Convoy unable to ship to USA

20 posts / 0 new
Last post
SlaytheIncubus
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 17 hours ago
Joined: 12/31/2019 - 23:35
Posts: 72
Location: Deep South
Convoy unable to ship to USA

Went to pull the trigger on a UV S2 light out of Simon’s store and it’s saying can’t ship to the states. I HEARD that it possibly could be because some ass clown put the ZWB2 filter on a uv flashlight and patented it. If someone had the money for a lawyer, it wouldn’t be a patent that held up because of the lack of novelty. Glass inserts for various purposes and wavelength modification, exclusion, inclusion, and manipulation cannot be patented UNLESS the process WITHIN the glass is novel…..and it’s not. It’s absurd that he’s threatened to sue people over it. He has admitted that you can buy a light and the lens and put it in yourself and that is totally legal (it is legal under usa patent law). If you try to SELL it without it being licensed is when you can get in trouble and I’m wondering if Simon got in trouble or threatened for this. I would seriously donate to a lawyer to fight this troll-ish ass clown over this. Here’s the link,

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32873025585.html

But in the SAME store, I can buy a S2+ WITHOUT the ZBB2 filter and it WILL ship. So how do I get simon to package ‘em both or will he have enough sense to throw them in the same shipping bag or will that trip out the order or what? Thanks fellas.

__________

Lightbringer
Lightbringer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 43 min ago
Joined: 08/30/2016 - 14:12
Posts: 15884
Location: nyc

“Would you have any of those dark Z-whatever filters for my portable bug-light so I can experiment with them? I’ll even pay you for them. Thanks!”

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

ggf31416
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 3 hours ago
Joined: 02/25/2016 - 17:38
Posts: 703
Location: Uruguay

You can try Banggood

moderator007
moderator007's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 3 weeks ago
Joined: 12/23/2012 - 04:47
Posts: 3740
Location: North Carolina

If you will give him a heads up, I’m pretty sure he will work something out with you.
http://budgetlightforum.com/node/68112

atobe
Offline
Last seen: 17 hours 32 min ago
Joined: 09/14/2019 - 23:27
Posts: 378
Location: California

Why not just make 2 orders? That’s what i did.

"☚ (<‿<)☚"

MNLegoBoy
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 3 weeks ago
Joined: 05/02/2019 - 20:21
Posts: 199
Location: MN

If you want to know about the patent that angers me:`

Quote:
My US Patent #7781751 Titled “Portable Wavelength Transforming Converter For UV LEDs” issued in August of 2010. The patent specifically defines band pass filters as being wavelength transforming materials.

Its really dumb, the whole premise of it is that the visible light gets transferred to IR/heat.

Quote:
It is less obvious, but the visible light that the filter absorbs does not just vanish, it is transformed into heat/infrared and re-emitted as infrared radiation. So not only is the band of wavelengths different on the emitted side of the colored glass filter, but also the visible radiation is transformed into infrared radiation.

So technically this person owns a patent to any flashlight with an absorbing filter, and the dumb part is he does, but only stops uv ones being sold.

Quote:
Similarly, I could have written a patent that specified a colored glass absorbing filter for use with the UV LEDs, but that would have severely limited the entire concept. I realized that colored glass absorption filters are simply a small subset of many other kinds of absorption filters that absorb some kind of energy, transform it, and re-emit the energy as something different from what was absorbed. To make the most encompassing Claim, I should simply define all filters that absorb some energy and re-emit a transformed energy. It took me months to research the material and more time to write and re-write the patent.

Not to mention them selling a convoy s2+ uv for $60, and their “9000mAh” batteries, which he allows this company to sell, but not the direct supplier.

There needs to be something done to these patents of basic technology.
Source: https://www.fluorescents.com/articles-patent-info.html

caramba
caramba's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 11/09/2016 - 14:43
Posts: 628

Seriously? These scum went after Simon?

They are a real abusive scum. They are probably the ones suing hotels and coffee shops for offering Wifi to customers.

pirateo40
pirateo40's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 4 min ago
Joined: 02/25/2017 - 16:13
Posts: 110
Location: United States

We’ve finally gotten sick of the frivolous claims by this patent holder. We (the fluorescent mineral community) have gotten together and are filing legal action to overturn the patent and get rid of this troll. You can find the details here: https://gogetfunding.com/uvunited/
Please consider making any contribution, no matter how small, to rid our hobbies of this pest.

Mark

MinerShop.com

 

Correllux
Correllux's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 51 min ago
Joined: 04/27/2019 - 22:23
Posts: 597
Location: USA

pirateo40 wrote:
We've finally gotten sick of the frivolous claims by this patent holder. We (the fluorescent mineral community) have gotten together and are filing legal action to overturn the patent and get rid of this troll. You can find the details here: https://gogetfunding.com/uvunited/ Please consider making any contribution, no matter how small, to rid our hobbies of this pest.


Biggest part of me is giving a huge Three Cheers!! to you.  I've often questioned this and how it was awarded in the first place, but I've not consulted with anyone because I'm not looking for action and have no standing, and it would take too much of someone's time to investigate (should preface that by saying that I'm in law, last 20 years or so, and while I don't know a ton about patent law I have picked up some useful bits and have contacts that I can approach sometimes).  It's rather incredulous that he could have gotten protection for this idea, isn't it, but the patent world does work in mysterious ways and I know enough to know that sometimes there are valid reasons for seemingly nonsensical things.  First question, have you guys consulted with a patent/IP attorney yet?  Preferably more than one if possible.  (didn't/can't read the facebook group thread mentioned, sorry)


Correllux
Correllux's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 51 min ago
Joined: 04/27/2019 - 22:23
Posts: 597
Location: USA

Also, if you would be so kind as to share the case numbers/court districts as those come up, I'd love to follow along as I'm able to.  Actually, making a new standalone thread here about this topic might be a good idea, too. 

pirateo40
pirateo40's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 4 min ago
Joined: 02/25/2017 - 16:13
Posts: 110
Location: United States

This is the current status regarding lawyers and the patent number, copied from the FB post:

While Rhett engages with a lawyer to fight the actual subpoena and case brought against him, John Dean is going to file a claim with the US Patent Office to formally invalidate Bill Gardner’s patent # 77,817,51. The long link to this patent is at the bottom of this post. John will also incur significant fees to go through this process – upwards of $20,000. John’s action may put a stay on Rhett’s case, or it may not. Either way both Rhett and John will be incurring significant costs to fight and attempt to invalidate the WTC patent. “

Link to Gardner patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7781751B2/en

This was my analysis from a year ago:

Patents and 365nm UV flashlights

(This post is my personal opinion. I am not posting as a representative of the FMS. I am not a patent attorney. I am not encouraging anyone to infringe on any valid patents. Please do your own research and consult with your own attorney. I am only stating facts (and some opinions) that I have discovered so that the public is aware of them and can make informed decisions.)

Way Too Cool has a patent for wave transforming filters – far different from colored bandpass filters. They have been claiming that this patent also covers colored glass bandpass filters (like ZWB2 and Hoya). This has caused severe problems for our hobby by preventing R&D and suppressing DIY discussions, while WTC has not designed and produced any viable LED products of their own. They even copied an open-source design (the FyrFly) , then made and made this statement on their website:

“This product was inspired by Mark Cole. Way Too Cool asked the Convoy manufacturer to make a REAL CONVOY flashlight based on Mark’s design. Mark modified a Convoy C8 flashlight by installing a UV LED and a filter. Mark then open-sourced the design. The problem with Mark open sourcing this flashlight design is that the use of the filter in the UV LED flashlight is illegal infringement of the patent and telling everyone to make their own is also illegal infringement. Making and selling filtered UV LED flashlights without a license to use the patent is illegal.”

The use of a colored glass filter in any kind of UV light, including UV flashlights, is well known and documented. I made one and used it as early as 2004 on my 2nd trip to Greenland (well before the WTC patent). I told WTC about this flashlight I made and he proceeded to start selling a similar light. Although I am not a patent lawyer, I do have common sense. My opinion is that this is “prior art” and the WTC claims are invalid, no matter how they try to twist the wording of the patent. WTC is acting as a patent troll (look it up). This is my opinion. I do not manufacture or sell flashlights.

But – patent law being what it is, there are all kinds of threats about lawsuits being bantered about. Apparently a lawsuit by WTC/Gardner was filed naming Engenious Designs, the FMS, me personally, this FB group, along with others – but was never served; I think the court rejected it for some reason; new paperwork is reported to be in the works. WTC is proactively shutting down imports from China of these lights by threatening action. But new ones pop up almost daily. I feel that this is a great disservice to our hobby. I believe WTC is acting as a patent troll, misstating their patent to force people to pay licensing fees, or to stop designing and selling products.

Prior Art

Prior art, in most systems of patent law, is constituted by all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent’s claims of originality. If an invention has been described in the prior art or would have been obvious from what has been described in the prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid. I did some research into prior art using colored glass bandpass filters and came up with this documented evidence of prior art (documenting the proof was the problem, we all know it’s prior art – this clearly documents the prior art in writing):

As early as Sept. 2000 (far prior to the WTC patent) Don Klipstein, a well-known flashlight enthusiast, published the use of a bandpass filter (Wood’s Glass) with Nichia UV LEDs on his website – http://www.misty.com/~don/ledbl.html. Further investigation showed that he filed a couple of patents mentioning the use of these filters in flashlights years before the WTC patent was filed. This clearly established the prior art.

I contacted Klipstein and this was his reply:

“As for a patent disclosing an LED flashlight intended to cause fluorescence of materials and having a filter that blocks wavelengths longer than the wavelengths used to cause fluorescence: You found the Canadian one. The original US one is 7,214,952. The part about adding a filter is in the Summary of the Invention and in the part of the detailed description for Figure 5 that mentions the lens 507. This patent was filed July 7 2004. It is based heavily on Provisional Application 60/481,986, filed February 1 2004, and I believe that provisional application mentions use of a filter to block LED wavelengths longer than the ones desired for causing fluorescence.”

Further, he proceeded to give me (and the hobby) permission to use his “invention” saying that the use of filters would not infringe on any of his patents (quote below):

“I have no problem with you making use of any technical material disclosed in patents where I am an inventor if that is done in ways not infringing on claims in them that are still in force. I expect that LED blacklight flashlights with filters and that are useful for causing fluorescence of rocks/minerals at least generally won’t infringe on any patents where I am an inventor and that are still in force. (The 22 US patents having me as a named inventor are listed at http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2….)”

My opinion is that no patents specifically cover the use of bandpass filters, even Klipstein’s. They are common knowledge and any patent claiming such would be invalid based on prior art. But the Klipstein patents clearly document this prior art and, even if one were to accept the WTC claim that their patent covers bandpass filters, this published prior art negates those claims.

Why am I posting this? LEDs are the future. Way Too Cool is restricting R&D into this area, and artificially driving the price of our flashlights to ridiculous levels. My personal opinion is that WTC is simply stretching the wording of their patent and acting as a patent troll by saying that it covers bandpass filters. I feel this is invalid, if simply only because of prior art (ignoring the obvious technical reasons such a claim is invalid). I want to see serious development of UV flashlights, along with fair pricing.

Consult your own attorney – I am not an attorney.”

Mark

MinerShop.com

 

JenkinsMatti
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 41 min ago
Joined: 08/23/2021 - 18:26
Posts: 78

Might want to add “UV” to the title of this most interesting thread. I was in shock and confused when I first read it.

Correllux
Correllux's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 51 min ago
Joined: 04/27/2019 - 22:23
Posts: 597
Location: USA

Ok. Well…there’s a whole lot to this stuff and it would take digging into the application and award/examiner’s opinion and such. It’s been awhile since I looked at this and I’m not IP expert but my understanding was that it was the sale-in-combination thing that he got. Not the invention or use of the lenses. This is where legit and experienced patent attorneys are worth their weight in gold. Not just someone experienced in applications and who knows the system, but those who have been through litigating in both the federal system (where the cases generally go) and in the patent system when it comes to challenging validation and such. A lot of “regular” attorneys even if they’re experienced in the usual state or county level courts will get in over their heads in federal court, let alone the separate world of patent law. If it’s not been done, I would absolutely meet with one or more patent attorneys to get their take on this…give them all the information you have but you still may not get too far without hiring them to start the deeper dive into the opinion and details.

I don’t think this guy fits into the “troll” category but I definitely understand where you (and all of us that have been cheesed by this nonsense) are coming from. Unless there was really some gross error by the examiner or other technicalities afterwards by the holder/defender, it’s extremely difficult to get things undone, if it’s feasible at all. If there is standing and an avenue, it’s likely to drag on for a few years at least.

I’ve read through I think three of his previous suits, and certainly noticed the shift in products in the marketplace over the last 2-3 years. I’ve wondered if he’s pursuing the many little Chinese sellers on amazon and ebay…there seem to be tons of “infringing” lights still being sold and advertised. That’s not an easy route to pursue, though, and he’s doing what he should with the easy-pickings sellers here domestically (I’m not crazy about that “aggressively defend” part of patent law but it’s a necessary and somewhat understandable requirement). When I see sellers like Convoy and Sofirn and Lumintop honoring the law here whether that’s on amazon or aliexpress and not allowing shipment of those lights to this country, it gives me a good-but-still-irritated feeling…but then you see all these others just sort of flipping him/us the bird and that’s equally irritating.

Anyway…it’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. I’d certainly like this to disappear but that decision will be an educated one in a realm above my pay grade. Smile

Lightbringer
Lightbringer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 43 min ago
Joined: 08/30/2016 - 14:12
Posts: 15884
Location: nyc

Wellp, if only our “courageous heroes” in Congress would grow some balls and legislate a “use it or lose it” clause for patents, specifically to nullify patent-troll patents, a lot of things would be fixed.

Patents are, by their definition, supposed to foster innovation, not stifle it.

Tell ‘em I said so. That sounds quotable enough. Silly

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

SemiNormal
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 59 min ago
Joined: 07/31/2021 - 22:05
Posts: 35
Location: USA

JenkinsMatti wrote:
Might want to add *"UV"* to the title of this most interesting thread. I was in shock and confused when I first read it.

 

It also isn't the case right now. I ordered an S2+ UV light and filter from Simon last month.

slmjim
slmjim's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 51 sec ago
Joined: 02/04/2018 - 17:49
Posts: 448
Location: Derby City - Home of The Louisville Slugger

SemiNormal wrote:

JenkinsMatti wrote:
Might want to add *"UV"* to the title of this most interesting thread. I was in shock and confused when I first read it.

 

It also isn't the case right now. I ordered an S2+ UV light and filter from Simon last month.

A couple years ago I ordered a S2+ 365nm UV light from Simon.  A ZWB2 filter was not an option for shipment to the U.S.  I asked specifically if a ZWB2 filter could be added to the order separately.  Simon indicated he could not do so due to the legal roadblock.  I had to order a filter separately from another vendor.

This resurrected thread brings up an issue I could not satisfactorily resolve when I ordered a separate ZWB2 filter.  How does one determine that a filter is a genuine ZWB2 band pass filter, and not just a piece of dark plastic or glass?  How to test a purported 'filter' to ascertain that it is a genuine ZWB2 filter?  I never did find a satisfactory answer.  The filter I installed on my 365nm S2+ UV seems to allow a significant amount of purpleish light to escape, but I have nothing to compare it to.  The security features on U.S. currency fluoresce as I believe they should when using my  S2+ UV, but I have to look past the resulting purplish background.

The filter tests by djozz are 6 yrs. old now.  Perhaps djozz or another advanced member could update with current info and links to trusted filter vendors?

 

slmjim

Smile! It makes others wonder what you've been up to.

Time is more valuable than money.
You can get more money, but you cannot get more time.

Lightbringer
Lightbringer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 43 min ago
Joined: 08/30/2016 - 14:12
Posts: 15884
Location: nyc
slmjim wrote:
This resurrected thread brings up an issue I could not satisfactorily resolve when I ordered a separate ZWB2 filter.  How does one determine that a filter is a genuine ZWB2 band pass filter, and not just a piece of dark plastic or glass?  How to test a purported ‘filter’ to ascertain that it is a genuine ZWB2 filter?  I never did find a satisfactory answer.

A real ZWB filter (2 is the most common for 365nm lights, but at least 1 and 3 exist with different properties) will block visible light but allow UV through.

Dark glass should block UV as well. So shine the light at random places in your room and see what fluoresces. Hold the filter in front of it, see if the fluorescence diminishes and by how much. Not much? Good UV filter. A lot, probably just dark glass (shouldn’t be plastic at all).

I got a UV S2+ which did have purplish spillover, and the filter cleaned it right up, and didn’t diminish UV output noticeably at all. That’s what you want.

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

dthrckt
dthrckt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 4 days ago
Joined: 11/08/2011 - 10:11
Posts: 4634
Location: Upstate NY

Seems like an annoying, but easily avoided issue. Sell the lights w/o the filter lens and sell the filter lens separately?

Lightbringer
Lightbringer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 43 min ago
Joined: 08/30/2016 - 14:12
Posts: 15884
Location: nyc

Think that was already tried, and he wasn’t even allowed to do that, ie, not in the same package.

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

caramba
caramba's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 11/09/2016 - 14:43
Posts: 628

This is a scam being perpetuated by corrupt courts and legislature

You can read about a similar case involving a lot of small businesses that got suit for “offering Wifi to their customers”

https://www.eff.org/issues/resources-patent-troll-victims