# Surefire sues Pentagonlight



## TaterBo (Apr 29, 2008)

Yesterday, Surefire launched a press release stating that they were suing Pentagonlight for patent infringement and false advertising. The press release is available on Surefire's Web site:

http://www.surefire.com/maxexp/main.pl?pgm=max_presscenter&func=presscenter&strfnbr=6


----------



## jcsabolt2 (Apr 29, 2008)

Maybe that is why I can't find any of their R-series lights that were suppose to ship this year. Been looking everywhere. They are only in their catalog, not even on their web site.


----------



## 276 (Apr 29, 2008)

why exactly are they being sued i was trying to read if off surefire but don't understand. I mean i saw that it had to do with something about tailcaps..


----------



## e2x2e (Apr 29, 2008)

Interesting...I'd also like more info.


----------



## xcel730 (Apr 29, 2008)

Wow, Pentagonlight is not made in USA? 

I'm a bit confused, isn't the lockout tail cap concept used by many flashlights companies? :thinking: What makes SF's lockout tailcap different? Please don't misinterpret my post as instigating any debates or arguments, I am really curious to know the answer.


----------



## Burgess (Apr 29, 2008)

_


----------



## ElGreco (Apr 29, 2008)

Pentagonlight is based in South San Francisco, California (SF Bay area resident here) 

Im thinking SF is using similar logic to their lawsuit with Brinkmann over the focusable Legend LX.


----------



## Brownstone (Apr 29, 2008)

If I'm reading the patent correctly, it looks like SureFire filed in 2000 for a patent on the lock-out tailcap, and it was granted on March 4th of this year.


----------



## matt0 (Apr 29, 2008)

What exactly is

"U.S. Patent No. RE 40,125" 
 
I read the PDF and searched for that patent number but all I found in Google is articles relating to the SF lawsuit...


----------



## Brownstone (Apr 29, 2008)

matt0 said:


> What exactly is
> 
> "U.S. Patent No. RE 40,125"
> 
> I read the PDF and searched for that patent number but all I found in Google is articles relating to the SF lawsuit...



A patent number beginning with "RE" is a reissue patent. In certain cases an already granted patent can be amended to clarify the claims made.

I've only taken a cursory look at the patents, but it looks like this new patent (RE40,125) is a reissue of patent 6,222,138. I'm not sure what the "clarifications" are.


----------



## tvodrd (Apr 29, 2008)

Surefire claims a patent for flashlight accidental activation avoidance (lockout) by loosening the tailcap and preventing electrical commutation. Patents are frequently referred to by the last few digits of their number, and that's why a google of RE 40,125 from the PDF doesn't lead to the actual patent.

I'm sure somebody will hunt it down. As to the not being made in the USA, I'm not goin' there. 

Larry


----------



## xcel730 (Apr 29, 2008)

What I'm confused about is that there are other flashlight companies that promotes the same lockout feature? To avoid any potential bickering on this thread, I'm going to use Pelican M6 as an example. From Pelican's main website, a part of the description relating to the M6 reads:

_Plus, the convenient push button tail cap switch has a safety lockout feature to prevent inadvertent battery depletion or accidental activation_​ 
Inova promotes the lockout feature as well. What I'm trying to get at is ... why is SF only suing Pentagon?​


----------



## Brownstone (Apr 29, 2008)

tvodrd said:


> Patents are frequently referred to by the last few digits of their number, and that's why a google of RE 40,125 from the PDF doesn't lead to the actual patent.
> Larry



Not in this case. "RE40,125" is the actual patent number.

Start here and search on that number: http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm


----------



## Brownstone (Apr 29, 2008)

xcel730 said:


> Inova promotes the lockout feature as well. What I'm trying to get at is ... why is SF only suing Pentagon?



The patent was only issued last month. The suing has to start somewhere.

Sometimes you sue the weakest first, to build momentum towards the strongest.
Sometimes you sue the strongest first, to scare the weakest into surrender.


----------



## Art Vandelay (Apr 29, 2008)

ElGreco said:


> Pentagonlight is based in South San Francisco, California (SF Bay area resident here)
> 
> Im thinking SF is using similar logic to their lawsuit with Brinkmann over the focusable Legend LX.



Wasn't it M*glite who sued Brinkman?


----------



## ElGreco (Apr 29, 2008)

I don't claim to actually know, you guys would know better than me. Could have swore it was surefire though.


----------



## Crenshaw (Apr 29, 2008)

this is interesting...

Crenshaw


----------



## flashfan (Apr 29, 2008)

Yes, it is SureFire doing the suing. The patent on the tailcap design is one thing, but "false advertising" for the "Made in USA" claims? Gee, I hope SureFire doesn't start mimicking Gaglite and suing "everybody" out there... And hmm, I wonder why the suit was filed in Texas? Is that something common to patent law?


----------



## Supernam (Apr 29, 2008)

xcel730 said:


> What I'm confused about is that there are other flashlight companies that promotes the same lockout feature? To avoid any potential bickering on this thread, I'm going to use Pelican M6 as an example. From Pelican's main website, a part of the description relating to the M6 reads:
> 
> _Plus, the convenient push button tail cap switch has a safety lockout feature to prevent inadvertent battery depletion or accidental activation_​
> Inova promotes the lockout feature as well. What I'm trying to get at is ... why is SF only suing Pentagon?​



Nearly all of my lights don't turn on when you loosen their tailcaps. What about Novatac?


----------



## Mandril (Apr 29, 2008)

It seems like surefire is turning into the microsoft of the flashlights.


----------



## mikekoz (Apr 29, 2008)

Interesting....I wonder if Surefire has ever sued the Chinese companies that clone their designs. If I was them, I would be more concerned about that! 

Mike


----------



## xcel730 (Apr 29, 2008)

I gave the two examples because I vividly remember them promoting the lockout tailcap. I can't remember whether other companies used that term, so I rather not use them as examples.

The first time I heard about the lockout tailcap feature was from Inova T2 (old old model), and I was like, "what's so special about this?"  It's just simple contact disconnection.

Is Pentagon based in the US and import their flashlights from other country?



Supernam said:


> Nearly all of my lights don't turn on when you loosen their tailcaps. What about Novatac?


----------



## xcel730 (Apr 29, 2008)

Hopefully SF flashlights won't start crashing every time I turn it on. :laughing:



Mandril said:


> It seems like surefire is turning into the microsoft of the flashlights.


 


I think it'll actually be difficult to do so. The Chinese companies aren't manufacturing the lights domestically, so the US patent laws don't apply to them (correct me if I'm wrong). Also, there are too many of them ... they could change the name, ownership, etc. SF will be chasing them down forever.



mikekoz said:


> Interesting....I wonder if Surefire has ever sued the Chinese companies that clone their designs. If I was them, I would be more concerned about that!
> 
> Mike


----------



## geobio (Apr 29, 2008)

All this commotion is actually very interesting. Quite the cliffhangar.

And why does everyone refrain from actually saying maglite?


----------



## Brownstone (Apr 29, 2008)

flashfan said:


> I wonder why the suit was filed in Texas? Is that something common to patent law?



Yes, the Eastern District of Texas is seen as being a district where rulings tend to lean towards patent holders. As long as you can pick and choose your jurisdiction you may as well pick the jurisdiction with the best chance of winning.



mikekoz said:


> Interesting....I wonder if Surefire has ever sued the Chinese companies that clone their designs.



The Chinese companies, manufacturing in China, are not the ones liable for violating a US patent. The liable party would either be the end user or the importer. In the case where the end user orders the light directly from China, the end user *is* the importer.


----------



## xcel730 (Apr 29, 2008)

Wow, Brownstone, you seem pretty knowledgeable in this area. :thumbsup:

So, you're saying that a store like Cabela could potentially sued for carrying a 6P clone? If we ordered 6P clones from DX, we could be sued too :huh: (kinda hard for nail down individuals though)



Brownstone said:


> Yes, the Eastern District of Texas is seen as being a district where rulings tend to lean towards patent holders. As long as you can pick and choose your jurisdiction you may as well pick the jurisdiction with the best chance of winning.
> 
> The Chinese companies, manufacturing in China, are not the ones liable for violating a US patent. The liable party would either be the end user or the importer. In the case where the end user orders the light directly from China, the end user *is* the importer.


----------



## dano (Apr 29, 2008)

Interesting observation:

Both Pentagonlight and Pelican (specifically the M series of lights) use an identical set-up in their "lock out" design. Both use a plunger-spring setup that deactivates when the tail cap is turned. 

SF's lock out design doesn't use a spring or plunger (minus the spring that contacts the battery).

I don't see any similarity in the designs.

As for the "Made in USA" arguement, last time I looked, Pentagonlight has its facility in So. S.F. (or was in Burlingame...I forget).

Hell, most of SF's parts (lamps, chargers, etc) are made in Mexico or China, so I'm not sure if there's any merit in this, either.

-dan


----------



## Brownstone (Apr 30, 2008)

xcel730 said:


> Wow, Brownstone, you seem pretty knowledgeable in this area. :thumbsup:



Ok, let me give a *big disclaimer*. I'm not an attorney, I'm an engineer. I happen to have spent *a lot* of time talking with corporate IP attorneys as part of my job.

Let me give *another disclaimer*: I haven't read SureFire's patents enough to know exactly what their invention claims are, and I have no opinion on the validity of those claims.

So, generally speaking: A patent gives the patent holder the exclusive right to *make, use, import, sell* or *offer to sell* their invention. A U.S. patent naturally only has authority in the U.S..



xcel730 said:


> So, you're saying that a store like Cabela could potentially sued for carrying a 6P clone? If we ordered 6P clones from DX, we could be sued too (kinda hard for nail down individuals though)



Technically, Cabela's and the end user could be sued. Depending on what roles Cabela's took in bringing the product to market, they could have violated the rights to *import, sell, and offer to sell.* Obviously the end user violated the right to *use*. Realistically, end users are almost never sued unless they are corporations with deep pockets.

While I am writing, I'll also touch base on the "Made in USA" claim. A good link to read on this is here. Basically, you can not claim "Made in USA" unless "all or virtually all" of your product is made in the US.

_"All or virtually all" means that all significant parts and processing that go into the product must be of U.S. origin. That is, *the product should contain no — or negligible — foreign content*._​One could read this strictly to mean that a LED flashlight assembled in the US could not be called "Made in USA" unless the LED emitter itself had been manufactured in the US.


----------



## Crenshaw (Apr 30, 2008)

Supernam said:


> Nearly all of my lights don't turn on when you loosen their tailcaps. What about Novatac?


exactly what i was thinking...:thinking:

i doubt surefire is going to bother with the clone wars, the chinese companies that make good lights dont copy surefire...

the ones that do copy surefire, well, i would much rather buy a non-clone light from another chinese company rather then get a "copy" of a surefire

Crenshaw


----------



## xcel730 (Apr 30, 2008)

This is equivalent to luxury watches. A watch cannot have "Swiss Made" stamped on it unless all or most of the components are swiss made. Some watch companies stamp "Made in Switzerland", "Made in Swiss", "Switzerland" or similar to try to deceive the consumers.



Brownstone said:


> While I am writing, I'll also touch base on the "Made in USA" claim. A good link to read on this is here. Basically, you can not claim "Made in USA" unless "all or virtually all" of your product is made in the US.
> _"All or virtually all" means that all significant parts and processing that go into the product must be of U.S. origin. That is, *the product should contain no — or negligible — foreign content*._​One could read this strictly to mean that a LED flashlight assembled in the US could not be called "Made in USA" unless the LED emitter itself had been manufactured in the US.


----------



## KeyGrip (Apr 30, 2008)

flashfan said:


> Gee, I hope SureFire doesn't start mimicking Gaglite and suing "everybody" out there...



Me too. This might not end well.


----------



## Federal LG (Apr 30, 2008)

KeyGrip said:


> Me too. This might not end well.



+1

I read "*Surefire LLC*...".

What is this "LLC" ?


----------



## Caligvla (Apr 30, 2008)

Brownstone said:


> If I'm reading the patent correctly, it looks like SureFire filed in 2000 for a patent on the lock-out tailcap, and it was granted on March 4th of this year.



I have a Toshiba light that uses a lock-out tailcap that functions just like a surefire lock-out tailcap


----------



## xcel730 (Apr 30, 2008)

LLC = Limited Liability Company



Federal LG said:


> +1
> 
> I read "*Surefire LLC*...".
> 
> What is this "LLC" ?


----------



## Robocop (Apr 30, 2008)

Honestly I have no Pentagon products and really never thought the brand to be a major player in the sales to law enforcement. To me this new development kind of leads me to believe that Pentagon light was becoming a threat to SF. It seems that SF must have reason to believe that Pentagon may be a future threat to their profits.

I think the false advertisement thing was thrown in for good measure to make it seem as if this action was a result of SF caring for the welfare of its customers. Basically this has nothing to do with SF suddenly wishing to protect me from sub-par lights that use false claims and has everything to do with money.

I like SF and have many products from them and I know many other co-workers who also use SF with great results. I agree with many here in saying the tailcap issue confuses me a little. Many lights use the same style cap or similiar lock out feature. As much as I like SF it sure does seem there are many more things they could spend their profits on than this suit.


----------



## HKJ (Apr 30, 2008)

Robocop said:


> I agree with many here in saying the tailcap issue confuses me a little. Many lights use the same style cap or similiar lock out feature.



Maybe it is the "push for momentary", "turn for lock on/lockout" tailcap that is is about?


----------



## TigerhawkT3 (Apr 30, 2008)

You can also lock out a Maglite (but not Minimags). You can even do momentary-on. Of course, it's a lot less comfortable to do this with a large Mag than with a SF.

A "lock out" tailcap seems like it could be unintentional sometimes. Can or should a common manufacturing characteristic be patented?


----------



## Citivolus (Apr 30, 2008)

dano said:


> Interesting observation:
> 
> Both Pentagonlight and Pelican (specifically the M series of lights) use an identical set-up in their "lock out" design. Both use a plunger-spring setup that deactivates when the tail cap is turned.
> 
> ...



Dano, you have nailed what the suit is about. If you look at the patent images, they depict a plunger and a spring, which is what Surefire's patent infringement claim is about. As far as I could see, the patent does not cover the half anodised design where the threads are anodised but the tube body makes contact with another metal surface, allowing lockout by backing out by a partial turn.

The advantage of a mechanical lockout that prevents the switch from functioning in the first place is that there is no wear involved on the electrical traces.

A company doesn't need to use its own patent design for the patent to be valid. This leads to "patent everything that R&D can think of, and sue anyone else who then comes up with the same idea".


----------



## dano (Apr 30, 2008)

Citivolus said:


> Dano, you have nailed what the suit is about. If you look at the patent images, they depict a plunger and a spring, which is what Surefire's patent infringement claim is about. As far as I could see, the patent does not cover the half anodised design where the threads are anodised but the tube body makes contact with another metal surface, allowing lockout by backing out by a partial turn.
> 
> The advantage of a mechanical lockout that prevents the switch from functioning in the first place is that there is no wear involved on the electrical traces.
> 
> A company doesn't need to use its own patent design for the patent to be valid. This leads to "patent everything that R&D can think of, and sue anyone else who then comes up with the same idea".



I haven't seen the patent images. Does that mean that SF will go after Pelican, next?

Who knows...

-dan


----------



## Monocrom (Apr 30, 2008)

Robocop said:


> Honestly I have no Pentagon products and really never thought the brand to be a major player in the sales to law enforcement. To me this new development kind of leads me to believe that Pentagon light was becoming a threat to SF. It seems that SF must have reason to believe that Pentagon may be a future threat to their profits.
> 
> I think the false advertisement thing was thrown in for good measure to make it seem as if this action was a result of SF caring for the welfare of its customers. Basically this has nothing to do with SF suddenly wishing to protect me from sub-par lights that use false claims and has everything to do with money.
> 
> I like SF and have many products from them and I know many other co-workers who also use SF with great results. I agree with many here in saying the tailcap issue confuses me a little. Many lights use the same style cap or similiar lock out feature. As much as I like SF it sure does seem there are many more things they could spend their profits on than this suit.


 
I have a black PentagonLights X3 model. Works well, but no aftermarket support and not as bright as a Surefire M3. Forget their hand-held models though. PL is known for top-quality weapon-lights at very reasonable prices. When it comes to that specific category of lights, PL is a strong competitor to SF. Perhaps SF got sick & tired of PL taking some of their business.... as small as it might be. LEOs know of Surefire, Streamlight, and Maglite. Less so with PentagonLights.

SF does a far worse disservice in false advertising than PL. PL states you can use their lights to momentarily blind an attacker. So does SF. But you don't see a model in a tan jacket and high-heels, clutching a PL light with a strike bezel, getting ready to fight off an armed attacker on the streets of Soho, in NYC. That was all Surefire, in their current catalog. But perhaps the false advertising claims has to do with the very real possibility that PL only _assembles _their lights in America, and that the parts are shipped over from (most likely) China. Then again, I doubt that every single part of a SF light is completely made in America. So where does the line get drawn? As far as the money issue goes, that's a given. I still recall how SF jacked up their prices on their high-end models back in 2003.... without actually improving the lights. (The 10x Dom. wasn't always $450).

I also have several Surefire lights and accessories. With the exception of my Tiablo A9S, it's hard for me to instantly name other lights in my collection that compare closely with my Surefires. Nothing compares with my much-loved SF M6. Still, I own other lights where if you unscrew the tailcap far enough; the light doesn't turn on if you hit the tailcap switch. Is Surefire really claiming that's their idea? They may have patented it, but it seems like the same scenario when Paris Hilton copyrighted the expression, "That's hot." (Seems a bit silly, doesn't it?)


----------



## Art Vandelay (Apr 30, 2008)

I doubt many of the U.S. car makers could still label most of their cars "made in the USA".


----------



## dougie (Apr 30, 2008)

I suspect that Surefire are not suing Pentagon just because it has infringed one of their patents. If this was the case they would have issued multiple claims against numerous other companies who are also using lockout tail caps.

I love USA products and support any company who defends American made interests. However, I suspect that when push comes to shove this lawsuit will either be retracted or defeated as Pentagon Lights are just one of many who claim that their products are USA made in their advertising?

I don't know anymore than any of you about the real reasons behind Surefire's moves but this lawsuit will cost them millions and they wouldn't be prepared to do this unless they were confident of either getting Pentagon Light being found guilty or (as I suspect) force Pentagon Lights to admit patent infringement and pay them damages. Either way on the assumption that neither company would want to spend a fortune fighting this case it seems one of the two companies is going to be seriously financially hurt with all the implications that means to the looser?

Doug


----------



## matrixshaman (Apr 30, 2008)

Robocop said:


> Honestly I have no Pentagon products and really never thought the brand to be a major player in the sales to law enforcement. To me this new development kind of leads me to believe that Pentagon light was becoming a threat to SF. It seems that SF must have reason to believe that Pentagon may be a future threat to their profits.
> 
> I think the false advertisement thing was thrown in for good measure to make it seem as if this action was a result of SF caring for the welfare of its customers. Basically this has nothing to do with SF suddenly wishing to protect me from sub-par lights that use false claims and has everything to do with money.
> 
> I like SF and have many products from them and I know many other co-workers who also use SF with great results. I agree with many here in saying the tailcap issue confuses me a little. Many lights use the same style cap or similiar lock out feature. As much as I like SF it sure does seem there are many more things they could spend their profits on than this suit.



+1
I really really hate to see this kind of thing. When a company gets very big and very successful like SF why do they go into FEAR mode over someone much smaller like Pentagonlight? I don't own any Pentagonlights and have never had any real interest in one. I own several Surefire's and like their lights but I hate it when this kind of stuff starts. Maybe Lumencraft should sue Surefire for false advertising that they had the first fully dimmable flashlight when Gatlight and some others had them first. The whole thing about suing over a LO tail cap just makes no sense to me. IMO this is just about going after another light maker that caters to law enforcement. I see this also as Surefire testing the waters and if all goes well then they start going after all the other Tactical light makers with any thing they can. If they just put their focus on better customer service and getting lights out with a bit better quality control (see their latest booboo in selling the 2 level E2DL which only has one level) they would NOT have any real competition for those who want a U.S. made (more or less) light with good quality and warranty. My opinions only - but I think SF is going in the wrong direction on this.


----------



## Hogokansatsukan (Apr 30, 2008)

“a company gets very big and very successful like SF why do they go into FEAR mode over someone much smaller like Pentagonlight?”

Large companies go into FEAR mode because as they get big, like SF, they become less innovative. Small companies are much more innovative because they have to be in order to compete.

 “Lumencraft should sue Surefire for false advertising that they had the first fully dimmable flashlight when Gatlight and some others had them first.”

Maybe Novatac should sue SF over the Combat Rings. SF copied NT with the technique but did improve the rings over NTs o-ring.

I say, we get all the presidents of the flashlight companies in one room and let them fight it out to the death,:touche: but then they would all bring tactical lights with them and everyone would be “disorientated, stopped, confused” from all the lumens in the room and nary a punch would be thrown.:candle:

Wait, maybe just for writing this I might get sued.


----------



## Art Vandelay (Apr 30, 2008)

I don't know enough about it to say who is right. Companies can get huge fines for falsely labeling their products "made in the USA". If Pentagonlight is doing that, at minimum they deserve a big fine. I bet that won't go over too well with a Texas jury either. If this claim is proven false, it's a low blow that would hurt Surefire's credibility.


----------



## Brownstone (Apr 30, 2008)

Art Vandelay said:


> I don't know enough about it to say who is right. Companies can get huge fines for falsely labeling their products "made in the USA". If Pentagonlight is doing that, at minimum they deserve a big fine.



Looking over Pentagonslight's website and catalog, I can't find anywhere that they actually do claim "Made in USA". Has anybody seen this claim somewhere?


----------



## 270winchester (Apr 30, 2008)

some people seem to think so

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/1751484&postcount=3



Brownstone said:


> Looking over Pentagonslight's website and catalog, I can't find anywhere that they actually do claim "Made in USA". Has anybody seen this claim somewhere?


----------



## Mark620 (Apr 30, 2008)

"Any party that manufactures, uses, sells, or offers for sale patented technology, during the term of the patent and within the country that issued the patent, is considered to infringe the patent."

Patents have to do with profits...

Using a panted device as long as it is *not for Profit* is not patent infringement.


----------



## McGizmo (Apr 30, 2008)

With all of the patents Sure Fire is amassing, I have wondered if they would at some point go on the offensive and claim infringement.

Ultimately I suppose the question will be answered by the courts in regards to a suit having merit.

Of one thing I am certain, SF does have an engineering department and real expenses in R&D and design. Beyond enjoying the fruits of their own labor resulting from in house innovation, what else is SF entitled to? The US patent office has granted IP to some of SF's ideas. 

I guess it all boils down to opinion; whether expert, informed or not. Regarding the flashlight industry, IMHO, MagLite has abused the patent system and used legal leverage to impede the efforts and success of competitors if not put them completely out of business. It would seem that SF is in a good position to abuse the system as well. Whether they do or not remains to be seen and will ultimately be subject to opinion more than obvious and clear cut fact, I would guess. I may question the validity of some IP granted by the US patent office but I can't question the fact of it being granted.

If one agrees that IP can be owned and if one agrees that there is call for the issuance of patents then doesn't one also agree that an owner of a patent has the right to claim infringement and the right to seek damages which may result? :shrug:

There are vested interests at play as well as ways and means of capturing market share. Our society looks to the law ultimately even if it is at the expense of what many might consider "right". SureFire has elected to take an issue they have identified to the courts. Was it right for them to do so and ultimately, does it even matter?

I don't know what the background of Pentagonlight is but I did visit their booth the first year they were at SHOT. It was obvious to me that they had all kinds of pretty pictures and non working mockups of some concepts on display. I got the impression that they were a new company testing the waters of a perceived "new" market for them. The very same year at SHOT, SF had a booth with a vast diversity of functional and ready for sale lights and accessories and I know from visiting PK's office that SF brings a small percentage of their ideas and concepts to production. SF displayed a tip of a real iceberg whereas Pentagon lights had artistic renditions of an iceberg and the reality was an ice cube. It didn't take any real insight to figure where the inspiration for Pentagon's displays and mock ups came from either and it was not from "within". Is there anything wrong with what Pentagon Lights was doing? :shrug: I don't know. I did see some mock ups which had a tab integrated on the tail cap for swivel belt clip mounting. I actually had a light clipped to my belt in the same fashion and I heard a Pentagonlight person in the booth explain to a browser that I had invented the idea after my light had been pointed out to him by a fellow CPFer. Had I gone to the effort of patenting this tab idea and been successful in getting such a patent and if Pentagonlight had continued to utilize this idea in their lights, would I have a right or be justified in taking them to court on the matter? There are a lot of ifs there and the point is moot anyway but Pentagon light certainly exhibited the willingness to take someone else's idea and use it as their own.

Sure Fire has been engaged in building lights for law enforcement for how many years here in the US? If nothing else, I could certainly understand if they viewed the Pentagonlight booth that first year at SHOT as an insult to their intelligence as well as an affront to their sensibilities. I would guess for many, Pentagon is synonymous with US defense. I think it takes some real brass ones and real presumption to name yourself and identify yourself as Pentagonlights and I would expect that this might put you dead in the sights of some who question such a move and what a good symbolic target you might make?!?!

If SureFire is tired of the clones (which is a misnomer of significant impact, IMHO) and has decided to exercise their "legal right" as established by the US Patent Office, it comes as no surprise to me that Pentagonlight is the first target.

Is this a good move for SF? Do they have a right to make this move? Will this have impact on the industry here in the US and beyond? 

I think most of the answers will be opinion and my opinion is that it is a shame that it has come to this and I fear the potential for harm and abuse is real and present.


----------



## McGizmo (Apr 30, 2008)

Hogokansatsukan said:


> .........
> 
> Large companies go into FEAR mode because as they get big, like SF, they become less innovative. Small companies are much more innovative because they have to be in order to compete.
> ..............
> ...



Should I infer from this that Pentagonlight innovates and SF does not?

Could you elaborate on what the Novatac Combat Rings are and give an idea of when they came to be, relative to the rubber rings SF has been offering on the M3 now for how many years? I think I must have the wrong thing in mind here?!?


----------



## Brownstone (Apr 30, 2008)

Mark620 said:


> Using a panted device as long as it is *not for Profit* is not patent infringement.



I have extreme doubts that this statement is true. I have never heard of a non-profit exception to the exclusive rights granted by a patent, and such a thing would be in contradiction with my basic understanding of what a patent grants.

Of course, if you have a source that verifies your claim I will admit that I am wrong.


----------



## JNewell (Apr 30, 2008)

> “a company gets very big and very successful like SF why do they go into FEAR mode over someone much smaller like Pentagonlight?”
> 
> Large companies go into FEAR mode because as they get big, like SF, they become less innovative. Small companies are much more innovative because they have to be in order to compete.


 
My take on this is very different (this post is not directed at the member whose post I'm quoting, by the way). 

First, Surefire still qualifies as a very small company. They are very prominent in this market sector, but very small compared to the holding companies that own many of the companies that make/market flashlights.

A small company like Surefire can't compete by selling cheap stuff in huge volume.

A company like Surefire won't compete by moving production to China to slash labor costs.

Surefire lives by its wits - and it protects the fruit of its wits with patents, which have to be enforced. I hate litigation, but I cannot criticize Surefire here - certainly not until someone comes forward with some actual fact that changes the sum of what's been written and guessed at in this thread.


----------



## horizonseeker (Apr 30, 2008)

you don't need to win the suit, you just need to wear the other guy down to the point where he'll give up rather than continue....


----------



## kramer5150 (Apr 30, 2008)

Which Pentagon light in particular, is the focus?


----------



## rtt (Apr 30, 2008)

*rtt*

If someone is infringing on someone elses patent, the party that owns the patent must sue the offending party if the offending party does not agree to stop the infringment. The suit protects the patent!

Suing another party is not trivial. I have no evidence but the sueing party normally offers the offending party the following options before going to court. 
1. Immediately stop the patent infringment.
2. purchase a license to use the patent.


----------



## McGizmo (Apr 30, 2008)

rtt,
Good points.

I thinks something else that may deserve consideration is the fact that this suit came to our awareness due to it being cited on SF's web site. That they have made this public is certainly telling in itself. I see this as a message to others beyond Pentagonlight who likely are aware of the suit without having to go to Sure Fire's web site. :green:


----------



## KeyGrip (Apr 30, 2008)

While the circumstances surrounding SureFire and Pentagonlight aren't clear, this lawsuit isn't the one I'm worried about. It's the possability that SF will start thinking with their legal department instead of their R&D department, and the effect that will have on the quality of the product. I'm not saying this will happen, but it is what concerns me.


----------



## MSaxatilus (Apr 30, 2008)

Hey guys, there's an aweful lot of speculation going on here. Just be aware that without having all the facts, its difficult to either defend Surefire or Pentagon at this point.

Time will tell all.

MSax


----------



## kramer5150 (Apr 30, 2008)

I wonder how far they will go? They revolutionized tactical lights and set a kind of universal standard with the P60 drop in. Others have "cloned" that part of the design, released their own lights based on this module and further helped promote the design into a standardized platform.


----------



## JamisonM (Apr 30, 2008)

I paused before posting this, but I wonder why SureFire waited to protect its patent. If other lights have had this kind of tailcap for years now; why the sudden shift? Are they starting to feel the heat from the competition or is there something else going on?


----------



## Hogokansatsukan (Apr 30, 2008)

McGizmo said:


> Should I infer from this that Pentagonlight innovates and SF does not?
> 
> Could you elaborate on what the Novatac Combat Rings are and give an idea of when they came to be, relative to the rubber rings SF has been offering on the M3 now for how many years? I think I must have the wrong thing in mind here?!?


 
NT demonstrated a flashlight technique at the 2007 ShotShow and produced their tactical series lights around this technique. They had a simple o-ring on the back of the light about 1/4 inch from the end and called the gun/light technique the "Thorpe Technique". They shipped their tactical lights with an insert that demonstrated the technique. I'm a LEO firearms trainer and so am always interested in any new low light technique. A month or so ago, SF comes out with Combat Rings and demonstrates the technique on their web site, but called it the Graham Method. I don't call that innovation. The M3's grip ring was farther forward on the light and to be used with the Surefire/Rogers Technique (that was innovation) which is different. I have an M3, and M2 and teach those techniques as well. The most common technique used is probably still the Harries.
Anyway, if you look on both the SF and NT website, you can find both techniques, Graham and Thorpe, and see that they are identical.

As far as PL being innovative, I have no idea. I don't own their lights. I do know that my Fenix and Novatac will not work if the tail is unscrewed. I'll bet there are several lights that are the same. Should they all worry about being under the SF lawyer's eye?

SF has had a corner on the high end tactical light market for some time now. The biggest competitor would probably be Streamlight for the LE market. Now a lot of smaller companies have sprung up and it seems SF is worried about market shares.

Please don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to bash SF. I've spent enough on their lights that if I had the money back, I could probably buy a small car, and have only had good experiences with their customer service. I had the 6P and 9P when those were the only lights offered by them.

Large companies do have a hard time being innovative. Ages ago when working for a very large medical company, I remember one of our meetings with the big honchos. They themselves talked about the smaller companies coming up with newer and better ideas. When asked how we could compete with them, they simply said, "we buy them out". This was mid 80's. It seems through the 90's and up until now, the answer would be "we litigate them to death."


----------



## tekguy (Apr 30, 2008)

ive been monitoring this thread since the beginning and i guess i will take a wak at giving my opinions about this patent thing.. First let me quote the allthe above mentioned disclaimers "Insert here".. I am a engineer and well versed in patent law for a large manufacturing company in california.. if a patent was filed as Patent Pending in 2004 and was issued as US Patented in 2008 the patent could vary well not be valid because
1. Most all flashlights can be locked out by twisting the tailcap.
2. the intelectual property of using a tailcap has been used for Decades which if im correct started with maglite..(although not its intended use.) 
3. in order for a patent to be issued you have to prove to the patent office that what you have created is new "unconventional thinking" that no one else skilled in the art could have thought of or used this idea.
4. From what i can see the patent office very well could have mistakenly overlooked the patent schematic and design and issued a patent.

I believe Sf filed for patent infringement because they felt Pentagon could offer competition to the military clients. (100,000$+ orderrs for lights). I dont believe there is any basis for the lawsuit as far as patent infringement but, i will watch this closely to find out what happens.. Maybe this will be a lesson to me as th the facts and fairness of current US patent courts


----------



## Thujone (Apr 30, 2008)

Wow, so if loosening your tail cap keeps your light from turning on then SF will sue you into submission. I am not a big fan of litigious behavior... Very sad. I have a lot of patent infringing products. Are they all contraband now? Ridiculous.


----------



## Edwood (Apr 30, 2008)

Thujone said:


> Wow, so if loosening your tail cap keeps your light from turning on then SF will sue you into submission. I am not a big fan of litigious behavior... Very sad. I have a lot of patent infringing products. Are they all contraband now? Ridiculous.



If that's the main basis for Surefire's suit, lame. :thumbsdow


----------



## Edwood (Apr 30, 2008)

Art Vandelay said:


> I doubt many of the U.S. car makers could still label most of their cars "made in the USA".



There are a few Japanese car makers that actually can.

Wait, were we talking about flashlights here?


----------



## Art Vandelay (Apr 30, 2008)

Does this quote below mean Surefire also patented the forward clicky? U.S. Patent Number6222138 is listed as the patent for Lock-out Tailcap in some Surefire documents on the web.

United States Patent 6222138

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6222138-description.html

"The invention resides also in a method of providing an electric light source having a housing including a tail end with a bistable OFF and ON switching function and with a momentary ON switching function for said electric light source, and, more specifically, resides in the improvement comprising, in combination, unifying the bistable OFF and ON switching function and the momentary ON switching function into one electric toggle switch having an external switch actuating lever having a stable first position in which the electric light source is OFF, a stable second position in which the electric light source is ON, and a momentary third position biased toward the first position so that the electric light source is momentarily ON only as long as the external switch actuating lever is manually held in the third position against the biasing toward the first position, forming in a side of the tail end a recess having a side wall for laterally protecting the external switch actuating lever against accidental interference, and mounting the electric toggle switch in the tail end inside that recess so that such side wall protects the actuating lever against accidental interference."


----------



## Brownstone (Apr 30, 2008)

Here is additional information that may be of interest

The original patent application was 12/5/1997. The application covered a certain battery configuration, and a certain switch operation.
That application was later divided. This often happens when the examiner (or inventor) feels that the application actually covers multiple inventions. Probably the battery configuration was considered unrelated to the switch operation.
The switch portion of the patent application was granted on 4/24/2001 (patent 6222138) .
It appears that the patent had a typo in the first claim. The word "portion" was used where the word "position" was meant.
The patent was reissued (with reissue number RE40125) with this word corrected. Additionally, one complete claim (#6) was dropped from the patent. The reissue patent was received on 3/4/2008.
So, it looks like this is a patent that was filed over ten years ago, and only really became defendable last month. So, although "everybody" has lock-out tailcaps today, the question is "was this obvious technology back in 1997, when SureFire filed the patent".

The patent reissue introduces an interesting hiccup. The true patent date for calculating the 17 year patent life remains the 2001 date. What is known as the "_doctrine of intervening rights"_ provides that SureFire can't sue for conduct that happened between the 2001 date and the 2008 date, if the conduct didn't technically violate the original language.

What this patent covers isn't simply the idea of loosening the tailcap to stop the light from coming on. It covers the *combination* of:


A rotary switch with an on position.
A rotary switch with an off position.
A rotary switch with a "further off" position.
A push-button on-off switch that is locked out when the rotary switch is in the "further off" position.
My reading of the patent makes it sound like they are talking about a lock-out that physically blocks the push button, not simply the case where you screw the tailcap out so far that a circuit is no longer made. But, I haven't examined all the claims in detail to understand if that is all that is being claimed.

_Does anybody know if the PentagonLight tailcap has a physical lock that prevents the push button from being depressed once the tailcap is rotated to lock-out position?_

I don't have a strong opinion yet. I wasn't a user of Tactical flashlights in 1997, so I don't know what was normal in the industry. But I would say that if SureFire's use of a lock-out tailcap in 1997 was considered novel, then they should have a valid patent and they should enforce it.


----------



## kramer5150 (Apr 30, 2008)

Brownstone said:


> Here is additional information that may be of interest
> 
> The original patent application was 12/5/1997. The application covered a certain battery configuration, and a certain switch operation.
> That application was later divided. This often happens when the examiner (or inventor) feels that the application actually covers multiple inventions. Probably the battery configuration was considered unrelated to the switch operation.
> ...



interesting....
So, the patent is for some sort of lock out mechanism that engages when the cap is unscrewed further? I'm looking at my 6P now, and it really doesn't look all that complex to my lamens eyes. It merely looks like you unscrew the cap far enough past the stroke-length distance of the momentary button, to engage the lockout.

Comparing it to my Ray-o-vac sportsman the designs are very similar (again, to lamens eyes). Just unscrew the thing past the stroke distance of the momentary switch to engage lockout. I wonder if they'll go after Nuwai too?... or ME for using it


----------



## Unicorn (Apr 30, 2008)

I think a lot of people are making a leap in their logic. Just because unscrewing a tailcap will prevent a light from turning on doesn't mean that it's being done the same way.

Pulling a trigger makes a gun fire. But what happens inside isn't the same between a Glock and a 1911, or even another striker fired gun.


----------



## xcel730 (Apr 30, 2008)

I agree with you, and part of the reason for my posts is to understand what makes SF's lockout tailcap unique, and whether Pentagonlight has copied the exact design.



Unicorn said:


> I think a lot of people are making a leap in their logic. Just because unscrewing a tailcap will prevent a light from turning on doesn't mean that it's being done the same way.
> 
> Pulling a trigger makes a gun fire. But what happens inside isn't the same between a Glock and a 1911, or even another striker fired gun.


----------



## flashfan (Apr 30, 2008)

I'm very technologically-challenged, but I can say this. I have older SF lights with_out_ the lock-out feature, plus newer lights _with_ it...and there is a _big_ difference. For example, I can take my old 9P and keep unscrewing the cap until it practically falls off, but if I push the button, the light will still turn on.

Getting back to the issue of the lawsuit, I think SF has every right to protect their patents and interests, and in fact I have wondered in the past why they have _not_ appeared to be very vigorous in this area. To my uninformed way of thinking, SF is on the cutting edge of flashlight advancement, and it is likely that their designs have been copied (and maybe even improved on) by others.

Given the number of years SF has been in business, I would be surprised if they had _not_ filed claims against others prior to this. The fact that SF is publicizing the current situation is telling. An attempt to warn/scare off competition?

My really big problem with lawsuits, is that in the end, no matter who prevails, _the only real winners are the attorneys._


----------



## Flash Harry (Apr 30, 2008)

JamisonM said:


> I paused before posting this, but I wonder why SureFire waited to protect its patent. If other lights have had this kind of tailcap for years now; why the sudden shift? Are they starting to feel the heat from the competition or is there something else going on?


 
My initial thoughts were that none of this would have happened if someone had the smarts to use a description other than LOTC?


----------



## Art Vandelay (Apr 30, 2008)

Somebody else has a lock out tail cap patent. It's the first one that comes up in a Google search. They make a big deal about it being water proof while it is locked out. They use a magnet somehow.


----------



## Brownstone (May 1, 2008)

Art Vandelay said:


> Somebody else has a lock out tail cap patent. It's the first one that comes up in a Google search. They make a big deal about it being water proof while it is locked out. They use a magnet somehow.




Are you referring to 2007/0258236? If so, that is a patent application filed May 3, 2007. No actual patent has been granted.

In the US patent system, most applications are published shortly after being filed, regardless of whether any patent is ever granted.


----------



## Justin Case (May 1, 2008)

Hogokansatsukan said:


> NT demonstrated a flashlight technique at the 2007 ShotShow and produced their tactical series lights around this technique. They had a simple o-ring on the back of the light about 1/4 inch from the end and called the gun/light technique the "Thorpe Technique". They shipped their tactical lights with an insert that demonstrated the technique. I'm a LEO firearms trainer and so am always interested in any new low light technique. A month or so ago, SF comes out with Combat Rings and demonstrates the technique on their web site, but called it the Graham Method. I don't call that innovation. The M3's grip ring was farther forward on the light and to be used with the Surefire/Rogers Technique (that was innovation) which is different. I have an M3, and M2 and teach those techniques as well. The most common technique used is probably still the Harries.
> Anyway, if you look on both the SF and NT website, you can find both techniques, Graham and Thorpe, and see that they are identical.



What is new is old. I saw the so-called Rogers/cigar technique years before ever seeing it publicized and called the Rogers technique.

It would be safer to claim that "so and so" popularized a particular technique than to suggest that he invented it.

I conceived of the rapid blinking/strobing search technique almost 15 years ago by applying a simple thought experiment. But I doubt that I was the first, even though I had never seen it before. The original SureFire Institute instructors probably beat me to it by a decade, at a minimum.


----------



## Justin Case (May 1, 2008)

Art Vandelay said:


> Somebody else has a lock out tail cap patent. It's the first one that comes up in a Google search. They make a big deal about it being water proof while it is locked out. They use a magnet somehow.



The Night-Ops Gladius uses magnetic switching to produce their waterproof tailcap. If you bring the Gladius tailcap close to a strong magnet, you can turn on the light without turning the channel selector ring.


----------



## Retinator (May 1, 2008)

The worst thing about this mess is it can make both of them look bad. 

You'll have group A crying that Surefire are a bunch of bullies, and you'll have group B saying that Pentagonlight are a bunch of thieves.

I'd think it best to let them play some tennis, buy the lights you're interested in and have a drink or 2 while we're at it 

I honestly don't care for the politics/legalities of these things, they're way out of my league.


----------



## adamlau (May 1, 2008)

I am partial to group A  .


----------



## bigfoot (May 1, 2008)

Interesting development... I bet Surefire wouldn't be spending the money on a lawsuit if there was nothing to gain. Also agree that making this public and blatantly posting it on their web site is probably a warning shot across the bow for other flashlight makers.


----------



## ygbsm (May 1, 2008)

Nowadays many patent suits get filed in the Eastern District of Texas. As was noted above, some feel that patentees do better there. Local firms and businesses are now set up to handle the complexities of patent trials (loads of exhibits and often loads of demonstratives massive copying needs, etc. -- I've been at trials where the demonstratives needed two rooms just for themselves), and the District Court knows the law from having had so many cases (I litigate patent suits for a living.)
Also as noted above, the RE on the patent denotes a "reissue" patent -- there are two types of reissue procedures, but I won't bore you with that.
One thing for laypeople to keep in mind is that it is, in general, fruitless for a non-attorney and even an attorney not versed in the vagaries of what is called "claim construction" to try to understand how a court (claim construction is a matter of law, and done, therefore by the Judge and not the jury) might read the scope of the claims. Moreover, particularly with a reissue, the prosecution history and that of "related" patents are absolutely vital to any attempt to construing the claims -- so vital that a failure to consult the file history by attorneys filing a suit on behalf of a patentee could be sanctionable under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In short don't expect to look at the "pictures" (diagrams) and expect to have much of any idea what might happen -- I know it's tempting, but it's a waste of time.  
One comment I will make regarding what's called "obviousness" under Section 103 of Title 35 of the US Code (Title 35 is often referred to as "the Patent Statute"). Last year's Supreme Court decision in KSR v. Teleflex made it much easier to combine references in an invalidity argument and, in the feeling of many patent litigators, made "combination" patents, ones combining existing features, much more problematic, particularly in the mechanical area. I would be some jamon iberico bellota that KSR gets cited, probably repeatedly in papers and at what is called a "Markman hearing" where the parties appear before the judge, sometimes in a mini-trial format and argue for their claim constructions.


----------



## ygbsm (May 1, 2008)

Also, these suits will cost each side on average something around 2 million to get to verdict. One big stick here (other than the cost), and often the biggest prod towards settlement is the possibility of an injunction against the alleged infringer, although another recent Supreme Court decision has made getting an injuction arguably somewhat more difficult.

There is often a danger that both companies get so caught up in the legal action -- these suits require a great deal of interaction with engineers, marketing, financia, and production people that the normal growing and maintenance of the business can fall by the wayside and even a company winning an infringement suit can find itself behind business-wise.


----------



## TaterBo (May 2, 2008)

I think this is mainly a nuisance suit on Surefire’s part with the desired result being to keep its competitors out of Surefire’s market sector. Why else would Surefire publicize the suit to the extent they have?


----------



## matrixshaman (May 2, 2008)

Having read more replies here I'll comment on a couple more things. I think McGizmo made some valid points and his insight has swayed me a bit on my opinion on this. However having read ygbsm who is involved in patent litigation business and has given us some info from his view I'd say this could be bad for Surefire in multiple ways. I wonder if Surefire really knows what this will cost them in the long run or if they have been swayed to make this move by someone standing to make big bucks.


----------



## z96Cobra (May 2, 2008)

Does this mean that all the children that spell Maglite like [email protected] or M*g will do the same with Surefire now? Maybe _*Sue*_fire or S*refire...  

Roger


----------



## Art Vandelay (May 2, 2008)

I don't know if the patent lawsuit is justified or not. I just read the Surefire press release. The press release includes the accusation that the other company is falsely claiming that their flashlights are made in the USA. My guess is they included that to give it's customers answers to the questions: "Why should I care?, and "Who's the good guy, and who's the bad guy?".


----------



## Monocrom (May 2, 2008)

Art Vandelay said:


> I don't know if the patent lawsuit is justified or not. I just read the Surefire press release. The press release includes the accusation that the other company is falsely claiming that their flashlights are made in the USA. My guess is they included that to give it's customers answers to the questions: "Why should I care?, and "Who's the good guy, and who's the bad guy?".


 
Always loved their lights, but hated their marketing and other business decisions.... Just another example of Surefire being consistant. They're going to have a hard time looking like the Good Guy.

Not sure how it goes for lights, but there's a statute in America that says a knife can be claimed to be "Made in the USA," if only 40% of its parts are from America. 

As far as the suit goes, I think Surefire knows exactly what it's doing. A costly lawsuit, in the $2,000,000 range, is perhaps cheaper than dealing with a competitor going after a piece of Surefire's biggest customer-base..... the military. 

Maglite vs. Surefire in a lawsuit? That _would _be interesting.


----------



## McGizmo (May 2, 2008)

ygbsm,
Thank you for your input here. I bought some patent software, a DIY kit, that allowed me to file a provisional patent. I filled in the blanks and the resulting application seemed to be screwed up as elements were repeated adnauseum (sp) and the construction of the text made no sense to me. As it turned out, the application followed the proper form and I realized I was lost in making sense of it. I was also advised that if I wanted to move forward from the provisional patent to a design patent application I would have to enlist the aid of a patent attorney as there was no way I could represent or express my idea on my own.

Aside from a few members such as your self, I believe the vast majority of us will have a false perception of what is what if we try to understand the patents and determine if infringement is in fact taking place. We are left to trust the courts and their findings as the language is simply foreign to the majority of us.

A few years back when Peter G brought his bout with Mag to us here on the forum, I recall coining a phrase of "don't litigate, innovate". Well I don't see that phrase applying to Sure Fire as I am convinced that they have more innovation and R&D going on than probably the combined efforts of most if not all of their competition. They do have patents on file and it seems that now, they have elected to defend one of their patents and they have brought it to the attention of the public. But do they want every section of the public to be aware or was the press release ultimately targeted at some sub group of Sure Fire's public? Was the release for customer or competitor? Was it for both?

IMO, the inclusion of the false advertising claim would seem to have more significance on the consumer side and possibly most important to the LEO and defense customer. I would guess that for the most part, individual consumers will find any litigation as distasteful and contrary to what is perceived as a free and open market where diversity in offerings and competition forcing prices down, is the ideal situation. The health of the industry and ability of manufactures to maintain viable presence is not a primary concern for the consumer typically although ultimately they may be effected if quality and diversity of product falls victim of fierce competition where price alone dictates success.

The added burden of legal expenses to be carried in the price of goods and services provided is certainly no direct boon to the consumer if those goods and services could be offered without the need of litigation. 

IMHO, Sure Fire has been granted some teeth by the USPTO and they have elected to show them to their public. To what extent will these teeth be bared and used, only time will tell. Is it a wise move for SF to follow or use this path? They may be the only ones to know and the only ones to evaluate after the fact whether the move was a good one to take. :shrug:

My gut tells me that SF is likely after a cease and desist here and not some added revenue from a licensing agreement.

On one note, SF could be criticized for not making this move some time ago and doing so now may be more disruptive and damaging to the industry than otherwise.

I don't see how most of us can get past mere opinion here and it may be difficult to even form an opinion.

My personal concern is that the more the legal arena becomes part of the flashlight industry, the greater the cost of doing business in the flashlight industry becomes and for some just starting out, the need for due diligence alone may preclude them from even entering. When the cost of poker goes up, a lot of small players leave the game and others don't even consider playing. The responsibility of insuring an open and forward moving market falls on the shoulders of the USPTO and I have my doubts as to how well they can handle this responsibility. I have my doubts but if I read ygbsm's comments correctly, it sounds like there may be some fresh air if "obviousness" is in fact being reconsidered. I have my name as an inventor on an issued patent which I feel is and was "obvious". Maybe I was the first one to build such an item and the company I was employed by at the time elected to patent the idea but should a patent have been granted? I don't know. I guess one problem is that really good ideas are obvious as soon as you see them but were they obvious prior to example?!? :thinking: :shrug:


----------



## spoonrobot (May 2, 2008)

Monocrom said:


> Not sure how it goes for lights, but there's a statute in America that says a knife can be claimed to be "Made in the USA," if only 40% of its parts are from America.



Do you happen to have a source? I've seen this referenced in a few different places but there is a never a source link with it. I have a feeling it came from a certain article that I would like to read.


----------



## Brownstone (May 2, 2008)

Monocrom said:


> Not sure how it goes for lights, but there's a statute in America that says a knife can be claimed to be "Made in the USA," if only 40% of its parts are from America.



That would surprise me. I think the rule is *all or vitually all*, and I'm not aware of any exception for knives.

The only "exceptions" I know of are special rules for automobiles, textiles, furs, and wool.


----------



## Monocrom (May 2, 2008)

spoonrobot said:


> Do you happen to have a source? I've seen this referenced in a few different places but there is a never a source link with it. I have a feeling it came from a certain article that I would like to read.


 
Sorry, don't have a direct source or link.

First learned about it on BladeForums.com


----------



## souptree (May 2, 2008)

z96Cobra said:


> Does this mean that all the children that spell Maglite like [email protected] or M*g will do the same with Surefire now? Maybe _*Sue*_fire or S*refire...
> 
> Roger



The children already call them $urefire. Personally, I prefer Size15s' reasoning, which is to use the correct spelling, SureFire (capital S and F). I really admire SureFire and the amazing innovations they have not only created but brought to market and I think they deserve respect, especially from average flashaholics. I notice Don also uses the capital F, which tells me I am on to something.

I could be wrong about this, but it's my understanding that in order to keep rights to an existing patent, you must actively and vigorously defend it if you believe it is being infringed. It is possible the lawyers are telling the decision makers that they MUST sue or risk losing their rights to claim the patent(s) in question in the future. The lawyers probably didn't tell them they had to post it on the website in a perfect-for-framing PDF though. That is the most telling fact as I see it and even that is pure conjecture.

Don is correct. Nobody here knows anything and if they do they are not going to be sharing their thoughts here. We do not have data sufficient for forming an intelligent opinion, and it's likely that none is forthcoming anytime soon, if ever.
That said, I'll continue to follow this interesting thread!


----------



## Malcom (May 2, 2008)

...


----------



## Tempest UK (May 2, 2008)

souptree said:


> The children already call them $urefire. Personally, I prefer Size15s' reasoning, which is to use the correct spelling, SureFire (capital S and F). I really admire SureFire and the amazing innovations they have not only created but brought to market and I think they deserve respect, especially from average flashaholics. I notice Don also uses the capital F, which tells me I am on to something.



I refer to them as "SureFire" as opposed to "Surefire" simply because that's the correct way to write it, according to SureFire themselves. For example, any correspondence you may have with SureFire, such as email, will show the capitalized "F". 

I've never understood the use of "M*g" and such.

Regards,
Tempest


----------



## powernoodle (May 2, 2008)

MSaxatilus said:


> there's an awful lot of speculation going on here. Just be aware that without having all the facts, its difficult to either defend Surefire or Pentagon at this point.



A+ on that one. Its pointless to speculate as to the facts, the motivation or the outcome.


----------



## Brownstone (May 2, 2008)

souptree said:


> I could be wrong about this, but it's my understanding that in order to keep rights to an existing patent, you must actively and vigorously defend it if you believe it is being infringed.




That is very much true of _trademarks_, but I do not believe it is true of patents.


----------



## McGizmo (May 2, 2008)

I too have heard tell of the "use it or lose it" aspect to patents and their _need_ to be enforced. I have no idea of the legal ramifications of this and the cynic in me is suspicious that those who make their living in patent law likely enforce this perception to their benefit. :tinfoil:

In regards to the intentional misspelling of Mag, I believe this goes back to a concern (real or imagined) that Mag was actively searching the internet for mention of them and of course out to get anyone infringing on their turf.

Mag has devoted a good portion of their site to the legal battles they have fought in order to protect themselves, their customers and the American Way. 

A single PDF file in the news releases for SF is not the same thing, IMO, but it could be considered as a start down a similar road?!? It seems straight forward that it is in SF's financial interest to do what ever they can to garner market share and gain an edge on their competition. Certainly being considered as the big bad guys is not in their best interest if this consideration is held by significant customers of theirs. On the other hand, should they be held to some altruistic standard and embrace motivations that are beyond and possibly even in conflict with their bottom line? If Pentagonlights is to be held as the good guys in this particular suit, beyond using the designs and efforts already in public display and knowledge and being able to sell at reduced prices thanks to no real burden of R&D, what have they done that earns them the "white hat"? These are not legal questions but merely basis for opinion forming.

My interest in lights boils down to elements of design, inovation, material selection and execution of the total package and its inherent quality. On these grounds, I have little respect from what I have seen of Pentagonlight. I perceive their efforts and success all to be based on marketing and customer perceptions and of course the almighty low price. I have come to respect SF for the aforementioned elements and _despite_ their marketing department and some of the crap they have dished out.

Realistically though, I realize that marketing is key to success and the consumers *demand* the hype and BS that gets served up. I am convinced that the average consumer has no interest what so ever in going beyond the hype and sizzle offered up. To SF's credit, IMHO, they have held to realistic claims in the specs of their lights or at least they have in years past and this has likely been at their expense in terms of sales. Even flashaholics here on CPF will hang their hat on some number offered up in a spec sheet whether it is real world or not. Does the average flashlight customer even consider questioning the numbers supplied? I doubt it. I doubt they have a firm grasp on what the numbers even signify beyond a bigger number being a bigger number!


----------



## JNewell (May 2, 2008)

Malcom said:


> Launching a press release in conjunction with suing a competitor is not very common. It seems to me Surefire has more of a marketing agenda here than a legal one.
> 
> It’s low-rent move in my opinion.


 
I work with a bunch of patent lawyers, and I'm told it's common.


----------



## ygbsm (May 2, 2008)

McGizmo -- you description of your encounter with drafting claims is an informative one. The language is very odd and unnatural to most laypeople. I have seen claims using such phrases as "fixedly removably attached" and other such seemingly contradictory language. I've seen a Court decide that the word "a" means "one or more than one" (Very important note -- this interpretation is specific to the facts of the particular case -- it is quite possible another Court might not read "a" the same way, so don't go reading every "a" this way). There are many potential pitifalls in writing patent claims where using what makes "common sense" does not make sense according to the construction rules. There is another caveat here -- some people who prosecute patents (that is who work to help an applicant/inventor obtain a patent) may not have much sense of some of the pitfalls that appear when the patent is actually tested in Court (perhaps akin to light designers designing lights for use by the military not always understanding the particular needs dictated by that actual use). 
But don't think that Judges get it right every time either. District Court Judge's claim construction rulings are, according to some studies, reversed by the Appeals Court, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over 40% of the time. 

I noticed also you said "design patent." In the peculiarities of patent parlance (say that three times fast) a design patent is a creature different from a "utility patent," what many people are thinking when they talk about patents. Design patents, have in general, a narrow scope of coverage.

There is a statutory limitation on the time period for patent damages: According to 35 U.S.C. 286: "Time limitation on damages. Except as otherwise provided by law, no recovery shall be had for any infringement committed more than six years prior to the filing of the complaint or counterclaim for infringement in the action."

This limitation may provide some incentive to act before the six years have run in order not to lose damages due to being beyond the time bar. There are also doctrines in the patent law such as laches or estoppel which may bar claims not asserted in a timely fashion. The particular criteria are beyond the scope of this discussion and the analyses are often fact intensive.

Patents can have use beyond enforcing them in patent lawsuits. There is, of course, licensing. Also, some companies amass patent portfolios as a mechanism to immunize themselves against suit by other manufacturers -- a scenario might be, if another manufacturer claims your product is covered by their patent or patents, you counter by saying that company's product is covered by some of your patents and suggest a cross-license. These are just a few examples -- there are others.


----------



## Desertrat (May 2, 2008)

Who was first with that design? I try not to buy Chinese......they are the enemy!!


----------



## McGizmo (May 3, 2008)

ygbsm,
Thanks again for your comments and insight here. I also realize I used the wrong term when I said design patent as it was a utility patent that I got a provisional patent for. The provisional patent seems like a good vehicle for testing the waters and viability prior to going to the trouble and expense of a utility patent. In my particular case, it took too long for an offshore manufacturer to make my part and the window of opportunity came and went before the part ever got to market. As it turned out, the first run of these parts were apparently sold to some government agency or big customer of the factory and not even shipped to us; and it was my design!?!  

It seems that "patent pending" is something many seek to claim as a means of holding off the competition.

None of this is germane to the topic here so I'll quit now.


----------



## Art Vandelay (May 3, 2008)

McGizmo said:


> ygbsm,
> In my particular case, it took too long for an offshore manufacturer to make my part and the window of opportunity came and went before the part ever got to market. As it turned out, the first run of these parts were apparently sold to some government agency or big customer of the factory and not even shipped to us; and it was my design!?!


I've heard of "third shift" lights before, but it sounds like they stole the first and second shifts as well.


----------



## McGizmo (May 3, 2008)

Still off topic but in order to avoid any false assumptions I feel I should clarify that the example I brought up was in regards to a titanium carabiner and the company was (is?) in the Urkraine. It wasn't a light.

I really appreciate those members here who have experience with the patent process and law and their posts and comments. Beyond this particular suit which most of us likely agree is something beyond our ken, the use of IP protection and recognition is certainly an issue that will likely arise more and more as the solid state lighting takes a firm hold; not only in flashlights but elsewhere as well.

We have seen and heard of infringements and cross licensing arrangements among the LED manufacturers themselves and with an international market place it gets more confusing since any international laws or standards may or may not be in agreement or recognition of national patents like a US patent. I recall being told at one point that what a single patent might cover in the US might require 10 individual patents in Japan.

As consumers, our primary interest and concern is about what is available to us on the market and of course price. When it comes to IP and granted ownership of ideas like patents, this may well have adverse impact on what is available in the market. Lumileds has some ownership of some phosphor technologies and as a result other LED's on the market may suffer with inferior tints and evenness in distribution of light. Lumiled's gain is our loss in such a case. 

What can be really frustrating is when one owns the right to an idea and elects, for whatever reason, not to implement that idea. There are laws against types of monopolies I believe and yet it seems that when a patent is granted along with it comes an ability to monopolize?!? :thinking: :shrug:

Is a regulated free economy an oxymoron? Maybe I'm just a moron.


----------



## Monocrom (May 3, 2008)

McGizmo said:


> Is a regulated free economy an oxymoron? Maybe I'm just a moron.


 
Nope.

If a free economy is not regulated somewhat, you'll end up with monopolies all over the place. Giant companies swallowing up smaller companies, unchecked. Less competition, higher prices set by the monopolies, (not like you'll be able to go elsewhere).

Look on the bright side, at least you're a moron who makes great lights.


----------



## ygbsm (May 3, 2008)

McGizmo -- Sorry, I didn't intend to nitpick, I actually thought you had applied for a design patent and thought it a nice opportunity to talk about the difference.
Some patent prosecutors think a provisional application can sometimes be useful for those inventors up against a potential 35 USC Section 102 bar date. This bar to patentability can arise if you "use" the invention in public or attempt to gain commercial benefit from it more than a year before filing your application -- the particulars of what constitute "public use" or the activity giving rise to such a bar are fact intensive and beyond the scope of this note. Issues involving Section 102 statutory bars appear to be quite common with individual inventors or small companies' patents-- nearly every small company patent and individual inventor patent litigation I've seen involved questions about such bars. One reason for some of these issues might be that patents cost money to obtain -- individual inventors and small companies may want to see if there is commercial interest before starting to pay for the patent process. This may make sense to the inventor or small company's thinking, but if the patent is worth any "real" money, it may well be the subject of litigation, and the pre-filing activities will likely be subject to scrutiny. Individual inventors and small companies may also be simply unaware of the potential problem. The idea of some patent prosecutors who like provisionals is to get something on file quick and cheaply to avoid bar issues. In my experience, however, quick and cheap often does not mean "best."


----------



## Archangel (Nov 22, 2008)

Was there ever a resolution to this?


----------



## Timothybil (Nov 23, 2008)

Monocrom said:


> Nope.
> 
> If a free economy is not regulated somewhat, you'll end up with monopolies all over the place. Giant companies swallowing up smaller companies, unchecked. Less competition, higher prices set by the monopolies, (not like you'll be able to go elsewhere).
> 
> Look on the bright side, at least you're a moron who makes great lights.



An old saying is that capitalists hate monopolies until they get one, then they do everything in their power to keep it.:naughty:


----------



## Monocrom (Nov 23, 2008)

I was also hoping to see an update to this lawsuit.

Anyone know anything?


----------



## ja10 (Nov 23, 2008)

The Eastern District Court of Texas, where I believe the lawsuit was filed, as a pay-per-page service for viewing court documents. I'm sure something is there, but I didn't feel like putting my credit card in.


----------



## N/Apower (Dec 12, 2008)

*Pentagon Lights = Dead*

Recent patent infringement cases filed in U.S. District Courts 


5/8/2008 10:26 AM 
By Marilyn Tennissen 



Sherman Division, Eastern District of Texas 

April 28 


SureFire LLC vs. Pentagon Scientific Corp. dba PentagonLight 

Plaintiff SureFire is complaining of patent infringement and false advertising under the federal Latham Act. 

According the plaintiff's original complaint, SureFire has been engaged in the manufacture and distribution of flashlights and related products for more than 20 years. The company states that it employs more than 500 people at its facilities in and around Fountain Valley, Calif., where it manufactures key components and assembles its products. 

SureFire claims it owns the rights to U.S. Patent No. 6,222,138 for an invention called a Battery Operated Appliance, Flashlight and Switching Systems Technical Field which was issued April 24, 2001. A reissue of the '138 Patent was released on March 4, 2008, as U.S. Patent No. RE40,125. 

"SureFire has been at all times, and still is, the owner of the entire right, title and interest in and to both the '138 and '125 Patents," the plaintiff claims. "PentagonLight markets and sells flashlight and related products in direct competition with SureFire." 

In addition, the plaintiff alleges that PentagonLight has published numerous advertisements including either express or implied assertions that its flashlights are "Made in U.S.A." 

"On information and belief, such assertions are false and misleading," the complaint states. 

SureFire claims it has suffered substantial damages by PentagonLight's acts of patent infringement, and claims the infringement was willful and deliberate in disregard of SureFire's rights. 

The plaintiff also claims that PentagonLight's false and misleading statements in its commercial advertising and promotions misrepresent the origin of its goods and either deceive or have the tendency to deceive a substantial segment of potential customers. 

SureFire is seeking injunctive relief, adequate compensation, treble damages, interest and attorneys' fees. The plaintiff is also asking that PentagonLight be directed to withdraw from distribution all infringing products and false advertisements and that all materials be impounded or destroyed. 

Clyde Siebman of Siebman, Reynolds, Burg, Phillips & Smith LLP in Sherman is representing the plaintiff. 

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Richard A. Schell. 

Case No. 4:08-cv-146-RAS


----------



## StandardBattery (Dec 12, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*

To me, like their recent price increase, it means they are hurting bad. Still not good news for Pentagon, but it's far from death at this point.


----------



## N/Apower (Dec 12, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*



StandardBattery said:


> To me, like their recent price increase, it means they are hearting bad. Still not good news for Pentagon, but it's far from death at this point.


 
No, they are dead. They have permanently ceased shipment of any and all products as far as I know.


----------



## StandardBattery (Dec 12, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*

Ooops I guess I should have read the date on the letter. Well that's sad... hmmm.


----------



## kramer5150 (Dec 12, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*



That's kind of too bad, I was thinking about getting one of their lights for my brother for christmas.


----------



## parnass (Dec 12, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*

I clicked on a number of lights on the PentagonLight web site and each bears a notice which reads _This item is currently not for sale online_.


----------



## N/Apower (Dec 12, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*

Pentagon Lights according to what I was told today "IS NO LONGER SELLING ANYMORE LIGHTS FOREVER." This is a quote. We here at TNVC have no further info on this. Hope this helps. 
Vic

^Quote taken from Vic of Tactical Night Vision Company


----------



## dudemar (Dec 12, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*

Frankly this makes me *really* p***ed off at SureFire.

*I am now formally boycotting SureFire. *Anyone who cares to join me, feel free to do so.

Their actions fall right in line with greedy corporate entities, which IMO is cowardice.

PentagonLight made great lights. I went to their headquarters in South San Francisco last year to buy some CR123's, and they were VERY nice people. They gave me LOTS of extra goodies, GITD heaven I tell you... a GITD cup, GITD pen, GITD plastic gift bag (yes you read that right), etc. I was so happy with their service I was on the fence of buying one of their 2 x CR123 lights.

Now I regret not buying a light from them.

I am now on the fence on buying the R20 Homelander despite my current credit debt. The only thing that comes into question now is the lifetime warranty PentagonLight carried. Because the R20 uses a proprietary battery, I am contemplating getting a CR123 LED light. I plan on buying from Optics Planet.

Whatever the case, I am deeply saddened to hear of PentagonLight's demise. I called and left them a message, hopefully I'll get a response soon.

Dudemar


----------



## matt0 (Dec 12, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*

There was pretty big thread on this same topic back in May when it was first announced on SF's website. The thread was bumped recently but I don't think there was any new info and I can't find the thread now...

EDIT: Found the old thread *HERE*. Unfortunately, the link in the first post no longer takes you to the original press release.


----------



## american lockpicker (Dec 12, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*

I support Surefire and will continue to. If Pentagon misrepresented its product and infringed on a Patent then it deserved the consequences just my 2 cents.


----------



## Juggernaut (Dec 12, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*



dudemar said:


> Frankly this makes me *really* p***ed off at SureFire.
> 
> *I am now formally boycotting SureFire. *Anyone who cares to join me, feel free to do so.


 
Wow that sucks:shakehead, I mean I always thought of Pentagon Lights as one of many smaller companies that really didn’t threaten “quite literally” the biggest baddest flashlight name ever “Surefire” I can only see this action as a strategy for Surefire to eliminate one of it’s competitors to give themselves more business, though I can’t image PL was really taking much of a chunk out of the entire flashlight market “I could be wrong though:shrug:”. I will personally look down upon them for this:thumbsdow.


----------



## jzmtl (Dec 12, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*



american lockpicker said:


> I support Surefire and will continue to. If Pentagon misrepresented its product and infringed on a Patent then it deserved the consequences just my 2 cents.



I don't know the deal on this, but often a patent lawsuit (sometimes even bogus) is filed with no other purpose than to drag down a competitor with shallower pocket, like how mag killed arc.


----------



## Juggernaut (Dec 13, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*



jzmtl said:


> like how mag killed arc.


 
Maglite killed ARC! wow I never knew that,I never knew what happened to them, what a shame:mecry:. I tisk at them to then:thumbsdow. What other flashlight brand has committed such a horrible deed:green:?


----------



## defloyd77 (Dec 13, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*

Glad I ordered my MOLLE when I did. Actually I'm seeing a Streamlight product that has the same specs as the MOLLE http://www.tacticalleds.com/MXML-BK-p/mxml-bk.htm makes sense now that Pentagon is going belly up. I wonder if SL is buying them out?


----------



## dudemar (Dec 13, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*

The specs look identical... that or it was mislabled?


----------



## dudemar (Dec 13, 2008)

It is presumed PentagonLight is out of business:

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2738456


----------



## asdalton (Dec 13, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*



Juggernaut said:


> Maglite killed ARC! wow I never knew that,I never knew what happened to them, what a shame:mecry:. I tisk at them to then:thumbsdow. What other flashlight brand has committed such a horrible deed:green:?



The original Arc Flashlight company had its share of problems besides the Mag suit (which was over a trademark, not patent). 

Arc AAA intermittent turn-on problem

Arc4+ Rev2 switch problems


----------



## kramer5150 (Dec 13, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*

patent infringement is against the law and grounds for legal punishment. if a company is found guilty of doing that then they deserve whatever punishment the legal system hammers down. I would have a hard time supporting any company that is found guilty of such practices.


----------



## Monocrom (Dec 13, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*



Juggernaut said:


> .... I can only see this action as a strategy for Surefire to eliminate one of it’s competitors to give themselves more business, though I can’t image PL was really taking much of a chunk out of the entire flashlight market “I could be wrong though:shrug:”. I will personally look down upon them for this:thumbsdow.


 
The hand-held models that PL makes were no threat to Surefire. PL models tend to be a bit longer, heavier, and not as bright as their Surefire counterparts. Their weapon lights on the other hand are a completely different story. PL was indeed taking a huge chunk out of Surefire's profits with their less expensive, but excellent weapon lights.

When you have deep pockets, you can indeed sue a smaller competitor out of business. Even before the case has been officially decided. (Nice of Surefire to take a page from Maglite's book).

I only have one PL model, an X3. When the inca bulb burns out, perhaps I can have Milky mod it. Otherwise, I'll be left with a fancy paperweight.

Wow..... Surefire is so consistent, it's scary. Kinda like a hot girlfriend who turns mean when she's liquored up. When sober, she's beautiful and intelligent. Great to be around. But when the booze starts flowing, you know it's a question of *when *not *if *she'll refer to your mom as a prostitute.... or spit in the face of the cop who pulls her over while she's driving drunk.... or vomits on herself but tries to kiss you anyway. You know it's going to happen. Just a question of *when.*

Surefire.... Great lights. Some of the finest in the world. Odorous business practices that are the complete opposite of their lights. I've known this since before joining CPF, and Surefire has been consistant with regards to both extremes.


----------



## kramer5150 (Dec 13, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*

:thinking:
I don't understand the CPF population. The VAST majority look down on clone products and design copying. It gets to the point of heated discussions and outright boycotting clone products, in favor of the design originators product.

Now an originating designer is taking a stand and protecting their design patents... and the CPF population sees that as a negative?

I haven't been around CPF long enough to pick sides on this... but why is it seen as a bad thing to protect what patents are legally yours?
:thinking:


----------



## defloyd77 (Dec 13, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*



dudemar said:


> The specs look identical... that or it was mislabled?



I e-mailed tactical leds about this, they repeated the specs and said they get it from a SL distributor, but it'd take 2-3 weeks to special order it, being impatient as I am, I couldn't wait that long even though it's 10 bucks less. Nothing on SL's website as of yet.

Nice anology Monocrom!


----------



## Monocrom (Dec 13, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*



kramer5150 said:


> I haven't been around CPF long enough to pick sides on this... but why is it seen as a bad thing to protect what patents are legally yours?
> :thinking:


 
Surefire's past business practices are one reason why the company isn't getting much sympathy.

Another reason is the blatantly obvious fact that this lawsuit was brought about to kill one of their competitors.... And that has indeed taken place, despite the fact that the case is still pending.

Surefire is coming off as looking like a bully, rather than a company merely trying to protect it's intellectual property.


----------



## bigfoot (Dec 13, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*

I think there's plenty of room for more than one company in the flashlight business. That being said... SureFire has a legitimate right to defend its patents and research. If PentagonLight infringed on the patents I see no reason why SureFire shouldn't bring the full weight of the legal system into play.

Everyone likes to root for the underdog, but SF has worked hard to get where it is now, too.


----------



## Mr Happy (Dec 13, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*



kramer5150 said:


> I haven't been around CPF long enough to pick sides on this... but why is it seen as a bad thing to protect what patents are legally yours?


You need to ask yourself why patents are worthy of legal protection?

Approximately 95% of patents granted lack any unique inventive step in the invention that is protected. Most of the time patents are government backed monopolies for something obvious, granted to whichever applicant is first to describe it using the appropriate legal language and pay the fee.

In most areas of commerce governments oppose monopolies, but in the case of patents governments protect monopolies. One might suppose that patents protect inventors against unscrupulous and more wealthy competitors. In fact, patents are used mostly by wealthy and powerful corporations as a business tool to squash competition.

Did you know for instance, that your child might have been prevented from using a swing if it was a business enterprise? That patent (no. 6,368,227) seems ludicrous, yet vast numbers of patents are similarly ludicrous. The only difference is that others are in less familiar fields and obscured by grandiose language.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 13, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*

While I'm against Anti-competitive behaviour from greedy power (market share) hungry companies, I do believe Surefire has a justifiable/legal (enforceable) position regarding the use of it's (intellectual property) aka the rotary momentary-ON switch (US Patents 125 & 138), PentagonLight blatantly re-used this method of switching on at least some of their flashlights hence the reason they're in hot water now :thumbsup:


Real PITY IMHO those Pentagonlight's don't look half bad!


----------



## dudemar (Dec 13, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*



Mr Happy said:


> In most areas of commerce governments oppose monopolies, but in the case of patents governments protect monopolies. One might suppose that patents protect inventors against unscrupulous and more wealthy competitors. In fact, patents are used mostly by wealthy and powerful corporations as a business tool to squash competition.



I 100% agree with you that patents are mostly used by powerful corporations. Most small companies who _can_ afford a patent just don't have enough funds for litigious matters, like our case in point.

The key thing to remember here is _there is no outcome_ for this case *yet*. We don't even know if PentagonLight is innocent or guilty, as far as we know the case is still pending. The fact that Surefire shut another company out of business (pending a court decision) is frightening to say the least.

Here's one of the things SureFire is suing over:

_In addition, the plaintiff alleges that PentagonLight has published numerous advertisements including either express or implied assertions that its flashlights are "Made in U.S.A."_

It's one thing to file litigation over patents, but this is *clearly *where it crosses the line. Surefire is no different from Microsoft, Sony and MagLite when it comes to corporate greed. Why go against the competition when you can _sue_ them out of competition?

...and Monocrom is right, SureFire isn't exactly coming off as a "poor victim" of patent infringement.


----------



## dudemar (Dec 13, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*

On another note, I don't think PentagonLight is completely out of business. Their website is still up, if they were smart they would've shut it down by now to cut any losses.

This gives me further reason to believe this case is in limbo, that they aren't dead... yet. Probably just ordered by the judge to hold any further sales of their products, pending his judgement.

I'm pretty sure this is a very recent development. I recall looking at their website just a few weeks ago showing "Happy Thanksgiving" photos. Now they have the "Happy Holidays" Christmas theme, right along with their "free carabiner knife" offer they have this time of year.

I'm just guessing though.

*UPDATE:* The "Pentagonlight Store" option on the left side of the website is still selling things. You can buy cups, pins and so forth. The pocket clip for their lights can still be purchased as well. If anything these are _a few_ clues as to the status of the company, they are most likely still in business.

Besides, it says "This item is currently not for sale online". I'm kinda tempted to pay them a visit next week!


----------



## yellow (Dec 13, 2008)

flashlight body, front glass, reflector, bulb, 2 CR123 batts, end switch (even when twist+push - already available longer than we live)
--> its just ridiculus to patent than, 
its even more ridiculus to sue a "cheap competitor" out of business. 
How about still work on making the better product? Thats what the informed customer will buy.


----------



## TigerhawkT3 (Dec 13, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*

How funny that that's exactly how Mag tailcaps work. Loosen them slightly, and the light turns off. Push them, and it'll stay on until you release them. Loosen further, and the light won't turn on even when pressed.

The only difference is that their size makes it less convenient to do this as opposed to using the side switch.


----------



## Art Vandelay (Dec 13, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*

.


----------



## Art Vandelay (Dec 13, 2008)

About the lifetime warranty, I don't think the lifetime warranty goes beyond the lifetime of the company.

I'll give Surefire the benefit of the doubt. I doubt we will ever hear the full story. Surefire have always been fair and honest as far as I know. Not that I always like what they do, for example the last price increase was awful.


----------



## ToeMoss (Dec 13, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*



dudemar said:


> Their actions fall right in line with greedy corporate entities, which IMO is cowardice.
> 
> 
> Dudemar



They have a right to defend their designs from those who would steal them. It is not cowardice, it is good business.
Wouldn't you do the same thing? How do you react when people steal from you?


----------



## Solscud007 (Dec 13, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*



TigerhawkT3 said:


> How funny that that's exactly how Mag tailcaps work. Loosen them slightly, and the light turns off. Push them, and it'll stay on until you release them. Loosen further, and the light won't turn on even when pressed.
> 
> The only difference is that their size makes it less convenient to do this as opposed to using the side switch.




really? what mag tailcaps are you talking about? Minimags you twist the bezel. Larger mags have a side clicky. none of them lock out by twisting the batter tailcap.


----------



## Black Rose (Dec 13, 2008)

Question.

The Solarforce/SpiderFire/UltraFire L2 model is an obvious duplication (ripoff?) of the SureFire P6 _*design*_ and available for significantly less money. 

Why isn't SureFire going after these guys? Simply because they are offshore and SureFire would get embroiled in an international legal battle?


----------



## Kiessling (Dec 13, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*



kramer5150 said:


> :thinking:
> I don't understand the CPF population. The VAST majority look down on clone products and design copying. It gets to the point of heated discussions and outright boycotting clone products, in favor of the design originators product.
> 
> Now an originating designer is taking a stand and protecting their design patents... and the CPF population sees that as a negative?
> :thinking:



Dito to that. 




dudemar said:


> Here's one of the things SureFire is suing over:
> 
> _In addition, the plaintiff alleges that PentagonLight has published numerous advertisements including either express or implied assertions that its flashlights are "Made in U.S.A."_
> 
> It's one thing to file litigation over patents, but this is *clearly *where it crosses the line. Surefire is no different from Microsoft, Sony and MagLite when it comes to corporate greed. Why go against the competition when you can _sue_ them out of competition?



Well ... isn't CPF the board that is so fond about "Made in USA" and asks this question a bazillion times about a bazillion products? Isn't it satisfying that finally one of those companies lying about such an important factoid is held responsible for their deception, if they are guilty, that is?

For me personally, I really do not care about "Made in USA". But I find the reaction here now a bit strange.


Further more, like it was already said, we don't know the full details. In the case of Mag vs Arc, it was very clear that it was made-up to kill Arc and could not hold ground in reality. It was a bogus legal fight.
This one ... I don't know.

I remember how PL stirred the pot a few years ago, I remember their agggressive and marketing using lights where SF put their R&D on the table to develop. They rode a nasty attack and if they used tools that they should be forbidden to use ... their problem. I don't see any mroal issue for SF when defending their turf. Like I said ... different story than Mag vs Arc or Microsoft.

Let's see how it goes and if we get to know some more details. Especially if the judge passes judgement and the case comes to an end. 

bernie



P.S.: btw ... I tested their light some time back, and if they haven't dramaticall improved their quality, the end of PL is no loss. But that is just me from a flashaholic's POV


----------



## Kiessling (Dec 13, 2008)

Black Rose said:


> Question.
> 
> The Solarforce/SpiderFire/UltraFire L2 model is an obvious duplication (ripoff?) of the SureFire P6 _*design*_ and available for significantly less money.
> 
> Why isn't SureFire going after these guys? Simply because they are offshore and SureFire would get embroiled in an international legal battle?




How do you know they aren't?

And if they knew they had no chance here ... should they do it nevertheless, just because?

bernie


----------



## jrmcferren (Dec 13, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*



Solscud007 said:


> really? what mag tailcaps are you talking about? Minimags you twist the bezel. Larger mags have a side clicky. none of them lock out by twisting the batter tailcap.


I have noticed that you can unscrew the caps on the D Maglites and it shuts off the light as the threads are anodized. This could be used as a crude lock out tailcap mechanism. It is like Candle Mode on the minimags this feature has not been advertised (Candle mode is not advertised but has not always been).


----------



## kramer5150 (Dec 13, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*



Mr Happy said:


> You need to ask yourself why patents are worthy of legal protection?
> 
> Approximately 95% of patents granted lack any unique inventive step in the invention that is protected. Most of the time patents are government backed monopolies for something obvious, granted to whichever applicant is first to describe it using the appropriate legal language and pay the fee.
> 
> ...



Interesting points... Yet still, if something legally belongs to someone, and another guy steals it shouldn't the rightful owner be given the chance to claim it back?

It may not be "worthy" of protection in my (or anyone else s) eyes, but perhaps to the originator that patent is worth protecting... and they have every right to to so under the law.

IMHO Surefire is far from a monopoly, popular-yes, but monopoly-no (at least based on my limited understanding of what a monopoly is).


----------



## Mr Happy (Dec 13, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*



kramer5150 said:


> Interesting points... Yet still, if something legally belongs to someone, and another guy steals it shouldn't the rightful owner be given the chance to claim it back?
> 
> It may not be "worthy" of protection in my (or anyone else s) eyes, but perhaps to the originator that patent is worth protecting... and they have every right to to so under the law.
> 
> IMHO Surefire is far from a monopoly, popular-yes, but monopoly-no (at least based on my limited understanding of what a monopoly is).


It's interesting your choice of words there, "steal" and "claim it back". According to the historical and common law definition of theft or larceny, it is not possible to steal intellectual property. This, among various other reasons, is because for theft to be accomplished someone has to gain control over what is stolen and deprive the original owner of it.

Clearly if I use a design that you claim protected rights to, I have not gained control over that design, nor deprived you of the ability to use it. There is no sense it which it can be "claimed back" because it has not been lost.

The term that should be used regarding intellectual property is "used without permission". It is possible then to consider the morals of whether permission should be required to use a design that is readily and easily arrived at by anyone who cares to think about the matter.


----------



## dudemar (Dec 13, 2008)

To the CPFers stating PentagonLight "stole" ideas, and therefore they're "guilty":

It bears repeating because obviously some folks skipped my previous post. It isn't clear what decision was made. The key word here is "*IF*". Unless you know the official court results from Texas, you're still in the dark just like the rest of us. If you care to share your psychic powers to read a federal judge's mind, go for it.:tinfoil: I'm all ears.



Black Rose said:


> Question.
> 
> The Solarforce/SpiderFire/UltraFire L2 model is an obvious duplication (ripoff?) of the SureFire P6 _*design*_ and available for significantly less money.
> 
> Why isn't SureFire going after these guys? Simply because they are offshore and SureFire would get embroiled in an international legal battle?



The short answer is yes.

It's difficult to sue a Chinese based company because many of them are "fly by night". By the time you get around to building a case, they've moved on and there's nothing worth suing over. Chinese laws designed by the Politburo are vastly different from ours, and finding a good lawyer in that field is probably more expensive than finding a domestic (US) legal team. Which brings me to my next point...

Pentagonlight is based in the USA, which makes it much easier for Surefire to sue their pants off. The laws are US based, so again it's easier to fight the case in court.

While SureFire is not a monopoly by legal definition, they certainly are a monopoly (or has a HUGE stake) in the flashlight industry. That obviously goes without saying, and any CPFer in their right mind knows that as well.



yellow said:


> flashlight body, front glass, reflector, bulb, 2 CR123 batts, end switch (even when twist+push - already available longer than we live)
> --> its just ridiculus to patent than,
> its even more ridiculus to sue a "cheap competitor" out of business.
> *How about still work on making the better product? Thats what the informed customer will buy.*



I agree 100%, especially on the last line.


----------



## Lee1959 (Dec 13, 2008)

Come on guys, we are all big boys and girls. If you owned a company and you thought someone was using your patents and trademarks, you would do everything in your power to stop it, even if it destroyed their company. Better theirs than yours because you let people infringe upon your profits through your own neglect. That is why you get patents and trademarks in the first place!!! It is business, harsh but true. To denegrate Maglight or Surefire for agressively protecting their own business is silly, ask any business person.


----------



## Mr Happy (Dec 13, 2008)

Lee1959 said:


> Come on guys, we are all big boys and girls. If you owned a company and you thought someone was using your patents and trademarks, you would do everything in your power to stop it, even if it destroyed their company. Better theirs than yours because you let people infringe upon your profits through your own neglect. That is why you get patents and trademarks in the first place!!! It is business, harsh but true. To denegrate Maglight or Surefire for agressively protecting their own business is silly, ask any business person.


Remember however, that _their_ business depends on _your_ goodwill as a customer. _Your_ interest depends on you having the best available selection of products at the best available prices. That does not necessarily coincide with _their_ interest in having the only available supply of products at high prices that _they_ control.

Yes, it's business, but it needs customers to make a business. It is for customers to make their feelings known by patronizing businesses that serve their interests and avoiding businesses that don't.

The public-at-large are often their own worst enemies by choosing short term satisfaction against own greater interest, and thereby failing to apply the business principles that corporations employ.


----------



## dudemar (Dec 13, 2008)

After Surefire wins this case I heard they're shifting their R&D toward powdered beverage drinks. It's flavored with a secret sauce which Surefire applied _patents_ for. Anyone who _dares_ infringe on said patents will be sued their pants off.

The folks who say "they deserve to get sued" obviously don't care about PentagonLight...

...however if SureFire was sued and went out of business, these same exact folks would be crying foul left and right. I'll bet my entire light collection on that.


----------



## NoFair (Dec 13, 2008)

Black Rose said:


> Question.
> 
> The Solarforce/SpiderFire/UltraFire L2 model is an obvious duplication (ripoff?) of the SureFire P6 _*design*_ and available for significantly less money.
> 
> Why isn't SureFire going after these guys? Simply because they are offshore and SureFire would get embroiled in an international legal battle?


 
Going after small Chinese firms is very difficult, they aren't usually to respectful of international copyrights and patents... 

I think most firms settle on going after US dealers/resellers.

Sverre


----------



## MrBenchmark (Dec 13, 2008)

Folks, this is just standard operating practice in business now. There are a variety of reasons you might file a patent case:
- You want to stop or slow down a competitor who got some business you wanted.
- You want to shake-down a company or industry. (This is the entire business model of RAMBUS!)
- Ego. It irks you they used an idea you patented, even if it's a pretty obvious idea. You believe your stuff is that good.

Many companies use patents as strategic deterrence - if you sue me over infringing on "totally obvious idea A, that you patented", I'll sue you over "totally obvious idea B, that I patented." 

Sometimes this tactic works great, sometimes it totally flops. It can take a lot of time, and cost a lot of money and take quite a lot of attention away from running your business to fight one of these cases.

I personally think that duking it out in court over patents is a losing proposition - you'd be better off designing something newer and even better. But that's just me. 

As far as the "David vs. Goliath" aspect of this, it often goes both ways. But in any case, it's way easier to kill off a competitor when they are tiny. 

You can invest all the emotion you want to in the business decisions of others, but in the end, I think it bears saying that it's just business.


----------



## TigerhawkT3 (Dec 13, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*



Solscud007 said:


> really? what mag tailcaps are you talking about? Minimags you twist the bezel. Larger mags have a side clicky. none of them lock out by twisting the batter tailcap.


Really. Regular, full-size Maglites can all be locked out by twisting the tailcap, or used in momentary when only slightly loosened.


----------



## dudemar (Dec 13, 2008)

MrBenchmark said:


> Folks, this is just standard operating practice in business now. There are a variety of reasons you might file a patent case:
> - You want to stop or slow down a competitor who got some business you wanted.
> - You want to shake-down a company or industry. (This is the entire business model of RAMBUS!)
> - Ego. It irks you they used an idea you patented, even if it's a pretty obvious idea. You believe your stuff is that good.
> ...



Very good points MrBenchmark, and you're right- sadly it's just the way business goes these days.


----------



## Mr Happy (Dec 13, 2008)

dudemar said:


> Very good points MrBenchmark, and you're right- sadly it's just the way business goes these days.


But like I said, you and I, the flashlight buying public, are part of their business. If you or I want better and cheaper alternatives to Surefire in the marketplace, let's stop buying frigging Surefires! Make the company see sense and concentrate its efforts on improving its technology rather than squashing competition and increasing prices for old technology in a monopoly market.

If Surefire is the only (expensive) option for the flashlight you want, you (the purchasers) have only yourselves to blame.


----------



## dudemar (Dec 13, 2008)

Mr Happy said:


> But like I said, you and I are part of their business. If you want better and cheaper alternatives to Surefire in the marketplace, stop buying frigging Surefires! *Make the company see sense and concentrate its efforts on improving its technology rather than squashing competition and increasing prices for old technology in a monopoly market.*
> 
> If Surefire is the only (expensive) option for the flashlight you want, you have only yourself to blame.



Thus my boycott on SureFire.:thumbsup: I think they're going to start to feel the pain of the lawsuit and price increase very soon, especially in today's economy.


----------



## Kiessling (Dec 13, 2008)

dudemar said:


> Thus my boycott on SureFire.:thumbsup:



Have fun with it ! 

I will buy more SF, to compensate your boycott. And to support the protection of intellectual property as well as the purity of the "Made in USA"-label. 

I am running Windows, too. 

I am a sheep. 

Good night my flashaholic friends. 

bernie


----------



## dudemar (Dec 13, 2008)

Kiessling said:


> I am running Windows, too.
> 
> I am a sheep.



Scary!oo:


----------



## american lockpicker (Dec 13, 2008)

I plan to buy a Surefire 9p sometime next year.


----------



## defloyd77 (Dec 13, 2008)

Hey, what's wrong with Windows? Say what you will about SF, but would it be any different if someone were to steal something from a store and sell it for less? Would you boycott the store because the person got hard time for stealing? Would it matter if it was Walmart or some small local store? Is stealing physical things and selling them any different than stealing patented ideas and selling them? I don't think so. I wonder if there's a previous history between PL and SF, like maybe SF's lawyers paid PL a visit and made it clear that there was patent infringement with their products?


----------



## american lockpicker (Dec 13, 2008)

dudemar said:


> ...The folks who say "they deserve to get sued" obviously don't care about PentagonLight...
> 
> ...however if SureFire was sued and went out of business, these same exact folks would be crying foul left and right. I'll bet my entire light collection on that.


 

I know this applies to me I support Surefire in this case because I really don't care about Pentagon Light.


----------



## dudemar (Dec 13, 2008)

defloyd77 said:


> Hey, what's wrong with Windows? Say what you will about SF, but would it be any different if someone were to steal something from a store and sell it for less? Would you boycott the store because the person got hard time for stealing? Would it matter if it was Walmart or some small local store? Is stealing physical things and selling them any different than stealing patented ideas and selling them? I don't think so. I wonder if there's a previous history between PL and SF, like maybe SF's lawyers paid PL a visit and made it clear that there was patent infringement with their products?



No need to panic, Bernie (aka Kiessling our friendly Mod.)was just making a joke about Windows. The joke being it comes pre-programmed with most PCs, therefore we are like sheep guided by the MS shepherd.

I'm a bit confused with your post, could you clarify? It seems like the first half is in conflict with the second half.


----------



## defloyd77 (Dec 13, 2008)

dudemar said:


> No need to panic, Bernie (aka Kiessling our friendly Mod.)was just making a joke about Windows. The joke being it comes pre-programmed with most PCs, therefore we are like sheep guided by the MS shepherd.
> 
> I'm a bit confused with your post, could you clarify? It seems like the first half is in conflict with the second half.



Lol, no panic I was joking. Basically I'm saying stealing is stealing be it something small from a small company or something big from a big company. I'm just wondering if Pentagon knew it was stealing.


----------



## Kiessling (Dec 13, 2008)

This tragedy will end like almost all similar tragedies ended over the years: 
A lot of speculation, some harsh words, a little bit of brand wars ... and no real info, and we will be left in the dark. 

Btw ... for all those who prefer a more direct approach to the subject with open and to-the-point talk ... visit the Underground.

bernie


----------



## Juggernaut (Dec 13, 2008)

dudemar said:


> ...however if SureFire was sued and went out of business, these same exact folks would be crying foul left and right. I'll bet my entire light collection on that.


 
Wow…..I never thought of that:thinking:, someone should start a thread on this. What… if…Surefire went out of business! What would the world be like:shrug:?


----------



## dudemar (Dec 13, 2008)

I just bought a PentagonLight LB2 from Optics Planet. It's a variable output LED light, and since there's no bulb to replace it'll live forever.

My wish has come true...



Juggernaut said:


> Wow…..I never thought of that:thinking:, someone should start a thread on this. What… if…Surefire went out of business! What would the world be like:shrug:?



It's interesting, right? Now that you mention it I think I will start a thread about that...

Bernie, where would I start such a thread? It's a hypothetical event so I assume the Cafe.


----------



## srvctec (Dec 13, 2008)

Kiessling said:


> and no real info, and we will be left in the dark.



Now that's FUNNY!! 

No we won't! We are flashaholics for Pete's sake!


----------



## Monocrom (Dec 14, 2008)

defloyd77 said:


> Basically I'm saying stealing is stealing be it something small from a small company or something big from a big company.


 
You are 100% correct about that.




> I'm just wondering if Pentagon knew it was stealing.


 
Let's keep in mind that Surefire has *claimed* that PL stole from them. The case is still pending. Being called a thief, and actually being found guilty of such by a judge; those are two different things indeed.


----------



## Mr Happy (Dec 14, 2008)

Monocrom said:


> defloyd77 said:
> 
> 
> > Basically I'm saying stealing is stealing be it something small from a small company or something big from a big company. I'm just wondering if Pentagon knew it was stealing.
> ...


However, refer back to my post above. Whatever the court's findings may be, no stealing has taken place in law, nor will have taken place. The incorrect of use of words like stealing does not help with factual discussion.


----------



## Monocrom (Dec 14, 2008)

Mr Happy said:


> However, refer back to my post above. Whatever the court's findings may be, no stealing has taken place in law, nor will have taken place. The incorrect of use of words like stealing does not help with factual discussion.


 


Did you notice the 2nd part of my last post?


----------



## MrBenchmark (Dec 14, 2008)

Mr Happy said:


> But like I said, you and I are part of their business. If you want better and cheaper alternatives to Surefire in the marketplace, stop buying frigging Surefires! Make the company see sense and concentrate its efforts on improving its technology rather than squashing competition and increasing prices for old technology in a monopoly market.



That's definitely your prerogative. 

I really do mean it when I say this stuff doesn't always work out. In the Astronomy world, I've seen a couple of companies (Meade and Celestron) go after each other for years with lawyers and patent lawsuits. (Mostly M went after C - but not always!) Ultimately Celestron nearly went out of business, but was bought out by a Chinese company. Meade, on the other hand, traces publicly for $0.08 / share, and may actually go out of business.

Ultimately these guys spent millions on lawsuits that they probably really wish they had right about now. 

To me, the moral of the story is that if you are a tech company, and you are relying on lawyers to protect your ideas, you are in trouble because you aren't creating new ideas nearly fast enough. 

Anyway, no opinions from me on this particular case. I don't know Pentagon lights, and don't know the merits of SF's claims.

I will leave you with one last horrible story about patents, and the abuse of our legal system. 

There is a company called RAMBUS. They designed this technology called RDRAM. It failed in the market, for the most part. It cost quite a bit more than standard DRAMS, and ultimately, it didn't perform much better. In a word, it sucked.

However, some of their engineers sat in on JEDEC meetings, a consortium that designs standards for electronic components - memory in this case. The RAMBUS engineers _knew_ that the standards being suggested by folks in JEDEC infringed on their patents. (JEDEC was unaware of the patents - they had only just been filed! The RAMBUS guys also nudged them down the path towards technologies that might infringe on their patents.) The point of JEDEC is to design standards so that vendors of different types of electronic components can build stuff that works together. It's pretty useless if every memory manufacturer designed completely different technology into their memory product.

So when people began to design and build DDR RAMS, and design devices to use them, unbeknownst to them, they were violating these patents from RAMBUS. This came as a surprise, because part of the point of such a consortium is to avoid this type of problem. So RAMBUS goes after pretty much everyone one, filing suit after suit. 

Slimey, huh?


----------



## Mr Happy (Dec 14, 2008)

Monocrom said:


> Did you notice the 2nd part of my last post?


Yes I did. That was entirely my point. Surefire has not claimed that PL stole from them (cannot claim in law before a judge; what they might say for publicity is a different matter). Stealing is not at issue here. Alleged or actual infringement of intellectual property rights is not stealing, and it muddies the water to use that word when it does not apply. The closest analogy that might be appropriate is trespass.


----------



## dudemar (Dec 14, 2008)

Mr Happy,

Not trying to sound rude, but I think you should be more specific on whose words you're correcting. The way you phrased it made it sound like Monocrom was grammatically incorrect, when defloyd77 is the one who originally said the line "I'm just wondering if Pentagon knew it was stealing." While Monocrom did use the word "steal", it seems he was just playing off of defloyd77's words.

I was taken aback on your last post when it sounded like you were telling _me_ to not buy SureFires, even though I had previously stated I was boycotting them:



Mr Happy said:


> But like I said, *you* and I are part of their business. If *you* want better and cheaper alternatives to Surefire in the marketplace, stop buying frigging Surefires! Make the company see sense and concentrate its efforts on improving its technology rather than squashing competition and increasing prices for old technology in a monopoly market.
> 
> If Surefire is the only (expensive) option for the flashlight *you* want, *you* have only *yourself* to blame.


----------



## Mr Happy (Dec 14, 2008)

dudemar said:


> Not trying to sound rude, but I think you should be more specific on whose words you're correcting. The way you phrased it made it sound like Monocrom was grammatically incorrect, when defloyd77 is the one who originally said the line "I'm just wondering if Pentagon knew it was stealing." While Monocrom did use the word "steal", it seems he was just playing off of defloyd77's words.
> 
> I was taken aback on your last post when it sounded like you were telling _me_ to not buy SureFires, even though I had previously stated I was boycotting them:


Sorry dudemar, I didn't mean to offend. That's the trouble with using words like "you" I guess. I meant it generally, as in "you, the flashlight buying public". In fact I wasn't aware of your SureFire boycott until your later post. I've edited my earlier post for clarity.

As for "steal" I was responding both to defloyd77 and Monocrom. defloyd77 used the word and Monocrom said he was "100% correct" to use it. But if I misrepresented Monocrom I apologize.

I'm just arguing it would be better if people used the correct term "patent infringement".


----------



## dudemar (Dec 14, 2008)

No worries, just needed some clarification.


----------



## nohcho (Dec 14, 2008)

Kiessling said:


> And to support the protection of intellectual property as well as the purity of the "Made in USA"-label.


 

Hey Kressling, let me ask you, why do you care about "Made in USA" label, cause if you are in Germany should'n you be like "Made in Geramny" supporter or something?


(Thyis is a friendly question)


----------



## dudemar (Dec 14, 2008)

nohcho said:


> Hey Kressling, let me ask you, why do you care about "Made in USA" label, cause if you are in Germany should'n you be like "Made in Geramny" supporter or something?
> 
> 
> (Thyis is a friendly question)



Seeing how there aren't too many German-made lights, perhaps he supports the US economy?:shrug:

Or just SureFire in general.

Parat is a German company that recently released the new X-treme lights , but I believe they're "Made in China".


----------



## Solscud007 (Dec 14, 2008)

I hope that many of you realize that any boycott or action from the flashaholic world will undoubtedly have little to NO effect on SF. Think about how many SF lights you buy. a measly handful. Even the most avid collector buys a few duplicates. However once you have that particular light you dont need to keep buying them. Also many of us collect older Surefires for their collectibility. Many of them long since sold by Surefire and some of them were never sold here in the states.

So our effect on SF is like a fly hitting a semi truck on the highway.

Companies like SF make their money from large bulk orders as well as Law enforcement and military contracts.

So even though we like to think that we could make a difference, more than likely not.


----------



## DM51 (Dec 14, 2008)

It is best to let the law decide these things. A company's obligation to its stockholders, not personal feelings, dictates any action it takes against its competitors, and the law decides who is in the wrong, and how much (if any) compensation is due.


----------



## brucec (Dec 14, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*

Are you saying patent infringement is OK because it does not fall under your definition of a theft?? A patent is a contract between the government and inventors for the purpose of advancing the state of the art in a particular field. In exchange for publicly sharing the design of the invention, the government awards a certain amount of protection for the practice of the IP. The government doesn't want all of the inventors of the world to just hold all of their knowledge indefinitly as tradesecrets. That would be really bad for everyone in the end. So to encourage inventors to openly share, they are issued patent protection.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Surefire filing suit against companies that have violated their patents. Whether or not Surefire is actually using the patent or whether or not they seek legal course is purely their option. My company shut down a $100 million dollar company two years ago for patent infringement and actually stealing blueprints. The FBI was involved, the company was liquidated, and people even went to jail.



Mr Happy said:


> It's interesting your choice of words there, "steal" and "claim it back". According to the historical and common law definition of theft or larceny, it is not possible to steal intellectual property. This, among various other reasons, is because for theft to be accomplished someone has to gain control over what is stolen and deprive the original owner of it.
> 
> Clearly if I use a design that you claim protected rights to, I have not gained control over that design, nor deprived you of the ability to use it. There is no sense it which it can be "claimed back" because it has not been lost.
> 
> The term that should be used regarding intellectual property is "used without permission". It is possible then to consider the morals of whether permission should be required to use a design that is readily and easily arrived at by anyone who cares to think about the matter.


----------



## Fallingwater (Dec 14, 2008)

tvodrd said:


> Surefire claims a patent for flashlight accidental activation avoidance (lockout) by loosening the tailcap and preventing electrical commutation.


I can't help but think this is seriously screwed up. Isn't this "lockout" thing basically just unscrewing the tailcap? How can you get a patent for something so trivially simple?
Now everyone who wants to make a tailcap that interrupts contact when unscrewed will have to pay SF for the rights to use it?
Unless I've gotten something wrong...


----------



## Solscud007 (Dec 14, 2008)

I think it is more complex. The lockout tailcap is also the primary means of activation. I have not yet looked close or from far, a pentagon light. but if their lights activate similar to a Surefire, meaning tailcap switch and LOTC then it is infringing on the patent. also there might be more detail, like how Pentagon tailcap is made and constructed. it might be all in the minute details that we cannot see unless we break down the components and compare them with SFs.


----------



## McGizmo (Dec 14, 2008)

I haven't read all of the posts in this thread as I see no reason to get myself worked up over a complex issue which I find I myself have conflicting attitudes and feelings about. Basically I have a problem with the cost of playing in the land of IP protection as it relates to the need for legal council coupled with the apparent direction of patent applications where the norm is to claim as much as possible and well beyond the scope at hand. There are some healthy special interests thriving in the land of patents which have little to do with actual protection of those engaged in R&D and innovation. JMHO.

The reason I am posting is a comment on the last few posts above mine and in regards to SF's LOTC. I believe the original tailcaps on the SF lights (3P & 6P) did not have a lock out feature. You could activate the light regardless of how far you backed off the tail cap. I think SF realized the value of a means of locking out the light so it could not be turned on and as a result came up with what I consider to be a reasonlably obvious method of limiting the travel of the switch button and providing a means of lock out. They were likely the first in deciding this was a feature they wanted to include and apparently they were succesful in getting a patent on this idea. There is some notion in Patent Law about being "obvious" to someone schooled in the dicipline (forgive my poor paraphrasing). I consider the lock out tailcap as something obvious but would it ultimately be obvious had I not seen it ahead of time? I think so but it's a guess. 

In retrosepct, it seems that the early flashlight manufacturers were to some extent granted the moon when it comes to flashlight design. Anyone familiar with some of Mag's patent infringement suits might agree with my perception and comment here.

But, I have heard the argument that if you don't make a patent claim you leave it open for someone else to do so and may find that you are then infringing. Having the rights to a design via a patent held can insure that you have the freedom to produce. I have also heard tell that not pursuing a patent infringement can ultimately undermine your ability to claim such, down the road. :shrug:

IMHO, patent law, as it stands today, is a sure winner for the legal industry that has specialized in it and created a language foreign to many who design and engineer the ideas covered. 

Legal justification and ethics aside, I don't fault SF for going after Pentagon Light. IMHO, Pentagon Lights was out of bounds across the field with some of their marketing techniques, statements and what have you. Their name alone, I personally find insulting on many levels. Deemed as competition, I can guess where this company was seen as competing in disregard to the "rules" accepted and observed by the others in the game.

It would seem that SF has been successful in calling Pentagon Lights on their BS. The legal, moral and ethical rights involved here are certainly beyond my ken and beyond my interest, frankly. 

As an aside, it seems clear to me that a manufacture would be extremely foolish in expecting the consumer and its market base to acknowledge innovation and respect IP. To leave the rewards and punishment of just business practices to free enterprise and the consumer would be a joke. There would be no theft, however defined, if there were no buyers for the "stolen" goods. The consumer is under no obligation to have knowledge of the origin of goods but it is clear to me that in cases where they do have such knowledge, there is no guarantee that they will behave in a forthright manner if there best interests lie elsewhere. I would guess that the casual consumer would be of the position that if something is available for purchase then all is OK and if not, then not. Let those in the know make the decisions and keep the market fair and equitable. In this vein, SF has filed suit against Pentagon Light. For anyone adamant about calling foul here, do you wish to take the issues and matters involved on yourself?


----------



## Mr Happy (Dec 14, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*



brucec said:


> Are you saying patent infringement is OK because it does not fall under your definition of a theft?? A patent is a contract between the government and inventors for the purpose of advancing the state of the art in a particular field. In exchange for publicly sharing the design of the invention, the government awards a certain amount of protection for the practice of the IP. The government doesn't want all of the inventors of the world to just hold all of their knowledge indefinitly as tradesecrets. That would be really bad for everyone in the end. So to encourage inventors to openly share, they are issued patent protection.


Not my definition of theft actually, but the law's definition of theft.

There are many shades of gray surrounding intellectual property law and it is not always the case that one party is innocent and one party is guilty. Like boxers in a ring, there are only winners and losers in this game. We don't say the winner is right and the loser is wrong, just that the winner gets to claim the spoils.

Suppose you design something and try to use it in your product, only to find that another party claims patent protection over it and prevents you using your design? Who now has been wronged?

The truth is that if a hundred people skilled in the art are faced with a particular design problem, most of them will come up naturally with the same solution. There will be no great inventive step involved, just logical deduction and reasoning from the facts and constraints given. Advancement will proceed fastest if all these designers are allowed to compete in refining and engineering their solution better than the others. On the other hand, if patent protection is granted to the first of them to file as often happens, then advancement is held back by forcing lots of sub-optimal and degraded designs into the market to avoid infringement.

I rather feel that the whole apparatus of patent protection should be dismantled today and the market allowed to operate freely. IP laws are not driven by governments and legislators, they are driven by wealthy and influential corporate lobbyists looking for easier ways to grow their fortunes.


----------



## Size15's (Dec 14, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*



Mr Happy said:


> The truth is that if a hundred people skilled in the art are faced with a particular design problem, most of them will come up naturally with the same solution. There will be no great inventive step involved, just logical deduction and reasoning from the facts and constraints given. Advancement will proceed fastest if all these designers are allowed to compete in refining and engineering their solution better than the others. On the other hand, if patent protection is granted to the first of them to file as often happens, then advancement is held back by forcing lots of sub-optimal and degraded designs into the market to avoid infringement.


That's a very depressing view that I don't consider to be very accurate:
I take a far more optimistic view of patents - they encourage innovation and fresh and new ways of solving problems and engineering solutions.

By your logic the likes of the Gladius UI are sub-optimal and degraded whereas I believe it to be a different and apparently very affective solution [that takes a different route to the ones that SureFire have invented and patented].
Now we have the new Inova UI which is yet another approach and perhaps its too early to tell whether or not it is sub-optimal but if everybody could use any idea they liked I'm not sure either Gladius or now Inova would have been created.

The situation is what it is and those who can; will enterprise their way through the patent [minefield] system. There will be the rise and fall of winners and losers in the market with many factors influencing the success and failure of companies and organisations. Some will weather storms and hardship better than others.

Al


----------



## defloyd77 (Dec 14, 2008)

Steal means take without owners consent. LOTC is SF's and they have patents. If Pentagon took this idea from SF without their consent, I consider it stealing. There doesn't have to be something physical to be considered stealing.


----------



## Kiessling (Dec 14, 2008)

dudemar said:


> Bernie, where would I start such a thread? It's a hypothetical event so I assume the Cafe.



Sounds like the Underground would be best  




nohcho said:


> Hey Kressling, let me ask you, why do you care about "Made in USA" label, cause if you are in Germany should'n you be like "Made in Geramny" supporter or something?
> (Thyis is a friendly question)



Because my post was not to be taken seriously, and because I really do not care where something is made. I care for the product.
BUT ... my point was that on this board, CPF, the "Made in USA" is soooo valuable and a lot of people cry foul on the lightest shade of a doubt ... and now that a company actually "defends" the "Made in USA" ... there are the "foul" cries again. Paradox. 




defloyd77 said:


> Steal means take without owners consent. LOTC is SF's and they have patents. If Pentagon took this idea from SF without their consent, I consider it stealing. There doesn't have to be something physical to be considered stealing.



I wonder why we have to argue about semantics so much when we all seem to know what the problem is. And I am not singling out nor am I attacking Mr. defloyd's post, it just happened to be the last one in the thread 

bernie


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*



Solscud007 said:


> really? what mag tailcaps are you talking about? Minimags you twist the bezel. Larger mags have a side clicky. none of them lock out by twisting the batter tailcap.


Ah yes actually they do... I started a poll on this very topic this week, FWIW I use this method to de-activate my highpowered [email protected] so they don't accidentally turn on whilst in storage in the work bag :thumbsup:


Additionally, all this talk of better use of resources than pursuing a competitor who's possibly in breach of patent, without any legal protection on intellectual property WHY should large companies invest HUGE sums of money into research & development for a new product/design?

@ Mr. Happy your example would be better replaced by the term 'design plagiarism' :thumbsup:


----------



## dudemar (Dec 14, 2008)

.


----------



## Monocrom (Dec 14, 2008)

*Re: Pentagon Lights = Dead*



Size15's said:


> That's a very depressing view that I don't consider to be very accurate:
> I take a far more optimistic view of patents - they encourage innovation and fresh and new ways of solving problems and engineering solutions.
> 
> By your logic the likes of the Gladius UI are sub-optimal and degraded whereas I believe it to be a different and apparently very affective solution [that takes a different route to the ones that SureFire have invented and patented].
> ...


 
Ironically, I see the Gladius as a perfect example of what Mr. Happy was talking about. The selector ring on the SF U2 is the best idea for a multi-mode tactical light. I've examined a handful of Gladius models. The tailcaps are hard plastic, the switches feel thin, and the tailcaps were a loose fit on all of the ones I examined; except one. (Ended up buying that one). The loose fit ensured that the modes would change too easily, such as when carried in a pocket. Nothing like needing your light, only to find it in the wrong mode; or that it was locked-out.

There's no 2nd Gen. Gladius. Just an upgrade for the original that makes it brighter. The Typhoon II version is just the same light but with the upgrade already put in. The Gladius and its UI appear to be a dead end on the evolutionary tree of flashlight technology. Similar to steam-powered cars soon after Henry Ford invented the automobile. Early steam-powered cars also had a couple of advantages over Ford's design. (Such as increased power). But ultimately were not a better design overall.


----------



## Monocrom (Dec 14, 2008)

Kiessling said:


> ... my point was that on this board, CPF, the "Made in USA" is soooo valuable and a lot of people cry foul on the lightest shade of a doubt ... and now that a company actually "defends" the "Made in USA" ... there are the "foul" cries again. Paradox.
> 
> bernie


 
Not really. 

If the company was other than Surefire, it would be a different story. Surefire isn't going after PL in order to uphold the "Made in the USA" label. It's not about patriotism. They're going after PL in order to kill off a competitor. A competitor that may or may not have used some of Surefire's protected ideas. However, Surefire was successful in basically closing down their competitor before the judge even reached an official decision. 

That's one of the things that I consider to be "foul" with regards to this case. It illustrates that if you have enough *$$$ *you can get rid of the competition, just by bringing a case against them. No need to wait for an impartial judge to render a decision.


----------



## Kiessling (Dec 14, 2008)

Monocrom said:


> That's one of the things that I consider to be "foul" with regards to this case. It illustrates that if you have enough *$$$ *you can get rid of the competition, just by bringing a case against them. No need to wait for an impartial judge to render a decision.





So ... what should a company do that sees another one infringing on their patents? If you consider bringing up legal charges to be "foul" ... what else should a company do then?

To begin with ... I consider it foul to take someone else's ideas and use them as my own. That is the primary problem. There must be a means to rectify it. SHow me, please.

Forgetting that the case is not closed yet and forgetting that the patent might or might not be "reasonable". I just wanna know how a company should proceed in order to avoid the "foul".

bernie


----------



## Size15's (Dec 14, 2008)

Monocrom said:


> Surefire isn't going after PL in order to uphold the "Made in the USA" label. It's not about patriotism. They're going after PL in order to kill off a competitor. A competitor that may or may not have used some of Surefire's protected ideas.


How do you know this? Have you spoken with those at SureFire who made the decisions?
Those at SureFire who I've talked to and discussed Pentagonlight were very angry about the way Pentagonlight were using the 'Made in the USA' label.
SureFire employees are US Patriots - ten years getting to know SureFire gives me no doubt about this.



Monocrom said:


> However, Surefire was successful in basically closing down their competitor before the judge even reached an official decision.


Again, how do you know this?
Do you know details of the case you're not sharing with us?
An alternative explanation could be an injunction preventing Pentagonlight from selling the products in question whilst the case is being heard.

I don't think we know enough detail about this case to judge either party. When the outcome is known and the details come it the actions of each party can be seen and debated and judged.

Al


----------



## Monocrom (Dec 14, 2008)

Kiessling said:


> Forgetting that the case is not closed yet and forgetting that the patent might or might not be "reasonable". I just wanna know how a company should proceed in order to avoid the "foul".
> 
> bernie


 
If a company feels that another one is using their intellectual property without permission, then yes they should file a lawsuit. But the company being accussed of theft should continue to operate its business until the judge renders an actual decision.

To be able to shut down a competitor simply with a _claim_ of theft and a butt-load of money, that's just not right. Do you think Surefire cares about winning the court case? They already won. Practically sued a competitor out of existence.... without even needing a favorable decision from the judge in the case.


----------



## ToeMoss (Dec 14, 2008)

Mr Happy said:


> However, refer back to my post above. Whatever the court's findings may be, no stealing has taken place in law, nor will have taken place. The incorrect of use of words like stealing does not help with factual discussion.



You know as well as everyone else what "stealing" is in the context of this discussion. Put away your dictionary.

I find it surprising that you or anyone else would defend the crime of patent infringement and justify it by claiming (rightly or not) that it will benefit the consumers. If PentagonLight is unlawfully benefiting from a design that SureFire has sole rights to, every single one of us should stand behind their right to protect themselves.


----------



## Kiessling (Dec 14, 2008)

Well ... but that's really not SF's problem if PL can continue or not. They file a case. If the legal procedures kill PL, that is a problem of th elegal system, and not SF's fault. They filed a lawsuit where their only option is to file a lawsuit.

You should direct youor anger towards your flawed legal system and patent laws, and not towards SF. Because then, you'd need to critisize every and all companies who ever filed such a lawsuit.

bernie


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2008)

Monocrom said:


> If a company feels that another one is using their intellectual property without permission, then yes they should file a lawsuit. But the company being accussed of theft should continue to operate its business until the judge renders an actual decision.
> 
> To be able to shut down a competitor simply with a _claim_ of theft and a butt-load of money, that's just not right. Do you think Surefire cares about winning the court case? They already won. Practically sued a competitor out of existence.... without even needing a favorable decision from the judge in the case.


Forget the rights of the inventor & allow the accused company to continue it's illegal activity until you reach a judicial outcome... this proposition would only compound on the existing 'wrong' done to the filing party 


No protection = No investment in product R&D

* shakes head *


----------



## Monocrom (Dec 14, 2008)

*To: Al ~*

Which makes more sense, a company suing a competitor due to being offended over the possible misuse of the "Made in the USA" label; or suing them to get rid of a competitor who is eating into their profit margins?

I have no doubt that Surefire employees are as patriotic as you say they are. But it's not the employees suing PL.

I know Surefire was successful in shutting down PL because no one can buy any lights off of the PL website. They have indeed been shut down. A case like this can drag on for a very long time. The injunction against PL is likely a death sentence. Back in the days when leg-irons were used, a sentence of 5 years in prision was a death sentence. Leg-iron was worn on one ankle until it got infected. Foot was cut off, leg-iron was placed on the other ankle, until it too got infected..... Few convicts survived. So few, that everyone knew a 5-year sentence was a death sentence.

Same thing here.... Case drags out, PL cannot sell products until the case is over, no money is coming in to pay their attorney's or suppliers or employees.... All while keeping in mind that PL has not been found guilty of any wrong-doing. Surefire won already, they know it.

If PL is still in business after the case is decided, it's going to be a financial miracle.


----------



## dudemar (Dec 14, 2008)

Size15's said:


> How do you know this? Have you spoken with those at SureFire who made the decisions?
> Those at SureFire who I've talked to and discussed Pentagonlight were very angry about the way Pentagonlight were using the 'Made in the USA' label.
> SureFire employees are US Patriots - ten years getting to know SureFire gives me no doubt about this.



...but is it reason enough to sue somebody for it? The "Made in the USA" is one of the things mentioned in the lawsuit. In my opinion that's not for a separate company to decide. That should be the government's job, not a corporation like SureFire to indicate whether something's "Made in the USA".




Size15's said:


> Again, how do you know this?
> Do you know details of the case you're not sharing with us?
> An alternative explanation could be an injunction preventing Pentagonlight from selling the products in question whilst the case is being heard.
> 
> ...



A very valid point, but because of the recession a lot of small businesses here in the US are going belly-up. Even if Pentagon won the case or it was dismissed, I imagine it would be very difficult for them to get back on their feet.


----------



## Monocrom (Dec 14, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> Forget the rights of the inventor & allow the accused company to continue it's illegal activity until you reach a judicial outcome... this proposition would only compound on the existing 'wrong' done to the filing party


 
Nope, not my point at all.

You're assuming that PL is guilty. My point is that the case is still pending. As such, they should be allowed to operate their business as before. If they are found guilty, then that's a different matter.


----------



## Kiessling (Dec 14, 2008)

removed - out of context - moving too fast


----------



## PCC (Dec 14, 2008)

Not that this means anything but I drove past the address listed for Pentagon Light in SSF because I had nothing better to do on a rainy Sunday afternoon and it doesn't look like anything out of the ordinary going on. They were not open, of course, and there wasn't anyone inside, but no signs on the front door, nothing looked out of place inside, etc. It looks like any typical business that is closed on a Sunday afternoon. I don't have time to stop by there during normal business hours so I cannot see what it looks like during normal operating hours.

As far as the patent infringement is concerned, one of the things about doing any business is that you have to be careful that a design that you come up with and believe to be a completely unique design that you came up with had already been produced and patented and that you are not inadvertently infringing on someone else's patent. It's up to you, the person coming out with the design, to ensure that you are not infringing on an existing patent.


----------



## Mr Happy (Dec 14, 2008)

ToeMoss said:


> You know as well as everyone else what "stealing" is in the context of this discussion. Put away your dictionary.


Yes, I know what people _think_ it is, and I know design plagiarism does happen. 



> I find it surprising that you or anyone else would defend the crime of patent infringement and justify it by claiming (rightly or not) that it will benefit the consumers. If PentagonLight is unlawfully benefiting from a design that SureFire has sole rights to, every single one of us should stand behind their right to protect themselves.


But patent infringement is not a crime, it is a civil wrong or tort. Not all cases of patent infringement are the result of deliberate copying or theft of ideas either. In many cases people independently come up with the same design, essentially because it is the best and most obvious design.

I am not defending plagiarism, I am objecting the use of emotive language that pre-judges an issue and which likens it to something which it is not.


----------



## Size15's (Dec 14, 2008)

Monocrom said:


> *To: Al ~*
> Which makes more sense, a company suing a competitor due to being offended over the possible misuse of the "Made in the USA" label; or suing them to get rid of a competitor who is eating into their profit margins?


It's nice to see that SureFire is a company that makes sense - not often one reads that here on CPF!! :nana: 
Perhaps this is indeed SureFire finally coming to its senses then? :devil:

Of course all this excitement is great for us here on CPF - something new and controversial to get all worked up over... Wven better - it involves SureFire!  :laughing:


----------



## Monocrom (Dec 14, 2008)

Size15's said:


> Of course all this excitement is great for us here on CPF - something new and controversial to get all worked up over... Wven better - it involves SureFire!  :laughing:


 
Would be better still if it inovled the release of the new U2 models.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2008)

Monocrom said:


> Nope, not my point at all.
> 
> You're assuming that PL is guilty. My point is that the case is still pending. As such, they should be allowed to operate their business as before. If they are found guilty, then that's a different matter.


But that's the intent of a Legal injunction... to cease questionable activity till a Judicial decision has been reached, should it be an unfair imposition on a company later found to be not-at-fault could they not counter sue the 'filer' for loss of earning due to litigation process?


----------



## Size15's (Dec 14, 2008)

Monocrom said:


> Would be better still if it inovled the release of the new U2 models.


SureFire seem to be going to extraordinary lengths to distract us from their apparent delay in releasing new products :green:


----------



## dano (Dec 14, 2008)

What exacltly is SF suing Pentagonlight for? What are the specifics?

Tailcaps? The PL's I have don't seem to be using a similar design to SF's

Made in USA? I own a LOT of SF's and none of them say "Made In The USA." In fact, SF utlizes parts from Mexico: all the incan bulbs, some charger accessories; Made in China: most rechargeable accessories, B90 cells, flip-off filters. LED's: most are Korea based. Several years ago, when the newer aluminum based 8AX's and redesigned 9AN's where introduced, there were rumors that SF used an overseas manufacturer to mill the bodies of these lights.

I just dunno. But it will suck if PL goes under because of this...

-dan


----------



## Monocrom (Dec 14, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> But that's the intent of a Legal injunction... to cease questionable activity till a Judicial decision has been reached, should it be an unfair imposition on a company later found to be not-at-fault could they not counter sue the 'filer' for loss of earning due to litigation process?


 
Not if that company went out of business due to the fact that the original, pending, lawsuit dragged on long enough to deplete their funds. Funds that were static, due to the injunction being in place since the start of the original lawsuit. 

Surefire got the injunction they wanted, now they just have to sit back and wait until PL's existing funds dry up; and the company then goes out of business officially. A bit tough to bring about a new lawsuit after the original one is decided, when you now can no longer afford an attorny; much less a cup of coffee.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2008)

dano said:


> What exacltly is SF suing Pentagonlight for? What are the specifics?
> 
> Tailcaps? The PL's I have don't seem to be using a similar design to SF's




Simply the 'tailcap' mechanism... twist ON/push momentary/twist out lock out


----------



## dudemar (Dec 14, 2008)

PCC said:


> Not that this means anything but I drove past the address listed for Pentagon Light in SSF because I had nothing better to do on a rainy Sunday afternoon and it doesn't look like anything out of the ordinary going on. They were not open, of course, and there wasn't anyone inside, but no signs on the front door, nothing looked out of place inside, etc. It looks like any typical business that is closed on a Sunday afternoon. I don't have time to stop by there during normal business hours so I cannot see what it looks like during normal operating hours.



Thanks for the update PCC, it's at least encouraging news. It's better than the newspaper covered windows of recently closed businesses I'm seeing in my area.:mecry: I gave them a call and left them a message, I hope to hear from them sometime tomorrow. If they're still open for business I plan on stopping by this Friday and picking up a few lights and batteries.:thumbsup:


----------



## KDOG3 (Dec 14, 2008)

Any updates on this? I think if Pentagonlight is smart, they will just come out with another design. This may actually be good for them - if they really go all out trying for a new mechanism, they may come up with something new that works great. I'm a Surefire fanatic mind you, but as someone else stated, I'd hate to see PL go under. This economy can't afford anymore companies to go bankrupt..


----------



## naked2 (Dec 14, 2008)

Monocrom said:


> Not if that company went out of business due to the fact that the original, pending, lawsuit dragged on long enough to deplete their funds. Funds that were static, due to the injunction being in place since the start of the original lawsuit.
> 
> Surefire got the injunction they wanted, now they just have to sit back and wait until PL's existing funds dry up; and the company then goes out of business officially. A bit tough to bring about a new lawsuit after the original one is decided, when you now can no longer afford an attorny; much less a cup of coffee.


Plus One!


----------



## dudemar (Dec 14, 2008)

KDOG3 said:


> Any updates on this? I think if Pentagonlight is smart, they will just come out with another design. This may actually be good for them - if they really go all out trying for a new mechanism, they may come up with something new that works great. *I'm a Surefire fanatic mind you, but as someone else stated, I'd hate to see PL go under. This economy can't afford anymore companies to go bankrupt..*



Exactly.:thumbsup:


----------



## dudemar (Dec 14, 2008)

Size15's said:


> SureFire seem to be going to extraordinary lengths to distract us from their apparent delay in releasing new products :green:



Perhaps this lawsuit is the reason why there's a delay...


----------



## Kiessling (Dec 14, 2008)

They converted their engineers --> lawyers. :green:

Even more reasons to be angry at PL and hope they go under as quickly as possible so that I can get my Invictus :nana:


----------



## dano (Dec 14, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> Simply the 'tailcap' mechanism... twist ON/push momentary/twist out lock out



That's it? Why PL and not Pelican, who also uses a very similar mechanism to the PL tailcaps? Probably because PL is much smaller than Pelican, and Pelican has the financial resources to fight back?

What a load of crap...


----------



## dudemar (Dec 14, 2008)

dano said:


> That's it? Why PL and not Pelican, who also uses a very similar mechanism to the PL tailcaps? Probably because PL is much smaller than Pelican, and Pelican has the financial resources to fight back?
> 
> What a load of crap...



I agree. Pelican has very similar designs to SF, including the lockout tailcap on the M6. See for yourself:

http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/pelican_m6led.htm

Hmmm... no lawsuit there...:shakehead


----------



## Kiessling (Dec 14, 2008)

Maybe they do pay SF? Maybe there is something going on and *gasp* isn't widely known on CPF?

So you want another lawsuit? Or why the sadness over SF apparently not suing Pelican?

Critisism based on assumptions is void of meaning.

bernie


----------



## dudemar (Dec 14, 2008)

Kiessling said:


> Maybe they do pay SF? Maybe there is something going on and *gasp* isn't widely known on CPF?
> 
> So you want another lawsuit? Or why the sadness over SF apparently not suing Pelican?
> 
> ...



...aren't you assuming they pay SF?

Besides, the question isn't whether _I_ want another lawsuit... it's whether _Surefire_ wants another lawsuit. Heck they're doing all the suing, ask them!


----------



## Guy's Dropper (Dec 14, 2008)

Did Surefire even patent that design? All the major flashlight manufacturers have used that design feature at least once.


----------



## defloyd77 (Dec 14, 2008)

I believe there is some sort of plunger type thing for the momentary in the patented tailcaps that others like Inova don't use in their momentary/twist/lotc. Now I personally think that PL not being made in America is irrelevant to this case, but if they weren't made in America, wouldn't the US patent not apply to foreign makers or or would it because they are US based?


----------



## asdalton (Dec 15, 2008)

defloyd77 said:


> Now I personally think that PL not being made in America is irrelevant to this case, but if they weren't made in America, wouldn't the US patent not apply to foreign makers or or would it because they are US based?



The owner of a US patent would be able to prevent foreign-based competitors from manufacturing, importing, or selling an infringing product within the United States.


----------



## dano (Dec 15, 2008)

The "made in the USA" part of this is a bit odd, as SF does not advertise, nor could I find that phrase in either catalog (handheld or weaponlight). Makes you wonder when, then, SF would pursue that logic, or why people automatically assume SF is made exclusively in Fountain Valley.

As for the tailcap, seems like that patent is generic enough to go after ANY manufacture that uses a tail mounted momentary switch. SF just has to choose who'll be next, and who'll be small and weak enough to fold. Of the major manufacturers that use a tailcap switch: Inova, Streamlight and Pelican, IMO, SF doesn't have the resources to pursue legal action against them with a positive outcome. 


Protecting a patent is one thing, protecting such a generic appliance is another. But, the issue could be traced back to the how's and why's of such a generic patent being approved in the first place.

For an example to ponder, SF is going to use a lens with concentric molded ridges or circles in conjuction with the TIR lens for the vaporware Optimus. Lenses with concentric circles have been used for over a hundred years. One of the first modern flashlight uses was in the old veri-brite line of lights, which used a movable bulb with a concentric lens in order to focus the light. Is that the patent issue that's holding up the intro. of the Optimus?

Another interesting tidbit: Inova's TIROS predated SF's TIR. The unknown factor of Inova's patents/lack of or SF paying for the right to use is an unknown. What if Inova/Emissive Energy decided that SF was using its TIROS patent without permission?

There's all sorts of unknowns in this patent infringement business, and, unfortunately, most of the time, the company with the highest paid lawyers wins.


----------



## Art Vandelay (Dec 15, 2008)

Maybe Surefires are more "made in America" than PLs. Maybe Surefire just does not want to take the chance that somebody might hurt their reputation by saying they are lying and they are not American enough to be called "made in America". Who knows? Maybe the aluminum comes from China. 

It's too bad you can't get an official determination in advance. Maybe more companies would make more products in the US. :shrug:


----------



## dudemar (Dec 15, 2008)

dano said:


> The "made in the USA" part of this is a bit odd, as SF does not advertise, nor could I find that phrase in either catalog (handheld or weaponlight). Makes you wonder when, then, SF would pursue that logic, or why people automatically assume SF is made exclusively in Fountain Valley.



...nor could I find a "Made in USA" label on my 6P or A2.

Hmm... makes me wonder.



dano said:


> As for the tailcap, seems like that patent is generic enough to go after ANY manufacture that uses a tail mounted momentary switch. SF just has to choose who'll be next, and who'll be small and weak enough to fold. Of the major manufacturers that use a tailcap switch: Inova, Streamlight and Pelican, IMO, SF doesn't have the resources to pursue legal action against them with a positive outcome.



I agree 110%.



dano said:


> There's all sorts of unknowns in this patent infringement business, and, unfortunately, most of the time, the company with the highest paid lawyers wins.



I think there's a very good reason why us consumers are left in the dark. By the time we, the innocent consumer buys a SureFire, we won't know about this lawsuit- and SureFire's ability to take other companies down with it.


----------



## nohcho (Dec 15, 2008)

Never thought about that, but i checked all of my surefire lights, and nowhere there is a slight hint that lights are made in the US, it just says Surefire USA. Maybe Surefire can shed some light on this one. Size 15's seems like an insider at Surefire (or maybe not) maybe he can pitch in.


----------



## TigerhawkT3 (Dec 15, 2008)

Kiessling said:


> Well ... but that's really not SF's problem if PL can continue or not. They file a case. If the legal procedures kill PL, that is a problem of th elegal system, and not SF's fault. They filed a lawsuit where their only option is to file a lawsuit.
> 
> You should direct youor anger towards your flawed legal system and patent laws, and not towards SF. Because then, you'd need to critisize every and all companies who ever filed such a lawsuit.
> 
> bernie


Ah, that's a favorite of mine - "problem" and "fault."

Let's say little Susie has to make a class presentation about the planet Mercury. However, she is partnered with Calvin, the worst student in the class. Susie knows this and tried her hardest to make Calvin go to the library and do research, but he plays outside until the presentation is due. When he bombs his half of the presentation, whose fault is it? His, obviously. However, whose PROBLEM is it? It's both Susie's and Calvin's.

If the legal system is the way it is, that's obviously not SF's fault. However, how SF chooses to deal with what they presumably perceive to be a patent infringement is definitely their problem, and if PL goes out of business because SF sued them, that's totally SF's fault. No one forced them to sue (_or did they_? Ba ba bum!!!! [<- scary music]).


----------



## JNewell (Dec 15, 2008)

TigerhawkT3 said:


> If the legal system is the way it is, that's obviously not SF's fault. However, how SF chooses to deal with what they presumably perceive to be a patent infringement is definitely their problem, and if PL goes out of business because SF sued them, that's totally SF's fault. No one forced them to sue (_or did they_? Ba ba bum!!!! [<- scary music]).


 
Actually not true. In the US, and probably elsewhere, your choice is simple: enforce your IP rights, or lose them. There is no middle ground if the infringer won't license the IP.


----------



## Size15's (Dec 15, 2008)

nohcho said:


> Never thought about that, but i checked all of my surefire lights, and nowhere there is a slight hint that lights are made in the US, it just says Surefire USA. Maybe Surefire can shed some light on this one. Size 15's seems like an insider at Surefire (or maybe not) maybe he can pitch in.


Whether or not SureFire do or can state Made In The USA another topic. SureFire are claiming that Pentagonlight are misusing or misrepresenting Made In The USA. SureFire aren't arguing that they do state this and that PL shouldn't. They are arguing that PL shouldn't.

It would be great to get SureFire's position regarding where its products are made and why it doesn't shout about being Made In The USA. Perhaps writing SureFire a letter (not email) and getting a written reply could help?


----------



## Kiessling (Dec 15, 2008)

dudemar said:


> ...aren't you assuming they pay SF?
> 
> Besides, the question isn't whether _I_ want another lawsuit... it's whether _Surefire_ wants another lawsuit. Heck they're doing all the suing, ask them!



I assume nothing, but I find it amusing that some members assume quite a lot of things in this thread while they know nothing, too.


"All the suing" ... is how much suing already? And it is not the question wether SF wants another lawsuit as I pointed out that members in this thread seem to be disappointed that there is no knowledge about SF initiating more lawsuits. Which is what I commented on, the ambivalence in this thread.




dudemar said:


> ...nor could I find a "Made in USA" label on my 6P or A2.
> 
> Hmm... makes me wonder.
> 
> I think there's a very good reason why us consumers are left in the dark. By the time we, the innocent consumer buys a SureFire, we won't know about this lawsuit- and SureFire's ability to take other companies down with it.



What does it make you wonder? If they are leaving it out in order to avoid lying to you ... or if they should actually lie to you like the others are doing all the time?

Of course there are good reasons to leave the consumer in the dark. This thread is full of those reasons. The only thing that seems to be missing is the "innocent" consumer  ... never saw that species on this planet. 




TigerhawkT3 said:


> Ah, that's a favorite of mine - "problem" and "fault."
> [snip]
> If the legal system is the way it is, that's obviously not SF's fault. However, how SF chooses to deal with what they presumably perceive to be a patent infringement is definitely their problem, and if PL goes out of business because SF sued them, that's totally SF's fault. No one forced them to sue (_or did they_? Ba ba bum!!!! [<- scary music]).



That is not a logical argument and holds no ground. An answer dealing with it will give it more importance than it merits and will thus dilute the thread.
Or ... see below. 




JNewell said:


> Actually not true. In the US, and probably elsewhere, your choice is simple: enforce your IP rights, or lose them. There is no middle ground if the infringer won't license the IP.


----------



## KDOG3 (Dec 15, 2008)

I would also like to see Surefire verify if their products (really just their lights) are actually made/manufactured in the US. It would put the issue to rest before it makes its way out into the mass public where it would get further skewed and misrepresented. I have always been under the impression that all Surefire lights and lamps were not just assembled but manufactured in the US. However, I wouldn't be surprised (would kind of expect really) if some of their electronic components for their LED lights, laser sights etc., did come from overseas, I just hope they are from nations that are friendly with the US like Taiwan and Korea. That wouldn't really bother me - but I hope they don't do ANY business with China and the like. Lets' face it. Most electronic components for things like that are produced somewhere in asia. 

Maybe Surefire is reading this thread and would like to comment?


----------



## PCC (Dec 15, 2008)

I know a little bit about the way the US Customs Service deals with imported goods, having dealt with them at the piers and airport in this area.

When it comes to imported goods that are ready for sale to a consumer it has to have a sticker or stamped into the item "Made in XXXX". If it lacks this it is rejected and sent back.

This does not apply to products manufactured or assembled here. Does your Chevy or Ford say "Made in the USA" on it?

So, how does this apply to the conversation at hand? If SureFire lights are manufactured here in the USA, they don't have to put any type of label on it. If they choose to do so it is their prerogative. Now, if PL lights are manufactured overseas and are assembled here then they can get away with it, too. The automobile manufacturers use this little trick here in the USA. Maybe SF takes exception to the fact that PL chose to put a sticker on their products stating that they're "Made in the USA" when they're assembled from components made overseas? I believe that it is legal for them to do this, though I could be wrong.


----------



## american lockpicker (Dec 15, 2008)

dano said:


> What exacltly is SF suing Pentagonlight for? What are the specifics?
> 
> Tailcaps? The PL's I have don't seem to be using a similar design to SF's
> 
> ...


 

The Surefire 6p is marked "USA" on the tailcap doesn't that imply its American made?


----------



## Art Vandelay (Dec 15, 2008)

To determine what "made in USA" means you need a whole Federal bureaucracy. What they come up with may not be what you would expect from just reading the words.

I'd much rather know these answers.
Are the headquarters in the US?
Are all the flashlights designed in the US?
Are all the production employees US workers working in the US factories?

Mag-lite has a page that answers all those questions.
http://www.maglite.com/mag_Commitment.asp


----------



## parnass (Dec 15, 2008)

Art Vandelay said:


> To determine what "made in USA" means you need a whole Federal bureaucracy. ...



California has its own strict law and took Leatherman to task for advertising that its multitools were "Made in USA" because they contained some foreign parts.


----------



## dudemar (Dec 15, 2008)

I just got official word from Sypder Tactical Supply that PentagonLight is out of business.

I guess it's cut and dry then.


----------



## american lockpicker (Dec 15, 2008)

parnass said:


> California has its own strict law and took Leatherman to task for advertising that its multitools were "Made in USA" because they contained some foreign parts.


 

Earlier today I emailed Surefire about where they were made and heres the response

Dear Sir,
SureFire Suppressors and Edged Weapons are made entirely in the USA, most SureFire flashlight components are made at our California factory, and all components are designed and assembled in the USA. As much as possible, SureFIre uses components made in the United States of America. You may be interested in knowing that our flashlights do fall within the Department of Defense’s qualifications for being of US origin, which are somewhat less restrictive than the FTC’s. 
 
 
Thank you
 
Greg Lin
Technical Support
SureFire LLC
800-828-8809


----------



## conan1911 (Dec 15, 2008)

Greg is dead on and there will also be a huge spread about this in the 2009 catalog that will elaborate further.....stand by


----------



## KDOG3 (Dec 15, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> Greg is dead on and there will also be a huge spread about this in the 2009 catalog that will elaborate further.....stand by




Yup, just as I thought.... by the way any word on when that 2009 catalog will be out?


----------



## conan1911 (Dec 15, 2008)

C'mon, you guys know the routine... SHOT Show......


----------



## KDOG3 (Dec 15, 2008)

DANG! I was hoping to catch you off gaurd and sneak a peak at the online version early..


----------



## dano (Dec 15, 2008)

KDOG3 said:


> Yup, just as I thought.... by the way any word on when that 2009 catalog will be out?



So, chargers and charger components are now U.S. made, as are bulbs, etc?

I guess the '09 catalog will explain...


----------



## TigerhawkT3 (Dec 15, 2008)

Kiessling said:


> ...
> 
> 
> TigerhawkT3 said:
> ...


SF didn't create the legal system, thus, the way it is isn't their fault. The way they act in a particular situation (suing, in this case) is their decision. If they wanted to do something else, they could, thus, their actions are their "fault." If PL goes out of business because of something SF could have chosen not to do, it's SF's fault. Does SF's management not have free will? Were they forced to sue?

There's more than one way to enforce your IP rights. One of them is settling out of court. I don't know for sure, of course, but I have a feeling that PL would have preferred to stop doing what was allegedly a patent infringement and/or paid SF a sum they could afford rather than being driven out of business.


----------



## Monocrom (Dec 16, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> C'mon, you guys know the routine... SHOT Show......


 
.... And likely over a year before some of the new products advertised in the 2009 catalog are actually released into the market.

Yeah, we know the routine.


----------



## Burgess (Dec 16, 2008)

:lolsign::lolsign::lolsign:

:laughing:--:laughing:--:laughing:


Good one, Monocrom !
_


----------



## Monocrom (Dec 16, 2008)

Burgess said:


> Good one, Monocrom !
> _


 
Thanks. 

All in good humor. Some _might_ mistake my comment for an insult. 

(Hopefully not the folks working on fixing the bugs in the UB2).


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Dec 16, 2008)

Monocrom said:


> .... And likely over a year before some of the new products advertised in the 2009 catalog are actually released into the market.
> 
> Yeah, we know the routine.



I have not been following this thread that much. Not sure if this is a disrespectful remark or not, or just jesting with a SF rep.

Bill


----------



## Monocrom (Dec 16, 2008)

Bullzeyebill said:


> I have not been following this thread that much. Not sure if this is a disrespectful remark or not, or just jesting with a SF rep.
> 
> Bill


 
Missed it by one minute. 

(See my post above your's).

While I'm not very happy about Surefire suing PL out of business, even before the case has been decided by the judge; I'm not going to disrespect a Surefire representative who's willing to take the time to post on CPF.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Dec 16, 2008)

Monocrom said:


> Missed it by one minute.
> 
> (See my post above your's).
> 
> While I'm not very happy about Surefire suing PL out of business, even before the case has been decided by the judge; I'm not going to disrespect a Surefire representative who's willing to take the time to post on CPF.



:thumbsup:

Bill


----------



## JNewell (Dec 16, 2008)

american lockpicker said:


> our flashlights do fall within the Department of Defense’s qualifications for being of US origin, which are somewhat less restrictive than the FTC’s.


 
That's interesting (that DOD is less restrictive on US content than FTC). Whodathunkit?


----------



## tacticalsupply.com (Dec 16, 2008)

dudemar said:


> I just got official word from Sypder Tactical Supply that PentagonLight is out of business.
> 
> I guess it's cut and dry then.


Just wanted to say that I have not been told that PL is going out of business, I can only confirm that they are no longer making products for now. Therefore, the inventory we have is all we will be able to get until further notice. A Judgment was filed and they officially can't make the vast majority of lights, so they may be stepping back to regroup, but nothing definite on going out of business.


----------



## KDOG3 (Dec 16, 2008)

tacticalsupply.com said:


> Just wanted to say that I have not been told that PL is going out of business, I can only confirm that they are no longer making products for now. Therefore, the inventory we have is all we will be able to get until further notice. A Judgment was filed and they officially can't make the vast majority of lights, so they may be stepping back to regroup, but nothing definite on going out of business.



They may just be redesigning the parts in question so they can start back up again.


----------



## soffiler (Dec 16, 2008)

JNewell said:


> That's interesting (that DOD is less restrictive on US content than FTC). Whodathunkit?


 
My thoughts _exactly_, JNewell. Talked it over a bit with my boss, in fact, just because I found the concept interesting. He suggested that perhaps DoD in the past has needed to procure items where their very best option, the "thing" they wanted the most, didn't quite meet FTC's Made In USA, so, they went ahead and redefined it for themselves. Just conjecture but it makes sense.


----------



## dudemar (Dec 16, 2008)

tacticalsupply.com said:


> Just wanted to say that I have not been told that PL is going out of business, I can only confirm that they are no longer making products for now. Therefore, the inventory we have is all we will be able to get until further notice. A Judgment was filed and they officially can't make the vast majority of lights, so they may be stepping back to regroup, but nothing definite on going out of business.





Thanks for clarifying that! Let me rephrase my statement, I guess they're still in business. Sorry I sounded misleading, didn't mean to twist your words.


I just spoke with PentagonLight over the phone, and just like the above post confirms they can no longer produce or distribute any lights. Turns out "multiple" cases were filed by SureFire (not just the few lawsuits all of us were discussing), and obviously PentagonLight couldn't handle the sheer volume so they just settled out of court (just as TigerhawkT3 suggested).

If there's any good news to all of this, these are it:

1. PentagonLight _is still_ in business (just can't produce/distribute/sell lights)

2. AFAIK they will continue to service (warranty) their products.

and

3. There's a light at the end of the tunnel for them.


----------



## conan1911 (Dec 16, 2008)

Monocrom,
Very funny!  Been around long enough that I am quite used to comments like that. No harm, no foul. Anyway, I look at the catalog more like when car makers show off concept cars, its kinda like, "heres what we think we may do in the future or would like to do."
just my opinion.

Stuart



Monocrom said:


> .... And likely over a year before some of the new products advertised in the 2009 catalog are actually released into the market.
> 
> Yeah, we know the routine.


----------



## Monocrom (Dec 16, 2008)

dudemar said:


> If there's any good news to all of this, these are it:
> 
> 1. PentagonLight _is still_ in business (just can't produce/distribute/sell lights)


 
That reminds me of the time last year when I was unfairly dismissed from my security job, by the client's security manager. When I explained the situation to my account manager, and pointed out that I had a witness who could back up my version of events, he agreed that I was unfairly dismissed.

He told me that I was still employed with the company, but could no longer return to the clent's site. He handed my case over to a young woman who's job it was to find me work. She found me a temporary spot.... Then I had no place to go to for 3 weeks. But I was *still *employed with the company. I just wasn't getting a paycheck. Things worked out. (No thanks to the person who's job it is to find work for the guards dismissed by a client).

Same thing here. PL might still be in business, but how long can they last without money coming in?


----------



## Monocrom (Dec 16, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> Monocrom,
> Very funny!  Been around long enough that I am quite used to comments like that. No harm, no foul. Anyway, I look at the catalog more like when car makers show off concept cars, its kinda like, "heres what we think we may do in the future or would like to do."
> just my opinion.
> 
> Stuart


 
We're glad you stopped by. Any chance you can convince PK to stop by? While we hate your Marketing department, we love him.


----------



## baterija (Dec 16, 2008)

JNewell said:


> That's interesting (that DOD is less restrictive on US content than FTC). Whodathunkit?



The FTC's role is defining and enforcing labeling for trade. DOD has a requirement to give preference to US manufactured goods to sustain the industrial base for a long war and ensure the ability to resupply during wartime. Ultimately DoD is driven by buying what accomplishes their mission, not labeling.


----------



## JNewell (Dec 16, 2008)

soffiler said:


> My thoughts _exactly_, JNewell. Talked it over a bit with my boss, in fact, just because I found the concept interesting. He suggested that perhaps DoD in the past has needed to procure items where their very best option, the "thing" they wanted the most, didn't quite meet FTC's Made In USA, so, they went ahead and redefined it for themselves. Just conjecture but it makes sense.


 
That was my guess as well. From another perspective or two, it's counter-intuitive, though!


----------



## Blindasabat (Dec 16, 2008)

We are glad you stopped by. We don't all hate your marketing department. Many of us may not like what they say from time to time, but I'm sure there are delightful people in the marketing department.


Monocrom said:


> We're glad you stopped by. Any chance you can convince PK to stop by? While we hate your Marketing department, we love him.


----------



## JNewell (Dec 16, 2008)

baterija said:


> The FTC's role is defining and enforcing labeling for trade. *DOD has a requirement to give preference to US manufactured goods to sustain the industrial base for a long war and ensure the ability to resupply during wartime.* Ultimately DoD is driven by buying what accomplishes their mission, not labeling.


 
(Bold/underscore added for clarity here) - Yes, that's why I would have thought DOD would have _more strict_ domestic content requirements - basically, secure sourcing. But what we're hearing is that DOD has less restrictive standards than the FTC. Unless I'm crossing wires in my head here...


----------



## Lightraven (Dec 16, 2008)

When you are fighting for your life, you hope your equipment is the best money can buy.

When it comes to war and fighting, the United States is second to none. However, other countries develop some pretty good components and subsystems, and occasionally, complete weapons and systems.

Beretta, Glock, Sig Sauer, Heckler, Rheinmetall, Bofors, Fabrique National-Herstal, Benelli, Steyer-Mannlicher and most optical manufacturers (not necessarily the brand front company, but the actual maker), like Steiner and Aimpoint, are a few foreign companies (as that gradually loses any meaning) that have contracts with U.S. defense and law enforcement organizations.

Those are mostly guns, gun barrels and optics. I don't know of any U.S. complex weapons platforms (jets, robots, tanks, ships) that are made overseas or by foreign interests domestically.


----------



## baterija (Dec 16, 2008)

JNewell said:


> (Bold/underscore added for clarity here) - Yes, that's why I would have thought DOD would have _more strict_ domestic content requirements - basically, secure sourcing. But what we're hearing is that DOD has less restrictive standards than the FTC. Unless I'm crossing wires in my head here...



I think the "to give preference" part is the key. The FTC defines a standard for a label with marketing implications. The individual consumer can choose to express their preference at point of purchase. DoD tries to balance current missions with long term sourcing. The mission wins though. If the requirement cannot be fulfilled domestically then they buy whatever fulfills it. Their contracting standards are written to fulfill their legal requirements to give preference, not describe what is or is not made in America. 

The M240 and M249 machine guns are produced domestically ...by a subsidiary of FN Herstal. I remember hearing that to fully field the M240 and meet delivery dates to the field, some weapon's were completely manufactured in Europe and imported. Some of those medium machine guns you see in the news being used by American soldiers could qualify for a "Made in Belgium" sticker.

...and my beret says "Made in Canada" inside it.


----------



## wacbzz (Dec 16, 2008)

american lockpicker said:


> Dear Sir,
> SureFire Suppressors and Edged Weapons are made entirely in the USA, *most SureFire flashlight components are made at our California factory, and all components are designed and assembled in the USA.* As much as possible, SureFIre uses components made in the United States of America. You may be interested in knowing that *our flashlights* do fall within the Department of Defense’s qualifications for being of US origin, which are somewhat less restrictive than the FTC’s.



So, which parts of which flashlights really qualify as being "Made in the USA" according to the DoD (does "our flashlights" mean all SF flashlights?) and then by the FTC? I mean, "most" doesn't mean "all" where I'm from...so where are the "rest" of the components made??



baterija said:


> The FTC's role is defining and enforcing labeling for trade. DOD has a requirement to give preference to US manufactured goods to sustain the industrial base for a long war and ensure the ability to resupply during wartime. Ultimately DoD is driven by buying what accomplishes their mission, not labeling.



So, does this mean that _if_ there are SF lights that don't meet the FTC's labeling of "Made in the USA" but does for the DoD, are they immune (for lack of a better word) from having to label them as containing parts manufactured elsewhere? And is this only because of some supposed SF military contract??

I'm seriously interested in knowing this answer without any BS wording manipulations involved. I hope Stuart can answer this for me/us.


----------



## dudemar (Dec 16, 2008)

wacbzz said:


> So, does this mean that _if_ there are SF lights that don't meet the FTC's labeling of "Made in the USA" but does for the DoD, are they immune (for lack of a better word) from having to label them as containing parts manufactured elsewhere? And is this only because of some supposed SF military contract?



This does indeed bring up a very interesting point, in that SureFire is under a double standard. It really is unclear whether they manufacture to FTC or DOD standards.:shrug:

Would be interesting to know the answer.


----------



## american lockpicker (Dec 17, 2008)

wacbzz said:


> So, which parts of which flashlights really qualify as being "Made in the USA" according to the DoD (does "our flashlights" mean all SF flashlights?) and then by the FTC? I mean, "most" doesn't mean "all" where I'm from...so where are the "rest" of the components made??


 
When I asked the question I mentioned a 6p that says "Surefire USA" so I assume it only applies to flashlights marked "Surefire USA".


----------



## Size15's (Dec 17, 2008)

dudemar said:


> This does indeed bring up a very interesting point, in that SureFire is under a double standard. It really is unclear whether they manufacture to FTC or DOD standards.:shrug:
> 
> Would be interesting to know the answer.


Perhaps SureFire employees, feeling so welcome here on CPF by threads such as this would feel it worth their while sticking their necks out and giving CPF members early access to information and materials that SureFire would seem to be preparing for their 2009 catalog release at SHOT Show in January?

I suggest that it's not long to wait until SS2009 to find out exactly what the article says in SureFire's 2009 catalogs.


----------



## dudemar (Dec 17, 2008)

Size15's said:


> Perhaps SureFire employees, feeling so welcome here on CPF by threads such as this would feel it worth their while sticking their necks out and giving CPF members early access to information and materials that SureFire would seem to be preparing for their 2009 catalog release at SHOT Show in January?
> 
> I suggest that it's not long to wait until SS2009 to find out exactly what the article says in SureFire's 2009 catalogs.



If, where, when and how they want to explain themselves is completely up to them, not that I'm in a hurry to find out.


----------



## KiwiMark (Dec 17, 2008)

american lockpicker said:


> Earlier today I emailed Surefire about where they were made and heres the response
> 
> Dear Sir,
> SureFire Suppressors and Edged Weapons are made entirely in the USA, most SureFire flashlight components are made at our California factory, and all components are designed and assembled in the USA. As much as possible, SureFIre uses components made in the United States of America. You may be interested in knowing that our flashlights do fall within the Department of Defense’s qualifications for being of US origin, which are somewhat less restrictive than the FTC’s.
> ...



So, let's say that Surefire would like to put "made in USA" on their torches, but because there are key components sourced from overseas they legally cannot . . . Wouldn't that explain how they realise that there is no way that Pentagon Light can legally do what they have been doing? Surefire possibly realise from their own experience that Pentagon Light must be importing emitters and therefore cannot legally use "made in USA", since Surefire is playing by the rules and not using "made in USA" they are probably really irked that Pentagon Lights are making the claim illegally.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Dec 17, 2008)

Monocrom said:


> We're glad you stopped by. Any chance you can convince PK to stop by? While we hate your Marketing department, we love him.



What is the real point of this thread? I am not talking about the OP's initial querry concerning the law suit. I for one do not want people telling a SF rep that "we" hate their Marketing department. No one speaks for me, except me. I think this thread has run its course and should be closed.

Bill


----------



## wacbzz (Dec 17, 2008)

Bullzeyebill said:


> No one speaks for me, except me. I think this thread has run its course and should be closed.
> 
> Bill



No one speaks for me either. I don't want this thread closed until the answer to my question has been posted.


----------



## Monocrom (Dec 17, 2008)

Bullzeyebill said:


> What is the real point of this thread? I am not talking about the OP's initial querry concerning the law suit. I for one do not want people telling a SF rep that "we" hate their Marketing department. No one speaks for me, except me. I think this thread has run its course and should be closed.
> 
> Bill


 
Once again, it was a joke. Thankfully the Surefire rep realized it.


----------



## bigfoot (Dec 18, 2008)

Heck, I'm just happy to see folks from SureFire stopping by CPF!


----------



## american lockpicker (Dec 18, 2008)

bigfoot said:


> Heck, I'm just happy to see folks from SureFire stopping by CPF!


 
I agree.


----------



## Monocrom (Dec 18, 2008)

bigfoot said:


> Heck, I'm just happy to see folks from SureFire stopping by CPF!


 
Amen!


----------



## Streak (Jan 5, 2009)

I received this today

"We are sad to announce that
PentagonLight has elected to
close down effective January 1.
We have been advised that Pentagon
has elected to close to due
to litigation issues with their
competitors."


----------



## carbine15 (Jan 5, 2009)

Streak said:


> I received this today
> 
> "We are sad to announce that
> PentagonLight has elected to
> ...



NO!!!!
​There goes some legitimate competition! Dammit go after the Chinese!


----------



## TMedina (Jan 5, 2009)

Please don't - we're already stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On the bright side, you can scoop up some M30 hosts relatively cheaply. 

-Trevor


----------



## dudemar (Jan 5, 2009)

Streak said:


> I received this today
> 
> "We are sad to announce that
> PentagonLight has elected to
> ...



That is just sad.:mecry: Would you mind citing the source?


----------



## rtt (Jan 5, 2009)

Streak said:


> I received this today
> 
> "We are sad to announce that
> PentagonLight has elected to
> ...


 
This news is very disturbing. I have and had many Surefire lights and enjoyed them for their build quality. I still have two Pentagon lights that I find to have the same build quality as Surefire. It seems the law of nature is true.....BIG FISH eat little fish.


----------



## JNewell (Jan 5, 2009)

Pretty sure my Pentagonlight Molle was made in China.

On big fish and small fish, you're right, but I think that kinda goes with a free market. Not great, but beats heck out of the alternatives.


----------



## sappyg (Jan 5, 2009)

please cite your source... i checked out PL's web page and found nothing whatever about closing 1/01/09


----------



## clbnc (Jan 5, 2009)

I'm getting ready for all the drama.


----------



## wacbzz (Jan 5, 2009)

I'm still waiting on anybody to come and answer my questions from posts #266 and #273 that I posted concerning SF using the "less restrictive" DoD meaning of something being _Made in the USA_...



american lockpicker said:


> Dear Sir,
> SureFire Suppressors and Edged Weapons are made entirely in the USA, most SureFire flashlight components are made at our California factory, and all components are designed and assembled in the USA. As much as possible, SureFIre uses components made in the United States of America. *You may be interested in knowing that our flashlights do fall within the Department of Defense’s qualifications for being of US origin, which are somewhat less restrictive than the FTC’s. *
> 
> 
> ...



...because all the above highlighted area says is that SF sources some of it's parts from places _other than_ the US. As in "SF designs the stuff here in the US, then sources it outside of the US, but then puts it together here in the US, and thanks to the less restrictive DoD requirements, we, SF, can say that it's _Made in the USA_."

But anyway, I'm still patiently waiting on the non BS answer about the actual origin of parts for SF flashlights...though not buying any in the meantime. I don't feel we need to wait for some "official" catalog to come out for someone to attempt to answer our questions here.:thumbsdow


----------



## dudemar (Jan 5, 2009)

sappyg said:


> please cite your source... i checked out PL's web page and found nothing whatever about closing 1/01/09



I tried calling PL's office but there's no answer... not even an answering machine.


----------



## kramer5150 (Jan 5, 2009)

wacbzz said:


> I'm still waiting on anybody to come and answer my questions from posts #266 and #273 that I posted concerning SF using the "less restrictive" DoD meaning of something being _Made in the USA_...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The thread topic is Surefire suing Pentagon. Discussing Surefires manufacturing origins is not really on-topic for this discussion.... hence the lack of replies, IMHO of course.. Pentagons manufacturing origins however are "more" on topic since the lawsuit does mention them falsifying manufacturing origins.

Since you brought it up the DoD requirements are defined in the Berry Amendment... heres the pdf...
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31236.pdf

I read the first paragraph or two and :sleepy::sleepy::sleepy:

My understanding is that many countries have requirements like this so if Surefire wants to issue to foreign military their products have to comply to that country. In essence it would not surprise me if many USA based companies fabricate parts all over the world, in order to comply to those countries DoD requirements.


----------



## wacbzz (Jan 5, 2009)

kramer5150 said:


> The thread topic is Surefire suing Pentagon. Discussing Surefires manufacturing origins is not the focus of this discussion.... hence the lack of replies, IMHO of course.



I understand what the topic is about. The use of foreign parts in SF lights is directly related to one of the reasons why SF sued PentagonLight. I am wondering about this very thing with SF based upon the letter provided in the post that I quoted. :nana:

I find this to be very relevant to the topic...as well as the silence about it.

Thanks for the link btw.


----------



## Size15's (Jan 5, 2009)

wacbzz said:


> I'm still waiting on anybody to come and answer my questions from posts #266 and #273 that I posted concerning SF using the "less restrictive" DoD meaning of something being _Made in the USA_...
> 
> ...because all the above highlighted area says is that SF sources some of it's parts from places _other than_ the US. As in "SF designs the stuff here in the US, then sources it outside of the US, but then puts it together here in the US, and thanks to the less restrictive DoD requirements, we, SF, can say that it's _Made in the USA_."
> 
> But anyway, I'm still patiently waiting on the non BS answer about the actual origin of parts for SF flashlights...though not buying any in the meantime. I don't feel we need to wait for some "official" catalog to come out for someone to attempt to answer our questions here.:thumbsdow


And yet SureFire does not slap "Made in the USA" on its products or advertisings does it?
I read Greg Lin's email to mean there is a definition of Made in the USA that SureFire products do meet, although it is less onerous then the standard definition.
Even though there is a somewhat less restrictive definition, used by the US DoD no less, SureFire still do not label or use the term Made in the USA.

This shows me that SureFire are holding themselves to a higher standard - the standard definition even though they may have the option of not needing to.

As for your desire not to wait for SureFire's formal detailed response on this matter - that is up to you. Not sure what the point is.
SureFire representatives have given what I consider to be a completely reasonable response - SureFire will have comprehensive article on this issue in their 2009 catalog published in but ten days on 15th January 2009.

I suggest your expectations for a personal response here on CPF by SureFire to your specific questions do not resolve well with the nature of SureFire's interaction with CPF online. 
Never before have SureFire shared the contents of their catalogs with CPF.

Al


----------



## wacbzz (Jan 5, 2009)

Size15's said:


> And yet SureFire does not slap "Made in the USA" on its products or advertisings does it?
> I read Greg Lin's email to mean there is a definition of Made in the USA that SureFire products do meet, although it is less onerous then the standard definition.
> Even though there is a somewhat less restrictive definition, used by the US DoD no less, SureFire still do not label or use the term Made in the USA.



You and I can respectfully disagree on what the published letter actually states. I suggest that regardless of whether SF stamps Made in the USA on it's products or not, the _implications_ that they are USA made is definitely there, _especially_ with a response such as was given by Mr Lin about SF meeting the "DoD" and not the "FTC's" meaning of the term. Such statements by SF reps do not lend any belief that SF flashlights are _not_ made in the USA. Rather, just the opposite occurs. Writing that almost everything about SF products is of USA origin except a few parts, but not labeling it as Made in the USA, is mere semantics.



Size15's said:


> SureFire will have comprehensive article on this issue in their 2009 catalog published in but ten days on 15th January 2009.



Like I posted above, I'm still patiently waiting for the non BS answer. If it is to come in a catalog that is put out once a year, then so be it. _ Hopefully_, it is not the technical jargon answer that one has come to expect with most typical propaganda catalogs.


----------



## Streak (Jan 6, 2009)

The source was a new letter from MAE Group International.


----------



## Monocrom (Jan 6, 2009)

Looking down at the top of a z41 tailcap, there's Surefire's web address and the words "Surefire USA."

No, it doesn't say "Made in the USA." But that is clearly what many folks would assume. Since Surefire is claiming that PL is using false advertising with the "Made in the USA" label, then it would only be fair to know which parts used to put a Surefire together are indeed from the U.S.


----------



## dudemar (Jan 6, 2009)

Monocrom said:


> Looking down at the top of a z41 tailcap, there's Surefire's web address and the words "Surefire USA."
> 
> No, it doesn't say "Made in the USA." But that is clearly what many folks would assume. Since Surefire is claiming that PL is using false advertising with the "Made in the USA" label, then it would only be fair to know which parts used to put a Surefire together are indeed from the U.S.



Very fair, and therefore offering some degree of transparency.


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 6, 2009)

So ... in order to bring someone to court who broke a law, the one who is telling this to the police needs to prove first that he didn't break the same law? 
Come on guys ... we're getting funny here. It is of course perfectly ok if one wanted to know where SF lights are manufactured if this is of any importance, but connecting it to someone else lying about their lights is a bit of a stretch I think.

I suggest we leave this topic out of this thread as this thread has more important things to do (--> discuss PL etc.) ... AND ... because the topic of SF's manufaction process will merit a seperate thread anyway. I'd hate to see those two mixed up and one trainwreck the other.

bernie


----------



## HKJ (Jan 6, 2009)

Does the US have some sort of register where it is possible to see the status of the company?


----------



## Mr Happy (Jan 6, 2009)

Kiessling said:


> So ... in order to bring someone to court who broke a law, the one who is telling this to the police needs to prove first that he didn't break the same law?


Actually...that is not as unlikely as it sounds. Firstly, mention of police and breaking of laws implies criminality, and none of that appears to be the case here. As far as can be understood in this case an injunction has been sought in a civil court, which is where party A tries to convince a judge on the balance of probability that party B should be ordered to stop doing something that is injurious to party A, pending a full hearing. Part of the requirement for this is that party A should have an interest in the matter taken before the court, and clearly it is also of interest that if party A makes claims about party B to support its actions then party A should not be susceptible to the same claims.

Sadly, what often happens with litigation is that the cost of defending against whatever claims are made is so high that the attacked party often gives in without being able to have the claims tested in court, or to make counter claims against the attacker. Results then often rest on hearsay without the truth or otherwise of claims being proven.


----------



## kramer5150 (Jan 6, 2009)

wacbzz said:


> I understand what the topic is about. The use of foreign parts in SF lights is directly related to one of the reasons why SF sued PentagonLight. I am wondering about this very thing with SF based upon the letter provided in the post that I quoted. :nana:
> 
> I find this to be very relevant to the topic...as well as the silence about it.
> 
> Thanks for the link btw.



I guess I never really saw this as two manufacturers duking it out, but that's really what it is all about. It would be really interesting if PL counter-sued SF, maybe they are??

YW for hte URL link... I have had it bookmarked for a while, as the subject comes up in other gear related forums too.


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 6, 2009)

Mr Happy said:


> Actually...that is not as unlikely as it sounds. Firstly, mention of police and breaking of laws implies criminality, and none of that appears to be the case here. As far as can be understood in this case an injunction has been sought in a civil court, which is where party A tries to convince a judge on the balance of probability that party B should be ordered to stop doing something that is injurious to party A, pending a full hearing. Part of the requirement for this is that party A should have an interest in the matter taken before the court, and clearly it is also of interest that if party A makes claims about party B to support its actions then party A should not be susceptible to the same claims.
> 
> Sadly, what often happens with litigation is that the cost of defending against whatever claims are made is so high that the attacked party often gives in without being able to have the claims tested in court, or to make counter claims against the attacker. Results then often rest on hearsay without the truth or otherwise of claims being proven.




I made the mistake of trying to post an opinion of mine in addition to a feeble attempt of moderating the thread on topic ... and failed :green:
I am sorry.

This is why I won't supply a reply to this post, please don't see it like I am ignoring you as I am not. 

I would just like this thread to stay on-topic. Those who wish to discuss the origin of SF lights can start a thread about it, no problem.

Thanx 

bernie


----------



## kramer5150 (Jan 6, 2009)

Kiessling said:


> I would just like this thread to stay on-topic. Those who wish to discuss the origin of SF lights can start a thread about it, no problem.



thank you

Manufacturing origins (of any brand) been discussed ad-nausium, search tool is your friend.


----------



## Monocrom (Jan 6, 2009)

Kiessling said:


> I made the mistake of trying to post an opinion of mine in addition to a feeble attempt of moderating the thread on topic ... and failed :green:
> I am sorry.
> 
> This is why I won't supply a reply to this post, please don't see it like I am ignoring you as I am not.
> ...


 
Mr. Happy came close to explaining the earlier point I brought up, but just missed the bullseye. Please don't apologize for posting your opinion. And allow me to clarify mine. While it's true that someone who brings a lawsuit doesn't have to first _prove_ that they are not guilty of having done the same, it smacks of hypocrisy if they are indeed doing it as well. 

For a more specific answer to your question, the American legal system requires that a Plantiff come into court with "clean hands." For example, a crack dealer can't sue another crack dealer for having cheated him out of an illegal deal. A hooker can't sue a John for giving her $20 for services rendered, if he originally agreed to pay $30. If someone is found to have "unclean hands," the case gets dismissed.

I honestly didn't think I was going off-topic. I saw it as a natural progression. One of Surefire's claims is that PL lights are falsely advertised as Made in the USA. This would cause some to question if all components of Surefire lights are Made in the USA.

However, I will refrain from making any other posts in this topic; with regards to Surefire's hygiene.


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 6, 2009)

You have a strange legal system indeed :nana:

Well, since SF does not advertise "Made in USA" there is no problem there. The question where SF ligths are built and to what standard is a different one though and would contaminate or take over this thread, which is what I'd like to avoid.

There is no problem opening a new thread regarding SF's origins though, the topic isn't excluded for discussion AFAIK  , and there seems to be the need for it again.

bernie


----------



## baterija (Jan 6, 2009)

Here's a link to an FTC page about "Complying with the Made In the USA Standard." It's interesting for those looking to learn more about the standard. Especially to the point is the parts about qualified claims when looking at statements from SF earlier in the thread.

As to the "clean hands" side of bringing a lawsuit I'll just say that the core issue for evaluating that is not the origin of the content of the lights. The core is claims about origin, and whether they can support those claims. Surefire could have most of their lights produced overseas and marked "Made in China" and still have brought the same suit. Surefire isn't claiming to meet FTC "Made in the USA" guidelines or using the label, so it irrelevant to the lawsuit whether they meet that standard. There's room to discuss supporting evidence for the qualified claims they do make...

but we'll leave that for elsewhere. :thumbsup:


----------



## Art Vandelay (Jan 6, 2009)

I'm not going to complain about Surefire not coming on here and explaining their side until Pentagonlight comes on and explains their side of it.


----------



## sappyg (Jan 6, 2009)

Art Vandelay said:


> I'm not going to complain about Surefire not coming on here and explaining their side until Pentagonlight comes on and explains their side of it.


 
point taken.... neither company owes anyone here an explaination re: this legal matter between both parties. i dought that either party would discuss the matter here in detail regardless. as far as i can tell CPF is not mentioned anywhere the suit therefore, we are owed nothing. we are just curious observers of an economic natural selection in a free market. 
yes... my SF's say surefire USA.... have you ever wondered where your ford F150 was made or where there parts are made? shoot... my wife use to have some chrystler thingy and the majority of it was made and assembled in mexico.
my PL x3 literally says "Pentagonlight, california USA" i have no issue with either... well.... i guess i would feel better if they would drop the california thing because i have a hard time identifying with Kalifornia 
SF has a right to protect itself and PL has a right to defend itself. i see no harm here.


----------



## PCC (Jan 6, 2009)

I drove by Pentagonlight earlier today and the lobby area looks like they've packed it up. There were people inside and it looked like they were having a meeting or late lunch so I didn't get out of my car.

Too bad I didn't find them before all this madness began.


----------



## seale_navy (Jan 6, 2009)

Monocrom said:


> Mr. Happy came close to explaining the earlier point I brought up, but just missed the bullseye. Please don't apologize for posting your opinion. And allow me to clarify mine. While it's true that someone who brings a lawsuit doesn't have to first _prove_ that they are not guilty of having done the same, it smacks of hypocrisy if they are indeed doing it as well.
> 
> For a more specific answer to your question, the American legal system requires that a Plantiff come into court with "clean hands." For example, a crack dealer can't sue another crack dealer for having cheated him out of an illegal deal. A hooker can't sue a John for giving her $20 for services rendered, if he originally agreed to pay $30. If someone is found to have "unclean hands," the case gets dismissed.
> 
> ...


 
well. about the clean hands things. This clean hands originated from the doctrine of equity. It means that you must not have mala fidei on you while claiming something. The doctrine of equity can only be used if only its relied upon. Having said that, it is up to the discretion of the judge whether to use or not.

anyway I dont really know what was the issue ono surefire suing who so i cant comment on it. But on the facts here, surefire never mentioned on their packaging that their light are MADE IN USA. Even I just assumed it is from all the profile the company projects and etc..

anyway my post is a bit off topic..


----------



## dudemar (Jan 6, 2009)

Art Vandelay said:


> I'm not going to complain about Surefire not coming on here and explaining their side until Pentagonlight comes on and explains their side of it.



Pentagonlight is dead, they can't explain anything. They won't even answer their phone or emails anymore.


Here's the new thread:

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2774845


The problem I have with this thread is the US criminal justice system and its processes are seen as completely black and white. Even by posters (I'm not singling anyone out) from here in the US. SF sues PL. SF wins. The End.

_*Far from it.*_ There is *far *more gray than anything, as we have all witnessed; and _*far*_ more perversion of the law. There really is no "if, then" in the US criminal justice system. No offense to Kiessling and Size15's (and our other international posters), but you don't understand our system of justice. The US is a _very_ litigious country, ridiculously so. You'd have to actually live here to _even somewhat_ understand how ridiculous it its.

We Americans sue over the stupidest things. Take for example the lady who sued McDonald's because she burned herself with a cup of coffee:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Now you know, and I know, that putting a scalding cup of coffee between our legs is dangerous- especially while sitting in a car. What did she do? Open said cup of coffee between her legs, spilling the coffee on herself.

No common sense.

Guess who won? She did. *$640,000 to be exact.*



...or take for example this case:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042502763_pf.html

Yes, you read that right, *an American judge* sued a laundromat for a pair of pants- for $65 million. While the case went to court, the judge eventually lost the case and lost his job.

...it should be noted that the laundromat* had to shut down 2 (out of three) of their stores* because they couldn't afford to pay for legal fees.



Sound familiar?



Here's a personal experience I went through: last year I tried to sell about $1000 worth of Transformers toys to a local guy. He agreed to buy them in four weeks, that he'd come down to get them in that time. So I hold onto the toys for four weeks, just for him. It's fair to mention I lost MANY potential buyers in the 4 weeks he made me wait.

Come the day he wanted to meet up, he demanded I sell the Transformers to him for less than half the price I offered. He says he came up with that figure because he's a "professional collector". I absolutely refused, and in an email I basically said I'd expose his shady business practices to warn other collectors.

His email reply stated that his wife is a lawyer, that he would sue me for "slander and character assassination" with little or no financial losses to himself. I knew he was full of it, so I didn't bother with him after that.



Obviously these cases do not involve flashlight companies/corporations, but it speaks _*volumes*_ about the way our justice system operates and how we perceive justice. These stories are just *a small slice* of the mishaps that occur here.

Per CPF rules I can't discuss this further because it gets political...


...but you get the idea.



Again no offense to Bernie or Size15's and our international posters, my apologies if I did offend anyone in that regard.


----------



## dudemar (Jan 6, 2009)

PCC said:


> I drove by Pentagonlight earlier today and the lobby area looks like they've packed it up. There were people inside and it looked like they were having a meeting or late lunch so I didn't get out of my car.
> 
> Too bad I didn't find them before all this madness began.



Thanks for the update.:sigh:


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 6, 2009)

You did not offend, at least not me. And it is true that I don't "get" your system fully, and I am glad I don't have to live with it.

To me it sounds strange that it seems natural that the "going to court" itself kills the "targets", and not the judgement. Not that I think that one should not go to court to seek justice because of that. But it is a very "special" system indeed.


On the other hand ... PL new that could happen to them. They took the risk, and apparently lost. 
I guess we will never know how many (if any) chances they had to correct their "errors"/infractions and what history was between the two companies before the lawsuit.

I remember a very aggrgessive and well targeted marketing from PL since they emerged and that I wasn't pleased with their style and business ethics back then. But that's business, one might say. Just like the lawsuit.

Of course for us flashaholics, the more lights the better. But if more lights means harming innovators (SF in this case), then I am all for stopping that. I prefer less lights then.

bernie


----------



## Beamhead (Jan 6, 2009)

Just for the record, this case would be in "Civil Court" and I say we start a class action law suit against manufacturers that can't get their product to market in the same year they announce/advertise/catalog them........j/k....or am I:nana:


----------



## jimmy1970 (Jan 6, 2009)

After talking to a local Surefire dealer, I was told that Pentagon are only the first one of many on the list to sue - Starting at the biggest and then working down.

James....


----------



## kramer5150 (Jan 6, 2009)

jimmy1970 said:


> After talking to a local Surefire dealer, I was told that Pentagon are only the first one of many on the list to sue - Starting at the biggest and then working down.
> 
> James....



:mecry:

So anything with a twist cap / momentary push is

I don't like that at all


----------



## rtt (Jan 7, 2009)

I have been involved with the legal department many times working for a very large computer company as the manager of Product Engineering. One aspect of the legal department is to review a competitor’s product to see if any of the company's patent have been infringed. If a patent infringement is determined to have occurred by the competitor every effort is made to meet with the competitor to have them purchase a license to use the infringed patent.
 
If the competitor does not agree to license the infringed patent, a law suit is started. I have met with many company lawyers that have a mind set to initiate a law suit against a competitor to drive them out of business because the competitor actually poses a threat to the company due to new innovation or the competitor is gaining market share. Many lawyers will do this because the legal department is a "cost center". I.E. they have to justify their existence by showing that they are making money for the company. Many times "Legalize" is used in place of innovation or quality products with reasonable price points. 
 
This is $$life$$ in the big city. Ok stepping off the soap box.


----------



## Guy's Dropper (Jan 7, 2009)

I hope they don't go out of buisness. That would be bad for us.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Jan 7, 2009)

This thread is in effect, started out an an interest thread discussing SF's lawsuit against Pentagonlight. We do not have the evidence pro or con that would enable us to make a judgment pro or con about the lawsuit. Most everything presented in this thread is subjective, and many of us take sides, or remain neutral about the justification for the lawsuit. The way this thread is progressing, I personally see it as another way to bash SF. I said this before, this thread has run its course.

Bill


----------



## dudemar (Jan 7, 2009)

Bullzeyebill said:


> I said this before, this thread has run its course.
> 
> Bill



...not until the fat lady sings:



Size15's said:


> *SureFire will have comprehensive article on this issue in their 2009 catalog published* in but ten days *on 15th January 2009.*
> 
> Al


----------



## Monocrom (Jan 7, 2009)

Kiessling said:


> You did not offend, at least not me. And it is true that I don't "get" your system fully....


 
Some companies use the legal system to sue competitors out of existence. It's all about money. Smaller companies simply cannot afford to fight bigger ones in court. So they either settle, or they close up shop.... Just like PL was forced to do. No need for a judge's formal decision.

With the legal system in place here in America, you can indeed sue over practically anything. While the link in dudemar's post about the woman burned by hot coffee goes to extremes to justify her lawsuit, the simple fact remains that had she not placed hot coffee in her lap; she would not have gotten burned. But lack of common sense on the part of the plantiff is rarely seen as a good reason to dismiss a lawsuit.... I honestly would not be surprised if Gillette gets sued one day by a man who badly cut himself, while shaving. :ironic:

(Yes it's *that *bad).


----------



## Monocrom (Jan 7, 2009)

jimmy1970 said:


> After talking to a local Surefire dealer, I was told that Pentagon are only the first one of many on the list to sue - Starting at the biggest and then working down.
> 
> James....


 
I can think of bigger competitors than PL that use the type of switch that Surefire is claiming as their exclusive, intellectual, property.

Normally, the bigger companies go after the smaller ones first. Once the easy targets are dealt with, then you go after the bigger ones. You don't work your way down, you work your way up. Each victory makes your claims look stronger when going after the next competitor on the lawsuit list. If you start with the biggest one first, they can give you a tough fight in court. You might lose. And if that happens, you're not going to have much of a leg to stand on if you go after any other competitors. 

*Note: *

_The above is simply a short breakdown of how lawsuits involving competing companies tends to work in America. It is merely standard operating procedure. I'm not claiming that is exactly what Surefire is up to. Simply pointing out that it is odd for a company to start with their biggest competitor, and then work their way down._


----------



## JNewell (Jan 7, 2009)

jimmy1970 said:


> *After talking to a local Surefire dealer*, I was told that Pentagon are only the first one of many on the list to sue - Starting at the biggest and then working down.
> 
> James....


 
I'd be surprised if SureFire is sharing its IP/litigation strategy details with local dealers.


----------



## JNewell (Jan 7, 2009)

Monocrom said:


> With the legal system in place here in America, you can indeed sue over practically anything. While the link in dudemar's post about the woman burned by hot coffee goes to extremes to justify her lawsuit, the simple fact remains that had she not placed hot coffee in her lap; she would not have gotten burned. But lack of common sense on the part of the plantiff is rarely seen as a good reason to dismiss a lawsuit.... I honestly would not be surprised if Gillette gets sued one day by a man who badly cut himself, while shaving. :ironic:
> 
> (Yes it's *that *bad).


 
FWIW, we need to remember that when speaking about outlandish jury verdicts, "we have met the enemy and he is us" (or whatever the Pogo quote was). Those craaaazy damage awards are made by juries whose members are ordinary citizens. I believe that's a sad and alarming commentary on the state of society, but that's a whole different thread.


----------



## soffiler (Jan 7, 2009)

JNewell said:


> I'd be surprised if SureFire is sharing its IP/litigation strategy details with local dealers.


 
My thoughts exactly. More than surprised, I'd be astounded. Local SF dealers aren't SF. In fact the closest they come to SF is some inside sales rep, who is pretty close to the lowest level of the food chain. That rep is highly unlikely to know SF's litigation stragety either.


----------



## rtt (Jan 7, 2009)

Bullzeyebill said:


> This thread is in effect, started out an an interest thread discussing SF's lawsuit against Pentagonlight. We do not have the evidence pro or con that would enable us to make a judgment pro or con about the lawsuit. Most everything presented in this thread is subjective, and many of us take sides, or remain neutral about the justification for the lawsuit. The way this thread is progressing, I personally see it as another way to bash SF. I said this before, this thread has run its course.
> 
> Bill


 
Since we do not have facts about this litigation most threads have to be subjective. I find this thread to be interesting. I do not see it as another way to bash SF. It looks like you have strong feelings about this thread and suggest that it should be closed for everyone. Perhaps you should stop reading this thread since it appears to agitate you.


----------



## Monocrom (Jan 7, 2009)

JNewell said:


> FWIW, we need to remember that when speaking about outlandish jury verdicts, "we have met the enemy and he is us." Those craaaazy damage awards are made by juries whose members are ordinary citizens.


 
Having once been a Paralegal, I can tell you from experience that lawyers do not want intelligent people to serve on juries. They want folks who can be easily manipulated and swayed. For years, lawyers were exempt from jury duty. So were doctors. The reasons?.... A lawyer knows all the tricks of the trade. A doctor is far too knowledgeable in an injury case. Any bit of "creative presentation" to the jury, and that doctor is going to see the B.S. being tossed in his face. 

The enemy is definitely not us.... it's the absolute lowest common denominator in American society. The old notion of "Too stupid to get out of jury duty," is still alive & well.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Jan 7, 2009)

rtt said:


> Since we do not have facts about this litigation most threads have to be subjective. I find this thread to be interesting. I do not see it as another way to bash SF. It looks like you have strong feelings about this thread and suggest that it should be closed for everyone. Perhaps you should stop reading this thread since it appears to agitate you.



:thumbsup:

Bill


----------



## JNewell (Jan 7, 2009)

Well, being a lawyer...I agree with you! 

If you mean that the enemy is not "us" in the sense of most of those here and most folks you know, I agree - by "us" I mean 21st century American society as a whole, and I will stand by that statement. That "us" is deeply foreign to me, but I am only one of several hundred million Americans.



Monocrom said:


> Having once been a Paralegal, I can tell you from experience that lawyers do not want intelligent people to serve on juries. They want folks who can be easily manipulated and swayed. For years, lawyers were exempt from jury duty. So were doctors. The reasons?.... A lawyer knows all the tricks of the trade. A doctor is far too knowledgeable in an injury case. Any bit of "creative presentation" to the jury, and that doctor is going to see the B.S. being tossed in his face.
> 
> The enemy is definitely not us.... it's the absolute lowest common denominator in American society. The old notion of "Too stupid to get out of jury duty," is still alive & well.


----------



## defloyd77 (Jan 7, 2009)

I still think it's not the simple LOTC there's more to it than that. Patent RE40,125: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...s1=RE40,125.PN.&OS=PN/RE40,125&RS=PN/RE40,125

I can't find the article on SF's website, but that's the patent number I've seen before on this thread and if that's the case that goes WAY beyond the LOTC and has to do with having 2 light sources with their own batteries, but one LOTC that controls both.


----------



## Monocrom (Jan 8, 2009)

JNewell said:


> Well, being a lawyer...I agree with you!
> 
> If you mean that the enemy is not "us" in the sense of most of those here and most folks you know, I agree - by "us" I mean 21st century American society as a whole, and I will stand by that statement. That "us" is deeply foreign to me, but I am only one of several hundred million Americans.


 
It's good to see that we agree. 

Despite being a lawyer, I won't hold that against you.


----------



## rtt (Jan 8, 2009)

A little off-topic. Since this thread is composed mostly of speculations and thoughts, I wanted to throw another wild thought into this discussion. I was wondering to myself that the delay for general availability of the SF UA2 may be caused by litigation threats from [email protected], which presently owns the general patent on flashlights that focus.

My unofficial information is that the “focus” patent owned by [email protected] is due to run out shortly.


----------



## JNewell (Jan 8, 2009)

Monocrom said:


> It's good to see that we agree.
> 
> Despite being a lawyer, I won't hold that against you.


 
Please don't, thanks!  I long ago gave up thinking that most other folks look at things the way I do. Concepts like personal responsibility, integrity, etc. are now so...quaint and old fashioned...<sigh>. None of which has much to do with this thread...


----------



## jimmy1970 (Jan 8, 2009)

JNewell said:


> I'd be surprised if SureFire is sharing its IP/litigation strategy details with local dealers.


 The dealer was upset as they had just produced a huge banner for the front of the shop that featured all the brands they carry including Pentagon - I suspect the comments he retold to me were from Pentagon themselves or one of their other competitors.

People within an industry talk - in my industry (flooring), we had word through the grapevine that a major supplier was to go under a full 6 months before it was made public!

James...


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 8, 2009)

Oh sweet. If there are indeed more lawsuits coming, we need to know that in advance. To hire more moderators  
bernie


----------



## Beamhead (Jan 8, 2009)

Kiessling said:


> Oh sweet. If there are indeed more lawsuits coming, we need to know that in advance. To hire more moderators
> bernie


 
Hire? That implies compensation.


----------



## Size15's (Jan 8, 2009)

Beamhead said:


> Hire? That implies compensation.


For Christmas Kel sent us each a USB "Ban" button - what more could we wish for?


----------



## dano (Jan 8, 2009)

Size15's said:


> For Christmas Kel sent us each a USB "Ban" button - what more could we wish for?



Interesting...I was never compensated for any Moderation activities in the 6 years I was there...as it was a voluntary spot...but have things changed?.?.


----------



## Size15's (Jan 8, 2009)

I'm jesting about the USB Ban button - Images of the Alien in Alien Resurrection pushing that button spring to mind. Or those switches requiring a key and one of those safety latch things... :thinking:


----------



## Burgess (Jan 8, 2009)

:lolsign:
_


----------



## Monocrom (Jan 9, 2009)

More moderators??

Hmm.... Now who do I know who's both power-hungry *and *insane....

Can I nominate my buddy WadeF?


----------



## js (Jan 9, 2009)

Al,

I got a _Firewire_ Ban button from Greta for my Christmas present.


----------



## KiwiMark (Jan 9, 2009)

Monocrom said:


> Now who do I know who's both power-hungry *and *insane....



Over 90% of the regular posters on this site?

Or is Lumen hungry different to power hungry?


----------



## Size15's (Jan 9, 2009)

js said:


> Al,
> 
> I got a _Firewire_ Ban button from Greta for my Christmas present.


I heard DM51 got a Bluetooth one...


----------



## Monocrom (Jan 9, 2009)

KiwiMark said:


> Over 90% of the regular posters on this site?
> 
> Or is Lumen hungry different to power hungry?


 
Hmm.... Same thing?.... Okay, let's go with that.


----------



## defloyd77 (Jan 9, 2009)

rtt said:


> I was wondering to myself that the delay for general availability of the SF UA2 may be caused by litigation threats from [email protected], which presently owns the general patent on flashlights that focus.
> 
> My unofficial information is that the “focus” patent owned by [email protected] is due to run out shortly.



It's how it focuses with the cam, but the patent is out. That'd be a sight to see Mag vs. Surefire in court.


----------



## american lockpicker (Jan 9, 2009)

Mag vs. Surefire in court....


----------



## Size15's (Jan 9, 2009)

Although I've not read Mag's patent, I understand that their method involves defocusing the beam by the relative movement of the bulb and reflector such that the filament can move forward or rearward of the reflector's focal point.

SureFire's Zoom Plate focusing method involves using a "Zoom Plate" optical lens to alter the beam profile of a fixed source & TIR optic by moving the Zoom Plate relative to the fixed source.

Al


----------



## ja10 (Jan 10, 2009)

Not a real easy read: APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ALIGNING A SUBSTANTIAL POINT SOURCE OF LIGHT WITH A REFLECTOR FEATURE

" ... In flashlights, the head assembly is typically rotatably connected to the barrel of the flashlight at the end where the bulb is retained ... and the lamp bulb may be varied, thereby varying the dispersion of the light beam emanating through the lens from the lamb bulb ..."

" ... An adjustable focusing means varies the position of the point source of light with respect to the focal point in a direction parallel to the axis of the reflector. The movable lamp holder holds the lamp bulb and maintains the operable connection with the battery. The actuating member is operatively coupled to the movable lamp bulb holder for moving the point source of light of the lamp bulb to a position coaxial with the reflector axis. ..."

First, I didn't even know that "rotatably" was a word. Second, this patent shows an issue date of Feb 2008. Mag was making focusing lights 25+ years before, correct? If so, I wonder if it was either updated and reissued, or what. I believe older patents have a life span of 17 years, but maybe someone smarter will jump in.


----------



## rtt (Jan 11, 2009)

ja10 said:


> Not a real easy read: APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ALIGNING A SUBSTANTIAL POINT SOURCE OF LIGHT WITH A REFLECTOR FEATURE
> 
> First, I didn't even know that "rotatably" was a word. Second, this patent shows an issue date of Feb 2008. Mag was making focusing lights 25+ years before, correct? If so, I wonder if it was either updated and reissued, or what. I believe older patents have a life span of 17 years, but maybe someone smarter will jump in.


 
Currently design patents are granted for 14 years. Utility and plant patents are granted usually for 20 years from the date the applications were filed. Doing a quick glance at [email protected]'s new patent it seems that they have used a broader brush (expanded legalize) for altering light profiles. Such words as "apparatus and reflector feature" is a large tent that can include any mechanism that alters the light profile imho.


----------



## Jesseri (Jan 12, 2009)

Size15's said:


> For Christmas Kel sent us each a USB "Ban" button - what more could we wish for?



Someone must be missing his/hers button because CPF Santa made mistake and sent it to me :naughty:. No worries tho, i'm going to use it as vigorously as you others are using it.


----------



## Size15's (Jan 12, 2009)

:thumbsup:


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 12, 2009)

Jesseri said:


> Someone must be missing his/hers button because CPF Santa made mistake and sent it to me :naughty:. No worries tho, i'm going to use it as vigorously as you others are using it.






I want your version


----------



## JNewell (Jan 12, 2009)

Neat, where was it made???


----------



## Jesseri (Jan 13, 2009)

Hard to say.. Here's the picture from the backside of it. I think it's made in China :thumbsdow:laughing:


----------



## rastaman (Jan 13, 2009)

why is in this thread so much offtopic from the mods and admins? 

if they don't want participate in this thread, they should go to the cafe section. but shoud not make a kindergarden of this thread! 

i think, they do so, because some of them are surefire believers (i.e Size15 and Herr Kiessling).


----------



## cruisemissile (Jan 13, 2009)

Federal LG said:


> +1
> 
> I read "*Surefire LLC*...".
> 
> What is this "LLC" ?


 
Lethal Legal Clowns
just kidding, I own several Surefires, but am not crazy about their lawsuit, I don't think Pentagonlight deserve it.

LLC= Limited Liability Corporation (a type of "company", in their corporate charter, they limit their liability in case THEY get sued.)


----------



## dudemar (Jan 17, 2009)

I see PentagonLight has a booth at SHOT 2009.oo: Anyone see anything?

http://www.shotshow.org/App/homepag...&campaignid=61409431&iUserCampaignID=47134389

EDIT: Never mind, I heard it was empty...


----------



## ygbsm (Jan 19, 2009)

rtt said:


> Currently design patents are granted for 14 years. Utility and plant patents are granted usually for 20 years from the date the applications were filed. Doing a quick glance at [email protected]'s new patent it seems that they have used a broader brush (expanded legalize) for altering light profiles. Such words as "apparatus and reflector feature" is a large tent that can include any mechanism that alters the light profile imho.



Four points: First, the title of a patent does not set the scope of its coverage, the claims do. The application quoted is a utility patent application. "Apparatus" and "method" are some of the most common words used in the title or the preamble or in the very claims themselves of utility patents (often in the form "An apparatus for..."), so one probably should not read too much into that. Claims directed purely to methods may have additional issue with respect to enforcement including inducement or contributory infringement proof issues.

Second, what the term of patents in general now may be of little relevance to the term of a specific patent -- what matters is the term as set forth during the prosecution. Moreover, this particular application is a continuation (not a CIP or continuation in part) of a prior filed application which itself was a divisional of an even earlier filed application and as such likely claims priority (normally under 35 USC Section 119) from an earlier filed parent application and would therefore likely be limited in term to the earliest filed parent from whom it claims priority.

Third, what has been cited is an application -- an application is not a patent. Moreover, claims as filed are often different from claims as issued and you cannot tell much what the scope of a patent (and remember, nothing might issue from an application) from claims as filed.

Fourth, there has been a very big decision from the Supreme Court regarding what constitutes prior art for the purposes of a Section 103 obviousness analysis (35 USC Section 103) that could well affect many many pending applications and issued patents -- it would be unwise mot to consider the impact of that decision, KSR v Teleflex (and, on the litigation side, the impact of the Supreme Court's recent eBay decision on the injunction standard in patent actions.)

A large number (not yours rtt  ) of the comments and speculations in this thread on patents and patent law are striking in their ignorance and just plain silly. The patent law is complex and with the recent Supreme Court rulings (not to mention last year's Federal Circuit Bilski decision on methods of doing business patents) has changed considerably recently. Also, patent litigation is a very very different beast than patent prosecution (the obtaining of patents) and it is sometimes the case that those who merely prosecute patents, have very little idea what happens and what may be important in either patent suits or the activity leading up to a suit, so even some of those who work with the patent law for a living may not understand patent litigation. For example, the standard for what supports an assertion of declaratory judgment jurisdiction has changed significantly within the last couple years. DJ jurisdiction and choice of forum are an important issue for many litigators -- I doubt, for example, that a plaintiff's choice of say, the Eastern District of Texas as a forum for a patent action is purely arbitrary. Some of the assertions made in this thread, if true, could conceivably affect a finding on such an issue -- one should therefore be very very very careful about off the cuff assertions about what potential parties to a lawsuit may have said or done before filing.

P.S. "Rotatably", "fixedly", and a whole lot of other terms of the sort are common in what is often referred to as "patent parlance." An old saying in patent law -- and a phrase cited in decisions by the Federal Courts both at the District court level and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Federal Appellate Court for patent issues -- is that "a patentee can be his own lexicographer." I myself have worked on an application that included the phrase "fixedly removably attached", an application which ultimately issued as a patent. I also worked on a lawsuit where one of the questions was whether "single" meant "one or more." The Court ruled it could. Go figure...


----------



## dudemar (Jan 19, 2009)

Um... :shrug:

If you can help us translate that a bit we would all appreciate it.:thumbsup::naughty:


----------



## ygbsm (Jan 19, 2009)

dudemar said:


> Um... :shrug:
> 
> If you can help us translate that a bit we would all appreciate it.:thumbsup::naughty:


Translate -- why I'd be pleased to do so in great detail (barring any conflicts, of course.) And because you're a CPFer, it will only cost you $450 an hour :naughty:  (up front, in cash, given the present economic conditions, I'm sure you understand...) :thumbsup:


----------



## Monocrom (Jan 19, 2009)

As far as Patent Law goes, it seems to apply quite nicely to my Sig line. :thumbsdow


----------



## dudemar (Jan 19, 2009)

ygbsm said:


> Translate -- why I'd be pleased to do so in great detail (barring any conflicts, of course.) And because you're a CPFer, it will only cost you $450 an hour :naughty:  (up front, in cash, given the present economic conditions, I'm sure you understand...) :thumbsup:



WHAT?!? CASH???


I was hoping you'd accept PayPal...


Otherwise I'm just going to pick up another Polarion.:laughing:


Really though, a legalese translation would help.




Monocrom said:


> As far as Patent Law goes, it seems to apply quite nicely to my Sig line. :thumbsdow



I wholeheartedly agree.


----------



## ygbsm (Jan 19, 2009)

dudemar said:


> WHAT?!? CASH???
> 
> 
> I was hoping you'd accept PayPal...
> ...


One of the notions I was trying to underscore is the very complexity of the law. Numerous article and significant portions of treatises have been written on a number of the topics I mention above, for example "obviousness" or "priority" with continuation applications. Patent law a two semester course in most law schools. (On the specific applications mentioned, for example, the mere act of figuring out what the claims might mean would likely require at least a detailed examination of all the formal filings for the two predecessor applications (called file histories) as well as the present application, likely tens of pages with likely multiple legal issues each requiring hours of legal research.) Thus, merely on the basis of volume, this thread, and in fact this whole board is, in my opinion, a place wholly unsuited for detailed discussion relating to these topics. Jury instructions in specific patent cases can easily be 30 pages long, just for the particular issues in a particular case, much less patent law generally. 
Moreover, real analysis of litigation positions and strategy are nearly always unique to the sets of facts each case presents. It has taken me years of daily experience to achieve what understanding I have of intellectual property litigation, and I learn something new about litigation all the time. And the application of the law to a particular set of facts is often a matter of dispute. As an example, Federal District Court interpretations of the meaning of the claims of a patent (called "claim construction") which is central to any analysis of the scope of a patent's coverage and which is done by the Judge is reversed by the Court of Appeal more than 40% of the time. In other words, according to the Appeals Court, Federal Judges get the rules or their application of patent law on this one issue wrong nearly half the time. That's an indication of just how complex and difficult this law can be, even for Judges. Thus, on the basis of the complexity of the law and its application, even for trained lawyers, this whole board is again, in my opinion, a place wholly unsuited for detailed discussion relating to patent law generally. And without the details of specific situations or fact patterns, hypothetical application of the law would be just speculation.
It's sort of like having a discussion on accounting here. It would make little sense to discuss GAAP accounting or cost accounting in general here... 
Now some of these issues do not apply if someone has a a very specific issue themselves (but in that case they should seek qualified counsel and again, the discussions would not take place in a public forum.) 
Sorry if this does not help much, but that is -- as I see it -- the nature of the beast.


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 19, 2009)

I think it helps, and thank you. IMHO it means we don't understand what is going on, and we will not understand by continuing the discussion.
We might still get an impression of unfairness or fairness, but that has nothing to do with the law and the possible outcome and with a chance of 40% the Judge doesn't know either


----------



## Monocrom (Jan 19, 2009)

Apparently, a forum full of lawyers & judges would be "wholly unsuited for detailed discussion relaring to patent law generally."

Everyone just goes along with the insanity, instead of trying to change it. :sick2:


----------



## sappyg (Jan 19, 2009)

Monocrom said:


> Apparently, a forum full of lawyers & judges would be "wholly unsuited for detailed discussion relaring to patent law generally."
> 
> Everyone just goes along with the insanity, instead of trying to change it. :sick2:


 
change?.... there is no change as i see it. ygbsm is not suggesting anything other than the fact that we here are not qualified to pass judgement on this matter. regardless of whether a qualified judge may take the intent or the law incorrectly it is still a matter for others more qualified. 
the alternative would be insanity... at least the system as it is has from and function. would you rather go to a machanic for a heart transplant operation? what if someone you did'nt know or has no experience with your job came to you and told you how you should be doing your job? (don't answer that... i get that every day myself). how would you be able to do your job then? better? no?
changing something for the sake of change is a substitution of one "insanity" for the other. check out the french revolution... there is change for you.
in the end SF will pursue it's rights and pentagon will defend it's rights. there is nothing wrong with that and i appreciate the fact that they can in a civil manner. there will be one winner and one looser. what about that needs to be changed?


----------



## Monocrom (Jan 19, 2009)

sappyg said:


> in the end SF will pursue it's rights and pentagon will defend it's rights. there is nothing wrong with that and i appreciate the fact that they can in a civil manner. there will be one winner and one looser. what about that needs to be changed?


 
Let's start with the fact that whichever company is bigger, and has more money, can litigate a smaller competitor out of existence *before *a qualified judge even has to render a verdict. Call me crazy, but perhaps the legal system shouldn't be used to wage a war of attrition against a competitor. File a case, let it drag on, then just wait until the other side runs out of money, and you win.

Just as it was done long ago. Find a fortified village, surround it so no supplies can get in and no one can get out, then just sit back and wait for their food supply to run out, wait a bit longer until they are on the brink of starvation.... Then walk in and claim victory. Yeah, it counts as a "win." But far from a noble way of getting the job done.

Let's change that particular B.S. aspect right there.

As far as Patent Law goes, when you have qualified judges who can't even get it right about 40% of the time, what does that tell you?

Yeah, you don't go to a mechanic for open-heart surgery. But something is horribly wrong when you find qualified doctors, and then you find out that 40% of their patients don't make it. And none of them are willing to try a procedure that _might _give better odds. Sure, let's stick with the same old insanity that we're used to, rather than trying something else. :shakehead


----------



## sappyg (Jan 20, 2009)

perhaps some perspective:
back in the day i had a history professor who made the most profound statement that i had heard. he was attempting to define history. in a nutshell he said 'history is nothing but a record of rape and pilage'
one group or race gets invaded and pushed off their land so they go somewhere else and do the same to someone else. it is a right of conquest and nothing more. truly, the meek inherit the earth. 
right has never been about what is always "fair" but more about who is stronger. that is the way of life. you might not like it but, we all live with it. remember the golden rule? he who has the gold makes the rules. 
i live in a "right to work state". that means i can be fired w/o cause.... so. i also have certain inherent rights because of that..... so. i (and others) use to work under a non compete clause with a previous employer. one associate left and went into the same business as the previous employer. even though we live in a right to work state i.e., a right to earn a living through all previously aquired knowledge, he got hit with an injunction and a law suit and could no longer earn a living by way of court order. guess where he works now..... you got.... right back at the same place he started. that seems unfair, and it is but, he also had a right to pursue income through other vocation as well.
winning is not about how noble you look doing it. winning is about winning at all cost. there is not always a right or wrong to it... it just is.


----------



## greenLED (Jan 20, 2009)

Monocrom said:


> Let's start with the fact that whichever company is bigger, and has more money, can litigate a smaller competitor out of existence *before *a qualified judge even has to render a verdict. Call me crazy, but perhaps the legal system shouldn't be used to wage a war of attrition against a competitor. File a case, let it drag on, then just wait until the other side runs out of money, and you win.


Which is, partly, what happened to the original iteration of Arc Flashlights.


----------



## ygbsm (Jan 20, 2009)

Monocrom said:


> Apparently, a forum full of lawyers & judges would be "wholly unsuited for detailed discussion relaring to patent law generally."
> 
> Everyone just goes along with the insanity, instead of trying to change it. :sick2:


Of course that is not what I in any way said, but you are free to draw your own conclusions. Judges in general do not discuss existing law except as it applies to particular fact patterns anyway and most lawyers are utterly uninterested in patent law. 

As a matter of logic, the fact that the law is complicated does not mean it is insane anymore than the fact that the charge pump in the flash memory of the SF card in my camera is a fairly complicated device means that it is insane. If you want really insane, I suggest you look a copyright law -- not that complicated, but insane.  

If you want a particular form of change, figure out an alternative system and propose it to your representative in Congress (if you haven't already)  -- or read and support either any of the numerous proposals for "reform" that have been suggested or the proposed reform legislation... The US Patent and Trademark Office is attempting to institute new restrictions with respect to the continuation applications (recall that continuations were involved in the identified application) and the number of claims generally. The Federal Circuit has itself instituted "reform." See, e.g. last year's Bilski decision re the much complained about method of doing business patent applications. So it is hardly the case that "[e]veryone just goes along ... instead of trying to change it."


----------



## Monocrom (Jan 20, 2009)

sappyg said:


> winning is not about how noble you look doing it. winning is about winning at all cost. there is not always a right or wrong to it... it just is.


 
Yup, that's how it is. Screw over anyone you can, while making money. 

But by the start of the 21st century, you'd think that type of old B.S. would not exist quite as much as in the past, or that laws would be in place to curtail that type of obscene behavior.


----------



## LLCoolBeans (Jan 20, 2009)

I've just sent an email to SureFire explaining the reasons why I am no longer a customer. This lawsuit is only one of the reasons.

I suggest the rest of you that feel the same way, do the same thing.


----------



## parnass (Jan 20, 2009)

I couldn't find a definitive posting on CPF about whether Pentagonlight is out of business, so I phoned the company today at (650) 877-1555 and spoke with Carla. She confirmed that the company is closed and went of business due to a court settlement.


----------



## sappyg (Jan 20, 2009)

Monocrom said:


> Yup, that's how it is. Screw over anyone you can, while making money.
> 
> But by the start of the 21st century, you'd think that type of old B.S. would not exist quite as much as in the past, or that laws would be in place to curtail that type of obscene behavior.


 
as long as we have lawyers making the laws they will always be "gainfully" employed :shakehead
this obscene behavior could quite possibly be human nature by another name. it is the nature of a thing to constantly become more of what it is. this behavior will only grow in scope.


----------



## LLCoolBeans (Jan 20, 2009)

parnass said:


> I couldn't find a definitive posting on CPF about whether Pentagonlight is out of business, so I phoned the company today at (650) 877-1555 and spoke with Carla. She confirmed that the company is closed and went of business due to a court settlement.



So they're gone forever? :shakehead

All this over a screw that unscrews? Will they sue ACE hardware next? Or Archimedes?

Boycott SureFire!


----------



## bigfoot (Jan 20, 2009)

Well, I guess that takes PentagonLight out of the equation. (Thanks for the research Parnass!)


----------



## kramer5150 (Jan 20, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> C'mon, you guys know the routine... SHOT Show......





[email protected] said:


> Greg is dead on and there will also be a huge spread about this in the 2009 catalog that will elaborate further.....stand by




So was there an announcement of some sort at the Shot-2009 catalog release? (other than the empty Pentagon booth).


----------



## sappyg (Jan 20, 2009)

LLCoolBeans said:


> So they're gone forever? :shakehead
> 
> All this over a screw that unscrews? Will they sue ACE hardware next? Or Archimedes?
> 
> Boycott SureFire!


 
ACE hardware is not a competitor and Archimedes is dead... niether have any money and the patent on the screw ran out years ago. moreover, it is the intent of the screw that is in question and not the screw itself.
i will not boycott SF but the fact that you can i applaud and wish all well. i feel confident that others will quickly fill in where PL left off as long as there is a viable niche.
ashes to ashes... better days and better ways.


----------



## dudemar (Jan 21, 2009)

LLCoolBeans said:


> So they're gone forever? :shakehead



They are "out of business", but they will still warranty PentagonLights that are still out there. I'm actually about to send my PX1 in for warranty.

There are a few dealers out there who still sell PL's if you want to pick one up.



LLCoolBeans said:


> Boycott SureFire!



Thanks for joining in.:twothumbs


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 21, 2009)

I wish you guys a pleasant hobby without all those great SF lights :nana:

And I wish you a pleasant life without all the other products from enterprises that sued another and won. It will be interesting to see how you manage. You report back, ok?


bernie


----------



## LLCoolBeans (Jan 21, 2009)

sappyg said:


> ACE hardware is not a competitor and Archimedes is dead... niether have any money and the patent on the screw ran out years ago. moreover, it is the intent of the screw that is in question and not the screw itself.



I was being facetious, sheesh.

What I mean is that a tail-cap which comes partially unscrewed is hardly a feature or an innovation and certainly nothing to start a legal battle over.

I have all sorts of devices and products where the screws can be partially unscrewed so that the effect is the device no longer operates.

The fact is, there are so many other manufacturers that produce a better product than Surefire does and for less money. There's just no reason to buy one anymore.

At one time Surefire was one of the major innovators in this industry. Now they are just trying to get buy on the name they created for themselves and predatory legal tactics.


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 21, 2009)

> The fact is, there are so many other manufacturers that produce a better product than Surefire does and for less money.




Well ... buy theirs then. And enjoy!


----------



## McGizmo (Jan 21, 2009)

LLCoolBeans said:


> ..........
> 
> At one time Surefire was one of the major innovators in this industry. Now they are just trying to get buy on the name they created for themselves and predatory legal tactics.



At that one time mentioned, who were the other major innovators in the industry?

I personally don't care for predatory legal tactics and think it is a shame when an industry and market gets saddled with additional costs associated with legal battles. On the other hand, when there are manufacturers willing to step into new growing markets and exploit the efforts and designs of others in lieu of any design or innovation work of their own then it may be that legal recourse is dictated. :shrug:

I attended the first SHOT show that Pentagonlight exhibited at and their booth consisted of a bunch of elegant artistic renditions of design ideas in big posters and graphics and a few non functional mock ups of flashlights. One of their optional tailcaps included a tab integrated on its side for mounting in a swivel belt clip. Perhaps you can imagine my surprise as I walked the booth with a flashlight I had made and designed with the same method of carry! Now as to whether this feature would be considered an innovation or not, Pentagonlight could be credited with copying the idea with no effort or attempt at contacting the person who initially brought the idea to bear. Of this I am certain. The tab idea was not protected by a patent so there was no legal issue here. That is not to say that there weren't other considerations and issues at hand though.

Pentagonlight made their bed and they chose to come to market in the manner and fashion that they did. I figure they lost ultimately but I don't see any real winners here either with the exception of some legal council. Bad game, IMHO.

The quoted statement has way too much similarity to a similar situation with another US manufacturer who I feel rested on their laurels and used litigation in lieu of innovation. IMHO, SureFire has accumulated more innovation, creation and R&D than the rest of the industry combined and yet it does seem that they have taken a step (warranted or not) on a slippery slope here. To some extent I hold Pentagonlight accountable for waking the predatory beast, if that is indeed what we have here.

It is none of my business but I think this whole situation sucks. I don't see Pentagonlight as some simple, innocent victim here. SureFire may well have been justified in drawing blood but I hope they don't acquire a taste for it!


----------



## Monocrom (Jan 21, 2009)

Kiessling said:


> I wish you guys a pleasant hobby without all those great SF lights :nana:
> 
> bernie


 
Ironically, you can blame Surefire for that. Perhaps it won't be a full year before the A2L, M3TL, or UB3 are released. Perhaps they won't be discontinued _before _being released. (I didn't think that was even possible with a product, until Surefire pulled it off). 

It's rather easy to enjoy this hobby without getting those sweet new Surefire lights..... Surefire doesn't release them. My wallet is happy, I'm p*ssed. 

Not that hard to boycott a company when they stop releasing many of their new products.


----------



## LLCoolBeans (Jan 21, 2009)

McGizmo said:


> It is none of my business but I think this whole situation sucks. I don't see Pentagonlight as some simple, innocent victim here. SureFire may well have been justified in drawing blood but I hope they don't acquire a taste for it!



I don't see PentagonLight as an innocent victim either, nor did I really care for their product line. But I think about all the other flashlights out there that have a screw-in/screw-out tail-cap and worry. Will Surefire systematically destroy every flashlight company? Will the industry be forced to come up with another method for attaching a tail-cap? I'm worried that the quality of lights that I do like will suffer, because they had to implement some sort of cockamamie device instead of simple screw threads.

I just can't come to terms with the fact that they actually got a patent for this. Surefire: "Look, if you partially disassemble one of our products it won't work until you reassemble it. Isn't that revolutionary? Can we have a patent please?" Patent office: "Sure, this is incredible".

I guess maybe I should apply for a patent for a car that won't drive if you remove the wheels or won't start if you disengage one of the leads from the battery terminal or maybe a toaster oven that won't toast if it isn't plugged in to an outlet.


----------



## Monocrom (Jan 21, 2009)

LLCoolBeans said:


> I don't see PentagonLight as an innocent victim either, nor did I really care for their product line. But I think about all the other flashlights out there that have a screw-in/screw-out tail-cap and worry. Will Surefire systematically destroy every flashlight company? Will the industry be forced to come up with another method for attaching a tail-cap? I'm worried that the quality of lights that I do like will suffer, because they had to implement some sort of cockamamie device instead of simple screw threads.


 
I seriously doubt that the lawsuit was about the tailcap design. To me, it's clear that that was simply the excuse Surefire used in order to file the lawsuit. It was about using the legal system and Surefire's greater amount of money, to put a competitor out of business. And it worked.

PL's hand-held lights are not much competition for Surefire's hand-held models. PL lights tend to be a bit larger, heavier, and not as bright compared to their Surefire counterparts. _However, _it's a very different story with their weapon-lights. PL's weapon-lights have an excellent reputation. A rep that is just as good as Surefire's. Difference is, they cost less. There are men out there who trust their lives to their PL weapon-lights. Now that particular lower-cost option is gone. 

Which makes more sense, this being about a tailcap design widely used in the industry that Surefire never bothered suing over until just recently.... or about getting rid of their biggest competitor in the weapon-lights segment of the industry.


----------



## defloyd77 (Jan 21, 2009)

Ugh, I don't know what is with some people, this is NOT about some simple loosen and it won't work tailcap! Some of you are wanting to boycott Surefire because they did what was well within their legal rights? But if it were a small company suing a big company it's a whole nother story.


----------



## Monocrom (Jan 21, 2009)

defloyd77 said:


> But if it were a small company suing a big company it's a whole nother story.


 
Small companies usually lack the funds to sue larger companies. These cases can drag on for a very long time. You don't often see smaller companies suing larger ones.


----------



## LLCoolBeans (Jan 21, 2009)

defloyd77 said:


> Ugh, I don't know what is with some people, this is NOT about some simple loosen and it won't work tailcap! Some of you are wanting to boycott Surefire because they did what was well within their legal rights? But if it were a small company suing a big company it's a whole nother story.



Morality and Legality are two very different things.

If this is not about some simple loosen and it won't work tailcap, then what is it about? One company taking out a competitor, sure. But who will be the next competitor and the next one after that or ... ?

Surefire could have released an economy line of weapon lights to compete with the Pentagon offerings. That would have been the entrepreneurial thing to do. But, no if they merely take Pentagon out of the equation so they can continue to charge whatever they want and consumers have to pay a price higher than market value, because there is no alternative, Surefire has bankrupted them with silly frivolous lawsuits.


----------



## defloyd77 (Jan 21, 2009)

Post 327 explains it all. I know it's not very often a small company that sues a big company, but let's take for example the Atwood Prybaby and the Gerber Artifact, no patents there, but just about everyone was reaming and boycotting Gerber for the Artifact, how is this any different?


----------



## LLCoolBeans (Jan 21, 2009)

defloyd77 said:


> Post 327 explains it all.



Well, I don't know if it explains it all, but I guess maybe it isn't just the lockout tailcap that they sued over.

If that's the case I guess they wouldn't have grounds to start a lawsuit fest.

Hmmm...

I was under the impression it was the lockout tailcap alone.


----------



## deranged_coder (Jan 21, 2009)

LLCoolBeans said:


> Morality and Legality are two very different things.



True, and I believe we need to make a clear distinction between the two. Was Surefire within their legal rights to do so? Well, clearly they were granted the patent and so I believe in conjunction with them being granted that patent they also have the legal right to protect that patent.

Is it moral? Others may disagree but I think that this is somewhat of a gray area. On one hand, they have to protect their intellectual property since that is how they can stay in business (if they go out of business, where would their employees and where would the consumers who count on Surefire be?) but on the other hand, by aggressively protecting their intellectual property they have put another company out of business and negatively impacted those employees and those who count on another company's products.

Personally, I am saddened that PentagonLight went out of business due to litigation. Having said that I am not about to get on Surefire's case because I believe that Surefire was well within their legal right to do so and I have no insight into the motivation for the lawsuit. Nor will I assume that they did this simply to put a competitor out of business because frankly, I have no real basis for doing so; I have no contact with them beyond being a consumer and I have no insight into their reasonings. I think it is unjust to assume I know their motivations and then publicly castigate them for my assumptions.



LLCoolBeans said:


> If this is not about some simple loosen and it won't work tailcap, then what is it about?



Actually, it is more than just the lock out tail cap. The lawsuit has two aspects, (1) patent infringement, and (2) false advertising. Here is a link to a Reuters news article from last year that outlines the two parts:

SureFire Sues PentagonLight for Patent Infringement and False Advertising



LLCoolBeans said:


> One company taking out a competitor, sure. But who will be the next competitor and the next one after that or ... ?



I do not think we have the inside track on Surefire's intent and future plans then this is just our speculation, is it not? Sadly, it seems like judgment has already been made against Surefire without knowing the full circumstances of their claim. :sigh:



LLCoolBeans said:


> Surefire could have released an economy line of weapon lights to compete with the Pentagon offerings. That would have been the entrepreneurial thing to do.



True, they could have, assuming that loss of business as the direct result of PentagonLight's competing offerings was the primary motivator. Since we have no numbers as to how much business Surefire has hypothetically lost due to PentagonLight's offering we are again laboring on the shaky assumption that this lawsuit is financially (as opposed to protection of intellectual property) motivated.



LLCoolBeans said:


> But, no if they merely take Pentagon out of the equation so they can continue to charge whatever they want...



It is a free market economy, they have always and will continue to charge whatever they want. :shrug:



LLCoolBeans said:


> ...and consumers have to pay a price higher than market value,...



Do we really _have_ to? Is anyone forcing us consumers to pay the price? I have several Surefire lights and no one forced me to pay the high price. Do I wish their products were more affordable? Sure, but I will not claim that I _had_ to pay the price. I could have freely chosen not to buy their lights.



LLCoolBeans said:


> because there is no alternative,...



I do not believe it is the case that there are really no alternatives. As far as weapon mounted lights go I believe Streamlight and Insight Technologies (to name a couple, I am sure there are more weapon light manufacturers out there) are still around. As far as hand held flashlights go, there are so many alternatives for the consumer.



LLCoolBeans said:


> Surefire has bankrupted them with silly frivolous lawsuits.



My understanding (and any lawyers, please correct me if I am in error) is that a lawsuit is frivolous if a party makes a claim or defense even though they know that the claim or defense has no merit. In this case, if PentagonLight's products do, in fact, use a lock out tail cap mechanism similar to Surefire's then the lawsuit would not be frivolous. :shrug:


----------



## LLCoolBeans (Jan 21, 2009)

Well, like I mentioned in the above post. I did not realize there was more to the patent and more to the infringement than a tail-cap which comes unscrewed.

So, I apologize for running my big mouth before I had all the facts. You'd think I'd learn that lesson eventually. :shrug:

At this point, I'll call a cease fire until such a time Surefire starts going after other manufacturers simply over the tail-cap design.


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 21, 2009)

Monocrom said:


> Ironically, you can blame Surefire for that. Perhaps it won't be a full year before the A2L, M3TL, or UB3 are released. Perhaps they won't be discontinued _before _being released. (I didn't think that was even possible with a product, until Surefire pulled it off).
> 
> It's rather easy to enjoy this hobby without getting those sweet new Surefire lights..... Surefire doesn't release them. My wallet is happy, I'm p*ssed.
> 
> Not that hard to boycott a company when they stop releasing many of their new products.



If this is the case, then I blame PL for it and I am even more glad they are gone. BTW ... how do you know? I don't. You have visions? Inside knowledge? Or do you assume?





Monocrom said:


> I seriously doubt that the lawsuit was about the tailcap design. To me, it's clear that that was simply the excuse Surefire used in order to file the lawsuit. It was about using the legal system and Surefire's greater amount of money, to put a competitor out of business. And it worked.



Again ... how do you know? You have any inside knowledge about the motivations and tactics of SF? Or do you assume again?
And ... if you're right ... why is this bad? Is the competitor put out of business despite being innocent? I don't think so. They would have been massively stupid if they didn't know the risks. They got what they were calling for. 




LLCoolBeans said:


> Morality and Legality are two very different things.



Yes. And I see both on the side of SF. PL lied in order to cheat on the competition. PL took something that they didn't own and sold it as their own. Is there any moral argument not to stop them?

The only real problem is what Don mentions ... if the industry is paralyzed by lawsuits and the cashflow goes to lawyers instead of R&D. This would be really bad, this would be Maglite style.
As I see it, SF has more R&D as the rest of them together, and I don't see them changing that right now. 





LLCoolBeans said:


> ... consumers have to pay a price higher than market value, because there is no alternative, Surefire has bankrupted them with silly frivolous lawsuits.





LLCoolBeans said:


> The fact is, there are so many other manufacturers that produce a better product than Surefire does and for less money. There's just no reason to buy one anymore.



You were saying? :nana::wave: 


bernie


----------



## LLCoolBeans (Jan 21, 2009)

Kiessling said:


> You were saying? :nana::wave:



Well, I deserve your razzing, for the earlier ranting.

I still feel that there are so many lights out there these days that do what Surefires do and so much more in all sorts of price ranges that Surefires just seem kind of boring nowadays.


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 21, 2009)

Hey ... peace and no worries  :kiss:

I can't argue that there are lots of lights out there that are interesting, many if them maybe more interesting than SF for a CPF member. However, a typical SF customer might see this different.

bernie


EDIT: and I don't wanna argue that. Diversity is good and we in these halls live it. Which is all fine.


----------



## LLCoolBeans (Jan 21, 2009)

Kiessling said:


> Hey ... peace and no worries  :kiss:



:grouphug: lol




Kiessling said:


> EDIT: and I don't wanna argue that. Diversity is good and we in these halls live it. Which is all fine.



Understood. My edit: They seem kind of boring *to me*.


----------



## winston (Jan 21, 2009)

ygbsm said:


> A large number (not yours rtt  ) of the comments and speculations in this thread on patents and patent law are striking in their ignorance and just plain silly. The patent law is complex



I'm rather proud of my ignorance of patent law. It means I was probably learning something that doesn't make my eyes glaze over. 

And I think $450 an hour is a steal, when you consider you're getting a lawyer AND a lexicographer. 
-Winston


----------



## Monocrom (Jan 22, 2009)

Kiessling said:


> If this is the case, then I blame PL for it and I am even more glad they are gone. BTW ... how do you know? I don't. You have visions? Inside knowledge? Or do you assume?


 


You blame PL for Surefire not introducing many of the products that were shown at last year's Shot Show?

How do I know that Surefire is slow to release new products?
Quite simply, I don't have a UB2 in my Surefire collection.... despite waiting over a year. 

I wish I *did *have visions, I'd be able to know just when (or even if) something announced by Surefire would be available to us. And then I'd happily share that info with everyone here. I'd be popular as Hell! I'd be able to see beamshots and tints before buying lights first.... Damn.


----------



## cree_buyer (Jan 22, 2009)

american lockpicker said:


> Mag vs. Surefire in court....



then comes the counter-suit! boo-yeah!

I personally never cared for PentagonLight line of products... tempted by the molle light though... they should have state 'Assembled in the USA' like how Streamlight does on certain models. what constitutes 'Made in USA' anyhoo? new cars sold in the US lists percentages, like: 35% domestic/65% foreign parts...

can you really engrave 'Made in USA' on a flashlight that has a Korean Seoul P4 or a Chinese made Cree??? what about other parts of the flashlight, ie. nitrile/rubber o-rings, electronic chips from the regulator circuit?

America is going to get even more litiguous with the present economic situation. I remember a lawsuit launched by Gibson guitars, they sued the makers and retailers, including Wal-Mart, for Guitar Hero (for video game consoles) because they had a patent on something to the effect of 'technology meant to simulate a musical performance'  Apparently the patent department lets you patent an IDEA! no working prototype needed, all you need are just lawyers to draft the application!

we @ CPF should start a class action lawsuit of our own just for the sake of it!

grab some popcorn and watch the fireworks...


----------



## Monocrom (Jan 22, 2009)

cree_buyer said:


> we @ CPF should start a class action lawsuit of our own just for the sake of it!


 
Could we sue Surefire for announcing the UB2, and then not releasing it for a year before deciding to kill the model?..... 

Before you answer, hold on while I finish painting this giant target on my chest.


----------



## TigerhawkT3 (Jan 23, 2009)

Kiessling said:


> ...
> Yes. And I see both on the side of SF. PL lied in order to cheat on the competition. PL took something that they didn't own and sold it as their own. Is there any moral argument not to stop them?
> ...


Are you the one having visions now? :nana: AFAIK, SF got a temporary injunction, and PL went under before any legal ruling could be made, or before the courts could even begin deliberation.


----------



## dano (Jan 23, 2009)

What exactly did PL steal? Nothing has been proven that anything was stolen, nor that PL was being deceitful.


----------



## Size15's (Jan 23, 2009)

dano said:


> What exactly did PL steal? Nothing has been proven that anything was stolen, nor that PL was being deceitful.


You're right - SureFire did not get the opportunity to prove these things - isn't it such a shame that PL decided not to try to defend themselves but rather settle out of court with SureFire instead.


----------



## dano (Jan 23, 2009)

Size15's said:


> You're right - SureFire did not get the opportunity to prove these things - isn't it such a shame that PL decided not to try to defend themselves but rather settle out of court with SureFire instead.



Or the PL was given the opportunity to prove their end. I don't think it was a settlement, it was a court injunction for PL to cease and desist all production activities.

Will SF be held in such a poor regard as Maglite is on CPF; using predatory litigation to eliminate the competition?


----------



## Size15's (Jan 23, 2009)

dano said:


> Will SF be held in such a poor regard as Maglite is on CPF; using predatory litigation to eliminate the competition?


SureFire could gain itself such a reputation if it becomes a predator intent on eliminating the competition.

However, it's my opinion that SureFire have a lot more worth protecting than Maglite and the two companies are very different in so many ways.

Al


----------



## rtt (Jan 23, 2009)

Size15's said:


> However, it's my opinion that SureFire have a lot more worth protecting than Maglite and the two companies are very different in so many ways.
> 
> Al


 
I don't know if SF have a lot more to protect than Mag. Mag Instruments Inc. has a robust patent portfolio. Anthony Maglica, the founder, alone is listed on more than 200 patents. Many of the patents are mfg process patents for the use of automation equiptment for manufacturing.


----------



## Size15's (Jan 23, 2009)

rtt said:


> I don't know if SF have a lot more to protect than Mag. Mag Instruments Inc. has a robust patent portfolio. Anthony Maglica, the founder, alone is listed on more than 200 patents. Many of the patents are mfg process patents for the use of automation equiptment for manufacturing.


I said 'worth protecting'.
I also believe SureFire have significantly greater potential for further product innovations.


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 23, 2009)

Aren't we turning in circles?


----------



## Size15's (Jan 23, 2009)

Kiessling said:


> Aren't we turning in circles?


It would appear so. But what else are we to do?


----------



## defloyd77 (Jan 23, 2009)

Oooo look at the pretty tail. HEY! Get over here!!


----------



## dano (Jan 23, 2009)

Size15's said:


> It would appear so. But what else are we to do?



Maybe it's time to end this discussion. Even though I have participated in it, I am starting to feel that it goes beyond the scope of what CPF should focus on: the technology, usage and hobby aspect of lights, not the internal business politics of the companies involved.

--dan


----------



## baterija (Jan 23, 2009)

dano said:


> Maybe it's time to end this discussion. Even though I have participated in it, I am starting to feel that it goes beyond the scope of what CPF should focus on: the technology, usage and hobby aspect of lights, not the internal business politics of the companies involved.
> 
> --dan



I think there's a role in discussing the industry since it affects our choices. Even with that this one seems to be dead. SF sued and got a preliminary injunction. PL folded and settled. That's pretty much it. The fat lady sang and went home. I agree it's probably time to end this.


----------



## rtt (Jan 23, 2009)

baterija said:


> I think there's a role in discussing the industry since it affects our choices. Even with that this one seems to be dead. SF sued and got a preliminary injunction. PL folded and settled. That's pretty much it. The fat lady sang and went home. I agree it's probably time to end this.


 
+1...I think that we have reached the point where opinions that are meaningless are being expressed to be expressed...probably time to close this thread.


----------



## Monocrom (Jan 24, 2009)

Size15's said:


> You're right - SureFire did not get the opportunity to prove these things - isn't it such a shame that PL decided not to try to defend themselves but rather settle out of court with SureFire instead.


 
I agree.... It was an unfortunate shame. But there are two different likely reasons why PL settled.

1 ~ The company was guilty of stealing Surefire's intellectual property, and knew it. Thus choosing to settle out of court.

*- Or -*

2 ~ After the injunction was granted, PL knew it would be far too financially costly to take on Surefire in a prolonged legal battle. Hence, they settled. (Quite common in lawsuits).


----------



## angelofwar (Jan 24, 2009)

Monocrom said:


> I agree.... It was an unfortunate shame. But there are two different likely reasons why PL settled.
> 
> 1 ~ The company was guilty of stealing Surefire's intellectual property, and knew it. Thus choosing to settle out of court.
> 
> ...


 
:thumbsup:...after reading this thread INTENSELY for months...I think PL knew who they were trying to "imitate"...it's rather obvious IMHO... and figured SF was "too big to care"...PL knew what they were doing, and got what they had coming...SF's are still my best friends, and I find no fault with them...I would do the same thing if I sensed a "threat" or some-one stole my idea...


----------



## PCC (Jan 24, 2009)

Something else to think about: Now that PL is gone, what are the principle players there doing now? I'm sure they're not sitting around collecting unemployment. Would they open up a new shop and start over without the legal roadblocks that PL faced?


----------



## rtt (Jan 24, 2009)

Surefire files lawsuit against Advanced Armament Corp (AAC) for false advertising in Dec 2008. SF claims that AAC's advertising about their silencer (gun suppressor) is false and misleading. More details are available on this link: http://www.iptrademarkattorney.com/false_advertising_15_usc_1125a/


----------



## dudemar (Jan 24, 2009)

rtt said:


> Surefire files lawsuit against Advanced Armament Corp (AAC) for false advertising in Dec 2008. SF claims that AAC's advertising about their silencer (gun suppressor) is false and misleading. More details are available on this link: http://www.iptrademarkattorney.com/false_advertising_15_usc_1125a/



...and so it begins.


----------



## dano (Jan 24, 2009)

angelofwar said:


> :thumbsup:...after reading this thread INTENSELY for months...I think PL knew who they were trying to "imitate"...it's rather obvious IMHO... and figured SF was "too big to care"...PL knew what they were doing, and got what they had coming...SF's are still my best friends, and I find no fault with them...I would do the same thing if I sensed a "threat" or some-one stole my idea...



PL imitating SF? I don't think so. PL's were different lights, easily distinguishable from any SF, something that some other manufacturers cannot claim.

The tailcap design that started this mess doesn't function or even look like a SF tailcap; I assume that the SF lawsuit was more about twist-lock out functionality than the physical characteristics; a functionality that most tailcap lights have. 

But, I don't think this was ever about tailcaps, it was SF's elimination of competition through litigation.


----------



## ygbsm (Jan 25, 2009)

Ah, thanks.  I was caught up in my own reverie on this. For a patent litigator, it's so easy to get tied up in thinking of things being about the implications of patentees filing in the EDTexas, the possibilities that the Medimmune case on declaratory judgment filings might present against patentee forum choices, and the importance for accused infringers of making sure Courts understand Section 103 obviousness in a post-KSR world. These issues normally could have a major impact on resolution of patent infringement actions.  Oh well...


----------



## angelofwar (Jan 25, 2009)

dano said:


> I assume that the SF lawsuit was more about twist-lock out functionality than the physical characteristics; a functionality that most tailcap lights have.


. But, that SF has the patent to...with all respect, I totally understand the perception here...that SF is big brother beating up all these little companies...throw the AAC Lawsuit in here as well...had SF not spent the money and time developing, and perfecting, the "Tactical Flashlight", and the "Weapon Mounted Light", and all the parts in between (i.e. the lock-out tail cap), I would see them being the "aggressor...but, from where SF started, and from where they stand, they're just protecting there "legal" and "moral" territory...if PL, of which I have owned, and they were decent lights, wanted to step into the "Tactical Flashlight Arena", they should have done there homework and made sure they had there ducks in a row, and weren't infringing on ANY company...

If PL was innocent, they would have had a better chance. I just hate the bludgeoning SF is getting from this...for a company that "created the tactical flashlight", put's so much effort into there product, and has quite possibly the best CS in the business, they deserve the same respect they have shown there customers for the past 22 years...IMHO of course...


----------



## dano (Jan 25, 2009)

Interestingly, the SF patent became valid in March '08...A certain light mfg has changed it's switch design (which was initially identical to a PL tailcap-- so identical that I'd say they were made by the same company, and they are interchangeable) so that it incorporates a lock-out option, but also with a spring loaded mechanical switch, which the SF lock-out tailcap does not have.

The SF patent is so gray in scope, that almost any light that has a tailcap which unscrews may be in violation.

I found my PL X2, and looking the light over, I see why SF may have feared PL...

--dan


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 25, 2009)

> I see why SF may have feared PL...



After testing out some PL lights, I see that, too. The reputation of the whole tactical light industry could have been damaged by them.


----------



## Size15's (Jan 25, 2009)

A position of strength for SureFire is likely one they demonstrate through the new and innovative products they release that meet the needs of those in the markets they target.
Key here would be "they release"


----------



## wacbzz (Jan 25, 2009)

Size15's said:


> SureFire could gain itself such a reputation if it becomes a predator intent on eliminating the competition.



Then one day later, this:



rtt said:


> Surefire files lawsuit against Advanced Armament Corp (AAC) for false advertising in Dec 2008. SF claims that AAC's advertising about their silencer (gun suppressor) is false and misleading. More details are available on this link: http://www.iptrademarkattorney.com/false_advertising_15_usc_1125a/



I find it highly interesting that there has been only one comment on this...

Is SF now becoming the "predator" that Al is talking about??

I mean, does SF produce silencers as well as flashlights - and hence the "need" for yet another lawsuit -or are they just filing lawsuits because they want to stay on the top (so to speak)??

*edit* I just actually read the info and found that indeed SF does produce silencers...


----------



## McGizmo (Jan 25, 2009)

IMHO,
Pentagonlight got what they deserved but it is strictly opinion. In the linked suit regarding the suppresor, provided the claims made by SF have substance, I can certainly understand why they are pursuing this action and it would appear that they are calling foul on foul marketing.

I am sorry that the need for legal recourse has been called upon here and I can only hope that legal action is used sparingly and as a last resort. 

One can hope that this industry of our interest is healthy with innovation and not riddled with litigation and not riddled with duplication and obvious infringements as well. One can hope. :shrug:


----------



## Size15's (Jan 25, 2009)

wacbzz said:


> Then one day later, this:
> 
> I find it highly interesting that there has been only one comment on this...
> 
> ...


...I was responding to Dano's suggestion that SureFire was using predatory litigation to eliminate the competition...

The situation regarding suppressors looks very different - SureFire don't appear to be trying to eliminate AAC - it's about whether AAC is misleading customers regarding the comparative performance between the two brands.

Al


----------



## wacbzz (Jan 25, 2009)

Size15's said:


> The situation regarding suppressors looks very different - SureFire don't appear to be trying to eliminate AAC - it's about whether AAC is misleading customers regarding the comparative performance between the two brands.



I understand (I think) the differences between these two lawsuits. Very different types for sure.

I am, rather, writing merely on the action of litigation itself. Instead of simply filing a lawsuit, did SF first ask AAC about the ad in question and then finding it supposedly "misleading," did they ask AAC to cease and desist with running it? Or was a lawsuit really needed and then filed after it appeared to SF's gaggle of high paid lawyers that ACC truly was intentionally "misleading" silencer buyers?

I guess we'll probably never know the answer to that question, but a ton of lawsuits now from SF (if that happens) certainly does not make them look like the "good guy" - at least in my eyes.


----------



## dano (Jan 25, 2009)

Kiessling said:


> After testing out some PL lights, I see that, too. The reputation of the whole tactical light industry could have been damaged by them.



I was expecting more form a Moderator...Maybe cohesive discussion and not misguided innuendo blinded by brand loyalty?


----------



## McGizmo (Jan 25, 2009)

Dano,
Perhaps you set the stage. :nana:

In terms of blind, what do any of us really _know_ about this suit?


----------



## dudemar (Jan 25, 2009)

wacbzz said:


> I understand (I think) the differences between these two lawsuits. Very different types for sure.
> 
> I am, rather, writing merely on the action of litigation itself. Instead of simply filing a lawsuit, did SF first ask AAC about the ad in question and then finding it supposedly "misleading," did they ask AAC to cease and desist with running it? Or was a lawsuit really needed and then filed after it appeared to SF's gaggle of high paid lawyers that ACC truly was intentionally "misleading" silencer buyers?
> 
> I guess we'll probably never know the answer to that question, but a ton of lawsuits now from SF (if that happens) certainly does not make them look like the "good guy" - at least in my eyes.



While this case seems like a "legitimate" use of litigation, personally I think it's ridiculous SF is so worried about it. It happens in the automobile industry all the time. I think the consumers who buy silencers are smart enough not to be influenced by a simple magazine advert.

That's like me going out to buy a Springfield XD over a Glock just because of their fancy advertising techniques. Or even better, me going out and buying a Malibu over a Camry because Chevy says Camrys break down faster.

If you're gullible enough to completely believe a magazine advertisement at face value, you're either 12 years old or incredibly susceptible to subtle advertising schemes.:shakehead



...but that's another topic for another time.



Here's my point: SureFire shouldn't be concerned with frivilous lawsuits and SHOULD JUST RELEASE THEIR DARN LIGHTS. *PERIOD.*

This is coming from someone who boycotts SureFire!:shrug:


----------



## Size15's (Jan 25, 2009)

dudemar said:


> Here's my point: SureFire shouldn't be concerned with frivilous lawsuits and SHOULD JUST RELEASE THEIR DARN LIGHTS. *PERIOD.*


Lets hope that the two activities are not mutually exclusive and that SureFire's legal team can be resourced and given direction at the same time as the rest of SureFire's business activities get on with getting new products out the door.


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 25, 2009)

dano said:


> I was expecting more form a Moderator...Maybe cohesive discussion and not misguided innuendo blinded by brand loyalty?



Well, I have done a review about 3 PL lights. I have tested them. I know what I am talking about. 
Other than that ... your post is not worthy of a response and it is in bad taste as well as personal. If this is your style ... fine. Mine it is not.





Size15's said:


> Lets hope that the two activities are not mutually exclusive and that SureFire's legal team can be resourced and given direction at the same time as the rest of SureFire's business activities get on with getting new products out the door.



Amen. They better release the things in 2009.


bernie


----------



## dcjs (Jan 25, 2009)

I definitely subscribe to the idea of protecting ones intellectual property, but I don't like it when companies get a patent on "the wheel" and then sue smaller competitors out of business.

Can anyone say _*"Su*r*eFire"*_? :nana:


----------



## rtt (Jan 26, 2009)

There seems to some misconceptions about Surefire being the Goliath of tactical illumination devices. U.S. Government contract data from 2000 to 2007 indicates that Insight Technology is the Goliath. It is interesting to also note that Emissive Energy (Inova) is starting to grab more Government contracts.

2007 Government contract data are:

Insight Technology.........$235,518,191 ($235.5 million)
Surefire LLC......................$1,202,901 ($1.2 million)
Emissive Energy...................$767,478 ($767 thousand)

Above data was sourced from the following links:

http://www.governmentcontractswon.com/department/defense/insight_technology_inc_192372860.asp?yr=07

http://www.governmentcontractswon.com/department/defense/surefire_llc_097575849.asp?yr=07

http://www.governmentcontractswon.com/department/defense/emissive_energy_corporation_046546565.asp?yr=07

Since all of the above companies are private, I cannot not gather accurate annual revenue data. I only have estimated annual revenues for these companies. Based on the estimated (guess) data, Surefire’s annual revenue is slightly below Streamlight’s.

*Disclaimer:* I am not responsible for the accuracy of the above data and I do not claim the numbers are accurate.


----------



## Size15's (Jan 26, 2009)

rtt,
Whilst the magnitude of the values speaks volumes, ITI has massive 'Night Vision' contracts.

Sorting the data by product/service type may provide further illumination...
"Electric Portable & Hand Lighting Equip" vs "Night Vision Equipment, Emitted and Reflect Radia" for example.

I tried searching for some more flashlight companies we recognise. Perhaps more can be found?

2007 Government contract data are:

Insight Technology.........$235,518,191 ($235.5 million)
Surefire LLC......................$1,202,901 ($1.2 million)
Emissive Energy...................$767,478 ($767 thousand)
Streamlight...........................$36,313 ($36.3 thousand)
Pentagonlight..........................$4,263 ($4.3 thousand)


----------



## ygbsm (Jan 26, 2009)

dano said:


> Interestingly, the SF patent became valid in March '08...A certain light mfg has changed it's switch design (which was initially identical to a PL tailcap-- so identical that I'd say they were made by the same company, and they are interchangeable) so that it incorporates a lock-out option, but also with a spring loaded mechanical switch, which the SF lock-out tailcap does not have.
> 
> The SF patent is so gray in scope, that almost any light that has a tailcap which unscrews may be in violation.
> 
> ...


Patents are presumed to be valid until shown otherwise, but that's it, a legal presumption -- one of the jobs of the alleged infringer's attorney is to show how the patent claims might have been anticipated or are obvious under 35 USC 102 or 103 and therefore NOT be valid. The Supreme Court in the KSR case has arguably made the second much much easier. So validity is often very much an issue. None of us here are in much of a position to evaluate the scope of the patent claims, unless someone is holding out and has ordered and can cite chapter and verse on from the multiple file histories in the chain of applications that leaf to the patent-in-suit AND know the universe of relevant references that may relate to the claims at issue, including, but not limited to, those cited to and by the Examiner(s). An understanding of all statements made by the patentee regarding any changes made to claims for the purposes of patentability is central to an understanding of the scope of the claims, particularly with respect to the doctrine of equivalents. So endeth today'svmumbo jumbo...


----------



## ygbsm (Jan 26, 2009)

McGizmo said:


> In terms of blind, what do any of us really _know_ about this suit?


McGizmo, I count on you as a voice of reason. 
This is the heart of the difficulty with this thread -- clearly no one knows even the basics about what's went on in the suit and all that we're getting here is wild speculation from people who clearly know little about litigation and the patent law in general, and even less about this particular suit. All this speculation is about as meaningful as someone as ignorant as me talking about LED phosphor chemistry...

I will give you a litigator's clue -- as I've noted earlier, the fact of filing in the ED Texas was likely very, very important to the litigation posture in this action. Note that SF did not file the silencer action in the ED Texas and note that the silencer action apparently does not involve any patent cause of action. If you are curious, just do a search on "patent lawsuit Eastern District Texas" or the like... The point being that you can't understand patent litigation or any litigation just from an understanding of the substantive law underlying the asserted causes of action in a lawsuit -- you have to know litigation practice also. It does not appear there are many people who have an inkling of the underlying patent law in this discussion MUCH LESS people with a sufficient knowledge of litigation to understand the significance of forum choice.


----------



## kosPap (Jan 26, 2009)

well guys this whole situation reminds me of the Colt/Bushmaster lawsuit...

Colt has sitted its "fat ***" (meaning non maneuverable-market adaptable) on the premium sole-provider military contracts and raises the price at will.
Then when Bushmaster started using the M4 name for its military-_styled _carbines it got sued. Despite colt having no interest in the civilian market that bushmaster milks.
Colt also CHANGHED somehow the M4 to reacquire patent rights and in effect refresh the basic patent. But it never cared to push the op-rod AR15 version in time. it has secured earlier patents for it and I bet they will try to letigate if they loose that market share come end of contract in 2010

Now we here in this board seem to think of paul kim when we discuss surefire. But Surefire is MAINLY the CEOs etc etc. Now that they have smelled more premium contracts from the military (look at the PEO Soldier flashlights study/selection) and the even wider uses of suppressors in battle/Law Enforcement, they react they only way they know (the CEOs)
So regardless of inovation Surefire as a firm does want the competition out early on...

it is not coincidense for me that when 4 years ago AAC was not that big a name was not sued for any reason...And BTW surefire was never innovative in suppressors. They use the lafrance designs...

well taht is my wider view of the situation...it ahs nothing to do with flashlights..its BUSINESS that happens to be flashlights


----------



## Monocrom (Jan 26, 2009)

ygbsm said:


> .... clearly no one knows even the basics about what's went on in the suit and all that we're getting here is wild speculation from people who clearly know little about litigation and the patent law in general, and even less about this particular suit.


 
Surefire sued PL. Surefire got an injunction against PL. PL could no longer sell its products. PL settled with Surefire before an official decision could be reached by a Judge. Surefire now has one less competitor to worry about.

Oh look, I just covered the basics. Didn't even need a law degree to pull it off. :ironic:


----------



## McGizmo (Jan 26, 2009)

ygbsm said:


> McGizmo, I count on you as a voice of reason.
> This is the heart of the difficulty with this thread ....



Thanks for the kind words. You have shown in a few posts that you are in a minority among us in that you do have an understanding of patent law and litigation. With this understanding, you feel incapable of drawing any conclusions in regards to this specific suit. Lack of facts and understanding though won't impede some of us forming opinion and passing judgment, at least on the face of the matter. :shrug:

What I think is interesting is the tactical and defense nature of the specific market involved here and how some manufacturers now seemed involved in tactics and defense (aggression) themselves. Are there some parallels to add fodder to our superficial assessments of what is going on here?

On this forum, many of us feel that self and peer moderation are sometimes dictated and a responsibility not to be shirked. *If* SureFire or any other manufacturer felt another manufacturer was doing business in a less than upfront or forthright manner, should they take it upon themselves to do something about it? It's thin ice for obvious reasons.

SureFire has might and power in their industry. They gained this through legitimate R&D and market presence and some credit them for blazing many of the trails now traveled by any number of others. They have also been granted any number of patents. The potential for abuse is there for certain. Is there also a responsibility both to themselves and the market they serve? SureFire likely makes business decisions and certainly profitability must be a significant factor. Beyond the bottom line, do morals and ethics also temper the decisions of SureFire? :shrug:

Is SureFire just a bully and this suit simply bully poop? Some are convinced that is the case. I am willing to give SF the benefit of doubt and take the mentioned suits on the face value SF has claimed to be the case. I am willing to do this based on what I have read and seen myself in regards to the particulars and principles involved. I could be wrong and time may enlighten us further.


----------



## kramer5150 (Jan 26, 2009)

Can anyone reply to my post # 375...here?

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2797312&postcount=375

According to Stewart there was supposed to be an announcement and details at Shot 09', as well as information in the 09' catalog.

I know Shot show discussions arr not the topic of this thread, but hopefully  mods will see it differently, if we limit the discussion to SFs explanation of the lawsuit.

Was Stewart just blowing smoke?


----------



## Size15's (Jan 26, 2009)

kramer5150 said:


> Can anyone reply to my post # 375...
> Was Stewart just blowing smoke?


As previously posted on CPF, At the time of posting Stuart was not informed that the article, along with several other things was dropped from SureFire's 2009 catalog due to lack of space.

It is hoped that SureFire will be able to publish or share the information in another way - for example a page on their website, a pdf article or whatever. 

Al


----------



## kramer5150 (Jan 26, 2009)

Ok thanks Al !!


----------



## ygbsm (Jan 26, 2009)

Monocrom said:


> Surefire sued PL. Surefire got an injunction against PL. PL could no longer sell its products. PL settled with Surefire before an official decision could be reached by a Judge. Surefire now has one less competitor to worry about.
> 
> Oh look, I just covered the basics. Didn't even need a law degree to pull it off. :ironic:


Yep, it is pretty clear ... that you didn't go to law school. :ironic: Oh and BTW No, you didn't cover the basics. Very very basic -- What sort of (alleged) injunction (and because it's likely you need some direction on this:, TRO, preliminary or permanent?) What's the scope of the alleged injunction (i.e. because you may need some help here also, by product/what product, offers for sale, already manufactured products, etc.)? "Official decision" -- Uh, an injunction usually is pursuant to an order of the Court -- that's called, at least among lawyers, a formal decision. And depending on the type of injunction, there may have been a right of appeal directly to the Fed. Cir. without a finding on the merits (which is perhaps the term for which you were groping.) Also tres basic -- Was there a summary judgment motion an a decision on that? 
And this: "Surefire now has one less competitor to worry about." "Worry about" how? As a very small example, is Pentagonlight prevented from bringing a future dj action on other products potential infringement? What if PL just starts producing a product it claims is a work around, but on which SF's opinion differs? I just recently heard about this sort of issue in another case.
You ever see Paper Chase? Well, here's a dime... 
A friendly suggestion -- I don't make representations about documents or Court findings, that may implicate the commercial standing of companies unless I have a good faith basis for my representations. How exactly do you know an injunction issued in this action? (And I'm not saying this to be mean -- I'd like to see the document/order, if one exists.)


----------



## ygbsm (Jan 27, 2009)

McGizmo said:


> Thanks for the kind words. You have shown in a few posts that you are in a minority among us in that you do have an understanding of patent law and litigation. With this understanding, you feel incapable of drawing any conclusions in regards to this specific suit. Lack of facts and understanding though won't impede some of us forming opinion and passing judgment, at least on the face of the matter. :shrug:
> 
> What I think is interesting is the tactical and defense nature of the specific market involved here and how some manufacturers now seemed involved in tactics and defense (aggression) themselves. Are there some parallels to add fodder to our superficial assessments of what is going on here?
> 
> ...


Again, I complement you as being a voice of reason. It serves no purpose for me to speculate in public on what is happening or happened in the ED Texas action, though over a decade and a half of involvement in patent actions leaves me with some vague impressions. But to have any real idea of what is going on would require a big investment of time and frankly some money (for the file histories and references and legal research, the actual pleadings, etc.) and most importantly success to information that none of us here will ever have access to from the companies involved. And you simply cannot know anything about the merits of the case without a thorough review of all related patents and the file histories. Review of the file history in determining whether there is good faith basis for an infringement charge, that decisions have found that failure to do so a basis for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (A few example of the sort of information that an outsider is unlikely to have access to in a patent case that can be of major importance: sales and profit and accounting policy documents both for damages and for "secondary indicia of nonobviousness" including "commercial success;" the inventor's lab notebooks; licenses relating to the technology; and the list goes on.)

What much of litigation boils down to on both sides in patent cases are cold cold hard business decisions. These are sometimes "bet-the-company" decisions -- I've personally seen at least two actions where one of the party companies ceased to exist after the termination of the action. There is very little room for moral indignation in lawsuits for which the cost can easily exceed a couple million dollars for each side just to get to verdict (not to mention appeal.) And there can be tremendous ancillary costs -- if your opponent really fights the thing, your R&D and sales/marketing people may be tied up in depositions, assisting in collection of documents for discovery, etc., which can be very distracting to doing the business itself. I've seen such distractions allow smaller companies to rise as the major players in a market fight it out in patent actions. And the distraction is not usually over the short term either -- I've seen part of suits that lasted over ten years.

Someone is likely very serious about this and SF's counsel is smart enough to file this action in on of the best places to do so. One mistake I've seen is to think that a company has only a single opinion or motive for its actions in lawsuits -- I can't tell you how many times I've heard a question at depositions along the lines of "does thus and so reflect the thinking of the company at the time?" Objection (companies are often composed of numbers of people who don't all think alike -- the question assumes a fact not in evidence -- that there was any single opinion of the company.) Now there are of course exceptions, but if one is ascribing evil motives on a company, one might keep in mind that there may be any number of motive in the mind of decision maker at a company. An example I have seen at a couple companies -- the R&D people feel a suit should proceed because they are outraged at perceived copying of their baby, the marketing people look at it as a way to gain competitive advantage, and the owner has been told how good the suit look by a bunch of high priced lawyers etc., etc. (Note tht I m making no claim whatsoever that anything like this is going on at either SF or PL -- I am making no claim about anything about the motivations of the parties to this lawsuit)-- this is all stuff an outsider is extremely unlikely to ever have any understanding of for any particular action.


----------



## 276 (Jan 27, 2009)

Size15's said:


> rtt,
> Whilst the magnitude of the values speaks volumes, ITI has massive 'Night Vision' contracts.
> 
> Sorting the data by product/service type may provide further illumination...
> ...




Thats really cool to see that.


----------



## Monocrom (Jan 27, 2009)

*To : ygbsm ~*

Very nice double-speak on your part. (Clearly you _did _go to law school).

A nice attempt at trying to muddy the waters.

Sorry, you'll have to find someone else to put down; in order to boost your own ego. 

As I said.... Nice attempt though.


----------



## JNewell (Jan 27, 2009)

276 said:


> Thats really cool to see that.


 
Yes, that $4.3k number for PL is amazing. Not even a rounding error in the federal budget.


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 27, 2009)

I would have thought the whole budget on illumination to be much bigger. All that is peanuts :thinking:
bernie


----------



## Art Vandelay (Jan 27, 2009)

.


----------



## rtt (Jan 27, 2009)

One interesting thing about Surefire's revenue from Military contract data from 2000 to 2007 is the peak year was in 2003. From 2003 to 2007 there is a steady decline. Could this be the reason for SF's litigations and the recent price increases? 

Govt Contracts (Defense) - Count/$ Dollar Amount
2007........22/$1,202,901 
2006........30/$1,874,780 
2005........39/$1,502,248 
2004........12/$1,488,782 
2003........13/$2,789,229 
2002........5/$592,726 
2001........2/$83,425 
2000........0/$0


----------



## McGizmo (Jan 27, 2009)

Hi guys,
I don't pretend to have any idea of how comprehensive those accounting figures might be but I would guess that there are additional purchases and sales that fall under something other than specific contracts? Before I left the marine industry, we were making some significant sales to the Coast Guard and Navy and none of these sales were under contract; heck some were accomplished with government issued credit cards!

Certainly to get a reasonable feel for infringements and damages, one would want to know the financial aspect but I question if that information is available to us, let alone, any of our business.

The sales I mentioned in the marine industry were that of the distributor I worked for selling to the military. The goods sold would not be attributed to the original manufacturer but to us, a distributor. I suspect that many dealers and distributors supply the military and some of the goods supplied could well be from some of these flashlight manufacturers mentioned, yes? :shrug:


----------



## baterija (Jan 27, 2009)

McGizmo said:


> Hi guys,
> The sales I mentioned in the marine industry were that of the distributor I worked for selling to the military. The goods sold would not be attributed to the original manufacturer but to us, a distributor. I suspect that many dealers and distributors supply the military and some of the goods supplied could well be from some of these flashlight manufacturers mentioned, yes? :shrug:



I suspect you are right. I went and looked up Ranger Joe's, Brigade Quartermaster, and US Cavalry. More common to us here, Brightguy Inc shows 2 contracts for 25,467 in 2005. Both are lighting related. While the numbers aren't huge in budgetary terms it appears the company that enters the contract shows in the data, not the original manufacturer. It's probably hard to get any meaningful data unless the companies share...and most are privately owned with no good reason to do so.


----------



## Lightraven (Jan 27, 2009)

Some military entities can purchase off the shelf just like any person. That wouldn't show up on a website of government contracts. I saw a Navy SEAL officer wandering around REI. Could have been buying outdoor gear or climbing equipment. Who knows?


----------



## JNewell (Jan 27, 2009)

There is also a possibility that there is significant (for this area) volume in "black" contracts, I suppose. So, the numbers may well not be definitive.


----------



## angelofwar (Jan 27, 2009)

JNewell said:


> There is also a possibility that there is significant (for this area) volume in "black" contracts, I suppose. So, the numbers may well not be definitive.


 
Definitely not definitive...most units now use "Government CC's". Only purchases over a certain dollar value, or to support a specific weapon sys/mission are "contracted out". Most bulk purchases of SF's are to out fit weapons specifically, and are purchased as kits, with there own repair kits/spare parts/etc. Probably 3-4 times that amount were purchased in smaller qty.'s by the units. While in Iraq, i saw an Spec Op guy go to the exchange and purchase ALL the A2 Aviators...about 20-30...not to mention the one's our unit bought...it's to much of an arduos process for these small units to get what they need, as these contracts take a lot longer to make it through an approval system, and then distrabution procedures, etc. The increase in '03 probably had alot to do with the build-up to, and the invasion of Iraq.


----------



## dudemar (Jan 27, 2009)

rtt said:


> One interesting thing about Surefire's revenue from Military contract data from 2000 to 2007 is the peak year was in 2003. From 2003 to 2007 there is a steady decline. Could this be the reason for SF's litigations and the recent price increases?
> 
> Govt Contracts (Defense) - Count/$ Dollar Amount
> 2007........22/$1,202,901
> ...



Interesting point to make: wasn't the price drop on SureFire CR123's in 2003-2004? I believe they were $1.25 each (correct me if I'm wrong).


----------



## Monocrom (Jan 28, 2009)

dudemar said:


> Interesting point to make: wasn't the price drop on SureFire CR123's in 2003-2004? I believe they were $1.25 each (correct me if I'm wrong).


 
Not sure about that. But I do recall that Surefire's first large price increase for their lights was in 2003.


----------



## Barbarin (Jan 28, 2009)

I was taking a look a this thread, as it is interesting for me to see how this things start, which kind of opinions they make... because Barbolight has its own issues with other manufacturers regarding patent infringements. But I'm not going to talk about it because I was kindly warned by a mod, and I agree completely with him and the CPF rules regarding this kind of things belonging to courts. At least interested parts should discuss this things there or in private.

Anyway, patents are really expensive. USA is not as expensive as Europe, but average you can expect more than 40.000 US$ for US, Canada, Europe and three four countries you can consider strategic. (It is near a nonsense to patent things is all countries). And that is just what you will pay for having papers done. The internal job dedicated can take many hours of technical workers... and the R&D dedicated to develope a invention worthy of being patented...nobody knows. So, best of the cases you could think about 100.000 US$ (to infinite). And that is an investing, as you can invest on buying anything else. If anybody tries to make money or steal your properties, everybody will understand and even support you if you decide to take as many actions as needed to protect them . So, nobody should be critizised for defending his investings. 

My opinion is that before sueing anybody first of all one should try to solve this by a private agreement, and just in case your competitors keep on their way go to the courts. I have not been reading all the thread, but I think nobody knows for sure how many private conversations there has been between both companies, so we lack information.

Just off topic, but taking a look I have seen the member who started this thread is a real firestarter on things related to Surefire. Certainly, Tater, you know when and where to put the right word!!! Two post, two fires!!!

Javier


----------



## JNewell (Jan 28, 2009)

angelofwar said:


> While in Iraq, i saw an Spec Op guy go to the exchange and purchase ALL the A2 Aviators...about 20-30...not to mention the one's our unit bought...


 
Ordinarily I would feel bad about thread drift but not in this one...your comment on the A2 is really interesting. I'm surprised - how popular was the A2 over there? I get the impression it's a slow seller, almost a cult light, on the domestic market.


----------



## ygbsm (Jan 28, 2009)

Monocrom said:


> *To : ygbsm ~*
> 
> Very nice double-speak on your part. (Clearly you _did _go to law school).
> 
> ...


So the bottom line is that you cannot answer any of the very basic questions I asked about information relating to the lawsuit. And you apparently have no good faith basis for the claims you made either. Your posts (as opposed to McGizmo's or Size15's or the posts relating to company sales, or the observations that litigation can be used for a number of purposes) are a prime example of the difficulty with this thread. Take a close look at what you posted in both the post quoted here and the one to which I previously responded -- neither add any useful information whatsoever and are clearly from someone without any basis whatsoever to contribute anything of any value relating to the issues in the lawsuit. 

And since you insist on making your feelings an issue (unsurprisingly yet another irrelevance from you having nothing to do with the topic at hand), I will note for the record that I wasn't trying to "put" you "down" -- it doesn't boost my ego at all to pick on the truly thin-skinned, or those unable to defend themselves. If you put your hurt feelings aside and pay attention to what some of the very smart people here like Size15s and McGizmo and others have to say in this thread, you may just learn something. One reason my post count is so low for the six years I have been here is that I keep my mouth shut and listen unless the topic is something about which I have knowledge. And I'm serious about not making claims about the status of companies without a good faith basis.

And I'll leave you with on final observation sharpened by years of being across the table from fearful and insecure counsel -- there is much to be learned in the line from Hamlet: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." By insisting on talking about it, one telegraphs one's fear (say about being "put down") rather than sounding strong -- most people quickly pick up when someone "doth protest too much."

But this silliness has wasted enough of the other member's time and patience and I've said all I am going to say on this. I'm still interested, however, if anyone has a copy of injunction alleged to have issued in this action (or any of the pleadings.)


----------



## McGizmo (Jan 28, 2009)

Javier,
Thanks for your insightful post and comments. I know there are cases where elegant and simple solutions can be viewed and they are so obvious and with merit that it can be quite misleading in terms of the effort and R&D behind the birth of something so simple and obvious. I believe one of the main justifications in granting a patent to an inventor is to place recognition on this as well as insure the inventor ample opportunity to reap benefit and recoup expenses from such efforts. When you add in the additional cost of procuring the patent itself as you have mentioned, the process is not trivial, by any means.

Now I suspect, and perhaps ygbsm can chime in with some information here, that had the suit with Pentagon gone through the full process that there would be folks taking a hard look at all of the aspects germane to the suit as well as reasonable compensations to be rewarded, if infringement were determined to be fact.

I realize that the potential for abuse is real and I also realize that there is a potential cost of doing business as it relates to defense of one's position in the event of a suit that may well be beyond the financial capability of a company being sued. That really sucks for a company finding themselves in such a position but in and of it self, has no bearing on the merit of the suit itself.

Folks are pulling statistics and figures from the public record here which I suspect don't give the full picture but one other aspect that might be enlightening would be to consider the size of the companies involved; not just presumed gross sales figures but numbers of employees, time in business, past track record and what potentially is at stake for the companies and their employees.


----------



## ygbsm (Jan 28, 2009)

McGizmo said:


> Javier,
> 
> Now I suspect, and perhaps ygbsm can chime in with some information here, that had the suit with Pentagon gone through the full process that there would be folks taking a hard look at all of the aspects germane to the suit as well as reasonable compensations to be rewarded, if infringement were determined to be fact.
> 
> ...


One of the first things one tries to look at if there is a potential for a patent litigation is exactly the sort of information you identify -- the relative sizes of the companies that might be involved and their market shares (and issues such as whether components of accused products may be manufactured offshore so that there might be the potential for an action in the ITC Court -- those actions proceed extremely rapidly, though they generally do not offer the potential for collecting damages.) Market shares are often used for many things, and sometimes in damages assessments. Whether or how serious one side or the other might be (for example if getting a suit to trial were to cost $2 million for each side and the potential recovery is $1 million, or say one side is only making $500K in sales and the cost is again $2 million per side to get to verdict, or whether losing the right to make use sell or offer for sale the products implicated would effectively end the accused infringer's business, the information might influence what the perception of the dynamic might be.)

If a patent case goes to verdict, there are often damages issues. These damages generally can take the form of lost profits or what is called a reasonable royalty (sometime the patentee can make a claim for "price erosion damages" on a claim, for example, the infringing product(s) reduced the amount that the patentee could charge for its product.) Often a claim for damages is accompanied by a claim that the infringement was "wilful," in which case the damages may be subject to a multiplier of up to trebling. Lost profits are normally determined by calculating the profit on a product and the lost sales (this often involves, as you might imagine a debate, over many things including (but are not limited to) accounting practices and allocation of unsegmented costs (many manufacturers do not assign plant marketing admin or the like expenses on a product by product basis) and other costs. A reasonable royalty determination often relies on what are known as the "Georgia Pacific factors" (the name of the case in which they appear) which include (but are not limited to) established royalties, the licensing policy of the patentee, etc., basically what a reasonable business person use to determine a royalty. Information such as sales projections might be used to demonstrate what the thinking of the parties to a royalty negotiation might have been at the time of the negotiation, and/or whether they thought the patented technology was valuable and perhaps even how valuable they believed it to be. 

Of course, there is a lot more to all this in patent infringement damages, and there is often much peculiar to the particular market implicated in the particular action. 

Having got a verdict (and spent all that money and time to get there), one might keep in mind that the claim construction (interpretation of the meaning of the claims) is critical to the outcome of patent cases and the Appeals Court, the CAFC overturns nearly one-half of these constructions. Appeals are normally far far less costly than the getting the case to verdict, so an appeal, depending on a lot of other factors, of course, may be ... appealing.

Also, normally well before trial, one might keep in mind the power of a preliminary injunction -- in order for the Court to issue a preliminary injunction, normally a Court makes a finding that there is a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits, which may give the parties an idea about the "leanings" of the Court on critical issues in the lawsuit. The preliminary injunction ruling decision, regardless of how the Court ruled, may also have some discussion of the Court's stance regarding the parties' positions at a relatively early stage of the action. A TRO can require a different level of showing of likelihood of success or irreparable harm. That is a part of why it is often interesting to see the Court's decision regarding these issues and a part of the reason knowing the type of as well as the actual wording of the decision regarding an injunction may be somewhat illuminating.


----------



## JNewell (Jan 28, 2009)

Mods, please, this thread is all heat and no light...:shakehead


----------



## Art Vandelay (Jan 28, 2009)

I don't think you can tell much from one isolated figure. Didn't Goldman Sachs invest 50 million in them just a couple of years ago?


----------



## Monocrom (Jan 29, 2009)

ygbsm said:


> So the bottom line is that you cannot answer any of the very basic questions I asked about information relating to the lawsuit. And you apparently have no good faith basis for the claims you made either.


 
Nope.

Bottom line is, I know what you're trying to do. And it's rather sad. When you first posted in this thread, I was glad to see someone who seemed to have the insight needed to make a useful contribution. But your posts then centered around how none of us are even remotely qualified to comment on this case. And that's what you posted, over, and over, and over, and over.....

Your subtle way of insulting the intelligence of other CPFers, while trying to come off as a nice guy, isn't appreciated. You continue to put down other members of CPF, in the nicest way possible. Making yourself feel better while putting others down, and trying to show an association with two very liked (possibly loved) CPFers.... My comment about your fragile ego still stands.

You're right about one thing, time to put this particular aspect of the discussion to rest. 

I'll let you have the final word on the matter. Unlike you, my ego is not so fragile that I must have the final comment on a subject.


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 29, 2009)

And with that thread getting too personal and rather long, too, we'll close it.

Anyone may feel free to start a new one on the topic when new info is available. 

I thank all the participant for keeping it from bursting completely into flames despite some heated emotions. We had worse threads on that topic 

bernie


----------

