UC Santa Barbara sues Walmart, Amazon and others over LED lightbulbs - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: windsmurf
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2019, 06:31:59 pm
content: UC Santa Barbara’s Solid State Lighting and Energy Electronics Center said they are the developers of technology that allow an exposed LED filament that disperses light in all directions (so-called LED "Edison bulbs"), and royalties are due.https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-07-30/uc-santa-barbara-sues-led-lightbulbs

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2019, 06:41:14 pm
content: Could not open the link but found same article on Reuters site.

author: windsmurf
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2019, 06:57:42 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on July 31, 2019, 06:41:14 pmAre you able to get tohttp://www.latimes.com?Yes there's a few articles on this:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-30/walmart-ikea-sued-by-university-of-california-over-led-bulbshttps://www.edhat.com/news/ucsb-sues-major-retailers-over-led-patenthttps://www.worldipreview.com/news/uni-of-california-sues-entire-industry-in-led-patent-action-18414

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2019, 06:59:13 pm
content: The link works for me.This sounds like plain old attempted extortion to me. UCSB doesn't claim to have a patent and I don't think that they could since the exposed filament was used by Edison over 150 years ago. UCSB claims that they some how "developed the technology",whatever that means. But UCSB is attempting to blackmail the five largest US retailers by having all imports stopped until the case is decided. Which of course could takedecades.Lawyers - and ridiculous lawsuits, I guess that's what passes for "education" at UCSB.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2019, 07:01:28 pm
content: I was but it complained i was browsing in private mode so they could not push their cookies on me

author: rfeecs
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2019, 07:14:11 pm
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on July 31, 2019, 06:59:13 pmThe suit is for patent infringement:https://filamentpatent.ucsb.edu/

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2019, 07:29:22 pm
content: Direct quote "UC Santa Barbara encourages retailers to sell filament LED light bulbs and hopes they continue to make the benefits of filament LED lighting technology widely available to the public."But yet UCSB's lawyers are trying to block the importation of the same bulbs.Lawyers games.I'd like to see exactly what UCSB's claimed patent is for. Somehow I just don't think that you can patent any object simply based on the idea that radiates energy in all directions. Quick! Hide your fire wood, candles and matches before UCSB claims that you violated their patent!

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2019, 08:12:39 pm
content: We're only talking about the "pretty" filament bulbs, not the entire LED lighting industry. They've only been available for a few years. Nobody is going to be crippled if they do vanish from shelves for a while. Plenty of other variations on LED technology that are just as efficient in producing light.I'm sure the patent numbers will be available once someone publishes the text of the complaint, which was only filed yesterday after all. Early days yet. We don't know what the four patents claim, so none of us are in any position to think its some obvious concept such as Mr. Electron suggests.As for Lawyers games, one has to assume that UCSD has already tried talking to the manufacturers and retailers directly, or this action would certainly be premature. Otherwise, this looks like a pretty normal legal threat used by patent owners used to get the other side to negotiate. Remember, 95% of cases end up being settled out of court, once delaying tactics have been exhausted. And yes, I expect it'll be a couple years before we hear anything close to a result.And, to be fair, if I were to judge the collective motives of the retailers versus those of UCSD without looking at evidence, I'd probably be more inclined to think UCSD is on the right side. At the same time, I agree that the burden of proof is also on USCD.

author: Koen
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2019, 08:14:08 pm
content: Your question might be answered here :https://filamentpatent.ucsb.edu/frequently-asked-questions

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2019, 09:24:41 pm
content: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=0&p=1&f=S&l=50&Query=in%2Fnakamura-shuji+and%0D%0Attl%2Fled%0D%0A&d=PTXTI'm not seeing a directly relevant patent in this list, but I'd have to read the case and perhaps read the patents more carefully to know what they are driving at. It isn't always obvious how these argument are made and a lot of patent cases seem to be a stretch--and a some are!

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2019, 09:30:37 pm
content: Try "in/nakamura-shuji and led" instead. The list is far longer.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2019, 09:39:52 pm
content: UCSB is being very quiet about exactly what kind of patent(s) they have that, might, in their opinion, apply but from what I've read Sanyo owns the patent from the LED string bulbs so UCSB MIGHT own a patent but it might be for something relatively insignificant.The bios of the four "inventors" of the bulb in question makes some interesting reading!<https://www.kuam.com/story/40855125/longford-capital-funds-patent-enforcement-campaign-for-university-of-california-santa-barbara>It makes you wonder how much of a case they have since UCSB isn't spending a dime on it and it's all be funded by what amounts tolawsuit investment corporation. IF it ever goes to court I wouldn't be surprised if a judge doesn't throw the whole case out on the basis that Langford has no legal standing in the case. As I pointed out before, I think this is nothing but a nuisance lawsuit and the plaintiffs (and their financial backers) are hoping for a quick cash settlement from companies that have deep financial pockets.

author: wilfred
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2019, 01:50:48 am
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on July 31, 2019, 07:29:22 pmI'd like you to see what the patent is for also.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2019, 03:30:05 am
content: The Chinese have been making and selling LED filament bulbs for alongtime, long enough without UCSB saying anything, to make one wonder whether this is related to the current political climate in the US...

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2019, 04:50:50 am
content: According to WikipediaQuoteIdiocy, just like Apple and the rectangular phone "patent infringement" incident.University of California just bought themselves a one way ticket to Loonyville. No way in hell are they gonna get anywhere, especially if either of those two decide to join in and claim that UCSB's patent (if it exists) actually infringes on theirs, then they're in for a real heap.

author: wilfred
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2019, 07:47:44 am
content: I found just in a quick search that the UCSB has patents for a number of development for the design of transparent LEDs. But I did not find a patent for the development of a light bulb.I would be surprised if the UCSB was in the manufacture of actual light bulbs or even designing a product.Anyway if you have more time than the few minutes I want to spend looking into this then this is the search I used.https://patents.google.com/?q=led&inventor=Shuji+Nakamura

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2019, 09:19:38 pm
content: They should get rid of the whole patent laws IMO, it is just grown to an absurd abstract liveform of its own and only large firms can really profit from it by just patenting anything one can think of. The whole idea was to share new inventions to accelerate other new inventions.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2019, 10:36:22 pm
content: Quote from: Cyberdragon on August 01, 2019, 04:50:50 amNo, it’s nothing like that. Apple was defending adesign patent, that is, one based on the specific look. So it didn’t (and couldn't) cover rectangular phones, it covered a specific shape with a specific corner radius and specific button arrangement. That the press often misreported it as covering anything generically looking iPhone-ish doesn’t make it true, and the Samsung device in question had copied the iPhone design verbatim. So it was exactly the situation design patents exist for.