If their patent is valid nobody in their right mind would try and market a collar that potentially infringes on it. Even if they have ceased business operations if they still own the patent they can still sue you.
Being a patent holder can sometimes be more profitable than actually producing the patented product (look up "patent troll").
This.
Of course there seems to be a lot of foreign budget flashlight makers that tend to ignore patents. However, they typically only make mass-market stuff. I suspect the wavien collar is too specialized an item for them to be interested in.
Yes, wavien collars were expensive. I expected this given that it is an extremely low demand specialty item. For those who felt Wavien was charging too much, is it really an improvement that Wavien went out of business and the result is NOBODY makes these collars?
Yes it is an improvement that Wavcopyen went out of business because from everything i have heard around here they where just NOT :evil: very nice people.
I canāt imagine that the technology would die with them because they did NOT created this technology.
Wavcopyen where certainly trolls but as far as i know patent trolls make there money suing and getting a cut from the profits from massive corporations like google and samsung.
If they couldnāt keep there business going by selling these overpriced RAās then it seems unlikely to me that they could āpatent trollā anyone else selling something similar, especially because there is very little money in this little specialty item, AND that there patent is questionable because there seems to me to exist strong evidence of prior art doing exactly what there collar was doing and more of similar implementations.
Where is the "strong evidence of prior art"? Just because someone somewhere had built something similar, doesn't make it prior art.
Actually, if somebody published or marketed it prior to the patent application dateā¦ thatās pretty much the definition of prior artā¦ and the ticket to shiny new boats for a gaggle of patent lawyers.
For some reason they decided to cancel yours and send all remaining stock to me. Huh, thatās strange. I wonder if they have public relations with anyone here?
You said no oneās is better. What are you using to determine that? The fact that you see a mirror? Because the mirror is the best part about it, one has no idea in what ratio the RGB layering was applied. In the United States, you can walk by a ācollarā in every auto and hardware store. In every Wal-Mart. Quartz glass coated with RGB dichroic front surface mirroring sold for $2 at MR16 diameter. I was the one to state a while back that you can get these from projection lamp units for those with the right tools, which is another few thousand $. (My words always seem to make it to the forum when I state anything about these to someone. 
) But, youād have to have done the dirty work to know which model to use! :zipper_mouth_face:
Thereās also only one way to cut the glass. That machine wasnāt cheap.
Hemispherical collimators have existed since the 1960s. As long as dichroic mirrors have. An aperture is a highly useful device as far as restricting some types of spherical aberration. Dr Wong Yang didnāt invent those. I told the woman this company had a very bad business model, a few weeks later, I was getting messages delivered that the funding was cut.
Patent or not, there are limitations. It helps to have a lawyer who knows what they are. If you feel you have what it takes to make them, I suggest you have a lawyer to translate the patent to you, one whom you trust.
These will never cost $20. Until you clear warehouse shelves due to bankruptcy.
Itās a precision optic. A specular finish is needed. RGB ratio will determine intensity and color shift. As will LED bin. Arc centering precision in the tilt axis is needed. Then you need a way to position them using X,Y,Z axis. If you do not have this, I wish you luck.
Tell me, how else can you get an xpG2 at this time to yield 2800 lumens? You would need it to, to obtain the surface intensity of a correct reflective aperture. ā¦ And thatās just using a low-gain system like Wavier sold. A high gain system will knock your socks off. There is a light model which is releasing that uses a high gain system. It is still being finalized, last I heard, the light will be offered in limited quantities in its highest output configuration. The beta version definitely throws well. :evil:
Someone I know dealt with a situation like this, they had evidence they āproposed the ideaā to someone who then claimed it was already an idea of their own, who then proceeded to obtain a patent for what was discussed. Iām not sure about the details fully, but I donāt believe their lawyer was immediately able to stop the company from selling the item. His first action should have been his own patent.
Just for reference, I am interested in what you have mentioned. A process merely has to be published, or mentioned anywhere in writing? I suppose email conversation thus makes the communication private, disabling this feature of the prior art patent laws?
None of this discussion on patent laws is relevant if nobody steps up to the plate to try to manufacture and sell wavien collar equivalents.
Given that the item itself is an extremely low demand specialty item, I doubt anybody will be stepping up. Sure it might not cost a lot to make but because of the low demand it wonāt be worth making even a small number unless you have a large markup.
Wavien had that business model: low demand, so high cost per unit. But they couldnāt make it work and went out of business.
A new manufacturer could license the tech from Wavien, or could ignore the patent and take their chances. The first option raises the cost-per-unit, while the second option adds risk to the endeavor.
What if the new manufacturer ignored the patent and Wavien sued for patent infringement. Even if the patent ultimately isnāt valid, the defending party would greatly increase its chance of success in court if it actually defended rather than ignoring the case and letting matter go to default. Defending in court means hiring patent attorneys and can be incredibly expensive. Is it really worth the risk?
I wouldnāt be surprised if nobody else tries to fill the void on what seems to be an unprofitable item. This might just be an item that ceases to exist from the marketplace at ANY price.
Hi,
I did not say there is none. I said all attempts i know of - and i have two different ones here - do perform less and i personally did not hear of anything of what you described used in a Flashlight application. Show me results instead of theory and you can convince me.
Greetings
Kenjii
Not meant to be an answer so much, but this should help you to understand who youāre talking to. I have full confidence MEM could show you results. See this thread: Long-Range Anti-Dark Weapon
Hi,
that seems to be still in development not finished. The beamshots alone can not convince me of a unique Design which is not shown there. My Blue Star with Turbo Head does 1,3Mcd, too. 980 Kcd with the Standard Lens. Using Wavien Collar and measured independently with calibrated Luxmeter. Not near at 2800 Lumens but i think that is good because too much brightness let the eyes adapt so you see less at great distances.
So please show me the finished lights.
Greetings
Kenjii
Pretty muchā¦ the more public the disclosure the more likely it is to be considered prior art. Fights over disclosed prior art vs newly filed patent validity is the stuff of patent lawyer paychecks.
US patents used to be based on first to file. A few years back that was changed to first to invent (like the rest of the world used). There is some sort of time limit on the time of invention to time of filing. Even under first to file, prior public disclosure could invalidate a patent claim.
I have been on the official U.S. patent site for a while covering a lot of topics, and might I say, there are a LOT of topics. Routes to patent, patent types, the way a patent process is revealed, or not revealed, etc etc. Of course, time limits, too. Some only covering 12 months.
If anyone remembers motorcycles well, Honda held a patent all through the 1990s on which way the front brakes of their motocross bikes were routedāsomething so simple as that. The fact that the brake line went around the fork, between the tire/rim, and straight to the front brake caliper was patented. Therefore, if you look at any other bike, Yamaha, Suzuki, Kawasaki, up until past the year 2000 (I believe it was around 2001 if I recall correctly when Hondaās routing patent expired), all of those other bikes had to run the cable down the front fork, under it, and back up to the brake caliper. This simple routing method by honda allowed more solid brake feel due to less total line length, and less chance for air in the line. As Iāve said before, the MFGR has a lot to do with the patent getting held up, because they have the legal money to go to battle with, in buckets you might say.
As you said, a lot has changed now that we are here in 2015-2016.
Greetings Kenjii!!
I am in the stages of manufacturing a product with multiple companies working with me. I am manufacturing a new model of light for which the release date is not yet set. Although you want to see everything that makes you happy, I do not reveal many processes to the open public. If you talk to any MFGR you will have likely run into the same trouble as you tell them they need to show you something that you want to see of theirās. Just because you want it, doesnāt mean I have to reveal it to you. Sorry.
Two people in this thread know my work extends far deeper than I have ever shown here publicly. Someone here has seen a very intricate process relating to a high-gain aperture system that I am working with and am testing, but even to them many secrets remain. I do not spend a lot of money on optical items just to look at them; they serve a purpose in manufacturing and testing for a greater design.
Part of my project goal is to make enthusiast customers happy in two different areas of lighting which will eventually be exposed through finished models. Unfortunately my goal is not to please people who are upset that they cannot get the Wavien collars they ordered and had cancelled. I understand your frustration, but life deals you cards you must play sometimes. I ask that you do not take your frustration out with your situation on me.
As far as the collars being overpriced, not worth it, whateverā¦ Like I said, it is very easy to minimize the design as much as one desires. āIt is just a hemisphereā, is a saying. The fact is, that is no more than a simple shape within a somewhat complex designāone which can be made much more complex than Wavien ever tried to make it, and do far more in terms of candela boosting. Tell Goodyear that their tires are just a cylinder of rubber and see if they lower their prices. :bigsmile: 
An aspheric lens, āwell that is just a lens with a curved front that is not spherical, and a flat back!ā; the saying would go. That is a joke, because most everyone knows a lens is more than a simple shape and can easily go for lots of money when made properly, to a fine tolerance, and tested for LED use. Mathematical formulas are designed to create an aspheric lens profile which fits the application of the lens as it will be used, the light source size and shape, and also wavelength it will be used with. Just because one may have an aspheric-labeled type lens does not mean anything at all about how the design applies to projecting an LED image from it, or whether it will produce high kcd or low kcd for the size. All of the things which I described are real and need attention in a reflective aperture, it is a device which is optical-grade, no matter if you use it to hold an egg, or put it in a flashlight, someone has to perform the work to produce it. That involves starting from a slug of glass, holding the slug in a very expensive machine to center the material well and grind it steadily until a specular finish exists. Then other things can be done with that āhemisphereā. Final shaping and coating. A mirror still has surface properties like a lens. Itās quality, 80-50, 60-40, 40-20, or 20-10. Each grade would have effect on output candela, just like other factors in the design.
I have all of Wavienās remaining stock. It was sent to me. Iām sorry your order was cancelled, but the seller chose to do business that way. I simply paid the money to receive the products. A small collar was already sold on eBay. Apparently it reached 28 bids and sold for $104 USD. Thatās just a small collar. Imagine a better one, or a bigger one.
The collars are known to have a āchippedā up aperture hole as seen in previous photos. If done right, the collar can keep a very high tolerance, but expensive equipment must be used. Notice the aperture below is not chipped.
The LRADW project was primarily a prototype design used to test an optical system which will be used in a specific light host, and multiple lens series were tested. It is still a viable design that could be offered for the budget-minded. Progress is not always fast just because I want it to be, other people have other jobs who I rely on, and when a project relies on a group of people to move forward, everything must coordinate to produce an optimal product. This takes time to solve all problems that present themselves.
Kenjii you stated that you have a light which produces 1.3Mcd. It is not hard to make a light produce 2, 4, or 10Mcd if size is not a barrier. What size lens is your project using to do 1.3Mcd? What amperage is the LED driven at? The LRADW lens system made 1.3Mcd from 3 amps of input power, through approximately 73-74mm of lens diameter. I would be interested to see a design which can also do this at under 75mm lens aperture.
One of the lenses tested in the LRADW was a fully AR-coated 75mm diameter achromatic doublet below. These are not cheap, combined with best-form lenses used to shape the entering and exiting LED light, made for the very purpose of LED projection (as well as providing front protection for the glass element in the systemāno big exposed asphere bulging out front to scratch or break). The system is not exactly run-of-the-mill with 1-aspheric lens, like typically seen in other high-kcd lights.
As for the cooling which will be used in the system, here with an extra-pure 99.9% copper slug, the pills will be some of the largest extra-pure copper designs ever used to date in an LED flashlight system. That is enough copper to make only 4-5 finished CNCād pills when split up. This should make enthusiasts happy that want heavy cooling, also for those who plan to run the lights for extended periods of time and not just a few minutes.
If the correct white Cree dies can be produced in a can-mount system, they may possibly be used instead of typical ceramic substrate LEDs soldered to a MCPCB. This is for lower thermal resistance in the system. This type of die unit is seen below.
At this moment, I am not focusing available time on a single small part to sell, but am actively developing an entire lighting system the parts are made for integration to. This does not expose any real secrets, just very basic methods capable today for use, so I am not giving away any special trade secrets here by posting such things about the system. This all simply explains why collars-for-sale are not a large priority at this moment.
MEM- how much will that flashlight you are developing right now cost and when will it be available?
to this party, but could someone please explain the difference of a waiven collar ,and what it does say versus a standard tir? What are the main benifets?
TIR = optic to shape beam output, basically a lens
RA = optical reflector designed to redirect wasted light (that would normally be lost in an aspheric light) back to the LED surface to increase its surface intensity
would it say benefit a high out put xml2 -u4 @ 5+ amps ,would the output be noticeably brighter than say the same light with the same size smooth reflector?If so how much more?
A well tuned RA and aspheric lens combination can produce 2x the candela of a reflector based light. Just read what MEM is saying, heās not blowing smoke.
Of a typical LED reflector that is.
I suspect a well-designed recoil thrower could produce similar throw to an aspheric with wavien collar. It might even be more since unlike with an aspheric, with a recoil thrower almost all of the LEDās output goes into the spot beam. Disadvantage is recoil throwers require a specialized reflector and heat management is difficult.
I donāt think anyone has attempted to make a high-quality recoil thrower. Perhaps the heat issue could be solved by having the arm the LED is mounted on made of solid copper.