The latter approach has prevailed (see Philips introduces licensing program for LED-based luminaires) although of course there is a price to be paid, specifically as much as 5% of the net selling price for color-changing luminaires, 4% for tunable white luminaires and 3% for single color luminaires.
When you download the complete list of patents included in the licensing program, the portfolio extends far beyond those patents acquired along with Color Kinetics. However, it's these patents that will attract most interest when companies evaulate the Philips offer.
For the uninitiated, here's the summary; Color Kinetics acquired a number of fundamental patents in the US relating to LED control. These patents were controversial, with detractors asserting that some of the patents' claims should not have been allowed because they described prior art (i.e. technology well known in the industry).
However, despite various challenges, the patents are still very much valid, and are now owned by Philips. The controversory has not been resolved, and this announcement from Philips may push it to the fore again. Not many companies would seek to challenge Philips - the company even has its own Intellectual Property & Standards website. However, there is at least one ongoing dispute that relates specifically to the CK patents. This involves Lighting Science Group, which acquired LED Effects, a company that was making LED fixtures before Color Kinetics was founded.
Tell us what you think about the Philips licensing program:
- Should we applaud Philips for its open door licensing policy?
- Do the Color Kinetics patents still cast a shadow over the industry?
7 comments:
This looks like the first turn of te screw. 5% of the 'nett selling price' is one hellova proportion of the manufacturing price for retail fittings. It also represents a very large chunk of the manufacturing price for lighting equipment sold through the professional market place, particularly if it represents the proportion of the contractors price to a building contract!
It had to go onee of two ways. I , obviously niavely thought that Philips wouldbe magnanimous enough to let go of the CK claim on Pulse Width Modulation dimming of LEDs. Obviously the other direction, aiming to get a monopoly stranglehold on the LED lighting market place is where they are heading. Unfortunately Philips have the power and financial weight to be able to kill off any company it fancies parrticularly in the SME sector where the majority of innovative and service focussed LED fitting manufacturers are.
Given that many SME maufacturers buy electronics and boards from other SMEs are such fittings gong to be hit twice by this Philips IP tax? are Philips relly going to be able to levy this on Chinese products? Somehow I don't think so. Basically Philips are stitching up the European and US manufacturers.
This is a sad day for the future develpment of LED lighting!
Kevan Shaw
Pulse Width Modulation dimming of LEDs patented????
Wtf?
Perhaps we should think of showing prior art to their claim. It's so trivial, it must be written up somewhere. If someone knows info about this, please write it up and tell the world.
Look at Australian patent AU679442, US patent US5999151 and related PCT WO9415434. In original AU application, filling date 24.12.92, is described "a two or more LEDs driven with PWM to produce different color mixing". Read this application. Its interesting. CK first patent US 6,016,038 has filling date of Aug.26, 1997.
Pulse width modulation was being used in controllers for RGB colour mixing as far back as 1970 if not earlier. I used to sell simple PWM sound to light units that were designed to control a red, blue and green PAR 38 in 1970.
If you read the whole story about the guys who approached the (later) owner of Color Kinetics with the original idea of controlling LEDs with PWM, it is difficult to understand how CK ever won the legal battle with Spectravision.
I was at ARC07 when a prat from CK introduced a seminar with 'Color Kinetics are the longest established manuufacturer of RGB colour mixing devices ....'.
CRAP!
We all know that the CK patents are largely granted due to a lack of due dilligence and competence at the USPTO. Admitting such shame by scrapping the patents would have not been acceptable, so part of what we see is US governmental pride. Pitty for all of us that we have to suffer this, and with the patents in Philip's hands, nobody will be able to go through the battle. Capitalism at its best! A company failing to create attractive products still has enough monye from its shareholders to dominate the market - it would be funny if not being so sad. What I like most is Philips saying they want to "enable faster growth of the Solid State Lighting market" - haha...by taking upto 5% while most of the makers run at net profits of 2-3%? Nice joke. In any case, what we all should do is stopping to buy their LEDs. Then they will see what good customer relation management is made of. Or do they offer 5% discount on their LEDs for licensees? That would be a genious (though illegal) marketing trick. In any case, this whole thing sucks. As the Philips IP website says "sense and simplicity" - I guess we can all see the simple sense of exploiting an emerging market, but we can't see any broader sense of contributing to a green effort. Thanks Philips!
I thought the whole point was that if you buy all your base LED technology from Philips, they include the use of their patents. They have now signed a deal with Osram to share the joy.
Does this not mean that if you use Philips & Osram technology, you do not have to pay the 5% royalty?
How many components have to come from these companies? If you design your own electronics, but buy the LEDs, does this mean you have to pay the license fee?
Is there somewhere I can find acurate information on this?
If I were using the NXP chips for my PWM controller, are the royalty/license costs embedded here?
Actually, are NXP counted as part of Philips these days?
Post a Comment