Bryson Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Hello all, Just got L&SI (I know I'm behind the times, but mine comes via a roundabout route) and it's got an awful lot about Colour Kinetics use of Patents that many other people (ie: thier competitors) believe to be pre-existing technologies. I wondered if the Blue Room would care to discuss the use of these Patents and thier opinions on whether Colour Kinetics have a case or not...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinny baby Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 I thought colour kinetics went bust??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P. Funk Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 I have to say - L&SI seems very biased against colour kinetics... I no nothing about the matter myself but it really comes across that way in the magazine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaareolai Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 ...it's got an awful lot about Colour Kinetics use of Patents that many other people (ie: thier competitors) believe to be pre-existing technologies. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, googling on:color kinetics patent prior art gives some interesting links... I remember reading a few days ago about someone stating some documentation that it is probably not prior art, but I cannot remember where... :-/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew C Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 I have to say - L&SI seems very biased against colour kinetics... I no nothing about the matter myself but it really comes across that way in the magazine.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> I've not read LSI for some time. I wonder whether Colour Kinetics competitors advertise in the mag, but CK don't? This is just the sort of thing that can sway a journo. Think Vauxhall and a "major TV type motoring presenter". I am led to believe that they failed to give him a car at some point, and their cars have been "crap" ever since. Not that I'm saying there not... EditFor those who wish to read the application; Patent abstract Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinw Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Most of the CK patents can also be found here in pdf format. Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mush Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Can pull up all of CKs present patents on www.uspto.gov , may need plug in to view images. Like many U.S. based companies CK are leveraging the U.S. patent system to their advantage. Nothing wrong with that if your CK, probably with the way the U.S. patent system is malfunctioning it will eventually be to the economic disadvantage of the U.S. Couple of examples are the Swinging a Swing patent: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992178 Laser pointer and Cat patent: http://www.legamedia.net/dy/articles/article_15367.php More serious are the patents getting granted for DNA sequences. CKs original patent regarded using Pulse Width Modulation to dim LEDs, nothing new original or non obvious about that, but they got a patent. The `011 patent, as LSI refers to it as, moves this on to controlling LEDs by virtually any control system.Again old,obvious and unorginal but under the U.S. system entirely patentable. The `millions` George claims to have spent on R&D is at best being insincere, perhaps a lot of dosh on lawyers but innovative LED products are not what CK are reknowned for. Issuing cease and desist orders against competitors is more CKs style. The Avolites Boreallis was an early victim as was Artistic Licences forays into the U.S. market with LED products there are others. Fail to see how you can claim that LSI is biased against CK when CK get 3 pages of advertorial and the LED Alliance , the group led by Supervison and Artistic Licence , taking action against CK gets a single page. http://www.svision.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryson Posted November 29, 2004 Author Share Posted November 29, 2004 *snip* Fail to see how you can claim that LSI is biased against CK when CK get 3 pages of advertorial and the LED Alliance , the group led by Supervison and Artistic Licence , taking action against CK gets a single page. http://www.svision.com<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment - the LED alliance and friends also get most of the first news page(p10),plus they have a *paid* advert at the back of the magazine (p83), plus a much more forgiving article style. I've not read LSI for some time. I wonder whether Colour Kinetics competitors advertise in the mag, but CK don't? This is just the sort of thing that can sway a journo. Artistic Licence have an advert on Page 15Super Vision have the ad on Page 83Color Kinetics (corrected to accomodate crazy american spelling) have no ads of their own, but Chroma-Q are advertising some kind of LED thingy on p74 which is licenced by Color Kinetics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mush Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 *snip* Fail to see how you can claim that LSI is biased against CK when CK get 3 pages of advertorial and the LED Alliance , the group led by Supervison and Artistic Licence , taking action against CK gets a single page. http://www.svision.com<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment - the LED alliance and friends also get most of the first news page(p10),plus they have a *paid* advert at the back of the magazine (p83), plus a much more forgiving article style. I've not read LSI for some time. I wonder whether Colour Kinetics competitors advertise in the mag, but CK don't? This is just the sort of thing that can sway a journo. Artistic Licence have an advert on Page 15Super Vision have the ad on Page 83Color Kinetics (corrected to accomodate crazy american spelling) have no ads of their own, but Chroma-Q are advertising some kind of LED thingy on p74 which is licenced by Color Kinetics.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> There is a notable lack of CK supporters , at least publically. Lets not forget the letter from Durham Marenghi also critcising CK and statting that he will boycott their products. As to the more forgiving article given to the LED Alliance, was reminded by the CK interview of David Frost`s interview with Nick Leeson, the man who broke the bank at Barings, `Would you agree with me Nick that you`ve been made a scapegoat for others failings.` I didn`t personally see a particularly sharp interview with CK, should have been pressed much further on their answers. CK have considerably less leverage in the European market, perhaps they spend their advertsing budget in LSI America or perhaps the budget otherwise allocated to advertising, like R&D, is spent on other things.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peternewman Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 As to the more forgiving article given to the LED Alliance, was reminded by the CK interview of David Frost`s interview with Nick Leeson, the man who broke the bank at Barings, `Would you agree with me Nick that you`ve been made a scapegoat for others failings.`<{POST_SNAPBACK}>:)Bit of a claim to fame, or infamy (infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me ;)), depending on how you look at it, but Nick Leeson went to the same secondary school as me (along with such greats as Tommy Walsh), although he went a lot longer ago. :P PN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryson Posted February 13, 2005 Author Share Posted February 13, 2005 A little interesting addendum to this: The Chroma-Q colour block now shows that it's licenced by Color Kinetics and Super Vision. Some hedging of bets, perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lightnix Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 It's probably cheaper to just pay the licence fee and gain access to the US market than to pay for lawyers to challenge its legality :blink: [/cynic] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryson Posted March 21, 2005 Author Share Posted March 21, 2005 I see this is all hotting up in L&Si this month - apparently Super Vision are applying for a Summary Judgement, using 9 sworn statements from involved people. They've also accused Color Kinetics of lying to two federal court judges about how their staff behaved at "that" tradeshow. It's also interesting to note that a lot of the case revolves around discussion of the old High End Color Pro fixtures. On a related note, I also notice in L&Si that LumiLEDS are sharpening their lawyers over the Luxeon LEDs. I wonder if the "next big thing" will be saldy buried in a flurry of suits and counter-suits until everyone can't be bothered anymore and goes onto a different technology...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinw Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Blow by blow coverage of the fight can be found at Led AllianceMartin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryson Posted March 21, 2005 Author Share Posted March 21, 2005 Bear in mind that the LED Alliance site is likely to display some bias! Interesting, nonetheless, but remember which side they're on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.