Ultra Products Sues All Other PSU Makers

Ockie said:
Not to say. Ultra may want some technologies that these companies are keeping for themselves or they may want entrance in a specific exclusive market... this might be their ticket.



Next logical step? Man I want what you are smoking. This isn't something that revolutionized computers in the way that they behave, it doesn't do anything other than cleaning up the clutter in your case and looks cool.

When Ultra first released their XConnect, everyone was bashing them saying it's the dumbest move due to voltage drops and resistance... large companies tried to attack the whole concept of detachable cables. Now you are saying it's the next logical step?
Click to expand...

No; however, by and large, the *marketplace* is.

Note that only two PSU manufacturers are NOT on the list of defendants (specifically, Antec and PC Power and Cooling) as these two companies have no modular PSUs in their product lines. Further, it has been PCP&C that has consistently attacked the entire idea of modularity in PSUs (and they have not stopped since their acquisition by OCZ, which DOES carry modular PSUs under the OCZ brand), and it has been PCP&C that has been castigated for not having a modular PSU (even their two latest models, the Turbo-Cool 850 and Turbo-Cool 1200SR, continue their trend of non-modular single-rail PSUs).
 
Paul_Johnson said:
No, read the patent again.
Click to expand...

Dunno how I got a dupe post. Anyway, yes I read the patent. So guess I'm not understanding because I thought to sue on a patent they have to breach on all aspects of a patent, not one piece in particular. I don't see hardly any power supplies with modular UV cables, but there are several with modular (detachable) cables, and several with just UV cables.
 
PGHammer said:
No; however, by and large, the *marketplace* is.

Note that only two PSU manufacturers are NOT on the list of defendants (specifically, Antec and PC Power and Cooling) as these two companies have no modular PSUs in their product lines.
Click to expand...

Neither Antec nor PC Power and Cooling manufacture power supplies. Yes, Antec has modular units.

As for not on the current "list" there are lots of brands not on the list and lots of manufacturer's not on the list. Notice Enermax, Hiper, CoolerMaster, etc or not on the list.

On the manufacturer side Wintech, Leadman, Andyson, etc are not on the list as they OEM'd for Ultra. So saying Ultra sued everyone is flat wrong, as is saying everyone but 2.

Time will tell if additional complaints in the US or abroad change that though ;)

(even their two latest models, the Turbo-Cool 850 and Turbo-Cool 1200SR, continue their trend of non-modular single-rail PSUs).
Click to expand...

They haven't always been on the single rail bandwagon ;)
 
PGHammer said:
No; however, by and large, the *marketplace* is.

Note that only two PSU manufacturers are NOT on the list of defendants (specifically, Antec and PC Power and Cooling) as these two companies have no modular PSUs in their product lines. Further, it has been PCP&C that has consistently attacked the entire idea of modularity in PSUs (and they have not stopped since their acquisition by OCZ, which DOES carry modular PSUs under the OCZ brand), and it has been PCP&C that has been castigated for not having a modular PSU (even their two latest models, the Turbo-Cool 850 and Turbo-Cool 1200SR, continue their trend of non-modular single-rail PSUs).
Click to expand...


Antec makes modular PSU's.
 
pigpen said:
Not that i fault Ultra at all. If other PSU makers ripped off their idea, they should get some money for it. But they added a plug to the other side of a power cable. Is that really all that innovative? Something that can be patented? Seems flimsy.
Click to expand...

It seems they were granted the patent, so I guess so. I don't blame them. Seems they're well within their rights to try legal action for infringement. I don't see why they wouldn't be, if the other makers breached the patent.
 
Looks like they have filed an ITC Complaint as well:

http://info.usitc.gov/sec/dockets.n...6acecf3138f6c4888525742100698a9a?OpenDocument

Listing:

Aerocool
Langears, Inc.,
Andyson International Co., Ltd.,
Atng Power Co., Ltd.,
Coolmax Technology Inc.,
Enermax Technology Corporation,
Enermax USA Corporation
High Performance Enterprise PLC,
High Performance Group Inc.,
KWI Technology Inc.,
San Hawk Technic Co., Ltd.,
Eagle Technology Inc.,
Sunbeam Company
Sunbeamtech, Inc.,

Full complaint:

http://searchapp.usitc.gov/edis3/ap...489&sp=SDate+Filed+Search&sp=SDateFiledSearch
 
Steve said:
Antec, Inc., Channel Well Technology Co. Ltd., Channel Well Technology Co. U.S.A., Inc., Corsair Memory, Inc., Enhance Electronics Co. Ltd., E-Power Technology/PCMCIS, SPI Electronic Co. Ltd., FSP Group USA Corp., Koolance USA, Mushkin, Inc., OCZ Technology, Sea Sonic Electronics Co. Ltd., Silverstone Technology, Inc., Spire-Bytecom Fanner Corporation, Tagan Technology Co. Ltd., Tagan Technology Co., Thermaltake Technology Co. Ltd., Thermaltake, Inc., Topower Computer Industrial Co. Ltd., Topower Computer U.S.A., Inc., Zalman Technology Company Ltd. and Zalman USA, Inc.
Click to expand...



PGHammer said:
Note that only two PSU manufacturers are NOT on the list of defendants (specifically, Antec and PC Power and Cooling) as these two companies have no modular PSUs in their product lines.
Click to expand...


Umm..the first name on that list is Antec....and my Antec NeoPower is modular
 
The mere idea of a modular PSU should be no more patentable than the idea of a BJ.:mad:
 
kush said:
Not exactly. Their 1000w/1600w X3 units did well. It was the recent 750w that was a hunk of crap, and their first run or two of the original modular Ultra's that had longevity issues (among others).

And fuck off Ultra, there's no way you pricks have a valid patent for the modular interface. There's PLENTY of prior art work via custom mods long before Ultra modular products hit the scene. If you're not making enough $$/sales, don't blame it on other manufacturers/sellers that are making modular PSUs.. How about not building overrated shitty units - and stick to a variation of the higher end X3 platforms?
Click to expand...
your arguement is very flawed. if they do indeed have a patent that specifies the modularity of psus, and other manufacturers produced modular psus and a certain group of customers solely purchase psus for their modularity, then any non ultra purchase would hurt ultra directly. i know many people who only buy modular and wouldnt buy any other type.
 
I dont really care, its not like they are going to take away my ToughPower if this law passes
 
I'm using non-modular power supplies and they seem to work fine with computers that have cable routing holes. What I do is I just hide all the loose cables behind the motherboard tray of my Antec P180. On my other computer (a Antec 900), it's more of a problem. The 900 doesn't have any useable cable routing holes, so it gets very messy in that case and it might be limiting the air-flow. Of couse I could probably solve this by cutting my own cable routing holes, but I'm too lazy to do such a thing.;)
 
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
Give me 1 yr and a red pen and Ill clean the whole mess up..... and about 4 MILLION alleged patents will be hitting the round-file. :cool:
Click to expand...

Even if you only looked at each pattent for 1 minute you would only get through 525600.

24hr X 365day X60min = 525600 :D
 
I don't give a squat if Ultra products made your computer blow up randomly (and apparently they do)... this is one of the few patents I've seen in the news recently that actually I support. Ultra came up with an idea... patented it, the idea *IS* useful AND quite ingenious (even though that isn't apparently a requirement for patents), they actually put their patent to use i.e. they aren't "suppressing the technology", so their use inferior other parts other power supply companies just decided to go ahead and copy an idea? Wow that is ballsy upon ballsy.. maybe the first company who did it said "Hmmm well if other companies are doing it it must ok"

I'm for ultra 100% on this case. People can bitch and moan all they want but just because a patent is inconvenient for you doesn't mean the company trying to sue is bad for doing it.

Oh yeah, also glad I got my Corsair a long time ago :D
 
didn't performance-pcs introduce the first modular power supply? Can they do anything here? I mean they don't make power supplies but they were the first to mod a power supply to have modular plugs.
 
I say I created the first modular PSU when I decided to chop off the wires I didn't need (my first build at age 12). :D

Patents are VERY important to our economy though, without them production and technology would be a mess. What incentive do engineers/inventors have to create new products if they can be ripped of soon afterwards. (Sorry if this was already posted.)
 
Ok.. so ultra got a patent on modular psu's, every psu I have ever seen has been modular... think about it for a seconed.. they all have removable power plugs (external 120v) all of them.. as far back as I can remeber... (hell the apple II had them)..

I think they may be trying to define this by saying internal plugs.. but if the psu is inside the case, then they are all internal.. ok ok fine.. ultimately, all they really did was get a patent on the idea of adding in a 4c connector into the loop... and I say that is what the damages should be rewarded on..

On the biggest modular psu I have seen they have ~12 connectors.. if the judge says.. 25% must be rewarded based on use, they would get 16c per unit sold.. companies like corsair could cut them a check for $1000.00 and walk away.. it will take them longer to make up the lawyers fees than the patent will last.

just me talking out of my ass.. but that is how it should be handeled if you ask me, they didnt patent the psu, and alot of the users would have bought the exact same psu even if it was not modular, i dont think that the "they only bought that psu because it was modular" excuse will hold much water.. and would be very hard to prove. (look at PC power and cooling for example, one of the best psu makers out there... modualr or not, they are worth every penny, and sell because of that).
 
Menelmarar said:
I think it kind of sucks, but I can't see why they shouldn't protect their own ideas.

Just about everyone wants a modular power supply, I know it plays a huge roll in my decision when buying a PSU for an enthusiast system... So it seems to very much legitimately effect consumers buying decisions. US Patent office agreed and awarded them a patent.

2004 applied
2006 granted
From what I've read elsewhere, they warned all those PSU companies to remove their products from market, or pay a licensing fee. So it's not like they were blind to this coming...

They had a great, marketable idea, and looks like a lot of companies took that idea and ran with it, and profitted from Ultra's great idea. That's what US patent laws are designed to protect.
Click to expand...

Whoops! Oh well, that said, love my Corsair HX620! Made for the cleanest cable job yet, thanks Ultra!
 
thore said:
Ok.. so ultra got a patent on modular psu's, every psu I have ever seen has been modular... think about it for a seconed.. they all have removable power plugs (external 120v) all of them.. as far back as I can remeber... (hell the apple II had them)..

I think they may be trying to define this by saying internal plugs.. but if the psu is inside the case, then they are all internal.. ok ok fine.. ultimately, all they really did was get a patent on the idea of adding in a 4c connector into the loop... and I say that is what the damages should be rewarded on..
Click to expand...

Like what's been said before: Read the patent and you'll understand what they're patenting. For some reason, people jump to the conclusion of what Ultra is patenting before reading, or maybe just understanding, the patent. They didn't patent power supplies or connectors. They patented the DC output interace on the housing of the PSU and if you look at the file date, and then try to find anything like what's described prior to that file date, you'll probably come up empty handed. :(

The patent is hard to read, but the ITC complaint that Paul found later on in the thread is a bit more digestible since it has all of the "exhibits" and even some arguments brough forward about "prior art" and how Ultra defended against this prior art. Pretty interesting stuff.
 
Paul_Johnson said:
Looks like they have filed an ITC Complaint as well:

http://info.usitc.gov/sec/dockets.n...6acecf3138f6c4888525742100698a9a?OpenDocument

Listing:

Aerocool
Langears, Inc.,
Andyson International Co., Ltd.,
Atng Power Co., Ltd.,
Coolmax Technology Inc.,
Enermax Technology Corporation,
Enermax USA Corporation
High Performance Enterprise PLC,
High Performance Group Inc.,
KWI Technology Inc.,
San Hawk Technic Co., Ltd.,
Eagle Technology Inc.,
Sunbeam Company
Sunbeamtech, Inc.,

Full complaint:

http://searchapp.usitc.gov/edis3/ap...489&sp=SDate+Filed+Search&sp=SDateFiledSearch
Click to expand...
LOL
http://edisweb.usitc.gov/edismirror/337-2612/Violation/296489/356998/dc0/966dd8.pdf

I like how most of their exhibits were screen captures from newegg.com. Let newegg do all the leg working taking photos and rip them off. Well not totally, I guess, newegg got credit on just about every page. It just struck me as humorous.
 
Menelmarar said:
LOL
http://edisweb.usitc.gov/edismirror/337-2612/Violation/296489/356998/dc0/966dd8.pdf

I like how most of their exhibits were screen captures from newegg.com. Let newegg do all the leg working taking photos and rip them off. Well not totally, I guess, newegg got credit on just about every page. It just struck me as humorous.
Click to expand...

There was a purpose to actually using those Newegg screenshots.

If you actually read the text before and after those screenshots, you'd see that they took those screenshots to prove that product that infringed on the patent was being sold in the U.S. after the patent was issued and after the manufacturer of those units was notified. In those same documents you'll also find receipts of units bought from Newegg, Performance-PC's, etc. that were purchased for the same reason the screenshots from Newegg were taken: Proof that the product is still being sold even after a cease and desist was issued.

There's plenty of photos in there that were taken by the plaintiff and/or law firm, and they're actually more detailed than anything they grabbed off of Newegg's site by pointing out different aspects of the PSU and in some cases even showing the internals of the PSU itself and the different parts of the computer where power is delivered via the power supply.
 
After reading that PDF, I think they have a pretty air tight case.

They have all of the Advantage here;

1) Innovation
2) First to mass-market with the product idea
3) A granted patent with detailed information
4) An attempt to protect their IP durring the patent process
5) Clear violation by competators that significantly increased the profits of their competators.


They are going to clean up on this one. They should demand $10 for every PSU sold with the modular cable design by each company since the patent's file date and a royalty from here-on.
 
Wow, after looking at that lawsuit it seems Ultra has got one hell of a case.

Push comes to shove, patent away otherwise you'll be left in the dirt. :/
 
The ITC complaint clarifies a lot. If I read this correctly, Chih Wei Kuo comes up with the process, makes a deal with Systemax and Ultra who buy the rights using Carl Fiorentino as the conveyee and files the patent for Ultra US side.

Systemax spots a good idea, capitalizes upon it, and now wants to be paid based upon infringement. the post dated evidence from New Egg shows just how carefully Ultra and Systemax have laid out their case.

I have to agree, not only do they have a leg to stand on, it does look like a good case.
 
Paul_Johnson said:
All of the modular units I have seen use the same basic interface as what Ultra has a patent on. The only real different units are the ones Hank did with the shortened cables which is NOT part of the Ultra patent and really aren't modular in the same manner.
Click to expand...

I'm now unsure if Ultra has a normal MOLEX connector on the PSU side or not. I looked at some pictures on Tiger, and they did look like that....but I'd swear they were different several years ago.

The Corsairs HX series definitely are not a normal molex. As I said before, OCZ's were (are?) just a molex not unlike what you'd find on an IDE HD (except that they're UV reactive).

I'd assume one of the 2 is not violating the patent, but as I said, I'm not lawyer.

Either way, i still think that it was fairly innovative. I don't cringe on this one like I did when a company sued eBay over the Buy It Now button.
 
nilepez said:
I'm now unsure if Ultra has a normal MOLEX connector on the PSU side or not. I looked at some pictures on Tiger, and they did look like that....but I'd swear they were different several years ago.

The Corsairs HX series definitely are not a normal molex. As I said before, OCZ's were (are?) just a molex not unlike what you'd find on an IDE HD (except that they're UV reactive).

I'd assume one of the 2 is not violating the patent, but as I said, I'm not lawyer.

Either way, i still think that it was fairly innovative. I don't cringe on this one like I did when a company sued eBay over the Buy It Now button.
Click to expand...

One more time... It doesn't matter if they use Molex or what... The patent is for a modular interface, attached to the housing, with two or more connectors providing DC to computer peripherals. Doesn't matter if they used Molex, etc.

Like Topower has a patent on using coaxial type connectors on the interface (like the ABS Tagan). THAT is a patent on the connectors used. But unless Topower pays to license Ultra for the interface itself, that patent is not enforcable because Topower's patent is merely an addendum to an existing one.
 
JonGerow said:
One more time... It doesn't matter if they use Molex or what... The patent is for a modular interface, attached to the housing, with two or more connectors providing DC to computer peripherals. Doesn't matter if they used Molex, etc.

Like Topower has a patent on using coaxial type connectors on the interface (like the ABS Tagan). THAT is a patent on the connectors used. But unless Topower pays to license Ultra for the interface itself, that patent is not enforcable because Topower's patent is merely an addendum to an existing one.
Click to expand...
Ah...to me the connectors are the interface.

With that out of the way, I have to toss my hat in for Ultra. It was/is a great idea. Hopefully it won't add too much to the price of other modular PSUs (or perhaps ultra will start making better PSUs, on a consistent basis).
 
quique55 said:
didn't performance-pcs introduce the first modular power supply? Can they do anything here? I mean they don't make power supplies but they were the first to mod a power supply to have modular plugs.
Click to expand...

i believe ultra is owned by performance-pcs or there is some kind of business thing going on there. performance-pcs is located no more than 15 minutes away from my house.

the paperwork was filed in orlando which is 45 minutes away from either of our locations so i would have to assume that the business is owned by someone that either owns performance-pcs as well or in business with them.
 
Wshmaster0 said:
i believe ultra is owned by performance-pcs or there is some kind of business thing going on there. performance-pcs is located no more than 15 minutes away from my house.

the paperwork was filed in orlando which is 45 minutes away from either of our locations so i would have to assume that the business is owned by someone that either owns performance-pcs as well or in business with them.
Click to expand...

No... Our great country has only 50 states and about 15 of them don't have anything in them (sorry Montana). :)

Ultra is owned by Systemax. Performance-PC's is owned by Hank Baron. As far as the court goes... I think you're supposed to file in the state you do business out of. Or maybe it's just most "convenient".
 
One more time... It doesn't matter if they use Molex or what... The patent is for a modular interface, attached to the housing, with two or more connectors providing DC to computer peripherals. Doesn't matter if they used Molex, etc.

No, one more time... this "invention" is OBVIOUS under the art and is therefore invalid. It is irrelevent how nice the prose is, or how pretty the drawings are, or how fastideous the pre-patent lawsuit threats were. The fact remains the invention claimed is OBVIOUS under the art and cannot stand, period.

Modder's had done similar work, and been written up in magazine articles, websites, etc long before this goofball had his "brainstorm" and "invented" it. It will not hold up in court, and to me is obvious enough that the proper punishment for filing and costing all these companies $$ to defend themselves should be serious $$ sanctions.

Also, using UV reactive whatever for whatever is once again OBVIOUS under the art, it's like trying to patent using RED wire for 5Volts. Complete and utter nonsense from top to bottom.

Now inventing a NEW UV reactive chemical would allow you to patent IT and typical applications of IT, but not the use of "any" UV reactive objects.

I know its hard sometimes to understand the concept of a PATENT but it is to reward and protect actual INNOVATION and allow the inventor to profit for a fixed time period from his INNOVATION. Nothing in that patent is innovative or patentable in anyway, it is all OBVIOUS under the art to anyone involved in the same profession/industry.

For thos who actually want to learn/know, you'd need to get a hold of the handouts from the PTO from BEFORE 1982 when Ronnie fucked it all up. There you would learn what is and isn't actually patentable and how to avoid wasting everyones time and money on nonsense.

After 1982, it became critical to the PTO to issue and grant anything applied for, as the fee's are the source of funding for the agency. If they denied all that they SHOULD they'd go broke.

Contact your congresscritters and tell them you want PTO funding to return to pre-1982 treasury funding, and remove the incentive of FEE's from the granting process.

In the end, it saved nothing as the costs were simply shifted to the Patent Court's.
 
this whole thing is crazy,

A) i smoke so you cant sue meh for breathing properly aka my life is saved and i can spend that money on getting cancer

B) Ultra is the first PSU i ever bought due to the modular design....only to be switched out with a OCZ due to its Crackhouse Quality that made it die a month or two after i got it....
 
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
No, one more time... this "invention" is OBVIOUS under the art and is therefore invalid. It is irrelevent how nice the prose is, or how pretty the drawings are, or how fastideous the pre-patent lawsuit threats were. The fact remains the invention claimed is OBVIOUS under the art and cannot stand, period.

Modder's had done similar work, and been written up in magazine articles, websites, etc long before this goofball had his "brainstorm" and "invented" it. It will not hold up in court, and to me is obvious enough that the proper punishment for filing and costing all these companies $$ to defend themselves should be serious $$ sanctions.
Click to expand...

You missed my point. Why does it seem that I'm reading different patent claims from everyone else.

What Performance-PC's does and what modders have done for ages doesn't apply here. The scope of the claim is very narrow. Most specifically that the patent is for a modular interface, on a PCB none the less, attached to the housing of the unit. Performance-PC's and modder's version of "modular" has been to cut the cables short and apply a mating connector for the shortened cable and it's "extension". There is no interface attached to the housing and certainly no PCB.

So, are you only reading the abstract or the claims? You're obviously reading the claims because you're bringing up the mention of UV cables, fans, etc. but missing the part about the interface, PCB, adjacent to housing, etc.

xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
Also, using UV reactive whatever for whatever is once again OBVIOUS under the art, it's like trying to patent using RED wire for 5Volts. Complete and utter nonsense from top to bottom.

Now inventing a NEW UV reactive chemical would allow you to patent IT and typical applications of IT, but not the use of "any" UV reactive objects.
Click to expand...

This part of the patent somewhat eludes me. But sometimes I think the way lawyers speak is meant to elude. I almost believe that they are making these statements to claim product being claimed in claim four can include or not include these UV devices (essentially "covering every variation"). I have to assume that because if you look at the ITC there's a number of defendants that do not feature UV cables, fans, etc. When's the last time you saw an Antec or Corsair modular PSU with UV reactive anything? Yet they are defendants.
 
Agreed, the pcb holding the connectors is beyond the average modder....but to engineer's in the industry it is obvious and standard practice. As soon as you get into any volume manufacturing you'd immediately go that route, because of the cost of the labor intense cabling. So much easier to simply have a pcb with the connectors mounted on it, bolted to the case for structure and security, with a large connector joining that board tot he main PSU pcb board.

It is in fact so obvious that it becomes "OBVIOUS under the art" which is both a common sense statement and a legal phrase defined in patent law. When something is a design element that anyone in the industry/profession would naturely conclude or implement in the normal course of work, it falls under the umbrella of "obvious under the art".

If we didn't have this overriding caveat in the patent law, every goofball with a pen would be patenting anything you can remotely think of, and noone would be able to DO anything, cause it'd all be patented by someone. Like round wheels! Spherical balls! and Wooden Wood!!! :eek::rolleyes::p

not that I like modular PSU's at all, I prefer custom cabling SOLDERED into place without additional connections in the path way, especially with the high current stuff making up our kickass gaming computers these days.
 
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
Agreed, the pcb holding the connectors is beyond the average modder....but to engineer's in the industry it is obvious and standard practice. As soon as you get into any volume manufacturing you'd immediately go that route, because of the cost of the labor intense cabling. So much easier to simply have a pcb with the connectors mounted on it, bolted to the case for structure and security, with a large connector joining that board tot he main PSU pcb board.

It is in fact so obvious that it becomes "OBVIOUS under the art" which is both a common sense statement and a legal phrase defined in patent law. When something is a design element that anyone in the industry/profession would naturely conclude or implement in the normal course of work, it falls under the umbrella of "obvious under the art".
Click to expand...

We work with what you would call "obvious under the art" changes to existing synthetic methods all the time that result in modified structures yet they are patentable and reinforced under victories in court because they are legitimate evolutions (such as this example?). Obvious under the art is a term thrown around far to often by people who look at something in hindsight and don't actually do the dirty work to get to what the monday morning quarterbacks call "obvious under the art" stage. Legitimate evolutions to existing products, designs, concepts, methods, etc are prefectly legitimate uses of the patent system. This seems for all intents and purposes to be a legitimate evolution as outlined under the ITC complaint. Other than saying it is "obvious under the art" what proof can you produce that the patent is invalid that outweighs that which was provided in the complaint. As yet all you have said is nothing of substance.


not that I like modular PSU's at all, I prefer custom cabling SOLDERED into place without additional connections in the path way, especially with the high current stuff making up our kickass gaming computers these days.
Click to expand...

If high current appliations are of such concern to you why are you using an Epsilon :confused:
 
I apologize, my sig is way out of date. Currently Im using a OCZ Powerstream 700W. I'm using an 8800GT at the moment, but if I were to use one or two GTX's I'd alter the supply by soldering in the additional video power connections myself, rather than use any adapters, etc.

That is just the issue at hand, WHAT constitutes "obvious under the art". We had almost 200 YEARS of carefully developed parameters used by the PTO to access an invention and make that determination, and it hadn't squelched innovation at all. Then along came Ronnie, who changed the way the PTO itself "gets paid". The system changed overnight to one where careful thoughtful consideration using guidelines developed over centuries went out the door, and the prime directive was to grant anything remotely plausible and collect fee's. Collect as many fee's as possible as that is how they all get paid. It was a recipe for disaster and we are living with the consequences.

Grab any 100 engineers, hand them a standard ATX powersupply, and give them the task of making the connections "modular" for production of say 100,000 units/yr.

99 of 100 will come to the same conclusion of how to implement it, using off the shelf components (molex connectors, PCB, etc) just as the Ultra patent claims. THAT in my book is OBVIOUS UNDER THE ART.

Further, I have a hard time believing that a search of the prior art wont turn up similar implementations, perhaps in mainframe/mini computer applications from the 60's and 70's, etc.

It is a judgment call, and in my judgment it is inherently obvious, and not just a case of monday morning quarterbacking.
 
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
I apologize, my sig is way out of date. Currently Im using a OCZ Powerstream 700W. I'm using an 8800GT at the moment, but if I were to use one or two GTX's I'd alter the supply by soldering in the additional video power connections myself, rather than use any adapters, etc.
Click to expand...

The Powerstream's are EOL and came in 470w,520w, and 600w................ ;)

That is just the issue at hand, WHAT constitutes "obvious under the art". We had almost 200 YEARS of carefully developed parameters used by the PTO to access an invention and make that determination, and it hadn't squelched innovation at all. Then along came Ronnie, who changed the way the PTO itself "gets paid". The system changed overnight to one where careful thoughtful consideration using guidelines developed over centuries went out the door, and the prime directive was to grant anything remotely plausible and collect fee's. Collect as many fee's as possible as that is how they all get paid. It was a recipe for disaster and we are living with the consequences.

Grab any 100 engineers, hand them a standard ATX powersupply, and give them the task of making the connections "modular" for production of say 100,000 units/yr.

99 of 100 will come to the same conclusion of how to implement it, using off the shelf components (molex connectors, PCB, etc) just as the Ultra patent claims. THAT in my book is OBVIOUS UNDER THE ART.
Click to expand...

That point again does not hold water as that is exactly what happens with the synthetic methods I am talking about. They are all obvious to those people in the field once someone has done it, and made it work. 99 out of 100 would come up with the same idea they just have to actually do it and make it work. They are all evolutions of someone elses previous work but that does NOT prevent them from being patentable because they are unique evolutions in the field.

Further, I have a hard time believing that a search of the prior art wont turn up similar implementations, perhaps in mainframe/mini computer applications from the 60's and 70's, etc.

It is a judgment call, and in my judgment it is inherently obvious, and not just a case of monday morning quarterbacking.
Click to expand...

Ok so you didn't read the ITC complaint. You should since you do not know what is in it or what work has been done. Ultra did a prior art search and even cited relevant previous work. What I asked for was evidence; not do you have some rambling generalities about your dislike for Ronald Reagan, not your hatred for the patent system, etc.
 
I dunno. I used to argue with people that a $50 fprtrpn was a better purchase then a $80 ultra. there are those who really do go by cost alone- look at monster cable. i have been flat out told, "well they cost so much because you get what you pay for". thats when i go "yes, bye now." and under my breath im tellin the guy the jackin he's gettin and will never even know about....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top