|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Blue LED "Sconces"
|
|
|
David Buckley
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 525
From: Oxford, N. Canterbury, New Zealand
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted 01-11-2006 12:01 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
I'm absolutely sure there's about 188,943,788 companies in China offering patent infringing equivalents for a lot less money
I'm sure they are. I dont actually have a problem with that, per se, there are people who will buy the original product because they need to guarantee of reliability and support, and those who would purchase the copy would probably not have bought the original product anyway.
But thats not the point: the point with fundemental patents is that they prevent innovation.
Lets take your Dolby example. Dolby patented a sound processing mechanism, Ok, thats fair enough. But what if the Dolby patents had also included the very concept of having optical tracks on film, which would have prevented both DTS and SDDS, and brought every ordinary stereo and mono soundhead under new patent protection and thus infringment?? The obvious answer is it couldn't happen, becauase "everyone knows" that you can put optical soundtracks on film, you can't patent something that is common knowledge.
Well, thats what CK have managed to do. They've got a patent that includes stuff "everyone knows", except apparently the patent office. Thats why most folks in the lighting industry dont like CK.
There have been patent rows in lighting previously, of course: Vari*lite patented the moving yoke light fitting. Many people didnt like that because they thought it was a bit cheeky that someone could patent something that had existed years previously, but it was the combination of features that made the Vari*lite patents worthy. And there were alternative ways to accomodate similar ideas, which lead to the "waggling mirror" types of moving lights, without dichroic colour mixing. Innovation abounded.
But back to CK: In direct parallel with CK, VL patented DMX control of moving lights, which is what CK have done, patented DMX control of LED lighting. However, unlike CK, VL recognized that there was prior art that made this potentially dangerous territory, and publicly announced that they would not enforce this aspect of their patents. Without that assurance, there would not have been a moving light marketplace, and everyone would hate VL the same way they now hate CK.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-11-2006 10:19 AM
David, it sounds to me like your beef lies 100% with some nitwits at the U.S. Patents and Trademark Office. Not with Color Kinetics. CK did what 100% of all other companies would do if given the chance. If a patent was indeed granted on prior art, then the affected companies need to file suit about it. Simply complaining isn't going to change anything.
quote:
I dont actually have a problem with that, per se, there are people who will buy the original product because they need to guarantee of reliability and support, and those who would purchase the copy would probably not have bought the original product anyway.
I disagree with that idea completely. IMHO, that is the same mentality criminals use.
For example, a software pirate or user or pirated software dodges paying for a legit copy of Adobe Photoshop. Yet he is still relying on the honesty of others to keep buying the program so Adobe can afford to keep producing it. If enough people choose the dishonest route, then the actual product disappears. For now, the people with ethics are carrying the others on their backs.
Same goes for the much larger and more institutionalized (and highly tolerated) exploitation of illegal migrant labor in the United States. Many businesses are resorting to hiring undocumented workers to get around the high expense of workers comp insurance, matching social security withholding and other fees businesses pay for hiring American citizens and legal foreign residents. But our public education system, property tax base, health care system and more is relying on the businesses who play by the rules. With fewer and fewer businesses working within the law, the expense is getting quite a bit worse for the ones who are still honest. Our company's workers comp premiums last year were staggering.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
David Buckley
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 525
From: Oxford, N. Canterbury, New Zealand
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted 01-11-2006 07:06 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
... It sounds to me like your beef lies 100% with some nitwits at the U.S. Patents and Trademark Office. Not with Color Kinetics. CK did what 100% of all other companies would do if given the chance.
It would be, if CK did the honourable thing (as Vari*Lite did), but whilst CK continue to behave in the way they do, they are the ones bugging us with their predatory behaviour, rather than the USPTO who are merely ignorant.
Your points about software piracy are generally valid; although I buy my music and software, I know there are plenty of others who can't (as in they dont have the money) or won't (simply on principle). However, I think the rights and wrongs of music copyright are a bit off topic for this one.
Neither am I well placed to talk about US workers. And even if I did voice an opinion it would just bring Phil down on my head, so its best I dont bother ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But the issue of Chinese copies of patented technologies is an interesting area.
A USA patent only protects something from being made or sold within the USA, there is nothing stopping an identical device being made and sold in any other country. Getting world-wide patent protection is expensive, but not difficult, however the degree of protection afforded world-wide will vary by country. But the bottom line is that you cant legally sell a Chinese legally-made device that infringes a USA patent within the USA, so the remedies lie within the USA.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic