Idiots blocking HID torches from USA market

This is from a Dutch friend of mine (Tino de Rijk) who posted it to the
Inspiration list recently. I have his permission to post it here for
your enjoyment!

Gordon


I just was on the phone with my nephew, who owns Metalsub (manufacturer of
the torches & quick-releases). He told me Sartek has been granted a patent
in the USA on making HID dive torches, and is subsequently suing all other
HID dive torch manufacturers (Hartenberg, GreenForce, Metalsub, Kowalski,
etc.) for something like 20 million dollars or so if they continue selling
these torches in the USA.

If you bother to look at the patent, you can see a patent office employee
that had a very big brainfart when he awarded this patent. There is nothing
special, unique or whatever to Sartek's (in my view quite sloppy) torch
design, but still they got this patent and can now actively deprive the USA
divers from access to good (better) HID lamps. If you can get a patent for
this, you can get a patent for everything.

God, am I HAPPY I don't live in a country governed by lawyers & lawsuits...
Europe may be "old", but we still allow for honest competition and "may the
best product win" instead of "may the best lawyer f.ck you".
Of course Metalsub etc. can fight this patent & lawsuit, and early
investigations by them learns they have quite a good chance of winning it.
But the cost of just doing the courtcase is already so high that my nephew
expects quite a lot of HID vendors to withdraw from the USA market, as it is
just not worth while given the limited market for these expensive thingies.
Also, the European & Asian markets are big enough to still be succesfull.

USA fellow diver friends: I pity you. You will have to order your good HID
stuff now in Europe, at significantly higher costs and warranty issues,
"thanks" to Sartek. I suggest you take that in consideration when you
consider buying from them again .....

For those interested in the silly patent: number is 6,679,619, granted on
January 20, 2004, title is "High intensity discharge (HID) lamp with
integral ballast and underwater lighting systems incorporating same". You
can look it up at www.uspto.gov .

Ciao,

Tino.

"Gordon Henderson" <gordon@this-is-valid-but-a-spam-trap.drogon.net> wrote in
message news:cdjd89$b6v$1@lion.drogon.net...

> God, am I HAPPY I don't live in a country governed by lawyers & lawsuits...
> Europe may be "old", but we still allow for honest competition and "may the
> best product win" instead of "may the best lawyer f.ck you".

Hear, hear!

> can look it up at www.uspto.gov .
>
shortcut: http://tinyurl.com/3djxu

> If you bother to look at the patent, you can see a patent office employee
> that had a very big brainfart when he awarded this patent. There is
nothing
> special, unique or whatever to Sartek's (in my view quite sloppy) torch
> design, but still they got this patent and can now actively deprive the
USA
> divers from access to good (better) HID lamps. If you can get a patent for
> this, you can get a patent for everything.

I agree with you that its stupid that theyve awarded the patent, however the
reason as i understand it was that Sartek came up with the idea of using HID
underwater first.

see you

Ian

What goes around comes around. Give it time & it'll happen here too
"Gordon Henderson" <gordon@this-is-valid-but-a-spam-trap.drogon.net> wrote
in message news:cdjd89$b6v$1@lion.drogon.net...
>
> This is from a Dutch friend of mine (Tino de Rijk) who posted it to the
> Inspiration list recently. I have his permission to post it here for
> your enjoyment!
>
> Gordon
>
>
> I just was on the phone with my nephew, who owns Metalsub (manufacturer of
> the torches & quick-releases). He told me Sartek has been granted a patent
> in the USA on making HID dive torches, and is subsequently suing all other
> HID dive torch manufacturers (Hartenberg, GreenForce, Metalsub, Kowalski,
> etc.) for something like 20 million dollars or so if they continue selling
> these torches in the USA.
>
> If you bother to look at the patent, you can see a patent office employee
> that had a very big brainfart when he awarded this patent. There is
nothing
> special, unique or whatever to Sartek's (in my view quite sloppy) torch
> design, but still they got this patent and can now actively deprive the
USA
> divers from access to good (better) HID lamps. If you can get a patent for
> this, you can get a patent for everything.
>
> God, am I HAPPY I don't live in a country governed by lawyers &
lawsuits...
> Europe may be "old", but we still allow for honest competition and "may
the
> best product win" instead of "may the best lawyer f.ck you".
> Of course Metalsub etc. can fight this patent & lawsuit, and early
> investigations by them learns they have quite a good chance of winning it.
> But the cost of just doing the courtcase is already so high that my nephew
> expects quite a lot of HID vendors to withdraw from the USA market, as it
is
> just not worth while given the limited market for these expensive
thingies.
> Also, the European & Asian markets are big enough to still be succesfull.
>
> USA fellow diver friends: I pity you. You will have to order your good HID
> stuff now in Europe, at significantly higher costs and warranty issues,
> "thanks" to Sartek. I suggest you take that in consideration when you
> consider buying from them again .....
>
> For those interested in the silly patent: number is 6,679,619, granted on
> January 20, 2004, title is "High intensity discharge (HID) lamp with
> integral ballast and underwater lighting systems incorporating same". You
> can look it up at www.uspto.gov .
>
> Ciao,
>
> Tino.

"ian mcdean" <ian.mcdean@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:tjgLc.283$2i.276@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>
> > If you bother to look at the patent, you can see a patent office
employee
> > that had a very big brainfart when he awarded this patent. There is
> nothing
> > special, unique or whatever to Sartek's (in my view quite sloppy) torch
> > design, but still they got this patent and can now actively deprive the
> USA
> > divers from access to good (better) HID lamps. If you can get a patent
for
> > this, you can get a patent for everything.
>
> I agree with you that its stupid that theyve awarded the patent, however
the
> reason as i understand it was that Sartek came up with the idea of using
HID
> underwater first.

Using a different kind of bulb (effectively) that is more efficient,
underwater, hardly counts as an original idea. I believe though that the US
patent system works like this - you have an idea, apply for a patent and
then the lawyers fight over it. In the UK each patent application is much
more carefully assessed and therefore it is much more difficult to have one
awarded. I don't think it will happen here.

Andy

"Andrew Pitkin" <apitkin@NOSPAMbtinternet.com> wrote

> I believe though that the US patent system works like
> this - you have an idea, apply for a patent and
> then the lawyers fight over it.

Our American friends seem to have a completely different view of a patent.
The HID issue comes as no surprise, don't forget that US drug companies have
been 'patenting' DNA sequences. I'm sure there's a land shark (lawyer)
somewhere who would argue that your existence infringes some patent or
other!

Keith L

gordon@this-is-valid-but-a-spam-trap.drogon.net (Gordon Henderson) wrote in message news:<cdjd89$b6v$1@lion.drogon.net>...
> This is from a Dutch friend of mine (Tino de Rijk) who posted it to the
> Inspiration list recently. I have his permission to post it here for
> your enjoyment!
>
> Gordon
>
>
> I just was on the phone with my nephew, who owns Metalsub (manufacturer of
> the torches & quick-releases). He told me Sartek has been granted a patent
> in the USA on making HID dive torches, and is subsequently suing all other
> HID dive torch manufacturers (Hartenberg, GreenForce, Metalsub, Kowalski,
> etc.) for something like 20 million dollars or so if they continue selling
> these torches in the USA.
>
> If you bother to look at the patent, you can see a patent office employee
> that had a very big brainfart when he awarded this patent. There is nothing
> special, unique or whatever to Sartek's (in my view quite sloppy) torch
> design, but still they got this patent and can now actively deprive the USA
> divers from access to good (better) HID lamps. If you can get a patent for
> this, you can get a patent for everything.

Well you pretty much can.
The problem comes when you try to defend it in court.
HID lights are prior art. So are underwater lights. So they'd have a
hell of a time trying to get any money out of anybody - they've just
wasted a lot on a useless patent (assuming what you've said is true -
I havn't checked).

NB. I'm not a lawyer.
This is UseNet.
So insert standard "if you want to believe me it's your problem"
disclaimer here.

Alun Harford

"Andrew Pitkin" <apitkin@NOSPAMbtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:cdl84u$c3o$1@sparta.btinternet.com...

> Using a different kind of bulb (effectively) that is more efficient,
> underwater, hardly counts as an original idea. I believe though that the
US
> patent system works like this - you have an idea, apply for a patent and
> then the lawyers fight over it. In the UK each patent application is much
> more carefully assessed and therefore it is much more difficult to have
one
> awarded. I don't think it will happen here.
>
> Andy
>
>


I think you'll find WA stated that it wasnt possible to build a submersible
HID/Ballast and adequately manage the cooling of the beast.

As far as Im aware, Carl registered the patent because he was getting fed up
of a certain large florida based manufacturer cloning his designs and making
a fortune. Said manufacturer also being somewhat aggressive in its pursuit
of patents themselves, this would seem to have been a wise move.

Its a shame if that patent is being executed upon as aggressively as
suggested in the original post, however I suspect its probably a stance
designed to generate an opportunity for people to license the patent.

/Zak

Q, you are in a room with a shark, bear & a lawyer. You have a gun with 2
bullets, which do you shoot?

A. The lawyer: twice.
"Alun Harford" <alunharford@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f890d8e3.0407210321.7ac81bc9@posting.google.c om...
> gordon@this-is-valid-but-a-spam-trap.drogon.net (Gordon Henderson) wrote
in message news:<cdjd89$b6v$1@lion.drogon.net>...
> > This is from a Dutch friend of mine (Tino de Rijk) who posted it to the
> > Inspiration list recently. I have his permission to post it here for
> > your enjoyment!
> >
> > Gordon
> >
> >
> > I just was on the phone with my nephew, who owns Metalsub (manufacturer
of
> > the torches & quick-releases). He told me Sartek has been granted a
patent
> > in the USA on making HID dive torches, and is subsequently suing all
other
> > HID dive torch manufacturers (Hartenberg, GreenForce, Metalsub,
Kowalski,
> > etc.) for something like 20 million dollars or so if they continue
selling
> > these torches in the USA.
> >
> > If you bother to look at the patent, you can see a patent office
employee
> > that had a very big brainfart when he awarded this patent. There is
nothing
> > special, unique or whatever to Sartek's (in my view quite sloppy) torch
> > design, but still they got this patent and can now actively deprive the
USA
> > divers from access to good (better) HID lamps. If you can get a patent
for
> > this, you can get a patent for everything.
>
> Well you pretty much can.
> The problem comes when you try to defend it in court.
> HID lights are prior art. So are underwater lights. So they'd have a
> hell of a time trying to get any money out of anybody - they've just
> wasted a lot on a useless patent (assuming what you've said is true -
> I havn't checked).
>
> NB. I'm not a lawyer.
> This is UseNet.
> So insert standard "if you want to believe me it's your problem"
> disclaimer here.
>
> Alun Harford

To apply for the Patent in the UK, according to the Patent website, they
must not have released the idea in public before application to aquire a
patent. Any pior release or showing of the product would seriously mess
up their chances of getting one granted here.

Not Lawyer, just looked into it a couple of months ago for something
else I was wokring on.

JA


--
Plymouth
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via DeeperBlue.net - Your Online Resource for the UnderWater World.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plymouth's Profile: http://forums.deeperblue.net/member....fo&userid=3268
View this thread on DeeperBlue.net: http://forums.deeperblue.net/showthr...threadid=51982