# Mag's LED patent application--hot off the press



## ABTOMAT (Feb 28, 2006)

Includes circut diagram. Interesting how it seems like the Mag-LEDs don't have anything in common with the other recent patents of stuff they haven't sold yet.

Two things that hit me: 1. Doesn't anyone hire patent draftsman anymore? Those drawings blow. 2. That second light with the battery carrier looks neat.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20060039139.pdf


----------



## CLHC (Mar 1, 2006)

Interesting. . .

My friend's father is a patent draftsman.


----------



## Navck (Mar 1, 2006)

Anyone able to tell if thats just a simple boost converter?
Looks horrible on how they use the battery holder (Yuck, a simple spring is enough)


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 1, 2006)

I have not looked at the patents yet but will examine them later. Are they trying to patent the already patented or trying to patent prior art?


----------



## AlexSchira (Mar 1, 2006)

They're still using the old tailcaps, that space is of course for the spare bulbs that will die out if these new LEDs work out. Years down the line, some one will ask why it's there with how technology replaces itself so quickly.


----------



## Navck (Mar 1, 2006)

Jon, you have to check, the reflector looks like the McGizmo styling(But I'm new to flashaholicism
It looks like a simple circut
Looks like




to me


----------



## ABTOMAT (Mar 1, 2006)

I think the tailcap has something going on. I didn't read through the whole text, but there are additional parts in there.


----------



## cy (Mar 1, 2006)

read thru most of it and cannot find anything remotely patentable. that doesn't have prior art.

if this is verified by others. the patent office needs a little assitance


----------



## Navck (Mar 1, 2006)

Someone beat Mag down now. I don't like it when they steal ideas like that


----------



## carrot (Mar 1, 2006)

The twisty head looks a *lot* more complicated than it sounds like it should be, if the beam is still focusable. I'm no good with diagrams, I need one in my hands to understand what's going on with the mechanism.

Edit: Whoa, look at page 13... looks like an AA LED Solitaire...


----------



## nikon (Mar 1, 2006)

From the text it appears that they're trying to patent every aspect of a flashlight, including reflectors, heatsinks, circuitry, side by side battery carriers, and the concept of throw.


----------



## Navck (Mar 1, 2006)

"Okay, your flashlight is now our property, we're taking it and burning it"
Yuck, just read it and check the stuff they say in that.


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 1, 2006)

I am going to try and learn as much as possible about this...and ask my attorney what he thinks....I don't want to make statements before I know what I am talking about...but I want to study this.


----------



## paulr (Mar 1, 2006)

Sounds like typical Mag, the crappy drawings are to make the patent as vague as possible so they can maximize the hassle potential for anyone else who dares to make flashlights.


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 1, 2006)

After I do some checking....I will contact the patent office...ask some questions.


----------



## Navck (Mar 1, 2006)

Good thing this ones being sunk...
Paul, doesn't that text at the button... Uhh, describe pretty much the basic function of a flashlight? It looks like it to me


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 1, 2006)

Mag has legal clout...Like I said, if this looks like a bad patent..I will try and explain to patent office. If that does not work...I guess explore plan B


----------



## cy (Mar 1, 2006)

legal clout doesnot cannot overcome prior art. 

much easier to shoot it down during patent proccess. rather than trying to overcome an existing bad patent. 

look at what just happened with RIM VS NTP aka blackberry.


----------



## carrot (Mar 1, 2006)

Alright, I think I figured out exactly what the patent is... claiming. A _focusable_ LED flashlight, the specific parabolic reflector's ratios, the circuits they're using, and thermally-aware circuits that adjust output as not to fry the LED. Claim 34 is the most disturbing, as it appears to encompass many lights we know today, and Claim 49 ("thermally compensated" current as mentioned above) sounds like something HDS might especially wish to contest.

At first glance, I'd be most worried about Claim 34. Claim 36 also sounds worrisome.

Most of what sounds like it's describing just about any flashlight is _not_. The first half of the claims involve a parabolic reflector of certain characteristics and that it is _focusable_. The other half... well, that seems too general... Basically describing a casing that conducts electricity to circuits and an LED from a power source, ie. batteries. 

This patent looks like bad news. I'm going to print it out to get a closer look later.


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 1, 2006)

Ok..I will be calling in the morning to ask questions of the patent office...after I see if I can get my ducks in a row.


----------



## Navck (Mar 1, 2006)

carrot said:


> Alright, I think I figured out exactly what the patent is... claiming. A _focusable_ LED flashlight, the specific parabolic reflector's ratios, the circuits they're using, and thermally-aware circuits that adjust output as not to fry the LED. Claim 34 is the most disturbing, as it appears to encompass many lights we know today, and Claim 49 ("thermally compensated" current as mentioned above) sounds like something HDS might especially wish to contest.
> 
> At first glance, I'd be most worried about Claim 34. Claim 36 also sounds worrisome.
> 
> ...



Claim 49 and 50 really will get on the Gladius and HDS sides.
Claim 34 is just stupid.
Claim 36 would shoot down boost/regulated lights (Including Surefire)
Looks like someones playing border crossing today


----------



## paulr (Mar 1, 2006)

cy said:


> look at what just happened with RIM VS NTP aka blackberry.


OK, I looked, and what I saw wasn't pretty. RIM first got extorted into offering a multi-million dollar settlement, and when even that wasn't enough, spent millions more defending itself in court, and eventually got the patent office to throw out a patent that never should have issued in the first place. The end result is that RIM can now get on with its business, but is not likely to get any compensation from NTP for its expenditures fending off the attacks. That is not very appetizing to any flashlight maker in line to be hassled by Mag.


----------



## Navck (Mar 1, 2006)

I've just notified two manufactures about this
Lets all notify manufactures that have this patent violating their right to make lights


----------



## Pila_Power (Mar 1, 2006)

'git em boys!


----------



## markdi (Mar 1, 2006)

wow 

it would be kool if mag was sued and they lost


I wonder if any one from mag watches or is a member of cpf ?


----------



## cy (Mar 1, 2006)

we don't need no stinking lawsuit... we do need to assist the patent office by pointing out prior art point by point by point.

still have not read anything on that patent that remotely should be patentable.


----------



## BentHeadTX (Mar 1, 2006)

I read most of that drivel and I found it rather entertaining. If Mag attempts to enforce it's "patent" on a switch, tapered heat sinks and thermal adjustment... uhhhhh, I think that has been done for years. 

Why don't they just patent the battery? Even better, Mag patents the photon so "All your light are belong to us"


----------



## Navck (Mar 1, 2006)

Anyone have contacts with Surefire? I can see M*g's saying that their L series, A2 series, and pretty much all their LED lights are infringing
JSB has the L-Series in problem, Indium Smart
McGizmo will pretty much lose the concept of the light engine to M*g
Arc will get fried again due to the "oh thats a boost circut. MY IDEA"
HDS and Nightops are infringing M*g's "thermal limited LED" idea, as well as just how their lights work in plain
Dorcy will pretty much sink from reflector and LED with boost circut
UK will explode from regulation being a M*g concept
Fenix will explode with the reflector-led-boost or regulator circut concept
Inova will pretty much have their T series blown out of the water with the circut-LED-heatsink concept
Nuwai will cease all their boosted or regulated lights, as well as anything with a reflector, a LED, and any type of circut, probablly even resistors due to the vagueness of the patent
Peak will also be infringing the LED-circut-heatsink patent to this
Pelican, won't suffer that badly, but still will for any light with a reflector-led-circut
Streamlight is going to lose from this with the LED-Circut-reflector-heatsink thing again
Vortex will get sunk by the same patent.
As well as so many manufactures I don't want to list because I'm sleepy and somewhat lazy at the moment will be sunk by the Reflector-LED-Heatsink-Circut or resistor in a circut pattern patent!

Better get this patent out of the way before they nail more good lights.

Edit - 
Hey my aunt's laptop is affected by this, IBM has that light in the bezel thing, which is a LED, crudely done relfecotr (Bezel), a circut to control the LED, and a power source (Battery)
Uumm, if I look at the countless electronics in the world with a LED and a circut that blinks it on and off (Like your router, and modems, etc), those will violate part of M*gs patent.
I should sleep now before I start typing more of the "this patent kills everything" out.


----------



## eebowler (Mar 1, 2006)

Thanks Jon.


----------



## 270winchester (Mar 1, 2006)

Okay, I officially join the mag_hater's club... Just be thankful they don't make cars, other wise we'll all be driving on square wheels with off-set axles...


----------



## InfidelCastro (Mar 1, 2006)

The vaguer the patent the better for future litigation?  Hiring poor draftsmen has its upside.


----------



## Raven (Mar 1, 2006)

Which of the new Mags uses a battery carrier?


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Mar 1, 2006)

Looks like what has become the norm for M*g. Don't do anything good. Just make sure no one else can either!

At this point the M*g C and D models ARE good mod hosts....


----------



## Ty_Bower (Mar 1, 2006)

Someone at Mag seems to have written an interesting historical account, covering virtually every aspect of existing flashlight technology. I suppose whether or not Mag is entitled to patent any of it is debatable, but I sure hope it's going to be a short debate. Page 24 of the .PDF, section [0082] - concerning the use of o-rings for sealing. Is this saying they're going to try to patent that concept? Who are these guys trying to fool?

Didn't HDS write a short paper about LED flashlights and patents? There's a section in there on prior art:
http://hdssystems.com/PatentLEDFlashlight.pdf


----------



## MacTech (Mar 1, 2006)

Typical.... looks like Maglica's back to his old tricks of "Innovation Via Lawyers" again....

after reading this thread and perusing the patent application, i don't care *how* good M.I.'s MagLED's will be, I will *NOT* be buying any MagLED product

it's a pity that maglica thinks he can get away with this legal brinksmanship bullcrap....


----------



## Luna (Mar 1, 2006)

nikon said:


> From the text it appears that they're trying to patent every aspect of a flashlight, including reflectors, heatsinks, circuitry, side by side battery carriers, and the concept of throw.




Pretty much.


----------



## tron3 (Mar 1, 2006)

InfidelCastro said:


> The vaguer the patent the better for future litigation?  Hiring poor draftsmen has its upside.


 
I hate that sly crap. What's next, are they going to patent the sun and tax us for using it? You can try to sue God, but you can't beat Him. Odd, who would think that there are Lawyers in heaven? :laughing:


----------



## Nyctophiliac (Mar 1, 2006)

Whoo...!
Having read the patent and the HDS document on prior art, surely no flashlight manufacturer need worry and surely the patent office will throw this out?

Is that just wishful thinking and BIG corporate lawyers will push this thing through?

We live in vital times.

I'm stocking up on wooden sticks and animal fat, just in case.

Incidentally, what happened between PEAK and INOVA a couple of years ago,
who infringed who?


----------



## Lunal_Tic (Mar 1, 2006)

Maybe MAG's most recently introduced innovation wasn't actually a light, it was an anti-light. It can be set to litigate into oblivion all other light producing tools making the world a darker place. 

Perhaps the newest improvement is a mercenary division of lawyers that specialize in LED technology and how to limit its use to only MAG products. :shrug: The previous guys specialize in body shape and position of the logo, oh and anything else that makes light.

-LT


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 1, 2006)

One thing to remember, improper patents have been issued before. The old incan light patented many things that were done in the past also and they sued and sued and sued based on the incan model for things I see in antique lights from the 30s whos patents have long expired.


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 1, 2006)

I just got off the phone with the US Patent office.

They told me that if a protest is not filed, things like this can go through then it is up to the courts. If a protest is filed, certain things have to be demonstrated. We are going to need alot of help on this. I am willing to put in some time but my business may suffer if I do but it is worth it.

There are 55 points the mags patent and I think all of them are prior art.

I think first we are going to have to know the rules of a protest. After the rules of a protest are understood, I think we have to go down each point and explain how that is prior art and guide them to how this has been done before. I have not read the rules yet as I just got off of the phone with them but they did tell me alot of interesting things. 

Here is the information that the patent office says we will need.

The US Patent office website.

http://www.uspto.gov/

The person from the patent office said we will have to use Rule "37 cfr 1.291" and will need to also read chapter 1900 of the rules.

They said it will be under rules protest.

Then Mags patent application will need to be studied. The patent office told me the important part is the point by point claims that is in the patent.

I hope there is a lawyer in the house that can let us know if I am telling you this right or if I am missinterpreting what they said on the phone.

The way I understand it....it will be a dogfight if this is not stopped at this stage but can be stopped at this stage if we are correct and can demonstrate it.


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 1, 2006)

To prepare a protest, I think we are going to need alot of help making the point by point challenge. I hope many will volunteer to help prepare a case.


----------



## evan9162 (Mar 1, 2006)

The sliding heat sink assebly (to preserve twist-on/off functionality) looks original, but I say they can have that, there are at least 3 additional (bad) thermal interfaces and it's mechanically complex.


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 1, 2006)

I do think they deserve anything that they do original, but I feel the prior art and current and expired patent issues should be fought.


----------



## LowWorm (Mar 1, 2006)

I'm in - can offer writing or editing assistance.


----------



## lightlust (Mar 1, 2006)

I agree that attempting to patent the obvious or prior art is bad.

The older the prior art, the better .... does anyone have older innovative lights that show prior art in the matters claimed in the patent application?

Lastly, I am pleased to see so many volunteers ... but where are the other flashlight companies? We also need to use our contacts to make them aware of this potential litigation nightmare. Surefire, Pelican, Inova, etc., etc. ... 

If there is anything I learned from watching Saturday afternoon TV when a kid, it's that when you're going after Frankenstein for patenting your flaming peasant's torch, always bring the biggest, angriest mob possible!


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 1, 2006)

Hi Lowworm,

Your in...I think we need lots of help... I am hoping a lawyer will chime in to see if we understand things wrong as well.

I am almost thinking if a single flashlight company enters this fight it might not help us a group. The reason is a settled negotiation could occur and then only two companies have some features, I don't always think a win helps us widely if it is only done by a single company. I think we need a wide approach...again, this is why I hope an attorney visits us soon to stop me frorm saying things wrong.

Again, I do think anything truely original by Mag in this patent application should stand, I would just like to kill off all the points in the patent that are invalid.


----------



## pokkuhlag (Mar 1, 2006)

Jon is right about the laziness of patent office. They do patent things if there are no complaints about it. A pretty good example happend on valetines day. 

http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=180206472&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_News

If action is not taken now, I'm afraid CPF modders/manufacturers days are over. Cause if this patent has been approved, things will be dragged to court. And we all know maglite has the money and money is all that counts to drag and exhaust all other companies smaller than maglite. It happend to another manufacturer a month or two ago.


----------



## beezaur (Mar 1, 2006)

tron3 said:


> What's next, are they going to patent the sun and tax us for using it? . . .



Off topic, but in my state you have to have a water right permit to collect rainwater. Obtaining a water right permit (for any reason) is a 13 year process unless you have very big pockets and pay the government to put you through in a few months. No bribery, that's just the approved process.

Scott


----------



## cy (Mar 1, 2006)

yep, the time to stop this is now... especially with maglite's history of litigation. 

after a patent has been issued, valid or not. then maglite with their deep pockets and retained attornies have the upper hand. 

even if prior art defense is valid, you will lose by the time you pay for cost of defending yourself.


----------



## chimo (Mar 1, 2006)

evan9162 said:


> The sliding heat sink assebly (to preserve twist-on/off functionality) looks original, but I say they can have that, there are at least 3 additional (bad) thermal interfaces and it's mechanically complex.



I don't even know if I woudl give them that. Lambda's MiniPro heatsink used the heatsink contact as the negative contact for the battery and preserved the twisty operation. The only thing Mag has done is made it a bevel surface which would improves the contact area, centering and thermal contact area.

Paul


----------



## Monolith (Mar 1, 2006)

Jon,

Before this gets too far, please read CFR Sec. 1.291(b) regarding filing protests after publication (this application has been published). You will need Mag's consent to submit the protest for consideration.

_"The protest will be entered into the record of the application if, in addition to complying with paragragh (c) of this section, the protest has been served upon the applicant in accordance with Sec. 1.248, or filed with the Office in duplicate in the event service is not possible, *and*, except for paragraph (b)(1) of this section, *the protest was filed prior to the date the application was published* under Sec. 1.211, or a notice of allowance under Sec. 1.311 was mailed, whichever occurs first."

_If you talk with the USPTO again, be sure and tell them that the patent application has already published.


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 1, 2006)

Ok....I am going to see if an lawyer that was just recommended to me can take a look. I will talk to patent office again as well.


----------



## Monolith (Mar 1, 2006)

Some additional things to consider for patent applications (as opposed to issued patents):

1. They always ask for more than they can get, just in case to prevent self limitation
2. Most patent examiners do their jobs well
3. Only the _allowed_ claims give the patent scope
4. The specification can give credence to the claims under certain conditions, but otherwise is not totally indicative of the scope of the patent.


----------



## zespectre (Mar 1, 2006)

In an ideal world this wouldn't even make a court case. 
In a less than ideal world it would make a case but then wind up in my office (US DOJ CIVIL) in which case Mag should get REAMED because I could show the lawyers here SO MANY prior examples of this stuff (along with receipts as to when I purchased the items). 

Unfortunately in our very much less than ideal world, it'll probably be like the RIM fiasco.


----------



## Monolith (Mar 1, 2006)

InfidelCastro said:


> The vaguer the patent the better for future litigation?  Hiring poor draftsmen has its upside.


These are informal drawings that will become formal before the patent issues. This is typically done when in a hurry to file the application to preserve a filing date for various reasons.


----------



## Monolith (Mar 1, 2006)

zespectre said:


> Unfortunately in our very much less than ideal world, it'll probably be like the RIM fiasco.


RIM cases are based upon issued patents. The Mag patent is being prosecuted and is not an issued patent. The claims may drastically change before issuance. It remains to be seen what the USPTO will do during prosecution. You're essentially looking at an unfinished work. It is not a patent, it is a patent application.


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 1, 2006)

Thanks for all of the posts.

I just sent a communication to what is described to me as a gear head lawyer.

I am in hopes that he will return my message me back and look at this situation.


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 1, 2006)

My big fear is that they might be able to stop innovation cold. What if no one can make a light without them knocking you down. Then they have monopoly power. If they completly control the market, the supply is theirs to control, quality and price is then all of their choosing.


----------



## Monolith (Mar 1, 2006)

JonSidneyB said:


> My big fear is that they might be able to stop innovation cold. What if no one can make a light without them knocking you down. Then they have monopoly power. If they completly control the market, the supply is theirs to control, quality and price is then all of their choosing.


There are plenty of pros and cons with having a patent system. The big driving force behind having such a system is with very costly inventions that the public would be without but for the monopoly granted to aid in recovering the investment costs. This is especially true in the drug industry.


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 1, 2006)

I certainly do believe in patents...And anything of Mags that is original I want them to have. If the innovators do not benefit, very few new things will be created, I know this first hand from having worked for a drug company and from going broke creating a battery that I cannot make back my costs on. 

It is a different matter to patent to innovation of others without the consent and compensation of the creators.


----------



## BentHeadTX (Mar 1, 2006)

I guess it is a good time to be living in Turkey,
Not much of a patent issue here.... maybe I'll start shipping flashlights to the CPF'ers in the states.  
At least with modded lights, I don't care about no stinking patents!


----------



## Monolith (Mar 1, 2006)

The other big driving force of a patent system is to get the information out to the public. Otherwise, everything invented would be secreted away, and the public in general would never gain that knowledge.


----------



## lordsaryon (Mar 1, 2006)

I don't have the legal knowledge, but I would be willing to put up a website, forums, etc for communication. 

If this goes bigger, we can't expect CPF to handle more than are already here.


Please get in contact with me if something like this should be done.


----------



## Navck (Mar 1, 2006)

I think it's our job to alert every manufacture that we can about this and how it destorys their right to make a LED flashlight.
I've notified two, I'll try to get more when I get back home.


----------



## Archangel (Mar 1, 2006)

Just for the record, MJ (Peak) already knew about it, so no need to bombard them (more than they already have been).


----------



## Navck (Mar 1, 2006)

I've myself have emailed
HDS
Night Ops (Gladius lights if anyone doesn't know them)
ARC

Fellow CPFers have emailed/called
Peak
Surefire

Lets expand this list as much as we possibly can
If anyone knows any inside contacts with Surefire - Please try to talk to them
If you have notified a manufacture, tell me so I can update this list


----------



## ABTOMAT (Mar 1, 2006)

I don't mind if you guys decide to take this whole issue up, but do it in a calm and collected manner. The last thing anyone needs is a hotheaded kid blasting off emails all over the place. Like has been stated, applications usually get hashed out before being granted. Think things through and do research into the issues faced.

I'd be surprised if other major flashlight companies aren't aware of this.


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 1, 2006)

I have asked a couple of lawyers to take a peek. Maybe they can give us good news.


----------



## KDOG3 (Mar 1, 2006)

I just called Surefire, they actually came into the forums here while on the phone to look at the patent. They are going to look into it.


----------



## KDOG3 (Mar 1, 2006)

This is important news here at CPF. Possible to make this a sticky?


----------



## WAVE_PARTICLE (Mar 1, 2006)

I thought patents are supposed to enhance innovation? I believe the patent office will do their job and make MAG be more specific on their applications. Most of what MAG filed won't fly...... IMHO.









JonSidneyB said:


> My big fear is that they might be able to stop innovation cold. What if no one can make a light without them knocking you down. Then they have monopoly power. If they completly control the market, the supply is theirs to control, quality and price is then all of their choosing.


----------



## NickelPlate (Mar 1, 2006)

JonSidneyB said:


> My big fear is that they might be able to stop innovation cold. What if no one can make a light without them knocking you down. Then they have monopoly power. If they completly control the market, the supply is theirs to control, quality and price is then all of their choosing.



Kind of sounds like some other companies I know (ahem!!M1cRsoFtahem!!). :laughing: 

Dave


----------



## powernoodle (Mar 1, 2006)

Patent law is so highly specialized, and so foreign to the average lawyer (who is not licensed to practice patent law), that I know enough not to offer an opinion - one which almost assuredly would be wrong. :nana: 

I would offer a general recommendation, however, and directed at no one in particular, to exercise similar restraint. :wave:

Mag-lite appears to be seeking patent protection for a focusable LED light. If I were Mag-lite, I'd try to patent it too. I don't quite view it as the end of life as we know it. I recognize that those in the industry may view it differently.


cheers


----------



## McGizmo (Mar 1, 2006)

IMHO,
Any patent that is ultimately granted to Mag containing mention of LED light sources will be a tool for further abuse of our patent system here in the US. Whether the claims will be disputable due to prior art will be of little import if Mag uses its legal might and war chest to squash a selected opponent. Mr. Mag's potential to do harm to domestic manufacture as well as import is a statement of that which has outlived its usefulness and utility, IMHO. Might makes right was not part of the Yankee Ingenuity I was taught many years ago. On principal, whether exercised or not, shame on Mr. Mag for his previous abuse and the direction seemingly implied with this patent application. I wish you just rewards, Mr. Mag and if I am wrong in my assements, may your rewards be based on truth and light, not abuse and might. The ability to do wrong and foundation to support wrong doing are no justification; if anything there is a responsibilty to the contrary if our nation and society is once again to set examples and not continue in abuse of power and might. Don't wave *my* flag in support and justification of your BS!!! 

OK, personal qualification for statements made time:


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 1, 2006)

Unless I am reading wrong....

The patent office told me to look at the points on a patent. I see 55 of them. They seem to cover everything that make an led flashlight an LED flashlight.


----------



## David_Campen (Mar 1, 2006)

> I believe the patent office will do their job and make MAG be more specific on their applications.


Hah! Do you have any basis for this belief? The PTO recently has been working hard on its reputation for issuing junky patents.


----------



## David_Campen (Mar 1, 2006)

> Mag-lite appears to be seeking patent protection for a focusable LED light.


It appears to me that their claims go much farther than that to include - regulation circuits, heat sinks, twist on/off heads etc.


----------



## nikon (Mar 1, 2006)

As an example of some of the semantic mumbo-jumbo we'll be facing, here's a similar case in which the Bose Corp. attempted to patent the concept of car audio, even though it had been around for many years.....

http://legal.european-patent-office.org/dg3/pdf/t981109eu1.pdf


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 1, 2006)

I will be talking to a patent attorney on this in the morning to learn more. Wish me luck in finding out what I need to know.


----------



## Grox (Mar 1, 2006)

Good luck JSB, I hope the meeting goes well.


----------



## MadMag (Mar 1, 2006)

First, my name "MadMag" does not mean I am a big supporter of Mag. I just picked it at the time because I was modding Mags.

I think most are making this a bigger issue than necessary. I am retired from the electronics (not flashlight) industry. I was involved in patent applications. In the early years companies did weld a lot of power with their patents. But now days technology is really what rules. With world wide companies you just cannot control similiar copies of ideas. In fact, I think some day in the futrure the patent office will die as we know it today. Our company gave up on trying to control patent ideas because of foreign rip-offs. In fact, we did not patent some ideas so we could keep them in-house as long as possible. IMHO, good quality and technology is the only way you will win now days, and Mag will have to meet these critera same as everyone else.


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 1, 2006)

but without the heatsink...the reflector...the circuit...the O-rings...we will need to find substitutes fast...and we have a track record of them suing tons of people over with invalid suits...the people they sue do not have the resources to fight back.


----------



## carrot (Mar 1, 2006)

MadMag said:


> IMHO, good quality and technology is the only way you will win now days, and Mag will have to meet these critera same as everyone else.


That's right, but unfortunately many people still believe Mag's 15+ year-old lineup is "top of the line," "professional," and "powerful."


----------



## Rothrandir (Mar 1, 2006)

something needs to be done about this, but i dont' think jon is in the position to do so.

what we need to do is settle down a little bit, and look at things with clear heads. hopefully someone will pop in who has a better idea what's going on.


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 1, 2006)

Thats why I am talking to an attorney...to find out what we need.


----------



## Navck (Mar 1, 2006)

I'm sure lots of manufactures won't be happy right now when they notice this new "patent" thats going to be granted to M*g.
M*g - Give us a inch, we take 20 miles.


----------



## David_Campen (Mar 1, 2006)

> I think most are making this a bigger issue than necessary.


So, as JSB pointed out, you think that because of innovation it will be possible to make a flashlight without heatsink, switch, reflector, voltage regulation ... ?

I will have to disagree. This _is_ a big issue. Mag is attempting to patent the LED flashlight.


----------



## Navck (Mar 1, 2006)

M*g neutralists, do you see why I hate them(Not the neutralists, correction to anyone who was offended, but M*glite the company) now?


----------



## MadMag (Mar 1, 2006)

No, I don't think innovation will make things happen. I think cloning will make things happen. But I don't want to get into a bebate....I guess time will tell.

I would like to add another different thought. In my area I already find that you can hardly find a Mag in the Large sporting goods stores like Bass Pro, ****'s and almost all of the gun stores. That is another point. Pickup a shooting magazine and you will find that Mag has lost most of the shooting world. This includes military and police.


----------



## LifeNRA (Mar 1, 2006)

KDOG3 said:


> I just called Surefire, they actually came into the forums here while on the phone to look at the patent. They are going to look into it.


Good to hear.
Lets hope that every manufaturer decides to fight this.


----------



## hardrock42 (Mar 1, 2006)

Oh dear, does any of this ring a bell?
Microsoft?- In all computers we buy? - Wanting to be everywhere? even to make Stephen Hawkings voice!

Microsoft began monopolisation, and now everybody dislikes them. Cause of all the viruses. Microsoft is everywhere, the majority of people using this forum use microsoft. they practicaly 'own' computers! (I happen to use an iMacG5).
If maglite were to say 'go through' with this, then people would see this monopolisation. All future torch development would be quashed.
Just like inventions today. You make a good invention, sell it to a big company. They only use it after theve removed all their old designs from the shelves! Cant afford the losses! Maglite would 'own' flashlights. and being so big makes them weak. 

Not wishing to offend people, however, it is these steryotipical 'big american money grabbing machines', taking over a global industry (Microsoft/Mc Donalds/Coke... and maybe Mag?) wich gives the US its bad name across the world. Americans are great, there brilliant people! If only their industries would be more considerate to the 'little man' instead of taking the whole cake just to waste half of it.

Gladius, Fenix, Arc are and Surefire are some of the most brilliant role models of amazing torch engineering, electricaly, structuraly and ergonomicaly. It would be sad to see them fall to a good company, who if they cant be bothered to keep up by development and innovation, will grow out of its time.


----------



## hardrock42 (Mar 1, 2006)

Sos for the rant!


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 1, 2006)

the Rant is ok by me.


----------



## Empath (Mar 1, 2006)

The rant isn't really ok by me. Although it's hardly discernible by the prominent position given to the thread, CPF is used by a large variety on individuals, many of which don't buy into the hate-Mag mentality projected by this thread. The thread itself is of such a hostile environment that those that do like Maglites, wouldn't dare step a foot inside. They figure you'd tear 'em to shreds. So, I have. I figure I can take whatever "the mob" dishes out.

Just for the record, I am speaking on a personal level. If some moderators and administrators could speak their piece on a conflict that had far more damaging potential in the past, I figure I can speak my piece in the Pro-Mag/Anti-Mag situation.

As far as I know at this point, CPF does not have an official "fight Mag" philosophy. I am very disappointed with those promoting any appearance of such.


----------



## LukeK (Mar 1, 2006)

Empath said:


> ...CPF is used by a large variety on individuals, many of which don't buy into the hate-Mag mentality projected by this thread. The thread itself is of such a hostile environment that those that do like Maglites, wouldn't dare step a foot inside...



Considering Maglite's history of litigation and the nature of this new patent, is it really that surprising? People don't hate Maglite for no reason.


----------



## powernoodle (Mar 1, 2006)

David_Campen said:


> Mag is attempting to patent the LED flashlight.



That isn't correct. In paragraphs 0002 and 0003, the application recognizes the pre-existence of LED flashlights. The application seeks to patent purported improvements to existing technology allegedly resulting in "improved optical performance" (paragraph 0004), among other things including an "improved energy source assembly", i.e., battery carrier (paragraph 0011). These "improvements" are relative to something, and that something is the current LED flashlight technology. According to Mag-lite, anyway.


I still don't see the sky falling. :shrug:


----------



## DonShock (Mar 1, 2006)

I don't mind the rants in threads like this, where the topic is obviously one concerning a known controversial subject. I hate it when a B/S/T or genuine question thread degrades into an off topic rant between several individuals.


----------



## Pydpiper (Mar 1, 2006)

The Noodlemeister unleashes some insight.. I love it.. :rock:


----------



## nikon (Mar 1, 2006)

powernoodle said:


> That isn't correct. In paragraphs 0002 and 0003, the application recognizes the pre-existence of LED flashlights. The application seeks to patent purported improvements to existing technology allegedly resulting in "improved optical performance" (paragraph 0004), among other things including an "improved energy source assembly", i.e., battery carrier (paragraph 0011). These "improvements" are relative to something, and that something is the current LED flashlight technology. According to Mag-lite, anyway.
> 
> 
> I still don't see the sky falling. :shrug:


 

I read it differently. In 0003 and 0004, Mag appears to be saying that LED lights have never incorporated reflectors and have only attempted to make improvements by adding extra LED's (as in multiple 5mm LED lights). They also say that current lights are incapable of projecting lights over a distance. The insinuation is that they are the first to utilize a reflector.


----------



## carrot (Mar 1, 2006)

I for one am _not_ against Mag. I just don't want to see them using these new patent claims against good light companies. I know I will be one of the first to pick up a MagLED, out of curiousity... and a need to spend more money.


----------



## yaesumofo (Mar 1, 2006)

Firstly I think it is important to recognize Mag Industries as being responsible for getting many quality flashlights into many peoples hands WORLD WIDE. How many of you people have never owned at least a AA mini mag? If you have never owned a Mag Flashlight then what are you complaining about.

The Quality of the Drawings used in the application look to me to be about the same as anybody else's drawings. Have a look at some of the surefire drawings the quality looks to me to be about the same. Go ahead and call me crazy.

Don't forget Mag industries is a big Flashlight company. It is an American Company. There are plenty of American JOBS at stake here. You guys want to attack a company with plenty of cash...Plenty of energy....plenty of motivation to protect their business. 

It seems to me that there is much more at stake here than a few designs for LED flashlights.

How many of you even have Patents? Have defended Patents? Designed a patentable part or element? What are the Numbers?
I am sure that over the years many ideas discussed here on the CPF and elsewhere have or will end up as patented. I think that is great!!

I think that many of you are being dismissive of Mag Industries design elements. Possiblly because you have seen some of them before.
The whole idea of the Patent application is to weed out original thinking from the soup of public domain.

Personally I feel that if a few patents are required to keep American Workers working in America and keeping the industry fresh with new product then I say: Have at it!

Go ahead Attack Mag Industries if you feel it so necessary. I don't see any benefit. Let Surefire and Peak and HDS fight with Mag Industries. The End result is Higher Prices for all of us. If these companies end up spending huge amounts of CASH to either defend or enforce Patents then ALL of us should expect to pay more and get less cool technology in our lights. Imagine Mag Industries and surefire doubling Prices in order to pay attorneys fees instead of R & D. Talk about an industry slump...
The whole thing spells trouble for a industry. We as Hobbyists don't have much to loose. We can just make our own like we have been for some time. 
If you look at the BIG picture when people are defending THIER MULTI MILLION dollar business... Then you can hardly blame them for engaging patent protection .
Be Careful guys this type of negative campaign can have a negative impact on our hobby. Far more negative than a few patents being issued to Mag Industries.
Think about it. There are many ideas floating around this place which could be seen as infringement of patented original thinking. How great would it be if Sure fire took aim at some of the things being made and sold here in the BST forum. That is a real danger. Some of you have more to loose than others. People with nothing to loose can pose a great danger to a place like this if they act with reckless abandon.

Please Be Careful!! We all have somthing to loose besides The few bucks more a flashlight will cost us.
Yaesumofo


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 1, 2006)

Yaesu, preventing Mag to patent everything does not mean they cannot make the lights, it enables others to make lights as well.... :thinking:


----------



## LowWorm (Mar 1, 2006)

I don't really consider what Jon is doing as being "reckless." People commonly consult lawyers as preliminary to determine what, if any, action needs to be taken. Point is, if there is staging language in the patent that can be easily misconstrued toward an proprietary end where none exists, this results in headaches later should the patenting company decide to legally enforce this language. 

It's been pointed out that if a challenge is to be made to a patent app, it's easier to make an a priori challenge (forgive me if I mangle any legal, latin, or otherwise neat-sounding terms, powernoodle ). Once the patent is approved, challenges must then be submitted through the courts - resulting in substantially increased time and money invested on the parts of the parties involved.

Considering Mag's history of legal wrangling, it's not unwise to try to analyze how this MagLED patent might pose more danger to other flashlight manufacturers rather than simply protect Mag.


----------



## Navck (Mar 1, 2006)

Agreed, they'll keep making their lights, but we'll lose all the manufactures we all like and know.


----------



## Archangel (Mar 1, 2006)

People aren't saying not to offer Mag *any* patents, just ones they don't deserve.


----------



## Lunal_Tic (Mar 1, 2006)

Of course you could also look into their choice of names since MagmaLED has been around for a while and novel trademark infringement is also a pursuit of theirs. (i.e. the position of the logo isn't a patent problem it's a trademark one.)

-LT


----------



## ABTOMAT (Mar 1, 2006)

I'm not even going to touch most of the stuff brought up in this thread now, but I don't see that patent app as threatening as you guys do. I don't like it, but a lot the minor points in there have been mentioned in zillions of previous patents, many of them by Mag dating back into the '80s. You don't see them suing companies for using o-rings and reflectors. Look at the D-cell lights that Dorcy and Nordic sell. Pretty Mag-ish, but they don't have any of the signature features (special switch, cam focusing, bezel engraving) that Mag does. No suits. Probably partly because they're domestic companies with some capital.

The biggest threat posed by Mag isn't patenting stuff they shouldn't. The threat is them suing companies over stuff they've never really patented. This happens all the time and no one hears about it. Usually out of the country. Like suing a company that were making knockoffs of _other_ US flashlights but not Mag. And I doubt that Mag was trying to help out that other company for one second.


----------



## LifeNRA (Mar 1, 2006)

LowWorm said:


> Considering Mag's history of legal wrangling, it's not unwise to try to analyze how this MagLED patent might pose more danger to other flashlight manufacturers rather than simply protect Mag.


This is the way I feel.


----------



## MichiganMan (Mar 1, 2006)

yaesumofo said:


> Go ahead Attack Mag Industries if you feel it so necessary. I don't see any benefit. Let Surefire and Peak and HDS fight with Mag Industries. The End result is Higher Prices for all of us. If these companies end up spending huge amounts of CASH to either defend or enforce Patents then ALL of us should expect to pay more and get less cool technology in our lights. Imagine Mag Industries and surefire doubling Prices in order to pay attorneys fees instead of R & D. Talk about an industry slump...



I agree completely. And thats why I personally found it repugnant when I saw MAG suing ARC over the original ARC AAA citing their exclusive ownership of the _cylinder_ as a shape. Harassing, predatory litigation through and through. No doubt a significant portion of the money invested in developing the current ARC AAA went solely into hardening it against possible legal challenges from MAG specifically instead of that R&D you were talking about. 

Empath, those of us that have long thought that the Intellectual Property systems in this country have long been hopelessly broken and systemically prone to abuse by powerful interests don't have to be "Mag-haters" to recognize yet another example by a known perpetrator.


----------



## ABTOMAT (Mar 1, 2006)

Wasn't Arc sued for using circumfrential (sp?) engraving on the light and packaging that looked like a Solitaire's? The engraving thing is trademarked.


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 1, 2006)

I thought the packaging was a common purchased gift box. And writing I didn't think could be trademarked...just the text style and content.


----------



## MichiganMan (Mar 1, 2006)

MAG sued them for both, and many other claims as well. I imagine the suits were useful to them, certainly ARC's spending on R&D was limited by them.


----------



## Lunal_Tic (Mar 1, 2006)

Mag helped take out LitePro too. Don't recall if it was patent or trademark infringement that they used though.

-LT


----------



## Rothrandir (Mar 1, 2006)

people concerned about mags tendancy and ability to sue othe manufactures don't necessarily fall into the catagory of "mag-haters" 

here is the deal. passing this application gives maglite more firepower. justified or no.


----------



## Navck (Mar 1, 2006)

For Switch/Bezel writing (Spitfire 2. They "vigirously" hunted them down too)


----------



## Empath (Mar 1, 2006)

Trademarks can be intagibles, not just Brand names. It can be a tune, song, shape, or even a unique feel. With the solitaire, the uniqueness of the AAA light, different from what the competing manufacturers produced, was a AAA single cell light that didn't have a head larger in circumference than the remaining part of the body. In other words, their Solitaire light was unique among aluminum, twist head type single AAA cell lights by nature of the single circumferenced cylinder shape of the their light. The reason you didn't see competing brands of single AAA lights with that feature is due to it being trademarked by Mag. For the other manufacturers to produce one of the same characteristic would have been the same as Pepsi bottling a drink in a Coke shaped bottle. It would have invited lawsuits.

The trademark notice appears on the packaging of all Maglites, and reads like this:



> The distinctive shapes, styles and overall appearances of all Mag® Flashlights, and the circumferential inscriptions extending around the heads of all Mag® flashlights are trademarks of Mag Instruments, Inc. The circumferential inscription on the head of every flashlight signifies that it is an original Mag® flashlight and part of the Mag® family of flashlights.



So, in the flashlight business, if you use circumferential inscription around the head of a light, it's the same as claiming it is part of the Mag® family of lights. If you make a single cell AAA flashlight that has the same diameter along it's entire length, the you're using a trademark of the Mag® family of lights. If you package that light in a package that presents the contents in the same manner as a Mag Solitaire, then you've added more confusion to the customer's ability to tell it's a different manufacturer. Whether the packaging was trademarked or not, I don't know. It certainly doesn't help though, in the brand name recognition confusion.

So, when Arc packaged in a manner that appeared as Mag packaging, a single AAA light as a single diameter cyclinder along it's entire length, with a circumferential inscription near the head, Mag would have viewed that as trademark infringement, and a claim of being from a light in the Mag family of flashlights.

While I would prefer that they hadn't served notice on Arc, I can certainly understand their position on the matter.


----------



## Lunal_Tic (Mar 1, 2006)

Empath said:


> So, when Arc packaged in a manner that appeared as Mag packaging, a single AAA light as a single diameter cyclinder along it's entire length, with a _circumferential inscription *near* the head_, Mag would have viewed that as trademark infringement, and a claim of being from a light in the Mag family of flashlights.
> 
> While I would prefer that they hadn't served notice on Arc, I can certainly understand their position on the matter.



Keyword is _near_. The inscription was not on the head, it was on the body. (as was the CMG infinity and other lights)

It isn't always the legitimacy of the threat but the possibility of action that is the problem with Mag's patent/trademark actions. The one under attack still has to expend time and money to prove that it is not a valid case. That drain alone can kill the competition and has nothing to do with the "rightness" of the case.

If their applications give them more ammo, without technical merit, for pursuing other makers then bringing this information to the attention of the patent and trademark office is a good thing.

-LT


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Mar 2, 2006)

But I have to say it anyway.

Us "M*g Haters" (and we all know who we are!) hate the company "Mag Instrument"

The M*g-Lite is a FINE instrument for modding or hotrodding.

The fact that a whole ARMY of litigators stand ready at "M*G Instruments" to CRUSH any other light manufacturer is what we hate.

But then what else can we expect from California really???

And here I must add: 

(but I'm not ignorant!)


----------



## Empath (Mar 2, 2006)

I haven't said anything against calling the attention of the patent and trademark offices to a bad claim. However, your "near" as you call it, is often good enough in court. The point I was making wasn't about technicalities as to whether one would or wouldn't win. The point I was making was whether or not there was reason for Mag to consider it a trademark infringement.


----------



## lightlust (Mar 2, 2006)

Empath said:


> ... As far as I know at this point, CPF does not have an official "fight Mag" philosophy. I am very disappointed with those promoting any appearance of such.



Empath, I agree, and I hope my words haven't fueled the flames improperly. (A good fire can keep you warm in winter, though!)

Further clarification on my behalf, which I hope others may agree with:
When the bar has consistently been set too low in patent systems worldwide, granting all manner of overly broad and fundamentally flawed patents, I submit that no _valid_ claim would be adversely affected by a few more challenges or more extensive examination.

It is only the _invalid_ claim which would fail the additional litmus tests, or wither under greater scrutiny.
​ In a mere 30 years, my great-grandfather experienced the birth of the automobile, electricity in homes, the telephone, indoor plumbing, human flight by air travel (impossible, they said), and penicillin. All this due to the help of the patent system in whole or in part (some of these "inventions" were never patented per se, but many small innovations pertaining to them were.) Even the screw propeller and eggbeaters were patented at one point!

I humbly suggest the spirit of being more vigilant in separating the wheat from the chaff is beneficial, without losing sight of the goal: A true and valid patent.


----------



## yellow (Mar 2, 2006)

just noticed that they proudly state that on their page (winning patent claims)
www.maglite.com --> whats new / --> in the news
but still no info on the led-things

(would have posted the text, but doing so without permission of the owner is forbidden here, as I recently learned)

PS: "mag-haters" is much too strong, the lights make, at least, great hosts. For that price there is almost no competitor offering comparable machining


----------



## WAVE_PARTICLE (Mar 2, 2006)

Guys, I fail to understand what the big problem is. Patents are necessary for innovation. Research and development doesn't come cheap. Millions and sometimes billions (as in the pharmaceutical industry) are spent on this. Sometimes, the recovery of just the R&D costs can take years. Without patents, other companies can reverse engineer your work within months and reap the glory that is supposed to be yours. Without patents, there is no innovation.

Now, with respect to MAG's patent application, there is some merit into their work....granted there are also items in their filing that aren't patentable. But I understand MAG's position..... it's better to over-do your application than to under-do. But it is the job of the patent office to determine what can or can't be patentable. Don't hate MAG for doing what they should be doing.

However, it is up to the general public to scrutinize the application and to make challenges to it. And, if necessary, that's what we should do. But don't hate the company just because they want to protect their investment.....

just my 2 cents....because


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 2, 2006)

Correct my errors if I make any, the main lights that they build are by Keltec, There were cylinder shaped lights before the solitaire, inscription around the head has been done before? I have seen focuasing done on antuque lights. When I look at the claims in the patent, it to me looks like the claims have all been done buy others. It looks like they just looked around, copied the work of others then are trying to put a patent on it.


----------



## ABTOMAT (Mar 2, 2006)

What do you mean in that first sentence? Keltec makes pistols (actually was started by a guy who ran another gun company, Grendel, which did make a flashlight), Mag's lights are wholly Mag-designed.


----------



## Shirley (Mar 2, 2006)

Kel-Lite?

(Would "lite" be a trademarked item? If so, is/was Mag Lite infringing?)

John


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 2, 2006)

oops, Kel-lite is indeed who I was talking too.

Is what I am thinking of. I do not know all of the story here so what I say would be hearsay. I should know more about this, I guess I will have to do some reading when I can.

I spent some time talking to a very nice patents attorney who gave me a ton of information but I have already forgotten most of what he told me. I don't speak legalise. I will try and settle down long enough to remember things and to at some point jot down what he has had to say.

Ahh, I do remember this...the lawyers that I have talked to said that a trademark cannot be part of the functional design. A cylinder is an obvious shape.


----------



## ABTOMAT (Mar 2, 2006)

Mag-Lite has nothing to do with Kel-Lite, other than currently employing the founder in a consultant role. There were half a dozen companies making similar lights between the time Kel and Mag started producing. They're not the most similar of those, either. It's like comparing Surefire's tactical lights to Streamlight's or ASP's or Pelican's. Same market, different designs.

The "-Lite" thing is pretty well-worn with flashlight companies, going back at least into the '40s or '50s.


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 2, 2006)

Focusing flashlight. Eveready, 1929

http://www.flashlightmuseum.com/flashlight_view.cfm?item_number=EV00566


----------



## greenLED (Mar 2, 2006)

WAVE_PARTICLE said:


> Guys, I fail to understand what the big problem is. Patents are necessary for innovation.



Sure, but the language they're using is so vague and general (but so purposefully crafted) that they are, in essence, patenting the concept of a Luxeon-based flashlight that uses a pulse regulated circuit, a heatsink, any variety of batteries (in any variety of configurations and circuit arrangements). That's what's scary. If the patent goes through, they're killing all innovation, as they are appropriating such a general concept that anything with a Lux, batteries, and a circuit could be deemed in violation of their claims.


I encourage more people to read the patent application. Maybe if we get more informed people we can debate a little more seriously, instead of speculating left and right. Here are the main points I gathered after carefully reading the whole application last night (my comments in bold):


*I was actually surprised at their description of their switch/circuit/heatsink assembly. Seems like a simple, yet elegant solution. There are some neat features.
*
0005: "...the present invention provides a combination that effectively dissipates heat from the light source of a portable lighting device. The present invention also provides a means to reduce the amount of heat generated by the light source and to use less energy to illuminate the light source." *Doesn't that sound like what heatsinks do? We've been using that concept for a long time - taking heat away from the Lux and spreading it onto the body. Don't the HDS and Gladius use heat-based management?*
0007: "In one embodiment of the invention, a unique energy source assembly is provided to hold batteries in a side-by-side arrangement. *They show a battery cartridge on the patent. Cool.*
0030: "It is to be expressly understood, however, that the present invention is not restricted to the flashlights described herein." :huh2: :sweat:*As I read through the application, I got more and more :huh::sweat:*
0032: "...barrel 12 may also be configured to include a single battery, two batteries, a plurality of more than three batteries, or other suitable portable source of energy in either a series or a side-by-side parallel arrangement." *How many other ways of arranging batteries and powering a flashlight have you seen?*
"Those skilled in the art should recognize that other suitable means may be employed for attaching the tailcap 28 to the barrel 12." *(They were talking about threaded tailcaps on the same paragraph.) So they can claim all other ways of attaching a tailcap was in their appliation? Along the same lines, there's a later paragraph citing multiple materials for the tailcap.
*
0039: Talks about a conductive sleeve within the barrel of the light. *Isn't this how HDS provides electrical paths in their battery tubes?*
0043: They specifically talk about Lumileds LXHL-PW01 part.
0047: Talks about (pulsed) current modulating system. *Ask yourself: How many lights are already out there that use this?*
0051: "Those skilled in the art will recognize that other circuit designs, such as a circuit that includes a microprocessor and a look-up table, may also be used to deliver a pulsed current signal or a temperature adjusted pulsed current signal to the light source." *PIC, anyone? Digitally controlled lights, anyone?*
0053: The Lux's leads are secured by friction (but goes on to mention it could be done with solder).
0073-0078: talk about reflectors. I do not have the technical expertise to deal with these. *They do cite specific ratios and parabolic equations which could be generic and essential to providing quality beams.*
0081: "Although the embodiment disclosed herein illustrates a substantially planar lens 104, the flashlight 10 may instead be combined with lens that include curved surfaces to further improve the optical performance of the flashlight 10. For example, the lens may include a biconvex profile or a plano-convex profile in the whole or part of the lens surface."* How many other lens shapes can you think of that could be used in a flashlight to achieve the same results? Isn't SF already doing this with some of their domed lenses?*
0085: Talks about their twist-on mechanism, and then adds: "Other suitable switch device, such as a push-button switch or an electronic switch may be employed." *So we have twist-on, push-button, electronic switches... that leaves: ... toggle switches and... :thinking: yeah, telepathic switches! (unless you like wind-up switches :green
*
0088: Talks about their battery cartridges (which I think are a good idea). Again, their language includes phrases like: "...in either a series or parallel arrangement..."* Last time I checked you can't arrange cells in any other way. *
0093: "It is envisioned that all such alternate embodiments are considered to be within the scope of the present invention as described by the appended claims." :thinking: "all such alternate embodiments (see 0032 cited above).
I think you get the picture... :green:

As I read the claims, it became more and more clear that they're trying to patent the concept of a Luxeon-based flashlight that uses a pulse regulated circuit, a heatsink, any variety of batteries (in any variety of configurations and circuit arrangements, body sizes and shapes), and lens types. The language they use (see above) that it can be interpreted so broadly as to claim the invented basically all Luxeon lights.

My hope is that more people read the entire application, especially people who have more technical knowledge and more exposure to patent and legal language.


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 2, 2006)

If people will go though the claims...I think we need to have an example of prior art for each claim. Can people help with that with photos and descriptions.

This can be a serious matter. When it gets past the patent office, it becomes harder.

We just have to demonstrate and prove the claims are prior art...but we need help.

http://patentlaw.typepad.com/


----------



## Monolith (Mar 2, 2006)

JonSidneyB said:


> Focusing flashlight. Eveready, 1929
> 
> http://www.flashlightmuseum.com/flashlight_view.cfm?item_number=EV00566


Parabolic reflector?


----------



## DonShock (Mar 2, 2006)

JonSidneyB said:


> ...... When I look at the claims in the patent, it to me looks like the claims have all been done buy others. It looks like they just looked around, copied the work of others then are trying to put a patent on it.


This is the main thing that I think really bothers the hobbyists here. I saw a similar uproar a while back on some computer modding forums. One of the big name computer case manufacturers did a big press release when they filed a patent on the same modifications that the hobbyists had been doing for years. Reading the patent application, there isn't anything really new from Mag. Just slight variations on the details which, while they might meet the technical legalities to be patentable, aren't "new inventions" that most normal people think of as the purpose of patents. Granted it's a fine line between copying an invention and coming up with your own version of a general product idea. But that's what keeps the patent lawyers, and this thread, in business.

Don't get me wrong, I like Mags. Almost all my lights are Mags, but I am much happier with the Mods I have done on them using the information found on CPF. But when I am showing off my lights, I don't claim to have invented them. I honestly tell people that I assembled them with parts bought from other people who first came up with the good ideas, I just copied their designs. I've never understood why some people and companies need to act like they are God's gift to "whatever". Everybody's got their strengths in certain areas that they can rightly be proud of, and they shouldn't be afraid to admit their weaknesses. But there is no excuse for taking credit for the work of others or trying to hide your own mistakes.

Mag does a great job of producing a good reliability product at a moderate cost. If one company comes up with a general idea and then can't compete when other companies join the party, that's not the fault of the competitors. I am personally glad that Mag is finally getting on the bandwagon. Several people have liked my modded Mags until I tell them what it cost. If they can get similar lights for less cost in the future, so much the better. That being said, I too am bothered by the tone of the claims in the patent application. Maybe it's just the way the "legalese" sounds to a non-lawyer, but they do seem to be laying claim to ideas that are commonplace here on CPF and from other manufacturers. If so, then it is perfectly reasonable that people make their objections known.

It's not about "I hate Mag", it's about good people standing up and saying "This is wrong".


----------



## pcmike (Mar 2, 2006)

Hi guys, I just got off the phone with the *UNITED STATES* Patent Office. Here's what the guy essentially told me needs to be done:

1) You have *TWO MONTHS* from *Feb. 23rd, 2006* to submit prior art documentation
a) The documentation should include: *dated papers, photos, and descriptions* disproving claims made by Mag-Lite set forth in the patent application
b) This sort of information needs to be detailed enough so that there can be *NO QUESTION* in the patent office investigator's mind that the claim by Mag-Lite is bogus and such claim is *ALREADY IN PUBLIC DOMAIN.*
2) The fee for submitting prior art documentation is *$180.00*, HOWEVER when I said "that seems like alot of money to prove something already exist so that I, a us citizen, do not lose everything I stand for (house, money, assets, etc).. to which the guy responded "then maybe you should just not get involved." I then went on to point out how crappy that sounded and he said "well then maybe you should contact your congressman's office.
a) That would be my recommendation to everyone here. You should have all the documentation compiled by *March 15th* and SOMEONE should FAX/MAIL ALL the documentation to a *congressman* in their state who is AGAINST big business. You should not have to pay $180 (as a US citizen and not a company) to prove prior art. That's [email protected]#

Anyhow, let me summarize this:
1) ALL BUILDERS and ANYONE WHO CARES needs to READ THE ENTIRE CLAIMS part of the Mag-Lite patent and COMPILE documentation that PROVES such claims made are PRIOR ART.
2) ALL documentation needs to be compiled NO LATER then *March 15th.* This allows for unexpected delays as well as some lead-time for someone to get all the compiled information to their congressman. If you guys decide not to go through someone's congressman (*WHICH I HIGHLY RECOMMEND AND AM WILLING TO TELL YOU WHY IF YOU ASK*), then I'd say you need to have all the documentation together and sent in WITH $180 no later then March 23rd.

Relevant information
Patent Publication Number: *10922714*
Link to Publication


----------



## fieldops (Mar 2, 2006)

I have to agree with most of the posting here. [email protected] is just trying to get as much into their patent as possible regardless of prior art. If they succeed, they can monopolize the industry for the forseeable future. As long as this patent challenge is done in a professional manner, a good outcome is within reach. I think most here are just standing up for what's right. Looking at Green's post you get a quick idea of how much impact this situation could have on the industry. One other important factor is that we have alerted others to the situation. I'm sure many were looking at it already, but re-enforcements always help. Let's hope for a good and just outcome on this.


----------



## greenLED (Mar 2, 2006)

DonShock said:


> It's not about "I hate Mag", it's about good people standing up and saying "This is wrong".



Exactly! If you look at my Mag-related posts, you'll actually see that I like and support their products. Their MO has crossed a line (well, several by now :green, though...


----------



## greenLED (Mar 2, 2006)

McGizmo's reflectors are parabolic. Can we get his attention during his vacation? It'd be good to have his drawings, equations, etc.

Does HDS, and Night-Ops use thermal management in their lights?


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 2, 2006)

Here is an interesting look at patents.

http://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/centers/innovation/probpatents.pdf


----------



## greenLED (Mar 2, 2006)

Sooner or later, they'll claim their LED drop-in replacements were their idea. Nu-uh!



DiamondLED said:


> We've been making KILLER 3 Watt replacement bulbs for Maglite®


 Link to post


----------



## Mark2 (Mar 2, 2006)

I think we should try to go forward, I'm sure we can come up with the $180 and the documentation of prior art for the claims. There is not too much time, so we should start finding examples for prior art for each claim as soon as possible.


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 2, 2006)

Agreed,

The patent lawyers I talked to said that we need to break these down by independed claims and dependent claims. The independent claims can be most important to address. The dependent claims are a little more work and might be a tiny bit more difficult but I don't think that that more to deal with.


----------



## pcmike (Mar 2, 2006)

FYI here is the break down
*Independent claims: 1,18,20,23,31,34,36,42,49*
Dependent claims: all the other ones

 



JonSidneyB said:


> Agreed,
> 
> The patent lawyers I talked to said that we need to break these down by independed claims and dependent claims. The independent claims can be most important to address. The dependent claims are a little more work and might be a tiny bit more difficult but I don't think that that more to deal with.


----------



## MichiganMan (Mar 2, 2006)

pcmike said:


> 2) The fee for submitting prior art documentation is *$180.00*, HOWEVER when I said "that seems like alot of money to prove something already exist so that I, a us citizen, do not lose everything I stand for (house, money, assets, etc).. to which the guy responded "then maybe you should just not get involved." I then went on to point out how crappy that sounded and he said "well then maybe you should contact your congressman's office.



Hmm, I seem to remember _some_body saying something about "the Intellectual Property systems in this country have long been hopelessly broken and systemically prone to abuse"...


----------



## Monolith (Mar 2, 2006)

pcmike said:


> Hi guys, I just got off the phone with the *UNITED STATES* Patent Office. Here's what the guy essentially told me needs to be done:
> 
> 1) You have *TWO MONTHS* from *Feb. 23rd, 2006* to submit prior art documentation
> 
> ...




*Some things to consider when submitting under 37 CFR 1.99:

* *§ 1.99 Third-party submission in published application.*

(c) The submission under this section *must be served upon the applicant* in accordance with § 1.248.

(d) A submission under this section *shall not include any explanation of the patents or publications, or any other information*. The Office will not enter such explanation or information if included in a submission under this section. A submission under this section is also *limited to ten total patents or publications*.

(e) A submission under this section *must be filed within two months from the date of publication of the application* (§ 1.215(a)) or prior to the mailing of a notice of allowance (§ 1.311), whichever is earlier.....

(f) A member of the public may include a self-addressed postcard with a submission to receive an acknowledgment by the Office that the submission has been received. *A member of the public filing a submission under this section will not receive any communications from the Office relating to the submission other than the return of a self-addressed postcard.* In the absence of a request by the Office, an applicant has no duty to, and need not, reply to a submission under this section. 



*Full 37 CFR 1.99 Link*


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 2, 2006)

Ummm, what did that just say???


----------



## pcmike (Mar 2, 2006)

*My text is in blue, like this..*


Monolith said:


> *Some things to consider when submitting under 37 CFR 1.99:
> 
> * *§ 1.99 Third-party submission in published application.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Monolith (Mar 2, 2006)

JonSidneyB said:


> Ummm, what did that just say???



Jon,

Please read the entire Sec. 1134.01 of the MPEP:

*MPEP 1134.01 Link*

It should answer most of your questions.


You have essentially gone from filing a "protest" (earlier posts) to doing "a 3rd party submission." Please read the parent *section 1134* as well. It will give you more context.


----------



## Navck (Mar 2, 2006)

I've already let HDS know about this, I dobut Henry likes the "thermal mangment part" right now (Looks like M*gs getting sunk on that one)

Manufactures have a big pull in this tug of war.


----------



## pcmike (Mar 2, 2006)

Here's a text version of all the claims (somewhat rough in apperance) that people can edit underneath each claim with documentation disproving claims one by one. A XML file of all this text (with better formatting) can be downloaded from: http://doorstop.org/Magclaims/10922714.xml 


```
Express Mail No. EV301124923	Patent
728256-100247
What is claimed is:
1.	A lighting device comprising:
a source of energy;
a light source coupled to said source of energy;
5	a reflector that reflects light including a first
open end, a second end, and a parabolic profile extending
between said first open end and said second end, wherein
the focus of said parabolic profile is located outside said
parabolic profile;
10	a holder that holds said light source relative to
said reflector such that light generated by said light source is reflected by said reflector.
2.	A lighting device of claim 1, wherein the
15 relative position of said light source and said reflector is variable.
3.	A lighting device of claim 1, wherein said first
open end is larger than said second end, wherein the ratio
20 between the distance of the second end from the vertex of said parabolic profile and the distance of the focus from the vertex of said parabolic profile is greater than 1.5:1.
LAI-2019416vl	41
 
Express Mail No. EV301124923	Patent
728256-100247
4.	A lighting device of claim 1, wherein said first
open end is larger than said second end, wherein the ratio
between the distance of the second end from the vertex of
said parabolic profile and the distance of the focus from
5  the vertex of said parabolic profile is less than 6.5:1.
5.	A lighting device of claim 1, wherein said first
open end is larger than said second end, wherein the ratio
between the distance of the second end from the vertex of
10 said parabolic profile and the distance of the focus from the vertex of said parabolic profile is between 3.0:1 and 3.4:1.
6.	A lighting device of claim 1, wherein said first
15  open end is larger than said second end, wherein the ratio
between the distance of the second end from the vertex of said parabolic profile and the distance of the focus from the vertex of said parabolic profile is 3.2:1.
20      7.  A lighting device of claim 1, wherein said parabolic profile substantially conforms to a profile according to the equation r2 = 4fz, wherein "r" is the
LAI-2019416vl	42
 
Express Mail No. EV301124923	Patent
728256-100247
radius of the parabolic profile normal to the axis of the
reflector, "f" is the distance between the focus and the
vertex of said parabolic profile set at 0.035 inch, and "z"
is the distance in the reflector axis direction.
5
8.	A lighting device of claim 1, wherein said light
source is an LED lamp.
9.	A lighting device of claim 8, wherein said LED
10  lamp substantially radiates light at an angle of less than
180°.
10.	A lighting device of claim 1 further including a
head assembly coupled to a main housing, wherein said
15  reflector is mounted to said head assembly, wherein said main housing contains said source of energy, and wherein rotating said head assembly relative to said main housing opens or closes an electrical path between said source of energy and said light source.
20
11.	A lighting device of claim 1 further including a
main housing and an electrical circuit, wherein said
LAI-2019416vl	43
 
Express Mail No. EV301124923	Patent
728256-100247
electrical circuit includes a heat sink housing, wherein
said heat sink housing receives said light source and
thermally couples said light source to said main housing.
5      12. A lighting device of claim 11, wherein said heat sink housing electrically couples said light source to said main housing.
13.	A lighting device of claim 1 further including a
10  current modulating circuit coupled to said source of
energy, wherein said current modulating circuit delivers a pulsed current to said light source.
14.	A lighting device of claim 13, wherein said
15  current modulating circuit includes a pulse generator, a
power switch and a temperature responsive resistor, wherein said current modulating circuit delivers a thermally compensated pulsed current to said light source.
20      15. A lighting device of claim 1 further including a current modulating circuit coupled to said source of
LAI-2019416vl	44
 
Express Mail No. EV301124923	Patent
728256-100247
energy, wherein said current modulating circuit delivers a thermally compensated current to said light source.
16.	A lighting device of claim 1 further including
5  means for delivering a thermally compensated pulsed current signal to said light source.
17.	A lighting device of claim 1 further including a
tail cap, a main housing and an energy source assembly,
0  wherein said tail cap attaches to said main housing, wherein said main housing receives said energy source assembly, wherein said energy source assembly receives said source of energy and electrically couples said source of energy to said main housing without conducting electricity
5  through said tail cap.
18.	A flashlight comprising:
a portable source of energy; an LED lamp that substantially radiates light 0  spherically over an angle less than 180° coupled to the portable source of energy; and
LAI-2019416vl	45
 
Express Mail No. EV301124923	Patent
728256-100247
a parabolic reflector that reflects light
radiated by said LED lamp, said reflector including a first
open end, a second open end and an axis extending between
said ends, wherein the focus of said parabolic reflector is
5  not located between said first open end and said second
open end, wherein the focal length is between .020-.050
inch.
19.	A flashlight of claim 18, wherein said reflector
10  is movable in a direction parallel to the principal axis of
said parabolic reflector.
20.	A flashlight comprising:
a portable source of power;
15	a light source coupled to said portable source of
power including an LED and a lens, wherein said lens is arranged over the LED such that light substantially radiates from said light source at an angle less than 180° relative to the LED position; and
20	a movable parabola shaped reflector for
reflecting light radiating from said light source including a first open end, a second open end, and a parabolic
LAI-2019416vl	46
 
Express Mail No. EV301124923	Patent
728256-100247
profile extending between the first open end and the second
open end, wherein the focus of the parabola is located
outside the parabolic profile.
5      21. A flashlight of claim 20, wherein the reflector is movable in a direction parallel to the principal axis of the parabola.
22.	A flashlight of claim 20 further including a heat
0  sink thermally coupled to said light source.
23.	A flashlight comprising:
a source of energy;
a light source coupled to said source of energy;
5	a reflector for reflecting light from said light
source including a first open end, a second open end, and a parabolic profile extending between said first open end and said second open end, said first open end adapted to emit a light beam, wherein the focus of said parabolic profile is
0  not located between the first open end and the second open end; and
 
LAI-2019416vl
 
47
 
Express Mail No. EV301124923	Patent
728256-100247
a current modulating circuit coupled to said
light source, wherein said current modulating circuit
delivers a pulsed current to said light source.
5      24. A flashlight of claim 23, wherein said current modulating circuit includes pulse generator and a power switch.
25.	A flashlight of claim 24, wherein said pulse
10  generator includes a comparator.
26.	A flashlight of claim 24, wherein said power
switch is a transistor.
15      27. A flashlight of claim 23, wherein said current modulating circuit modulates said pulsed current according to heat generated by said light source.
28. A flashlight of claim 23, wherein said current 20  modulating circuit adjusts the duty cycle of said pulsed signal depending on the temperature of said light source.
 
LAI-2019416vl
 
48
 
Express Mail No. EV301124923	Patent
728256-100247
29.	A flashlight of claim 23, wherein said current
modulating circuit includes a temperature responsive
resistor that detects the heat generated by said light
source.
5
30.	A flashlight of claim 29, wherein said
temperature responsive resistor is a thermistor.
31.	A flashlight comprising:
0	a portable source of energy;
an LED lamp that substantially radiates light spherically over an angle less than 180° coupled to said portable source of energy; and
a reflector that reflects light radiated by said
5  LED lamp including a first open end, a second open end, and a parabolic profile extending between said first open end and said second open end, said parabolic profile conforming to a profile according to the equation r2 = 4fz, wherein "r" is the radius of the parabolic profile normal to the axis
0  of the reflector, "f" is the distance between the focal point and the vertex of said parabolic profile set at
 
LAI-2019416vl
 
49
 
Express Mail No. EV301124923	Patent
728256-100247
between 0.020-0.050 inch, and "z" is the distance in the
reflector axis direction;
wherein said first open end has a diameter larger
than said second open end, wherein said second open end has
5  a diameter between 0.20-0.30 inch.
32.	A lighting device of claim 31, wherein said first
open end is larger than said second end, wherein the ratio
between the distance of the second end from the vertex of
0  said parabolic profile and the distance of the focus from the vertex of said parabolic profile is greater than 1.5:1.
33.	A flashlight of claim 31, wherein said first end
has a diameter of 0.70-0.80 inch.
5
34.	A flashlight comprising:
a portable source of energy;
an LED lamp including a first lead and a second
lead; and
0	an electrical circuit including a heat sink
housing that electrically couples said first lead and said portable source of energy, wherein said heat sink housing
LAI-2019416vl	50
 
Express Mail No. EV301124923	Patent
728256-100247
is thermally coupled to said LED lamp to substantially dissipate heat generated therefrom.
35.	A flashlight of claim 34 further including a main
5  housing adapted to contain said portable source of energy,
wherein said heat sink housing is thermally coupled to said main housing.
36.	An energy source assembly comprising:
0      a plurality of energy sources; and
a housing adapted to receive said plurality of energy sources, said housing including a plurality of conductors, a first electrode, a second electrode and an outer feature; wherein said plurality of conductors are selectively
5  disposed to electrically couple said plurality of energy sources in an electrical circuit arrangement, wherein said electrical circuit arrangement includes a first terminal and a second terminal, wherein said first terminal is coupled to said first electrode, wherein said second
0 terminal is coupled to said second electrode, and wherein said second electrode is disposed about the outer feature of said housing.
LAI-2019416vl	51
 
Express Mail No. EV301124923	Patent
728256-100247
37. An energy source assembly of claim 36, wherein said housing includes receptacles arranged to hold said plurality of energy sources in a side-by-side arrangement.
5      38. An energy source assembly of claim 37, wherein said plurality of energy sources is a plurality of batteries.
39.	An energy source assembly of claim 36, wherein
0  said electrical circuit arrangement is a series circuit.
40.	An energy source assembly of claim 36, wherein
said electrical circuit arrangement is a parallel circuit.
5      41. An energy source assembly of claim 36, wherein said plurality of energy sources is a plurality of batteries.
42.  A lighting device comprising: 0      an energy source assembly including a plurality of energy sources and a housing, said housing adapted to receive said plurality of energy sources, said housing
LAI-2019416vl	52
 
Express Mail No. EV301124923	Patent
728256-100247
having a plurality of conductors, a first electrode, a
second electrode and an outer feature, wherein said
plurality of conductors are selectively disposed to
electrically couple said plurality of energy sources in an
5  electrical circuit arrangement, wherein said electrical
circuit arrangement includes a first terminal and a second
terminal, wherein said first terminal is coupled to said
first electrode, wherein said second terminal is coupled to
said second electrode, and wherein said second electrode is
10  disposed about the outer feature of said housing;
a light source coupled to said plurality of energy
sources; and
a barrel configured to receive said energy source
assembly, wherein said barrel is suitable to conduct
15  electricity;
wherein said second electrode of said energy source
assembly electrically contacts said barrel.
43.  A lighting device of claim 42, wherein said 20  barrel includes an inner feature that generally corresponds to said outer feature of said energy source assembly,
 
LAI-2019416vl
 
53
 
Express Mail No. EV301124923	Patent
728256-100247
wherein said second electrode of said energy source assembly frictionally engages to said inner feature.
44.	A lighting device of claim 42 further including a
5  reflector that reflects light generated by said light
source, said reflector having a first open end, a second end, and a parabolic profile extending between said first open end and said second end, wherein the focal point of said parabolic profile is located outside said parabolic 10  profile.
45.	A lighting device of claim 42, wherein said
housing of said energy source assembly includes receptacles
arranged to* hold said plurality of energy sources in a
15  side-by-side arrangement.
46.	A lighting device of claim 42, wherein said
electrical circuit arrangement of said energy source
assembly is a series circuit.
 
LAI-2019416vl
 
54
 
Express Mail No. EV301124923	Patent
728256-100247
47. A lighting device of claim 42, wherein said electrical circuit arrangement of said energy source assembly is a parallel circuit.
5      48. A lighting device of claim 42, wherein said plurality of energy sources is a plurality of batteries.
49.	A lighting device comprising:
a source of energy;
0      a light source coupled to said source of energy;
a temperature responsive resistor disposed to detect the temperature of said light source;
a current modulating circuit coupled to said temperature responsive resistor, wherein said current 5  modulating circuit delivers a thermally compensated pulsed current to said light source.
50.	A lighting device of claim 49, wherein the pulsed
current is thermally compensated by adjusting the duty
0  cycle of the pulsed current based on the temperature of said light source detected by said temperature responsive resistor.
 
LAl-2019416vl
 
55
 
Express Mail No. EV301124923	Patent
728256-100247
51.	A lighting device of claim 50, wherein the duty
cycle of the pulsed current reduces if the temperature of
said light source increases.
5
52.	A lighting device of claim 50, wherein the duty
cycle of the pulsed current increases if the temperature of
the light source decreases.
10      53. A lighting device of claim 50, wherein said light source is an LED.
54.	A lighting device of claim 49, wherein said
temperature responsive resistor is a thermistor.
15
55.	A lighting device of claim 49 further including a
diode electrically coupled to said current modulating
circuit, wherein said diode prevents current flow should
said source of energy be reversely installed.
 
LAI-2019416vl
 
56
```


----------



## brightnorm (Mar 2, 2006)

Focusing LED light

http://www.brightguy.com/detail_int.php?Sku=UND14501

Brightnorm


----------



## Templar223 (Mar 2, 2006)

*Challenging Mag's patent application: A suggested method to join together*

Seems to me, as a newbie apprentice to this forum, but a skilled journeyman in life, here's what I'd suggest if you folks are serious.

1. Find two to four (or more) of the grand masters of the flashlight world to draft up a document to be filed to rebut the claims made in the Mag patent application form. Invite to-be-affected manufacturers into the process (perhaps you can incorporate them into proposed step 2 below). Put this together in say, two weeks.

2. Post a draft and let the lesser mortals take a look and see if they can add any materials, documents, etc. CPF MODS: Give this post a sticky. We've all read about the exploding 123 flashlight for far too long at the top of every page. Leave this proposed challenge to the patent, for lack of a better word, up for two weeks to solicit input.

3. The document goes back to the grand masters for tweaking and incorporation of the best of the suggestions from us everyday folks (and manufacturers who wish to submit info).

4. Solicit paypal donations for the $180. Probably would come several times over. If so, submit similar challenges under several names with the extra monies, using the best arguments and documents in the first submission, and perhaps some of the ancillary stuff in subsequent filings.

5. File the challenge in the first week or two of April, via registered mail, return receipt requested.

That's what I'd propose. In fact, I think I'll start a thread with this proposal so those not wading five and a half pages into this complex thread will see it.

That's my .02.

John


----------



## carrot (Mar 2, 2006)

*Re: Challenging Mag's patent application: A suggested method to join together*

Jon and a few others are already working on it.


----------



## CM (Mar 2, 2006)

*Re: Challenging Mag's patent application: A suggested method to join together*



Templar223 said:


> ...to rebut the claims made in the Mag patent application form. ...



Which patent application form, and why? Not making any judgements either way but what's the intended purpose? Lastly, I hope they're not trying to patent the use of LED's in torches 

EDITED: Never mind, found it. Granting this patent exemplifies everything that is wrong with the USPTO today


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 2, 2006)

*Re: Challenging Mag's patent application: A suggested method to join together*

I am all for anyone wanting to step forward and organizing this.


----------



## greenLED (Mar 2, 2006)

We're working on it, Templar 

We'll need lots of help from people digging examples of lights that already use the features Mag has "invented" and filed as part of this patent application.


----------



## Henry Bowman (Mar 2, 2006)

Hello all. :wave: I'm the gear head patent attorney that Jon spoke to today. There is way too much to address here and I'm a slow typist, but I sure I'll be talking to Jon again.


Two things to keep in mind: 1) A $180 fee is nothing in this business. The filing fee for a patent application is $1,000 ($500 for small entities). I'd guess Mag spent many thousands of dollars on filing that application. It is long and has a lot of claims. My rate is $290/hour. On either coast, the rate is easily twice that. :devil: I only say this to point out that patents (and fighting them) are expensive. There's no way around that.

2) Instead of filing a protest, consider carefully and credibly documenting your prior art in the form of published documents. If you submit them to the inventor or the patent attorney of record, they have a duty to bring them to the attention of the PTO. If they don't, they risk that their patent will be unenforceable for "inequitable conduct." They can attempt to explain why the evidence does not make the claims unpatentable. (Remember that a new combination of known parts can be patentable.)



This is very interesting to me. I am more of a shooter than a -- what do you call yourselves?-- flasher. But I'm intrigued to discover this new world just as I was thinking that I need a better flashlight. 

Enough for my first post.


----------



## Mike Painter (Mar 2, 2006)

*Re: Challenging Mag's patent application: A suggested method to join together*



carrot said:


> Jon and a few others are already working on it.


be sure that one at least one of you is either an attorney or rich.
They will be willing to throw money at defending their claims and you must be willing to throw back.
A friend of mine invented a way of laminating honeycomb for use in airplace construction and did rather well for a few years until a rival company came out with essentially a copy of his patented machine.
His attorney wanted $10,000.00 to start. To give you an idea this was years before I bought my first home and my first 3 bedroom home cost me $16,000.00.


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 2, 2006)

just have a question...I am guessing it is other costs that push the patent process to where they can reach 16,000.00? Perhaps being a global patent make one much more expensive?

Oh, and welcome to CPF...the world of Flashaholics. You will find a large number of shooters hear.


----------



## greenLED (Mar 2, 2006)

*Re: Challenging Mag's patent application: A suggested method to join together*



CM said:


> Lastly, I hope they're not trying to patent the use of LED's in torches



Unfortunately, that's exactly what the seem to be trying to do (the whole thread and the actual patent application is a good read) - thus all the fuss.


----------



## Empath (Mar 2, 2006)

*Re: Challenging Mag's patent application: A suggested method to join together*



Templar223 said:


> CPF MODS: Give this post a sticky.



No. This isn't a CPF thing. It involves something a measure of CPF members would support, but also involves a position not shared by everyone.



> .....submit similar challenges under several names with the extra monies...



Now why would I not want a part of such tactics?

We don't need two threads about this running concurrently. We'll merge the two.


----------



## greenLED (Mar 2, 2006)

oops, wrong thread - content removed
that's what happens when you have more than one tab open. :nana:


----------



## greenLED (Mar 2, 2006)

Empath said:


> Although it's hardly discernible by the prominent position given to the thread, CPF is used by a large variety on individuals, many of which don't buy into the hate-Mag mentality projected by this thread. The thread itself is of such a hostile environment that those that do like Maglites, wouldn't dare step a foot inside. They figure you'd tear 'em to shreds. So, I have. I figure I can take whatever "the mob" dishes out.
> ...
> 
> Just for the record, I am speaking on a personal level. If some moderators and administrators could speak their piece on a conflict that had far more damaging potential in the past, I figure I can speak my piece in the Pro-Mag/Anti-Mag situation.



Empath- replying to your "personal level" comment here, so I ask you kindly to step aside from the moderating role when considering my reply.

I like Mags, I have for a long time. I use them all the time and you'll see my comments supporting their products here and there and everywhere on CPF. Have you read the patent application? See my post outlining some of the language and intent that's in the document. We're not making things up. They're using such broad language and generic definitions, that the patent has the potential to encompass a large proportion of Luxeon-based flashlight designs - past, present and future. 

This isn't about fighting against Maglite or badmouthing their practices. It's about protecting the spirit of innovation of everyone involved in the flashlight hobby. At least that's where I'm coming from.



nikon said:


> The insinuation is that they are the first to utilize a reflector.


Which is not accurate. Or is it? :nana:


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 2, 2006)

I did not see where someone suggested making many submissions under several names...that does sound unethical.


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 2, 2006)

Welcome Henry Bowman, 

He is one of the patent lawyers I have chatted with recently.
I found him by a recomendation sent to me by a fine forum that most of you know well.


----------



## lasercrazy (Mar 2, 2006)

:sad: Honestly, even though the mag led will make luxeon lights well known it might have been better if mag never made them.


----------



## CM (Mar 2, 2006)

It appears that some aspects of their application is easily shown to be prior art. And those that implemented said prior art would have a vested interest in challenging the claims. Would not it be more appropriate that those (most have sufficient financial resources) companies be the ones to make the challenges? We (CPF'ers) have a lot less at stake than the bigger names whose business is making flashlights. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking we (CPF'ers) can prevail in this thing by having everyone send Henry Bowman paypal.


----------



## Lunal_Tic (Mar 2, 2006)

CM said:


> It appears that some aspects of their application is easily shown to be prior art. And those that implemented said prior art would have a vested interest in challenging the claims. Would not it be more appropriate that those (most have sufficient financial resources) companies be the ones to make the challenges? We (CPF'ers) have a lot less at stake than the bigger names whose business is making flashlights. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking we (CPF'ers) can prevail in this thing by having everyone send Henry Bowman paypal.



CM,

It wouldn't surprise me to find out that most major manufactures already have an uneasy agreement with Mag. The sheer financial muscle and predisposition to use it in litigation makes Mag quite formidable. Remember even Pelican changed the M6 to non focusing and they aren't an Arc/Litepro sized company. There are other makers that have made changes to products or just ceased operations rather than fight Mag.

Even if it is a righteous fight it is one that can severely damage or kill a competing manufacturer. For most companies I'd imagine doing business not litigating is the prime interest.

-LT


----------



## woodfluter (Mar 2, 2006)

I am glad that a knowledgable lawyer has shed some light on the process. That makes it appear substantially more fair than the version presented by the representative of the US Patent Office! But then, he wasn't being paid to provide helpful information, rather to dismiss questions with a minimum of fuss and bother.

To those who think that *anyone* who had several million dollars at stake would offer up the broadest possible patent claim and let the USPO sort it out: this is flatly unethical. If you were in a divorce proceeding, your lawyer might suggest that you make the broadest possible claim to joint property. Would you do it just because he wanted you to and influenced by the total amount at stake? Or would fairness enter into your claim? For some of us, this sort of behavior is one very tiny step away from theft, no matter how common.

To those who think this thread engages in Mag-bashing: no, it is disapproval of a regretably ordinary business practice and a system that is broken. If the system acts fairly 80% of the time, it is still broken.

To those who think criticism is an attack on the principle of protecting intellectual property rights: you have totally missed the point. Protecting what you created is entirely different from protecting what you have stolen.

At present, money speaks louder than facts. This often acts in favor of those with power, but surprisingly it can work the other way. Large businesses sometimes settle with plaintifs having weak cases rather than dealing with many repetitive individual complaints of a technical nature, uninformed juries, negative publicity. As I said, the system is not just imperfect but, in my view, seriously flawed.

In the early 1920's, John Dopyera invented and patented something entirely new - a resonator guitar. It used spun aluminum speaker-like cones to amplify the sound rather than the top of a wooden guitar body. His patent explictly stated that, while the illustration showed three cones connected to a guitar bridge (and even a long series of cones for harp amplification), the patent would also apply to one or two or any number of cones. Not unfairly broad I think. Due to conflicts, he quit the very successful company he founded and his principal partner, George Beauchamp, later patented a single-cone guitar. It utilized exactly the same amplification system, just employing one cone. Although Doperya held the original patent, he didn't have the resources to fight Beauchamp's patent which went through and prevented him from manufacturing anything of a similar nature. So he turned the cone around the other way and voila, invented the Dobro.

A. P. Carter (of Carter Family fame) copyrighted many, many traditional tunes and songs. Since nobody else had laid claim to them, they went through unopposed and he (plus his heirs and assigns) collected royalties from the creative efforts of generations of traditional musicians. Is this different because it is copyright and not patent? I think not, because it is governed by similar bureaucracies and comparable views about intellectual property.

I have read the patent all the way through briefly, and I would agree that it makes claims that are patently (pun intended) untrue and overly broad. There is nothing wrong with drawing their attention to this, courteously, and attempting to prompt them to amend it. If they fail to do so, the costs of filing a complaint might be consolidated and shared by those with a business interest. Just a thought.

- Bill


----------



## Monolith (Mar 2, 2006)

Henry Bowman said:


> 2) Instead of filing a protest, consider carefully and credibly documenting your prior art in the form of published documents. If you submit them to the inventor or the patent attorney of record, they have a duty to bring them to the attention of the PTO. If they don't, they risk that their patent will be unenforceable for "inequitable conduct." They can attempt to explain why the evidence does not make the claims unpatentable. (Remember that a new combination of known parts can be patentable.)


A protest can't be filed at this time. The patent has already published. They are wanting to do a 3rd party submission which requires that the Applicant be notified anyway (and they still get charged $180) plus no commentary is allowed and documents are limited to 10. Shipping it all off to Jones Day seems the best route.


----------



## PJ (Mar 2, 2006)

I have been reading this thread and have printed out the patent documents, trying to plow through them. From my uninformed eye it looks like any possible variation of an LED based photon emitting device is covered by this patent.

I just wonder what kind of political muscle [email protected] might be able to throw behind getting this patent approved. IIRC [email protected] just spent 50 million dollars on a new factory in California. Getting a few politicians to put in a word down at the patent office may make this more of an uphill battle for the smaller manufacturers and distributors. It may have been decided already, the patent application was just a formality. 

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get me! 

Edit: Here is a quote from a press release on their website about the new factory:



> ONTARIO, Calif., August 25, 2004 – Mag Instrument, Inc., maker of Maglite® flashlights, the world’s leading premium flashlights, today announced plans to build a 700,000-square-foot manufacturing facility on a 30 acre parcel in Ontario that will consolidate more than 800 jobs, create 1,600 new jobs and generate more than $1 billion per year in economic stimulus.


----------



## Empath (Mar 2, 2006)

Green, I have a bit of difficulty in claims of "liking" Mag, when you post comments like this. It's straight from left field, an unsubstantiated rumor, and under most circumstances is designed as most of the commentary in this thread to bring an emotional fit of disgust regarding them.

I don't buy into the paranoia of the anti-Mag crowd, that has no idea in the world of what transpired, particularly with the introduction of smaller aluminum lights by Mag. Streamlight, Brinkmann, and importers tried bombarding the market with copies. Brinkmann even went as far as to call theirs minimags, as if it was a generic name. The flashlight community seemed to be of the same mentality, that flashlights were prior-art and could be made anyway they wanted.

Mag could have adopted the same attitude, and let everyone else profit from their work, and likely have been just another player in the flashlight business. Mag didn't go for it. The litigation you see listed on their sites lists their successful litigation, both domestic and abroad. I don't try second guessing the juries that awarded Mag damages. The juries heard much more of the argument than we, and made their decisions. The fact is, those other companies thought they had a right, under "prior-art", to produce the same flashlights, because they made the mistake of considering function to be prior-art. The litigation forced some, like Brinkmann and Streamlight to produce something else, and the innovation, instead of copying, has been a bonus for us.

The legal activity not listed on Mag's site too, is used as a reason for the Mag-bashing mentality. A favorite manufacture is threatened with a suit, and friends of the manufacturer start gathering 'round, to support and develop an emotional basis for not even seeing the trademark infringements, with comments about how the light could be easily distinguished from a Mag, whether the manufacture had used Mag's trademark or not. Hmm.... Burger King's burgers are easily distinguished from a McDonalds, but, let 'em brand an image of the golden arches on top of the bun, and watch out. Other reports of threatened litigation is just that; reports or rumors. Even what we've heard of seem to be lacking in details. There too, many rush to their defense with "it doesn't look anything like a Mag. Bison flashlights didn't look anything like a Mag either, but a jury hearing the evidence decided there was patent infringement.

The patent applications, as you say, are broad, and generic in appearance. To you that's a concern. To me, it's a matter of "nothing to go on". Broad definition doesn't give me anything to hook a "prior-art" claim on, since I've no idea of the unique manner in which the function is achieved. I can't attach a prior-art definition to a function. I need a method, a design, and an analysis of how the function is achieved. As the attorney guy said, "a new combination of known parts can be patentable."

It is entirely reasonable, and prudent, that the manufacturers at risk monitor the case closely. It is their responsibility to vigorously defend their IP. It's also necessary that they envision a lot of "what ifs". But, the wrong approach too early can work against them. We as consumers can protect ourselves by acting on every "what if" scenario we can imagine...... or can we?

Finding a corporation worthy of defending is likely more difficult that the proverbial "seeking one honest man". I can't defend Mag. I also can't defend Surefire, Streamlight, nor nearly any other "bottom-line" obsessed entity. But I also don't have to get caught up in corporate wars either. I can appreciate some things about Mag, and some can irritate me. I can appreciate that they are as near 100% American as a US company can get, providing real jobs and creating a true resource, as contrasted to the other "US flashlight manufacturers" that do little more than serve as importers and bookkeeping services for their oversees workers.


----------



## Manzerick (Mar 2, 2006)

just like facial tissue is kleenex to everyone


----------



## pcmike (Mar 3, 2006)

It's just my humble opinion, but Empath.. I don't think you "get it." Maybe you should reconsider the larger picture and realize that broad sweeping claims in patents opens up pandora's box when it comes to future lawsuits (whether they are founded or unfounded). It's always best to get LARGE companies to focus their claims so as not to step on the small guys (builders here whose only source of income is from flashlights). Mag-Lite has some really good claims in their patent that are really specific and then they have some really broad claims. No one is talking trash about their specific claims in which they describe things in minute detail (such as the equation used to create the reflector), but people are VERY concerned with BROAD, SWEEPING claims. Every US citizen who happens to make use of something that is prior art and in the public domain has every right to point it out to the US patent office when it shows up in a LARGE corporation's patent application.. to NOT to so is SILLY.

Why is it that you can't seem to see this issue from this particular angle? Please do explain!


----------



## pcmike (Mar 3, 2006)

Documents aren't limited to 10. What is limited to 10 is you submitting documentation on 10 different patents that contain claims you disagree with. Meaning for your $180 you can only contest 10 pending applications. You're also not allowed to explain the patents, just cite prior art.  



Monolith said:


> A protest can't be filed at this time. The patent has already published. They are wanting to do a 3rd party submission which requires that the Applicant be notified anyway (and they still get charged $180) plus no commentary is allowed and documents are limited to 10. Shipping it all off to Jones Day seems the best route.


----------



## beezaur (Mar 3, 2006)

pcmike said:


> No one is talking trash about their specific claims in which they describe things in minute detail (such as the equation used to create the reflector) /. . .



I skimmed that and found it of articular interest. Maybe this is off base, but my first impression was that they are using a strange mathematical formulation to make it seem like they have come up with something new and unique, complete with the mathematics to prove it. But they are just describing a parabola (actually a paraboloid), something known for hundreds of years.

The equation used to create the reflector is the same as that which describes any other parabolic surface. I will dig through my freshman math book if anyone is interested, but there is absolutely nothing unique about the equation

r^2 = 4 f z.

So, are they trying to patent parabolic reflectors by obfuscation, or is that just an incidental description which is not part of what they are trying to patent?

Actually I find it difficult to believe that someone would try to patent a parabola.

Scott

P.S. Ok, I'm a retard. They seem to be trying to patent a specific class of deep-profile parabolic reflectors defined in 0077. Too late at night.


----------



## MadMag (Mar 3, 2006)

Just a comment about broad claims in patents in general. 

I worked at two large companies and was involved with submitting patents for machine designs. And I can tell you that we did try to make good detail work, and to make sure that we passed the prior art test, but we also added a lot of broad descripiton. Give us a chance and we would claim that we invented the screw driver used to adjust our machine. We then submitted to our internal patent lawyers. They would pare down some of the far out claims, but still it would be heavy with broad claims. No big penality. And if it passes...OK. All of our competitors did the same thing. For me, I am not shocked to see that someone claims to have invented the light beam. Not saying anything about Mags legal ability to maybe overpower other companies...just saying that broad claims in patents are nothing new.


----------



## NewBie (Mar 3, 2006)

IMHO, it is far lower cost to take down a patent up front, then it is, once it is blessed by the PTO.

A large company can easily tie a small company up, and bankrupt them, even though the large company may be quite wrong.

There is nothing at all wrong with challenging claims, it is part of the system. I *[size=+1] *highly* [/size]* recommend that folks take advantage of this portion of the American Patent process.

The wonderful thing, is that we have a forum of experienced folks here, and together folks can help make sure the system isn't abused. Often the PTO grants patents, where there really shouldn't be one, and then everything is left up to the courts. If folks don't take advantage of the challenge period, then they are not taking advantage of the process.

Luckily someone noticed, before this one flew in under the RADAR. It happens quite often, unfortunately.

You have no idea of how much stuff gets patents awarded, which are immediately obvious to someone skilled in the art, which shouldn't be patented in the first place. However, imho, often the PTO folks aren't all that familiar with the state of the art in a given field.

I did a test on one patent nearly 10 years ago. I asked 5 engineers how they would go about doing something specific. 4 out of the 5 came up with what was in the patent, two pointing out examples of previous art.


----------



## Monolith (Mar 3, 2006)

Good luck.


----------



## enLIGHTenment (Mar 3, 2006)

The *only* purposes of the modern patent system are to suppress disruptive technologies and prevent new firms from entering protected markets. USPTO will pass this, regardless of protest, because providing established firms the tools to crush upstart competition is the only role the USPTO currently serves.


----------



## juslearnin (Mar 3, 2006)

I know little about the business end of the flashlight world, but it seems that surefire would be the company most likely to have the resources to challenge something like this. Perhaps someone with connections could hook up the minds on cpf with the $ and lawyers that surefire could probably afford. Does anyone else know of a larger corporation which could participate? (dorcy?, streamlight?). The collective knowledge here of technology would likely make a much stronger case in the most cost effective way and would benefit surefire. A unified approach seems more likely to succeed.


----------



## NickelPlate (Mar 3, 2006)

beezaur said:


> Actually I find it difficult to believe that someone would try to patent a parabola.



Companies will try to patent anything. Years ago Microsoft tried wanted to patent the "double-click". No idea what happened there.

Regards,

Dave


----------



## beezaur (Mar 3, 2006)

It looks like there is a chance that the specific parabola they want has already been used my McGizmo in the A19 and maybe the PD -- in a nutshell a deep reflector 0.7-0.8" at the front. I can't measure the back.

Scott


----------



## Mark2 (Mar 3, 2006)

I've notified PentagonLight yesterday.


----------



## Donovan (Mar 3, 2006)

WAVE_PARTICLE said:


> Guys, I fail to understand what the big problem is. Patents are necessary for innovation. Research and development doesn't come cheap.... Now, with respect to MAG's patent application, ....granted there are also items in their filing that aren't patentable. But I understand MAG's position..... it's better to over-do your application than to under-do.... Don't hate MAG for doing what they should be doing.....



The big problem is Mag has EARNED a reputation for not innovating but LITIGATING. They have a LONG history of ABUSING the system. And using a large well funded legal team to bully smaller manufacturers, especially American ones. This has ultimately resulted in less innovation not more. It is this habitual abuse of legal power that is troubling everyone. Based on their history the fear is that they will once again use legal shenanigans to hurt competition instead of competing on the merits of their products...


----------



## Rothrandir (Mar 3, 2006)

Donovan said:


> The big problem is Mag has EARNED a reputation for not innovating but LITIGATING. They have a LONG history of ABUSING the system. And using a large well funded legal team to bully smaller manufacturers, especially American ones. This has ultimately resulted in less innovation not more. It is this habitual abuse of legal power that is troubling everyone. Based on their history the fear is that they will once again use legal shenanigans to hurt competition instead of competing on the merits of their products...



:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:


----------



## Donovan (Mar 4, 2006)

And just to add a bit more, this is not Mag bashing. I like Mag-Lites, I have many of them and I enjoy modding them as well. I have no problem with them trying to stop someone from making an obvious clone. I do have a problem with them abusing this protection. When you spend much more on your legal team than your R&D then something’s amiss!!!!

It's that if you look at the big picture, Mag-Lites could be so much better! It is my honest belief that if Mag-Lite wasn't able to rely so much on their powerful legal team, then they would have continued to innovate, change and evolve their products into something much better then what they have now. (And sadly you can say the same thing about SO MANY other companies as well). They would have had to, to stay competitive. That’s the true spirit of competition!

It's sad that so many companies when they reach a certain level or market share stop competing on the merits of their products. They start spending the majority of their money on marketing, lobbying, legal teams etc. anything and everything but the actual product or R&D!


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 4, 2006)

Donavan>Two very good posts. I do think marketing expence is a needed thing just to make people aware of the product but it does go to far at times especially when exagerated claims appear.

Again...very good posts.


----------



## Donovan (Mar 4, 2006)

.


----------



## WAVE_PARTICLE (Mar 4, 2006)

Donovan,


To me, that sounds like MAG-bashing. Perhaps you're not bashing their products, but you are definately letting loose on the corporation. Anyways, the beauty of the patent system is that there is an infrastructure in place that allows for the patent application to be challenged when there's merit.

You think MAG is bad in terms of litigation? Then you've never seen what the pharmaceutical industry is like. The amount of dollars spent on legal costs is enough to buy small countries. It is absolutely staggering and appauling. But necessary. I know, because I used to be in this world. And I can guarantee you this: if it weren't for the patent system, all drug development will grind to a complete halt. Period. What company will want to spend 10 years and billions of dollars developing a drug that will be reverse engineered and sold to the streets at a fraction of the price in a matter of months?

MAG is doing what it should be doing. And, when there's justification, the rest of us should be doing what we should be doing.... and that is to challenge the merits of the patent application. Which is what it seems like we're headed.

Don't think I'm pro-MAG, because quite frankly, I don't give a rats bum-bum about them.... I don't own MAG products and I don't plan to own MAG products. But I am pro-PATENTS, because I firmly believe that this system has advanced innovation..... not the opposite. It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing.





WP


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 4, 2006)

I am very pro-patent and I worked in the for a major drug manufacturer. We didn't patent this broadly.


----------



## Navck (Mar 5, 2006)

Jon, any status of whats going on?


----------



## McGizmo (Mar 5, 2006)

Divide and conquer. Market share may be earned, won or taken. In off the record or casual conversation with some folks in the industry, I have sensed a fear of Mag that is similar to the fear one may have of a bully who can make live untennable for anyone of the comunity they choose to focus on. Are the records of the various lawsuits Mag has initiated available and open to the public? Do we know what the nature of infringement was and the details of compensation and resolution? Can a stipulation on settlement be confidentiality? :shrug:

Patents are constructed in a form of english and grammer that I simply can not comprehend on the level required. I bought some software called PatentWizard a few years ago and filled in the blanks for a boilerplate provisional patent that was generated from my input. There was a strange redundancy and construction of my information that had me thinking the software was broken! :green:

I haven't bothered to try to comprehend the patent application here in question but I gather from comments that there is little if any substance of unique, novel or revolutionary nature in construction or design of a LED based flashlight. From comments made, it would seem that a combination of prior art as well as consideration of one familiar with the art would preclude the granting of most if not all claims within the application. Are the authors of this application unaware of the state of the art? Do they care? What is the motivation and intent of this application? 

Has Mag discovered a new water hole through exploration or have they decided to take over an existing one, engineered and developed by others; using might, intimidation and predation for the takeover? My gut tells me the latter but what do I know,


----------



## greenLED (Mar 5, 2006)

Empath said:


> Green, I have a bit of difficulty in claims of "liking" Mag, when you post comments like this. It's straight from left field, an unsubstantiated rumor, and under most circumstances is designed as most of the commentary in this thread to bring an emotional fit of disgust regarding them.



I had my reasons for posting that, and I don't see that comment as coming "from the left field" and being an "unsubstanciated rumor". If people follow the link I posted on the post linked there (here it is again, for people's convenience), you can see where I based it upon. I followed up with DiamondLED, and they informed me that Maglite has already sued twice for their product. I can't quote their PM as per CPF regulations, but I have it sitting in my Inbox. As you can see, I don't readily do "left field" comments, nor I do unsubstanciated rumors.

I have supported, and even "defended", Maglite in the past on CPF. In fact, if you can spare the time, please look at the 2-3 Mag-bashing threads we've had in the past 2 years and look at what I've posted there.

In fact, here's how I started my summary of what I thought were relevant points in their latest application:


greenLED said:


> I was actually surprised at their description of their switch/circuit/heatsink assembly. Seems like a simple, yet elegant solution. There are some neat features.




Empath does bring good points to the discussion, as we need to keep this debate as centered and objective as possible. I try hard to do exactly this; but  and sometimes a little sarcasm does permeate.


----------



## fieldops (Mar 5, 2006)

Thanks for getting the info on Diamond Green. This is just more confirmation of [email protected] policies. They seemed to have developed a policy of competition crushing by lawyers. My new slogan for them is: *"Why do when we can sue"*. Using legal intimidation to destroy competition is unethical at best.


----------



## Empath (Mar 5, 2006)

greenLED said:


> I had my reasons for posting that, and I don't see that comment as coming "from the left field" and being an "unsubstanciated rumor". If people follow the link I posted on the post linked there (here it is again, for people's convenience), you can see where I based it upon. I followed up with DiamondLED, and they informed me that Maglite has already sued twice for their product. I can't quote their PM as per CPF regulations, but I have it sitting in my Inbox. As you can see, I don't readily do "left field" comments, nor I do unsubstanciated rumors.



There's no way I can know what conversations occurred between Diamond and you, but I can see that it's not presented to us as substantial enough to generate such philosophies as *"why do when we can sue"*

The first flag should be "they informed that Maglite has already sued twice". Suits aren't private or held in secrecy. They're settled in public court, and unless of a very minor matter, likely covered by the press when it deals with a company like Mag. There's no mention, if there were lawsuits, of whether Mag won or lost the "lawsuits". If they won, then they had a proper legal argument. If they lost, then by all means let the rest of us know the weaker position Mag is now in.

My guess is that rather than a lawsuit, Mag more likely served them with an order to cease and desist in some manner. Diamond sells a supporting product for Mag products. To allude to, even without intent, show an affiliation or cause confusion that may indicate an affiliation with Mag would certainly raise the hackles of their legal team, as it would with any entity obligated to vigorously defend their trademark or IP.

Consider the link you provided. Diamond posted what appears to be something very much like a press release or advertisement for their product. He said:




> It's about time I said something here in the Candle Power Forums and let you all in on the apparently big secret......
> 
> We've been making KILLER 3 Watt replacement bulbs for Maglite®
> C/D's for 2+ years, and we have been retailing them at only $24.95 USD, half the price of everyone else's 1 Watt replacements. (and you can buy them now, not 6 months from now.......).)



So, what's he saying? Is he saying the big secret is that Diamond is the one making the LED replacements that Mag will be offering? Does his comment bring a "ah ha.... so that's where Mag is getting their lights" from those that might be easily confused? No, that can't be, because at the very end of his post he writes a disclaimer that says:



> Disclaimer: Not affiliated with Mag Instrument Inc, owners of the Maglite® trademark.Mag’s trademarks are used here only to identify the flashlight with which this LED works. This product is not made or endorsed by Mag Instruments, Inc.



It's my guess that he's only saying that Diamond has drop-ins available for Mag lights. Still, it's not written well enough to avoid confusion.

It's really wise that the disclaimer was included, as was the addition of the ® symbol following Mag's name, considering the format and nature of his post. However, once someone get's to a part of a writing that they think supports what they want to believe, then it doesn't make much difference what else it says.

So, should Mag's legal team see the post, what would be their reaction? Would they wonder if he was trying to make it appear that they were somehow associated with the new replacement lamps they'll be offering?

Those in business have to give extreme attention to the legal impact of everything they make, and the way it's presented to the market. If one has a tendency to present things in a less than clear manner, especially involving a support product, or if they fail to research any potential trademark or patent infringement or potential confusion regarding them, then it could become a very expensive lesson.

Diamond may have had some legal difficulties with Mag, but I seriously doubt that it had anything to do with a claim by Mag claiming rights to the idea of a drop-in PR based LED. But then, maybe they did. I can't say.... all you've given me are rumors. I've no inclination to build a campaign based on rumors.


----------



## xochi (Mar 5, 2006)

Sounds like some formal unification of flashlight manufacturers agains mag would be in order. Opression typically unites the opressed and mag might stop such bullying tactics if there was some kind of common legal force supported by the rest of the industry.


----------



## beezaur (Mar 5, 2006)

Empath said:


> Suits aren't private or held in secrecy. They're settled in public court, and unless of a very minor matter, likely covered by the press when it deals with a company like Mag. There's no mention, if there were lawsuits, of whether Mag won or lost the "lawsuits". If they won, then they had a proper legal argument. If they lost, then by all means let the rest of us know the weaker position Mag is now in.. . . .



Two problems:

1) lawsuits are very frequently settled by private, confidential negotiations, and the press often does not care. When I very first started volunteering with a fire department, I lived with my Grandmother to attend community college. She always read the "Sirens" section in the newspaper, to read about who got arrested, smashed, or killed. I never understood the selection of cases -- I had been to much "better" calls that never made the paper.

2) Legal arguments often have nothing to do with the truth. It is mostly about putting on a show and giving the appearance of a "proper legal argument." In my experience the attorneys on both sides do this. The bottom line is convincing the judge or jury. Once it goes to trial, the truth takes a back seat to a structured argument and presentation of that argument.

Scott


----------



## pcmike (Mar 5, 2006)

:huh2: 

I don't know Empath, you seem to "not be getting it" again.. the part of Diamond's post that you quoted, which was:

"We've been making KILLER 3 Watt replacement bulbs for Maglite®
C/D's for 2+ years, and we have been retailing them at only $24.95 USD, half the price of everyone else's 1 Watt replacements. (and you can buy them now, not 6 months from now.......).)"

is quite clear to me and probably anyone else who reads it. He clearly states that Diamond LED has been making *KILLER REPLACEMENT BULBS FOR MAGLITE C/D CELL FLASHLIGHTS FOR 2+ YEARS*. It doesn't say that he's been making bulbs for Maglite the company. That sentence is FAR FROM being confusing unless you happen to be a Maglite patent lawyer.. (not trying to insinuate that you are or anything). I would love to know how else he should of phrased his statement without starting it off with "We are in no way affiliated with Maglite." Obviously starting out with statements like that in marketing literature sounds more shady then a disclaimer at the bottom! :sweat: 

:thinking:


----------



## greenLED (Mar 5, 2006)

Empath, I was only trying to clarify what I perceived as your confusion regarding my "liking" of Mag comment. I wanted to clarify that becuse I really like Maglite products: their design lines, simple solutions, construction, price range, etc. are appealing to me. I never intended to go beyond that with my previous post. However, I must reiterate:



greenLED said:


> This isn't about fighting against Maglite or badmouthing their practices. It's about protecting the spirit of innovation of everyone involved in the flashlight hobby. At least that's where I'm coming from.



Seeing DiamondLED's post and the PM communication that stemmed from that was what prompted me to post the comment about LED drop-ins, and probably was responsible for the sarcastic tone I used. Part of their PM says "...I've been sued twice by them already..." - that doesn't seem like an equivocal phrase to me. :thinking: 

Enough of that, I think I've explained my position.


Since you decided to dissect DiamondLED's post. Much what you seem to point out about DiamondLED's "promotional tone" may be explained by the thread where it was posted: "Maglite announces 3W LED product at SHOT Show 2006". In that thread people discuss upcoming LED products from Mag. A lot of people expressed their enthusiasm; DiamondLED simply says something like: "what's the fuzz all about?, we've been making Maglite-compatible LED drop-ins for a couple of years."


----------



## flashlite (Mar 5, 2006)

I'm no patent expert but it seems as though we're jumping the gun a little here. It's just not logical that Mag would be patenting every aspect of a LED flashlight. That patent has a filing date of 8/20/04 and a publish date of 2/23/06. I'm not sure which date is relevant but LED flashlights clearly existed many years before that. How could they possibly argue patent infringement when the product existed years before the filing date? If I'm not mistaken, we haven't heard from a patent expert yet. We have heard from a patent attorney but I don't believe he discussed the merits or threats posed by this particular patent. I'm not saying we should just stand by and do nothing but maybe we should see what a patent expert has to say about the patent before drawing any premature conclusions about it.


----------



## fieldops (Mar 5, 2006)

Empath: I take it you are trying to offer the other side in order to keep this thread from becoming too one sided. I respect that, and I also admit that sometimes it is needed. A one sided story can only motivate action in one direction. I can see that. 

I think we need a list of known [email protected] actions against competitors. That will give us a better (but not total) indication of their legal history. Can we get a list? Does anyone have that info?

As far as *"why do when we can sue" *It was not meant to be flippant. It was meant to show a clear trend. Let's take this into account:

1. Number of legal actions taken by [email protected] against competition: TBD but numerous

2. Number of new products [email protected] introduced during the last 20 years? 0

I think this is a reasonable view considering the history.


----------



## Empath (Mar 5, 2006)

PCMike said:


> is quite clear to me and probably anyone else who reads it. He clearly states that Diamond LED has been making KILLER REPLACEMENT BULBS FOR MAGLITE C/D CELL FLASHLIGHTS FOR 2+ YEARS.



You know what he meant, I know what he meant, and likely most knew what he meant. The question is, using your own words, if _"you happen to be a Maglite patent lawyer"_ could you see the potential for confusion?

Actually, the part of Diamond's post I quoted began with _"It's about time I said something here in the Candle Power Forums and let you all in on the apparently big secret......"_ What big secret? Well, considering that he planted the post right smack dab in the middle of a thread discussing whether the drop-in looked more like EverLed, or Diamond or what, with comments saying it looks like it's a Diamond without the Diamond brand, and comments such as this, then it stands the potential of being interpreted by Mag's legal team as an attempt to appear affiliated with Mag. My objective wasn't to say he confused us. It was to show a propensity to err in phrase, grammar, and timing in a potentially confusing and risky manner. 

Beezaur said:


> 2) Legal arguments often have nothing to do with the truth. It is mostly about putting on a show and giving the appearance of a "proper legal argument." In my experience the attorneys on both sides do this. The bottom line is convincing the judge or jury. Once it goes to trial, the truth takes a back seat to a structured argument and presentation of that argument.



And then, we smart CPFers, without even having to sit in on the trial, can recognize the truth and mistakes made by the jury without even hearing the arguments. Right?


----------



## pcmike (Mar 6, 2006)

Empath,

I see. I guess you're doing like someone else had pointed out, playing devil's advocate for the sake of giving the "other side" a voice. So long as thats the case and you really do see where everyone else is coming from and that their points are actually pretty valid points, I'll stop with my stupid posts!  

For a moment there I really couldn't believe some of the things you were posting, but now that I can sort of see it in the context as mentioned above it makes a bit more sense. :wave:


----------



## greenLED (Mar 6, 2006)

:laughing:
I edited that post a bunch'a times and I still wasn't happy with what it said. Then it hit me. When Empath posted the following:


Empath said:


> Green, I have a bit of difficulty in claims of "liking" Mag, when you post comments like this. It's straight from left field, an unsubstantiated rumor, and under most circumstances is designed as most of the commentary in this thread to bring an emotional fit of disgust regarding them.



...I felt like he was suggesting I was being hypocritical: stating I like Maglite products before and bashing them now. I do not have double-standards and don't adhere to secret clubs or agendas, and since I felt I had already clarified what my position in this thread was, I was  and then , and I must admit after a while I was a little  at what I saw as a misinterpretation of my personal ethics. (True, I was being sarcastic when I posted the comment that sparked Empath's response, quoted above.)

Whether that was Empath's intention or not :shrug:, but that was my interpretation, and that's why I was feeling so compelled to explain myself. (BTW, I don't think that was Empath's intention.) Now that I know what was bugging me, and I feel I've (hopefully) clarified my position, I'm ready to drop this and move on. :wave:

Aneehoo  ...carry on... :wave:



greenLED said:


> Empath, I was only trying to clarify what I perceived as your confusion regarding my "liking" of Mag comment. I wanted to clarify that becuse I really like Maglite products: their design lines, simple solutions, construction, price range, etc. are appealing to me. I never intended to go beyond that with my previous post. ...


----------



## magic79 (Mar 6, 2006)

I'm getting in this discussion late, so if I'm repeating something, please don't flame too much.

I currently have 3 patents, and have had 1 rejected so I have a little knowledge on "both" sides.

First and foremost, this is not a patent but a patent application. The patent has NOT been issued, nor has the examiner taken action.

Second, any prior art claims MUST predate the FILING date, which is August 2004. Further, if Mag can show through documentation that they began working on these ideas before that (which they certainly must have), then that becomes the magic date. For example, if they first began working on one of their claims in January 2000 and have a legal patent disclosure (simply a written description that is witnessed and filed with an attorney) THAT becomes the date you must precede.

It is impossible to determine from this application when their work in this IP began.

If a company conceives a widget on June 1, 2002 and goes into production in Oct. 2002, but I filed my patent on May 31, 2002, I win, even if I have not produced it. In fact, producing a product prior to filing a patent may actually cause you to lose certain rights (such as foreign patents).

Further, as my patent attorney told me for my antenna patent "we start by claiming the roof and work down from there." The examiner should disqualify vague or broad claims. 

After looking at this application, much of it seems to be in the "obvious" and "public domain" area, so hopefully the examiner will disqualify those aspects.

Aside from the ridiculous claims, some of them are extremely specific, which can bite you. For example, Claim 33 refers to a flashlight with an opening of 0.7 to 0.8 inches. An opening of 0.699 inches is not covered!

It will indeed be interesting to see what happens over the next few months! I would not expect much to be granted here (I hope!), as it's so general and not novel at all.

BTW: You might find these patents interesting (search on the same site):

6547415

6222138

Perhaps you can guess what the first one is, and who they both belong to!


----------



## mdocod (Mar 6, 2006)

i haven't read this entire thread in detail.. however... It is my belief, that maglight, will be granted a patent, for a product, meeting the exacting crteria proposed in the patent proposal. Protecting them from anyone who might "arrange those spacific parts, in that spacific manner" (as pointed out in one responce, a patent can be for an arrangement of parts that already exsist). 

If mag gets this patent aproved, then the only limitation on the market, will be manufacturing a flashlight, which is identacle, or nearly identacle (looking from the exterior), to the led-mag. The led-products that other companies are making will not be effected by the patent unless they make one that meets the exacting mag specifications(size, shape, build, etc), or comes close enough to trick the consumer base....

I don't like it when big companies use money to leverage the world out of their path to world dominance any more than the next logical thinking human, but I think we are blowing this patent application way out of proportion...

mark my words.

fine print: I am in no way affiliated with anything important other than squeezing my opinion into the crevaces of our world. I am copmletally unaware of anything I might have said that could be used against me and it didn't actually happen, it was just in your head, so don't worry about it. I am a figment of your imagination. You are a figment of someone elses imagination. You are the vibration of energy at a slow pace. You will wakup and realize that you are living in a dream world. You are probably not reading this at all, because this text does not exsist, it is only in your head. Your head does not exsist, therefor this text does not exsist. did I mention that my prediction of the outcome of this particular patent application would come true?....


----------



## Paul_in_Maryland (Mar 6, 2006)

Apple has just filed a patent on a full-width touchpad for laptops. The new touchpad promises to change the way users interact with their display. But check out some of the reader comments that immediately follow the article.


----------



## JonSidneyB (Mar 9, 2006)

I might be dumb...but I didn't think just changing the size meant a new product


----------



## GJW (Aug 31, 2006)

So whatever happened with all this?
The MagLED packaging says "patent pending".
Is that the nail in the coffin?

And a response to this comment:


yaesumofo said:


> The whole thing spells trouble for a industry. We as Hobbyists don't have much to loose. We can just make our own like we have been for some time.



Yo-yos are a much smaller business than flashlights (and certainly smaller than Mag) but one yo-yo company felt that its patent was being infringed upon and it went after the company doing it.
The infringing practice in question had been suggested to the infringing company by a _hobbyist_.
The patent holder didn't stop at the infringing company but went after the hobbyist, the webboard that the hobbyist frequented and the other hobbyists who were adapting this practice to their own yo-yos.

Don't think for a moment that it's only those in the "industry" who have something to lose.


----------



## Lit Up (Sep 1, 2006)

carrot said:


> Edit: Whoa, look at page 13... looks like an AA LED Solitaire...



I sure hope so.


----------



## adnj (Sep 2, 2006)

By the way the patent reads, it is not a single thing that is being patented but rather the combination of the features and technologies. They have patented "their version" of an LED light. Reflectors, thermal PWMs, etc. can still be used but if you copy there combination, that's infringement. 

Apple does the same thing to fight cheap imitations that can be built off-shore and imported.


----------

