University of California Sues Five Major Retailers Over Edison-Style LED Bulbs (reuters.com) 238
The University of California is suing five major retailers, including Amazon, Walmart, Target, IKEA, and Bed Bath & Beyond, for infringing on four patents related to "filament" LED light bulbs. Reuters reports: These patents relate to what the university called the "reinvention of the light bulb" by researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara led by professor Shuji Nakamura, who won the 2014 Nobel prize for physics. The university is seeking unspecified damages, including royalties, in lawsuits filed with the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, and wants the retailers to enter license agreements. It has also asked the U.S. International Trade Commission to open a probe into the retailers' conduct, saying the retailers have failed to require their suppliers to honor the university's patents.
Filament LED light bulbs are sometimes called "Edison" or "vintage" bulbs because they resemble light bulbs created by Thomas Edison that have glowing filaments visible inside. According to the university's lawyers at Nixon Peabody, the litigation is the first-of-its-kind "direct patent enforcement" campaign against an entire industry. The university said it was intended "to spearhead a broader, national response to the existential threat" posed by the "widespread disregard" for the patent rights of universities, including when schools encourage the private sector to develop commercial products containing their research.
Filament LED light bulbs are sometimes called "Edison" or "vintage" bulbs because they resemble light bulbs created by Thomas Edison that have glowing filaments visible inside. According to the university's lawyers at Nixon Peabody, the litigation is the first-of-its-kind "direct patent enforcement" campaign against an entire industry. The university said it was intended "to spearhead a broader, national response to the existential threat" posed by the "widespread disregard" for the patent rights of universities, including when schools encourage the private sector to develop commercial products containing their research.
Give back the grants (Score:5, Interesting)
The University of California can return all its grant money, and subsidies, and stipends, and funding provided by the Federal government. Then I might buy their bullshit.
Plus, the idea of an LED bulb mounted in an Edison base is pretty freaking obvious. No innovation there.
Re:Give back the grants (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not that the bulb is in an edison base, its that it has what looks like a "filament" made out of LEDs that look like an old-style tungsten filament.
But I agree: You get public funding, your research is public domain.
Re:Give back the grants (Score:4, Insightful)
You get public funding, your research is public domain.
Came here to say exactly this. I’m tired of university and/or faculty patenting research which was done on the public’s dime. STEM faculty don’t exactly need the extra funds to get by.
FWIW I’m not against government granting organizations at all - if anything, I’d like to see the amount of research dollars the government provides (via NSF, NIH, etc.) to increase. But, in return, any profit from that research should either be returned to the public or be used to directly fund more additional research.
Repeal Bayh-Dole? (Score:5, Informative)
I’m tired of university and/or faculty patenting research which was done on the public’s dime. STEM faculty don’t exactly need the extra funds to get by.
You can be tired of it all you want but the universities won't care. The Bay-Dole Act [wikipedia.org] explicitly grants them the legal right to do this and it is a HUGE part of the business of research universities these days. Because of that bit of law, research universities are really patent machines that churn out technology transfer businesses.
But, in return, any profit from that research should either be returned to the public or be used to directly fund more additional research.
I don't have any quarrel with this in principle but you'll have to repeal the Bayh-Dole Act first before it's even a meaningful discussion. Good luck with doing that...
Re:Repeal Bayh-Dole? (Score:5, Insightful)
the business of research universities
The "business??" Research is supposed to be the "business" of research universities; don't try to defend that shit.
Data versus money (Score:4, Interesting)
The "business??" Research is supposed to be the "business" of research universities; don't try to defend that shit.
Who is claiming that their business isn't research? Their business is research and research is their business. And business means money. Patents and spinoff companies are the end business product of a lot of that research. So riddle me this. How do they have a business in doing research but aren't allowed to actually make any money from whatever they find? While I agree that the results of their research (the data) should definitely be public domain, it's less obvious who the monetary benefits should fall to where they exist. Saying they should just publish and whoever else gets to the data first should benefit doesn't seem very fair or sensible. If they figured the problem out it seems that they should be able to participate in the benefits of that just like any other company or individual. The question then becomes HOW best to allow them their upside participation and I'm not sure there is an obviously correct answer to that question.
If you don't like tax money being funneled into privately owned companies that's sometime we definitely can find common ground on. But Congress in their infinite wisdom does not agree and decided to do exactly the opposite thing via the Bayh-Dole Act. If you don't like it your argument isn't with me - it's with Congress.
Re:Data versus money (Score:5, Insightful)
Our society has decided in most cases, baring a few exceptions, publicly funded work should directly go to the public. For example NASA's discoveries are public domain, so is most government funded research. If Universities want to open a revenue stream by patenting their research I think that's fine, but they have to forego our money to do so. You can either take public funds and release it in the public domain or you can reject public funds and do whatever you want.
Even when specifically dealing with patents this isn't an odd idea, if you use someone else's resources in the process of making a patentable discovery or invention they usually have a stake in it. Its common practice in private industry that any patents employees make while using company time or resources belong to the company. In this case the universities are using our (the taxpayer's) money in the form of state and federal budgets and/or in government grants. Why do they get to profit off of something we funded? We should have a stake in it too.
So yeah Bay-Dole should be repealed its a corrupt misuse of taxpayer dollars.
Re: (Score:3)
Money isn't evil, as some people would think. Money is just a representation of how much society wants something - the more people want it, the more they're willing to pay for it. So being able to make a lot of money from something just means society really wants it.
Consequently, tying research and business sales together makes sense. That insures your research is steered into direction
Re:Repeal Bayh-Dole? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your post is mostly spot-on. Just a couple things:
Indeed. And the very reason for Bayh-Dole? People complained that freely available university research wasn't being commercialized. No company wanted to invest in technology that its competitors could use freely. Whether that's accurate or not, that's how the bill was sold to Congress.
That's the story universities sell. The statistics say that very few do meaningful technology transfer that makes any money. Something like a half dozen universities account for all the licensing revenue. UC, Stanford, U Florida, maybe Michigan, and a few others. U Florida is only on the list because of Gatorade. Other schools do tech transfer at a net loss. Though they keep selling it as a revenue generator.
It turns out technology transfer is hard. Most universities don't do it very well, even when you take revenue out of the equation. By far the most common way successful technology transfer happens is when the student / faculty researcher actually goes to work for the company commercializing the research. Otherwise, tech transfer almost never happens well, apart from a few world-changing inventions like CRISPR.
Re: (Score:2)
Something like a half dozen universities account for all the licensing revenue. UC, Stanford, U Florida, maybe Michigan, and a few others. U Florida is only on the list because of Gatorade.
In which case, U Florida should be taken off the list. The patent [google.com] for Gatorade expired in 2008.
Re: (Score:2)
You can be tired of it all you want but the universities won't care.
Isn't it funny then how difficult it is to enforce a law when the whole country thinks it's unfair?
There's always that moral quandary about whether and how closely to follow rigorous patent and copyright law. In this case, we can all see which way the practitioners will lean. And don't forget, without enforcement the protection evaporates after a while.
Re: (Score:2)
Putting it into market (Score:4, Insightful)
Came here to say exactly this. I’m tired of university and/or faculty patenting research which was done on the public’s dime. STEM faculty don’t exactly need the extra funds to get by.
I agree in general with you, but there's some nuance that need to be pointed out:
Universities rarely do manufacture finished read-to-use products.
The university need to convince the industry to actually manufacture the product and put it into the shelves. One of the way to convince an industrial partner is to file a patent on the tech, so the industrial partner is guaranteed some exclusivity and thus some profits (thus recouping on the investment in tooling and industrial process design that need to be done, all this on a yet unproven product in the market).
Now, in the specific case of TFA's "filament" LEDs, I fail to see what's the patentable innovation.
Basically, it's more a question of design: "Hey, instead of putting a large LED chip in the middle, let's arrange the LED on a wireframe that looks a bit like the classical filament lightbulbs of yore".
i.e.: just a marketing ploy to come up with a fresher design to placate the "vintage hipster crowd", which is a smart move in order to achieve selling more units, when most people have already switched to LEDs and thus only need to replace bulbs every 10-15 years or so.
At best, it's something worthy of a design patent or a trademark. But definitely not something that a University would researching.
(Though for their defense, the "filament" LEDs have the added benefit that they distribute light in a way that is close to the shape of distribution of light from an incandescent light bulb (obviously, given that their light source is put in the same shape as the incandescent filament). And thus they might look better on light fixtures that were designed for incandescent light bulbs. e.g.: previous generation of LEDs light bulb only shine light forward, not backward, and thus might not illuminate the ceiling as intended).
Re:Putting it into market (Score:4, Insightful)
i.e.: just a marketing ploy to come up with a fresher design to placate the "vintage hipster crowd", which is a smart move in order to achieve selling more units, when most people have already switched to LEDs and thus only need to replace bulbs every 10-15 years or so.
Or you have decorative lamps that came with your 50 year old house and need some candelabra bulbs that aren't hideous. California basically made it very hard to sell incandescent bulbs to ordinary people, plus the long life of LED is nice.
P.S. those LED filament bulbs don't last very long in a ceiling fan. They're not very sturdy when it comes to vibration.
Re: (Score:2)
P.S. those LED filament bulbs don't last very long in a ceiling fan. They're not very sturdy when it comes to vibration.
That's good to know, I wasn't aware.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Putting it into market (Score:5, Informative)
Simply arranging the LEDs along a wireframe won't work.
Bright white LED bulbs don't use white LEDs in most cases. In fact there are no such thing as white LEDs really. To produce white light they use a blue LED and a white phosphor. Typically the LEDs are inside the bulb and the housing, the bit that used to be made from glass, is coated with the phosphor
To make filament style LED bulbs they had to invent a way to make flexible strings of LEDs and phosphors that don't overheat. The Chinese ones I've seen use some kind of flexible substrate that appears to have the LEDs inside and be coated with the white phosphor. It's a novel bit of engineering.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Give back the grants (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
On first sight this looks logic.
But selling licenses makes money available for new discoveries.
And should results from money invested by one country really be available to a company that refuses to do it's own research or is manufacturing and paying taxes in a different country?
Licenses regulate who can benefit.
Re:Give back the grants (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, patent authors in universities are prevented from filing patents on work that might be wanted by industry. I encountered just this where some very clever hardware designs from my undergrad days were blocked from being patented by my supervisor's refusal to permit me to patent it. The patents would certainly have belonged to the university, I designed them as part of my work. But my supervisor refused to evern permit me to apply, even if I paid the fees and attorney fees out of my own pocket. I didn't realize until much later in my career that it was to to avoid any conflict with commercial use by any of our funding sources.
I wanted _credit_ for the work and for the designs to be recognized as useful.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious to know what do you think would have happened if you did apply for the patent anyway? Could you have done it without your supervisor's knowledge and would the patent have been awarded to you instead of the university? I don't have any familiarity with this area but was always curious about the social contract of research and patent awards in the university setting.
Re: (Score:2)
But selling licenses makes money available for new discoveries.
So, hike the licensing fees and stop taking public money. They want to have their cake and eat it too, which indicates that the regime is unethical.
Re: (Score:2)
Or at least pay the grant money back out of the profits so it can be allocated again.
You're going to destroy the incentive to innovate! (Score:2)
But if people who spend our tax money to think about things at universities don't have exclusive rights to what they come up with, what incentive do they have to think about things at universities in exchange for our tax money?! I didn't pay taxes just to have everyone reap the benefits! Some select group should come out ahead.
Re:Give back the grants (Score:5, Insightful)
Playing devil's advocate here. Wouldn't it actually make more sense that if the university is getting government money there is even more reason that they should sue for patent infringement?
Hear me out before jumping down my throat that this is a crazy statement.
If government money is going into creating these innovations then shouldn't the patent be held by the university so that they can sell the right to use said technology? By selling the rights to use the tech in products the university gets to recoup some of the cost of developing the tech and since they are getting income from that tech there is less need for the government to spend more money on the next research project (the university can use their income from the patents). This would actually end up saving the government in the long run.
Now I know that a counter argument is that the university won't use the income from patent licenses to fund more research but will funnel the money elsewheres. The counter argument to this is that the companies that are using this tech currently without paying royalties aren't going to pass that savings on to the customer either and will just spend it in higher executive pay so which would you rather have? The possibility of the royalties funding more research or the almost certainty that that money will go into the pocket of some one that is already making a boatload of money?
Ok, let the flaming begin. 8^)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The quality of the light coming from these mock filament bulbs is loaded with glare, absolutely shit. Hopefully people will use other designs that are better, cheaper, and easier on the eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Edison Lighthouse (Score:3)
Abolish Patents (Score:2, Insightful)
Patents: Obsolete old paperwork that brakes innovation in some countries.
Patents should be abolished.
Re:Abolish Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Abolish Patents (Score:5, Interesting)
Patents: Obsolete old paperwork that brakes innovation in some countries.
Patents should be abolished.
Wrong.
My dad owned a specialty box company that made containers for the auto industry (think how many one of a kind type containers are needed for all their parts). Patents protected his small business from large companies taking his designs and lowballing the contracts to the auto-makers and putting him out of business. Many small business owners are protected in that manner.
Patent trolls need to be squished, but patents encourage innovation.
Re:Abolish Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
One anecdote is supposed to convince us that "patents encourage innovation."
How many small businesses have been destroyed by patents?
You say you want to squish patent trolls, but there are legitimate disputes over patents that get way too expensive for small companies. What about those?
Besides, it sounds like your dad's company used design patents, not utility patents. When people discuss patents, they 99% of the time discuss utility patents, not design patents.
Utility and design patents share basically nothing except for having patent in their name. It is entirely feasible to get rid of utility patents and keep design patents.
Re: (Score:3)
That "one anecdote" is representative of a vast number of people who innovate and are small business owners. Yes, anecdotes aren't data. So how's this from the small business council...
In addition, a 2008 study by Anthony Breitzman and Diana Hicks for the Office of Advocacy (“An Analysis of Small Business Patents by Industry and Firm Size”) found that “small firms are much more likely to develop emerging technologies than are large firms. This is perhaps intuitively reasonable given theo
Re: (Score:3)
One anecdote is supposed to convince us that "patents encourage innovation."
No. The principle and logic behind it is supposed to convince you.
How many small businesses have been destroyed by patents?
None. Small businesses have been destroyed by predatory practices involving broken patent law, but no patents themselves. If anything inaction in patenting work is what destroys small businesses. The ability to buy and sell patents is what destroys small businesses. But patents themselves have helped small businesses all over fight a good fight against larger aggressors, a fight they are ultimately only losing to Chinese sellers who just don'
Re: (Score:2)
I call bullshit.
AS long as you keep innovating, you'll be 2-4 years in front of the concept copiers, patent or not patent.
The fake copies will not be stopped by any patent anyway, so that does not change.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Bayh Dole Act (Score:3)
The University of California can return all its grant money, and subsidies, and stipends, and funding provided by the Federal government.
Please research the Bayh Dole Act [wikipedia.org] and you'll find that one of the things explicitly granted by the US federal government is ownership of inventions (including patents) made with federal research funds and grants.
Plus, the idea of an LED bulb mounted in an Edison base is pretty freaking obvious. No innovation there.
I'm pretty sure the issues being litigated are more complicated than that. Hard to find a clear description of what they claim is actually being infringed but it's pretty clear that it isn't just an LED bulb in the Edison base. This is about LED bulbs that were engineered to visually look similar
Re: (Score:2)
If the manufacturers are US companies, then maybe they should benefit from US government-funded research.
On the other hand, if the manufacturers are foreign companies (or if the actual production is contracted out to foreign firms), then they can pay all fair and reasonable patent costs.
How many of these bulbs are made in China?
Re: (Score:2)
If I ever got a mod point I'd have given another insightful. Or should I just chant "Mod up insight!"?
However, I think the problem is deeper than that. The POINT of a university is NOT profit. It's supposed to be about creating and sharing knowledge. The quest for profitable universities is going to destroy education in America. Maybe we'll even sink to the level of electing a narcissistic moron as president?
Re: (Score:2)
Only in US will the price increase.
rest of the world does not care.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
California gets back more in federal funding than they put in. The notion that they don't is a neat bit of accountant trickery.
Not so obvious (Score:5, Informative)
"Typical LEDs use opaque glass that hide the structure inside the bulb. Researchers at UC Santa Barbara’s Solid State Lighting and Energy Electronics Center said they developed technology that would allow for an exposed filament that disperses light in all directions.". It has nothing to do with an "edison base". its an exposed filament led bulb. The companies selling the bulbs are foreign companies making money off technology derived from patents held by US universities.
Re:Not so obvious (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah yes, those exotic foreign companies such as Amazon, Walmart, Target Corp and Bed Bath & Beyond.
Aren't they all incorporated in Ireland (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
those are importers, sellers.
The ones responsible if the manufacturer is overseas.
Re:Not so obvious (Score:5, Informative)
Why don't you ask the University of California as they are the ones sueing Amazon, Target, Walmart. By the way, anyone making use of patented technology can be sued, even the end-users. In case you don't know how to use Google here are the first three links for "can users of patented technology be sued":
https://ocpatentlawyer.com/everyone-in-the-supply-chain-could-be-sued-for-patent-infringement/ [ocpatentlawyer.com]
https://www.upcounsel.com/patent-infringement [upcounsel.com]
https://www.eff.org/nl/deeplinks/2014/04/actually-mr-waxman-consumers-are-sued-patent-infringement-all-time [eff.org]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
please point to the section in patent law where patent enforcement passes on to the purchaser?
Sure. For the U.S., it's right here in 35 USC 271(a) [cornell.edu]:
"Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent."
The resellers don't strictly have an obligation to enforce this law, but they sure
Re: (Score:3)
because a reseller is not responsible for researching who holds what patents - that is the manufacturers' jobs to ensure they are compliant with patents.
Suing Walmart for this would be kinda like Sony suing you for having a garage sale and selling a Bluray player.
Re: (Score:2)
because a reseller is not responsible for researching who holds what patents - that is the manufacturers' jobs to ensure they are compliant with patents.
What gives you that belief?
Of course the reseller is responsible. Even the END USER is. On the upside, grandma's infringement is not likely to be found wilful, so she will only have to pay normal damages, not triple.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> The companies selling the bulbs are foreign companies making money off technology derived from research by US universities that has been patented in the US.
FTFY. Foreign companies are not subject to US patents.
Re: (Score:2)
No but companies who import and sell these foreign-made products very much are.
Most are (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone have a link to the actual patents?
The only ones I could find relating to LED filament bulbs were all filed by Chinese people. The earliest one, from 2014, is this: https://patents.google.com/pat... [google.com]
I'm really interested in exactly when they filed for these patents and what precisely they cover.
Re:Not so obvious (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, but these patents are completely obvious, and are based on existing technology from the same technology sector. Nothing here is novel or even "invented".
"light extracted from front and back sides" - Because flat diodes should only have one side, and fresnel lenses haven't been used for anything like this before. /s
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi... [uspto.gov]
"Textured phosphor conversion layer" - Like nobody thought of this before (e.g. fluorescent *and* conventional light bulbs)
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi... [uspto.gov]
Transparent mirrorless light emitting diode - Black obviously works much better for transmitting light than fresnel lenses, which they apparently invented twice
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi... [uspto.gov]
Peer To Patent: https://www.peertopatent.org/ [peertopatent.org]
Re: (Score:2)
We can know all that, and yet still find both the lawsuit and the patent absurd. Many people would like us to feel outraged about this non-event, and it's useful to talk about why that feeling would be misplaced.
If we want to be upset at something, it should be the patent system, which stifles innovation in a broad variety of ways. It needs a massive overhaul, or to be abolished. The third option (doing nothing, or effectively nothing) is so unacceptable that eliminating the patent system would literally be
Re: (Score:2)
actually the companies making the bulbs are foreign, the companies selling them are American eg Amazon.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The factories making these things are probably overseas in places where filing a patent lawsuit is much harder.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Not so obvious (Score:2)
Big-box stores like Home Depot and BB&B aren't just retailers... they're *also* their own importers & distributors. That's why the lawsuit is going after *them*, and not "Joe's hardware store & live bait". "Joe" buys his bulbs from a distributor, who'd rightfully be a target of this lawsuit. HD & BB+B *are* the distributors.
Re: (Score:2)
Making Retail Stores Police your Patents?? (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone is violating your patents/trademarks, you go after the manufacturer. If they are a foreign company who doesn't honour the judgement of a local court, their product gets seized at the border. This is a ridiculous attempt to make retail stores liable for a dispute between 2 3rd parties... imagine the chaos this would unleash! if patent trolls could squeeze settlements from Walmart/Amazon for everything they sell?
The validity of this particular patent and the University's right to enforce it is entirely besides the point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except in this case these are major retailers directly selling this patent violating items as their own branded product, they're the primary driving force behind the violation occurring and they're deliberately profiting off of a willful disregard for patent law. Just like how amazon willfully and deliberately profits off of the massive numbers of chinese scammers they've allowed to utterly flood their platform and warehouses.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In your scenario, you should sue the company importing the product into the EU. Patents restrict importation, not just manufacture. Legislators may be ignorant about many of the things they legislate, but they're not all complete idiots and they do sometimes spot loopholes preemptively.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. In his scenario, the product should not be allowed into the country. Customs should do their damn job and seize legitimate contraband at the border and ports of entry. Random 3rd parties should not be conscripted and expected to do the government's job.
Re: (Score:2)
Very non-random "third parties" are the ones importing these materials, which is why the article mentioned they also are targeted by complaints filed with the United States International Trade Commission.
That's a necessary step to getting an exclusion order, which will accomplish precisely what you demand.
Re: (Score:2)
You realise that when a box of lightbulbs arrives into the country, it does not have a label saying 'lightbulbs, may infringe patent #' on it. The commercial invoice will say 'LED lightbulb' with the harmonised tariff code associated with lightbulbs. Customs cannot open every shipment of lightbulbs, and inspect the design to check if it potentially infringes a patent. Customs does not even open every shipment of lightbulbs to determine whether the contents is what is listed on the commercial invoice. What c
Re: (Score:2)
The retail stores are the ones selling these products in the U.S. to U.S. consumers. " whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports in [cornell.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
The bulbs in question are likely the store brand ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Absent a public link to the actual complaints, it is plausible that the "retailers" are named in their role as the importer of record which would make them responsible for complying with customs restrictions. Under your scenario of "foreign company who doesn't honour the judgement of a local court" combined with the retailer and the importer being the same legal entity these companies would really be the correct defendant.
Re: (Score:2)
WalMart, Amazon and Ikea all produce their own products to lower overall costs. Sure they rebrand some generic Chinese thing but the manufacturing is all done at the request and under auspices of those companies. Hence they ARE manufacturers by their own design, I would agree they should probably use some shell company to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. This is just a classic case of going after "he who has the deepest pockets." As much as I nominally love UC; they deserve to lose and get slapped down hard on this one. I'd even be of the opinion that this sort of east-texas-like blatant abuse should result in their patent being invalidated and made public domain.
But, considering how throughly broken our patent system is, they'll probably win. Or their victims will just offer up a settlement to make them go away. *sigh*
Re: (Score:2)
they keep using that word - (Score:2)
"to spearhead a broader, national response to the existential threat"
I guess thinking that someone has infringed your lightbulb patent makes you question the nature of reality and your place in it. It's a university - they must have a copy of Sartre's "Nausea" in the library.
from the source (Score:3, Informative)
https://filamentpatent.ucsb.edu/ [ucsb.edu].
Unfortunately, they are not brave enough to actually list the patents they feel violated. Probably limited to the US only, and accepted nowhere else? Anyone got a link?
The original patents were issued in Japan in 2008 (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a Japanese patent, not a US one. It isn't applicable in the US.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a Japanese patent, not a US one. It isn't applicable in the US.
It's not enforceable in the US. It's certainly an example of prior art. Prior art doesn't even need to be patented.
Not on the list (Score:2)
EOLAS all over again, but with lightbulbs (Score:4, Insightful)
The University of California, a public school system, is very patent defensive,
Remember Eolas (2003)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I actually know one of the litigators that represented Microsoft in the court room.
There should be no Federal funding for school systems that don't share publicly share IP developed on the public's dime. Remove the dime.
Design vs. invention (Score:2)
This articles heading is incorrect. (Score:2)
Edison bulbs refers to the screw mount style, not the filament style.
The university is suing over the filament not the screw mount/connector.
Re: (Score:2)
Suing the retailers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IP does not exist (Score:2)
Copyright is NOT the same as a Patent or a Trademark and to lump them all together into 1 term is dangerous over simplification that creates confusion in the masses which in democratic societies allows for easier circumvention of their freedom.
IP, Intellectual Property is a propaganda term!
Good (Score:2)
Every fucking bar redesigned in the last 5 years is filled with these fucking things. They produce nearly no light so they hang them so they are in your face and unshrouded so you are looking right at the stupid filament. Hopefully this encourages people to actually have unique designs.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't invent the LED or the LED light bulb, nor are they claiming they did.
They are instead claiming they invented an LED light bulb that looks like an old incandescent bulb (something that presumably no-one else had done at the time otherwise they wouldn't have been granted a patent on it)
Re: (Score:2)
They are instead claiming they invented an LED light bulb that looks like an old incandescent bulb
Better re-read my comment. I facetiously used the word "obvious" for a reason. A legal reason in the patent world which describes exactly why the very thing you claim is not a valid patent.
Re: (Score:3)
> Patent and Trademark Office office employees are lawyers who lacked the skill to get their own practices
Yes, that Albert Einstein had no actual knowledge whatsoever and was nothing but an office drone.
Many patent office staff are getting their first professional experience. Others have families to support. The patent office has many corrupt or lazy individuals, but it's not all of them. I've met several who went on to other work later in their careers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, Shuji Nakamura did invent the blue LED. It is used in almost all "white" LEDs together with a phosphor which turns some of that blue light to yellow: yielding white light. That is what he got his Nobel Prize for. (I visited his Nobel Lecture where he spoke about it)
However, that is still irrelevant and off-topic. Because the issue here is the filament-style shape of the LED.
Re: (Score:2)
We can't really start to understand this until the actual patent numbers are provided. This thread will be populated with opinions and topics that stray far away from whether the cases have merit under the legal rights UC has with its patents.
UC gets public funding. It's a noun verb and the ENVIRONMENT with them yet they pull shit like this which only increases the cost of energy efficient lighting to people and applications where LED would otherwise not even be considered.
More importantly there is nothing legitimate about any of the patents. These patents which should have never been issued in the first place are being used as vehicles for extortion of money from businesses.
7781789 - mirrorless led
This "invention" describes a led you can see
Re: (Score:2)
There is no functioning legal system in Soviet China. US companies have no chance of winning in the corrupt dictator-controlled courts.