5 ms·

Luma Labs Jammed By a Crummy Patent

13 points by yottabyte47 15y ago

via Daring Fireball

nirvana 15y ago
No, they gave up because their product was not successful enough in the marketplace. It so happens that I'm familiar with them because I was in the market for camera slings within the past couple of months. I shopped around. There are a lot of different suppliers- from RainbowImaging, which seems to be a guy in hong kong to the R-strap. Luma was overpriced and while it looked like really nice hardware, their web page was a bit incoherent and I couldn't figure out the important things I needed to learn about such as whether their product would fit my frame or not, and other details. I ended up going with a wrist strap, but if I had gone with a sling, it is unlikely I would have bought theirs. Given that there is plenty of prior art- I know I flirted with camera slings myself, well before 2007- and they didn't cite the patent (That I could see) so we don't even know if the patent covers the sling nature (or is just an extension or improvement on the concept) crying foul like this is absurd. Frankly, the patent office does a basic check on the claims, but they are not a prior art vetting service. You can patent things that don't exist, like a perpetual motion machine, or things you haven't really reduced to practice- like a method for mining moon rocks on the moon. (or at least you can do this if you're a bit clever in your wording)... but that doesn't mean you actually have a patent on them. The patent isn't really real until it is vetted by a court. I could sue luma labs because I find the word "luma" to be offensive. ITs unlikely I'd win and it would be a stupid suit, but I could do it. I could even, if I were willing to spend the money, potentially keep luma tied up in court for a decade, until they go out of business, with pointless lawsuits because I had a vendetta. this is due to the inefficiency of the court system, nothing more. I wouldn't need a patent to do this. Luma decided to stop supporting their old product and think they have a better product coming. That's great. Its just disingenuous to blame it on a competitor who hasn't even sent them a cease and desist!

13 points by yottabyte47 15y ago

via Daring Fireball

No, they gave up because their product was not successful enough in the marketplace. It so happens that I'm familiar with them because I was in the market for camera slings within the past couple of months. I shopped around. There are a lot of different suppliers- from RainbowImaging, which seems to be a guy in hong kong to the R-strap. Luma was overpriced and while it looked like really nice hardware, their web page was a bit incoherent and I couldn't figure out the important things I needed to learn about such as whether their product would fit my frame or not, and other details. I ended up going with a wrist strap, but if I had gone with a sling, it is unlikely I would have bought theirs. Given that there is plenty of prior art- I know I flirted with camera slings myself, well before 2007- and they didn't cite the patent (That I could see) so we don't even know if the patent covers the sling nature (or is just an extension or improvement on the concept) crying foul like this is absurd. Frankly, the patent office does a basic check on the claims, but they are not a prior art vetting service. You can patent things that don't exist, like a perpetual motion machine, or things you haven't really reduced to practice- like a method for mining moon rocks on the moon. (or at least you can do this if you're a bit clever in your wording)... but that doesn't mean you actually have a patent on them. The patent isn't really real until it is vetted by a court. I could sue luma labs because I find the word "luma" to be offensive. ITs unlikely I'd win and it would be a stupid suit, but I could do it. I could even, if I were willing to spend the money, potentially keep luma tied up in court for a decade, until they go out of business, with pointless lawsuits because I had a vendetta. this is due to the inefficiency of the court system, nothing more. I wouldn't need a patent to do this. Luma decided to stop supporting their old product and think they have a better product coming. That's great. Its just disingenuous to blame it on a competitor who hasn't even sent them a cease and desist!