requirement for a patent owner to sue all infringers, nor is there a requirement to sue everyone that is on your hit list all at the same time.

caveseeker7

February 7th, 2004, 12:11 AM

No...Trademarks and patents are very different.

There is no requirement for a patent owner to sue all infringers, nor is there a requirement to sue everyone that is on your hit list all at the same time.

Thanks Sean. Sorry about forgetting your name. And with the size of this thread I just didn't want to re-read.

Boogie711

February 7th, 2004, 12:22 AM

OK - people, we don't actually know what's being patented, do we? The point numerous people was trying to make was that the complaint doesn't have to list specifics. Just as a drywaller can patent a specific procedure and type of drywall tape doesn't mean he can patent drywall tape.

Just because Halcyon/Carmichael/whoever patented a specific button, flange, hoo-flinkus, doo-hicky or buckle doesn't mean they patented back mounted non-ditchable weight!!! AUGH!!!! PLEASE TRY TO UNDERSTAND THIS!

We specifically do not know what's in the complaint because the complainor doesn't have to say so. So all these claims about "prior art" or questions about what other BC's have back-mounted non ditchable weight are baseless and without fact.

LET THE COURTS DO THEIR JOB - there are a whole lot of people running around claiming "Halcyon are dirty bastards" or "Halcyon had every right to sue." STOP!!!!!!!

AUGH! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD! STOP IT ALREADY! AUGHGHGGGHHH!!!!

Let the courts figure it out. That's what the legal system is about, right? If the claim is baseless, feel free to boycott, crap away, picket, whatever. If the claims are upheld, feel free to have your victory party. But in the meantime...

DIE THREAD DIE!

Geez - I'm starting to remind myself of Genesis. That can't be good.

Genesis

February 7th, 2004, 12:24 AM

The patents must state their claim, and the claim is limited to what's stated.

The patents must be cited.

Now the SPECIFIC allegations of which products(s) infringe are not necessarily stated in the suit (they WILL be as things progress) but the actual claim that is bring allegedly infringed upon is stated by reference since the patent number(s) involved must be listed (and are.)

padiscubapro

February 7th, 2004, 02:45 AM

It really does not matter if something has been around for years...if you patent it first, it's yours. That said, I still think that trim weights were a stupid thing to patent.

Not true,
If prior art exists, (in the public) you might be granted a patent, but it wount be enforcable and probably invalidated in a court fight..

The earliest use of ballast weights I can think of was with a company called watergil (dont remember what year), which first came out with the atpak, in the 80s they were known as Seapro until their demise sometime in the 90s.

I still have a seapro Bc from 89 that has a ballast system and weight pockets.

The ATPAK weights were semi-ditchable, by this it had a pull release/pin that was designed to allow filling of the cavity but I guess if you needed to and was able to get at it you might be able to dump the weight.

ALso NECK tank weights have been around as long as I can remember, this would also probably fall into the category of a non ditchable ballast system.

Just my 2c

Northeastwrecks

February 7th, 2004, 08:24 AM

You zealots are too funny. The parent company of an equipment manufacturer is suiting competitors over alledged patent violations, and now your telling me the CEO of the manufacturer would just be passively in the background not condoning that action?.

Chippy, what is the basis for your claim that Carleigh Rae is a parent corp. of Halcyon? More rampant speculation based upon a commonality of officers? Or have you actually researched the shareholder structure of Halcyon and Carleigh Rae? If so, I'm certainly impressed since that information is not available online and is not generally available to the public.

There are various ways that something can constitute prior art. People who are interested can look up 35 U.S.C. s. 102 and 35 U.S.C. s. 103 for more information. You'll also want to look at the priority dates of the patents-in-suit and determine whether the claimed matter appeared in the original application or whether it was added later (this is based on my recollection that someone said that the patents-in-suit are children of apps filed back in the mid-80's). You'll need the prosecution history of each app and its parent apps to do that. Those are not available online, but can be ordered from one of several search firms.

Finally, you'll need to examine the inventor's records to determine whether the inventor is able to "swear behind" the earliest application date, and any purported prior art, by demonstrating due diligence in reducing his invention to practice to a time before the prior art. You can get this information through a duly issued subpoena and a deposition notice. It is also possible that you will find information relating to due diligence in reduction to practice in the prosecution history, but only if it arose during prosecution. Its not required as a matter of course.

The duty to disclose prior art and other information that is material to the patentability of an invention is set forth in 37 C.F.R. s. 1.56. But you won't know whether something is prior art until you have conducted the investigation above.

Once this has been done, it will be possible to determine the validity and enforceability of the patent and conduct the two part infringement analysis discussed earlier in the thread.

Finally, after all of this has been completed, it will be possible to intelligently and accurately opine upon the merits of the suit.

mempilot

February 7th, 2004, 11:27 AM

BTW I did hear that IDI went under in no small part due to a lawsuit, but the details have not been made clear - specifically, if THIS suit was in any way related to that. If this little game caused Turtles to "go away", I suspect that a large number of DIR-style divers (all potential customers of one of Carmichael's buddies) might be REAL pizzed off. (I'm glad I own my two pair of Power Fins already!)

Anyone know if there's a connection between this suit and IDI's apparent demise?

Don't be supprised if a shell game switch of ownership on the Turtle's happens and a new company sprouts marketing them again under a different name and logo shortly. It's a great way to bring your product back without moving after a lawsuit. The principles of IDI can just file for another S-corp, do a paper shuffle with the fins, and being selling again later in the year. This assumes the lawsuit was against the company and not the mentioned product.

mempilot

February 7th, 2004, 11:40 AM

Still, perhaps JJ is vehemently against the action, but is powerless to do anything in the face of the rest of the corporate higher-ups.

Does anyone know the size of Halcyon? I'd venture to guess they are a very small company in terms of gross revenue, number of employees, etc... A company has to sell a tremendous number of $500 widgets to become a significant size entity in an industry. Companies like Halcyon, OMS, Dive Rite, IDI, etc... are niche manufacturers. They appeal to a small percentage of an overall market. On a pie chart of dive gear manufacturers, these companies are a sliver when compared to ScubaPro, Mares, Tabata, Oceanic, etc... I doubt Halcyon has a long line of 'corporate higher-ups'. This size company can't support many high dollar mouths to feed.

In many cases, these high-quality niche players with a name brand that is a big part of a growing market get bought by bigger fish looking for name recognition in a high-end market sliver. The principles of the small company get stock in the large company worth much more than what they were making. They usually get full automony over their sub-corp, since what they were doing to run the company got it were it was.

I'm sure JJ calls the shots under the guidance of any investors in his company, whether they be individual or corporate.

scubasean

February 7th, 2004, 07:46 PM

Now the SPECIFIC allegations of which products(s) infringe are not necessarily stated in the suit (they WILL be as things progress) but the actual claim that is bring allegedly infringed upon is stated by reference since the patent number(s) involved must be listed (and are.)

Just keep in mind that it may be that not all claims of a given listed patent are at issue.

Northeastwrecks

February 7th, 2004, 11:14 PM

Actually, I find it to be less than half of the time when all claims are infringed.

dive

February 10th, 2004, 12:04 AM

Why does Halycon care whey don't believe in weight integrated pockets.

Scubaroo

February 10th, 2004, 12:36 AM

Why does Halycon care whey don't believe in weight integrated pockets.As mentioned in one of the earlier 200-odd posts, so you are forgiven for missing it, one or more of the defendants have been asked to hand over OTHER items of stock apart from weight pockets in order to settle. Wings were mentioned for instance. Makes it sound like the lawsuit is merely a cover, rather than being simply about enforcing a patent on non-ditchable trim weights, or whatever the patents cover.

And once more for the record, Halcyon is not the plaintiff. It's this "Carleigh Rae Corporation", who on the face of it appear to have connections to Halcyon through a common individual. But the question of the wings sort of throws an interesting angle on the connections. Why would what looks to be a shell corporation that owns nothing more than a couple of trim weight patents be demanding wings from a defendant as part of the settlement? Hmm, which well known manufacturer has probably lost a bucketload of wing sales in the past 6 months?

I'm betting the whole thing is simply to do with wing sales. No-one appears to own a patent on wings. So how do you get at your competitors if you can't sue them for wing patent violations? Find another patent perhaps?

No doubt more facts will probably become public once the case is over, but no-one from either the plaintiffs or the defendants have joined the thread (there's a surprise, not!), so until that happens, this is all speculation.

Genesis

February 10th, 2004, 08:54 AM

Look over on Rec.scuba. Oxycheq is well-represented there and Scott has posted on this several times.

The truth is out there...

Northeastwrecks

February 10th, 2004, 11:50 AM

Look over on Rec.scuba. Oxycheq is well-represented there and Scott has posted on this several times.

The truth is out there...

With no disrespect to Oxycheq intended, what leads you to believe that what he posted is the "truth". Because he put it on rec.scuba, or because it fits your pre-conceived notions of what is going on?

Eventually, certain facts may be decided by a judge or jury. Until then, however, all you've got are competing allegations.

Genesis

February 10th, 2004, 12:09 PM

Its pretty hard to forge receipts - they are easily checked out as business records.

The history on the trim weights is pretty clear as well. So is Scott's employment history, and the state of the prior art. Many people can independantly verify all of this, since they used these components and knew where they got them - before Brownies' had any association with Scott.

This pretty much blows holes the size of Palestinian Suicide Bombers in the idea that "prior art" was unknown at the time of filing, eh?

Sure looks that way to me.

Never mind that one of the requested "remedies" is the confiscation of other, unrelated products that have NOTHING to do with any claims in the patents (wings are not a part of this, but turning them over is one of the demands), but have a LOT to do with things that a certain other company makes....

Sure, certain facts will eventually be decided by a judge or jury. However, that does not stop any of us who have actually done some research into the matter from forming our own opinion of what's going on here.

Could Scott be lying? Sure. How many black helicopter theories do you need to subscribe to in order to conclude that not only is HE lying, but the firms he bought the materials from previously are ALSO lying, along with the people who USED those products prior to the filings. Gee, that's a lot of people to get involved in an ACTIVE conspiracy for what - a couple of molded pieces of lead?

IMHO this isn't about trim weights. Its about attempting to drive certain competing manufacturers of OTHER, NON-PATENTABLE products out of the marketplace so that one manufacturer has a larger market share of a relatively small, constrained market.

What they cannot do with superior products at a better price (that is, through normal, red-blooded competition) they are instead trying to do via a legal form of extortion.

At least that's how I read it.

Boogie711

February 10th, 2004, 12:24 PM

At least that's how I read it.

Well - thank God you're not a judge then, huh Genesis? It would have been really boring for you sitting through day after day of trials when you had already made up your mind before walking into a courtroom.

Uncle Pug

February 10th, 2004, 05:59 PM

Genesis

February 10th, 2004, 06:22 PM

Heh, its rainy and nasty over here right now, and is supposed to be all week.

At least the cold appears to have departed. Let's hope it stays gone.

Capt Jim Wyatt

February 10th, 2004, 06:24 PM

It's really hilarious how worked up some of you get over this stuff. :D

Ain't that the truth.
:banghead: :banghead:

NetDoc

February 10th, 2004, 06:30 PM

You know Ron,

With the way airfares are dropping, I might just do that soon. :D

NWGratefulDiver

February 10th, 2004, 10:50 PM

It's really hilarious how worked up some of you get over this stuff. :D

I wish you were here... beautiful sunny PNW day and the water is flat calm. I would take you out diving... help you to remember what it is like to scuba dive in water... that would put a smile on your face.

Ain't that the truth ... and I managed to get in 12 dives in the past four days.

Besides the great weather the vis has been awesome ... 35-50 foot range yesterday. To top it off my buddy and I found an octopus sleeping in the sand that had to be 12 feet tip-to-tip.

Doesn't that make y'all just want to stop bickering, hop on a plane and come take Uncle Pug up on his offer? Just bring a drysuit, 'cuz the water temp's about 46 degrees F right about now ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

NetDoc

February 11th, 2004, 08:40 AM

Or... I can slip into the Gulf Stream and have 72degree water... hmnnnnn... :D

I have 26 dives logged so far this year, so I am not too dry yet! Still, I want to see the mighty geoduck and learn what kelp is really like. So a trip to the West Coast is inevietable.

chrpai

February 11th, 2004, 09:16 AM

Uncle Pug

February 11th, 2004, 11:20 AM

Bob... You gotta get them in now... soon you will have to work like everyone else.
Pete... We have Bull Kelp in the PNW... you want the kelp in Cali.
Chris... Thanks, glad you liked it.

padiscubapro

February 11th, 2004, 12:33 PM

With no disrespect to Oxycheq intended, what leads you to believe that what he posted is the "truth". Because he put it on rec.scuba, or because it fits your pre-conceived notions of what is going on?

Eventually, certain facts may be decided by a judge or jury. Until then, however, all you've got are competing allegations.

Re-hijack - Back on topic :wink:

Something you may not be aware of... Zeagle tried to patent trim and weight pockets around '94 or '95, they were contacted by seapro and informed that they have been selling pockets for many years, zeagle dropped their patent application..

You also have to remember people like JJ have only been diving since '92(ish) and my guess is carmichael is probably from the same era.. There are alot of old products and techniques that have come and gone well before that.. Most older cave instructors I know were teaching putting led on al tanks in the very early years...

I know that a former employee of seapro (near its end not even the early years) has already offered a deposition for the defense testifying that trim weights and pockets were in use and being sold well before any patents were filed..

The ATpak was a tech bc(or harness)/wing setup that had the ability for no ditchable trim weights. It was first sold by watergil which eventually became seapro sometime in the 80s.

ANd Scott was definately selling STAs well before the patent was filed.. He was hired for HIS products..

Jeana Sciarappa

February 25th, 2004, 01:52 PM

PonyBottle

April 13th, 2004, 02:32 AM