What do the layout patents from NFC cover?

[Necere]

Okay, I have to side with Josh here. Do you approve of all the Ncase M1 clones, or other cases that copy that layout?

I was a little annoyed when I first saw the Cougar QBX and how blatantly it cribbed ideas from the M1 (right down to the top-facing optical drive), but beyond the basic layout and a few details it differs in some pretty significant ways. Since then I can't say I've ever been bothered by any supposed M1 "clones." I don't even consider anything I've seen to be a clone, but more like layout-siblings.

However, I don't think something as general as a layout should be subject to private ownership. Look at all the mid tower ATX cases that share basically identical layouts. Would you be okay with one company monopolizing the entire case market, like Asetek did with the AIO market for so many years? N.b., I'm not suggesting that Josh is in any way has bad intentions, per se; I am suggesting that patenting layouts should not be okay, and it sets a bad precedent that could lead to abuse.

If Josh's patent were merely a design patent, I would have no problem with it. But patenting the layout - something any skilled practitioner in the field could easily arrive at on their own - that steps over the line IMO.

If Josh hadn't patented this layout, other companies would have destroyed him with superior marketing and the ability to drop costs.

Are we forgetting that these cases are a dime a dozen? The Node 202, RVZ01/02, Falcon NW Tiki, Digital Storm Bolt, Alienware X51, etc. Unless I'm mistaken and his patent doesn't actually cover any of those, which if true is the case he should make to actually address my objections. And if it doesn't, I wonder why he went through the time and expense to file a patent at all, since apparently it doesn't cover much worth covering.

I actually looked up some of these out of curiosity, and at least the X51, Tiki, and Bolt predate his patent filing (October 29th, 2012) by some months.

Remember that Josh's S cases are the ORIGINAL SFF luxury cases. They really started all this.

And, Josh stated somewhere, that his licencing rates were very reasonable, and probably nearly nonexistent if for a small run case (less than 20).

And lastly, please keep in mind the investment Josh has in this, and what he has done in the community.

I really hate the fact that first there's this Clone drama, and now this "NFC Patent drama". Stuff like this is for Reddit.
We should be more civilized than this.

Windfall

Josh's personal or professional history isn't relevant to my objections, which only relate to this specific patent.

 

[Windfall]

I was a little annoyed when I first saw the Cougar QBX and how blatantly it cribbed ideas from the M1 (right down to the top-facing optical drive), but beyond the basic layout and a few details it differs in some pretty significant ways. Since then I can't say I've ever been bothered by any supposed M1 "clones." I don't even consider anything I've seen to be a clone, but more like layout-siblings.

However, I don't think something as general as a layout should be subject to private ownership. Look at all the mid tower ATX cases that share basically identical layouts. Would you be okay with one company monopolizing the entire case market, like Asetek did with the AIO market for so many years? N.b., I'm not suggesting that Josh is in any way has bad intentions, per se; I am suggesting that patenting layouts should not be okay, and it sets a bad precedent that could lead to abuse.

If Josh's patent were merely a design patent, I would have no problem with it. But patenting the layout - something any skilled practitioner in the field could easily arrive at on their own - that steps over the line IMO.

Are we forgetting that these cases are a dime a dozen? The Node 202, RVZ01/02, Falcon NW Tiki, Digital Storm Bolt, Alienware X51, etc. Unless I'm mistaken and his patent doesn't actually cover any of those, which if true is the case he should make to actually address my objections. And if it doesn't, I wonder why he went through the time and expense to file a patent at all, since apparently it doesn't cover much worth covering.

I actually looked up some of these out of curiosity, and at least the X51, Tiki, and Bolt predate his patent filing (October 29th, 2012) by some months.

Josh's personal or professional history isn't relevant to my objections, which only relate to this specific patent.

Those cases you mentioned differ from the S4 in many ways as well.

I understand that you think patenting it is overkill, but it was really his only choice.

 

[Necere]

Those cases you mentioned differ from the S4 in many ways as well.

But so does K888D's new case, yet he's licensing the rights from Josh based on the patent. @Kandirma doesn't seem to think the patent even covers the S4. I assume none of us are patent attorneys, but at the very least it's not at all clear to the average layperson what is and what isn't covered.

 

[Windfall]

But so does K888D's new case, yet he's licensing the rights from Josh based on the patent. @Kandirma doesn't seem to think the patent even covers the S4. I assume none of us are patent attorneys, but at the very least it's not at all clear to the average layperson what is and what isn't covered.

I do understand what you are saying, and I think @K888D is trying to show his support for Josh's work.

I agree it is very murky, but I still agree with Josh's right to patent it.

I don't want to be part of an argument, especially with you, being a very respected individual in this community. I've said what I think, and I'm going to back out now, before this goes south.
I do respect your opinion, and I'm not in the mood for any sort of flame war. I've said my piece, and there's nothing else for me to add.

Much respect to you,
Windfall

 

[Necere]

I'm not interested in a flame war, either, but it's totally fine if you want to step out of the conversation. No worries.

 

[Necere]

Alright, @Josh | NFC, listen. We got off to a bad start. Maybe I've jumped to conclusions and been overly critical. Maybe my concerns over the possible ramifications of this patent are unwarranted. If so, I apologize.

So can I ask you to help me better understand, and perhaps allay my concerns? Because - and I'm sure I speak for others as well - I'd like to make sure I don't inadvertantly design a case that infringes your patent (or if that's even something I should be concerned about).

Can you answer the following questions for me?

1. What is it about K888D's design that causes it to fall under your patent?
2. Does it only cover GPUs that face the same side as the CPU, or both orientations? Because the patent references both.
3. Would it cover something like the Zaber Sentry, for example?

Please understand - while I'm pretty sure you have no intention to engage in predatory patent litigation (AKA patent trolling), I can't be 100% sure that you will always be the sole owner of the patent, and that it won't become an issue in the future. Better to be safe than sorry.

I hope you understand where I'm coming from.

 

[For_Science]

Or the Lian Li PC-05.
Has the Fans facing in the same direction, no intake fans (components breath on their own) . The only thing that is missing is the perpendicular meshed plate which has been replaced for tempered glass.

 

[br3nd0]

Is this patent limited to US designers only? Designers that spring to mind already are Dr Zaber, CustomMod, Modivo and the like...

 

[loader963]

Is this patent limited to US designers only? Designers that spring to mind already are Dr Zaber, CustomMod, Modivo and the like...

I may be wrong, and am totally not a lawyer, but I think usually patent situations like this pertain to the item in the same market ( such as us, eu, etc) of which the patent was filed in. I don’t think it matters where the designer is based at ( Zaber is Polish, while custom mod is Ukraine) only that the product that it is infringing is in the same market the patent is in.

For ex: company A in Russia could totally plagiarize us based company B with a US patent in the USA but not Russia and company A couldn’t do anything about company B selling in Russia. however they could go after company B or its distributors if A’s product is being sold in America where they are violating a US patent.

You Could look up apple vs Samsung, where both parties have numerous conflicting patents in different trade zones. They’ve been at it for years with each other.

 

[Kmpkt]

Is this patent limited to US designers only? Designers that spring to mind already are Dr Zaber, CustomMod, Modivo and the like...

Yes the patent would only be limited to the USA unless there are other patents held in other jurisdictions.

So apparently this is the patent in question. I'd be surprised if it's defensible, and to be frank, it reeks of patent trolling. I was mocking up designs using basically the same layout at least five years before the patent was even filed; you expect me to ask permission and/or pay royalties if I want to create a product based on an idea I had years before? Sorry, but that's bullshit.

With respect to whether taking patents of this sort out (regardless of intention) is bad form, bullshit, trolling or otherwise is kind of irrelevant. I would point out that the ability in the US to make overbroad patents has most likely been engineered to suit large corporations and the maximization of their profit. Considering who benefits the most from these laws, it will likely never change. I for one am happy that a benevolent member of our community has this patent rather than some large and greedy Asetek-like corporation. I'd also take the stance that if I were to take out a patent of this sort, I would personally seek to profit like fucking crazy from any larger entity that tried to use it without the correct permissions but wouldn't bother chasing small fries like us as it wouldn't be worth the time or money to do so.

 

[br3nd0]

Yeah ok. I do see both sides of the argument and can't praise the designers enough for their innovation and rights to protect their extremely hard work and dedication. I have my own opinions but that's all I'll say without adding any more fuel to the fire.
<CHEESE>I am however, as a member of this community, extremely grateful to be inspired regularly by each and every idea, small or large as they may be, and the time spent and skillset involved in SFF case design, and the privilege to actually own an end-product.</CHEESE>

 

[Necere]

I for one am happy that a benevolent member of our community has this patent rather than some large and greedy Asetek-like corporation.

What guarantee do we have that it will stay that way though? If a company like Dell, for example, came to you with an offer of $100k to buy the patent, would you take it? Would Josh? There've been a lot of console-style cases/systems released since 2012, if you had the resources and really wanted to dominate the market...

 

[Kmpkt]

Good thing I don't own the patent I guess. I'd totally sell it for 100K.

 

[Necere]

Then I guess we can agree that mine isn't an unreasonable concern.

I would point out that the ability in the US to make overbroad patents has most likely been engineered to suit large corporations and the maximization of their profit. Considering who benefits the most from these laws, it will likely never change. I for one am happy that a benevolent member of our community has this patent rather than some large and greedy Asetek-like corporation. I'd also take the stance that if I were to take out a patent of this sort, I would personally seek to profit like fucking crazy from any larger entity that tried to use it without the correct permissions but wouldn't bother chasing small fries like us as it wouldn't be worth the time or money to do so.

You know, the irony of this is that if the patent isn't actually defensible - as I suspect it isn't - then it's useless to use against a large company, as they could easily defeat it in court. On the other hand, in the hands of a large company it could easily be used to bully small players out of the market, who may not have the means or desire to defend themselves.

 

[Kmpkt]

On the other hand, in the hands of a large company it could easily be used to bully small players out of the market, who may not have the means or desire to defend themselves.

This is the way it works and I am pretty sure this is how it is meant to work. It's shit and frankly I'd love to see the whole thing get a massive overhaul.

As an aside, if I owned this patent I'd probably use it to troll all the large form factor case makers doing vertical GPU mounts as I'm pretty sure it's broad enough to be legit

 

[Chris]

Removed.

 

[loader963]

Hi. Long time listener, first time caller. If only we could turn back the hands of time, take the content of this post, and make it the initial interaction between you and Josh, directly and privately. That's what decent people do. I really didn't need to see this thread and nothing has been gained from it. You don't act as my civil servant, and the issues you're pressing aren't why I visit this site or something I care about. I don't care if you want "answers". You lack common decency and perspective.

If this is considered a personal attack (and yet what you have done isn't apparently), then I greatly apologize to everyone here and I will remove this comment.

I’ve been here for a while, and while I often don’t like how he writes when criticizing others, Necere is actually very smart and a pioneer of the field. He does come off as blunt and very direct, almost aggressively, a lot of times. Kind of reminds me of my old man, who speaks his mind and doesn’t give a crap whose toes he steps on. Not exactly about what he’s saying, but how he says it kind of thing.

Anyways, he also does have a good point on the focus of the patent and it would be interesting to me to read an actual discussion of the matter. Especially since they have more experience than most peeps here. Last month was a crap fest thread focusing on the smaller guys infringing on original creators rights and if anything should be done about it. This thread, while not intentionally created to, is now in the opposite direction on whether someone could potentially be overbearing in their own interests to the detriment of the community. And to clarify, there hasn’t been what I would consider any real evidence to support that.

I’ve never interacted here with Josh, but from all I’ve seen he’s a great guy that helps several members here and does deliver an awesome product. My only thing with him is he is almost too polite and maybe a bit thin skinned. Ive noticed he tries to avoid issues with those he may or may not agree with.

Edit: @Chris
“nothing has been gained from it. You don't act as my civil servant, and the issues you're pressing aren't why I visit this site or something I care about. I don't care if you want "answers".”

You may not, but there are several creators here that could learn from this. Not just in this instance, but many others that have been brought up over time. I do agree it could have been handled a bit better, but this is a valid concern with both guys already in the market and those that are trying to get into it.

 

[dondan]

I didn't know about this thread . This was my message on the lazer3d thread after reading he licenzed a layout fromt Josh.

If this concept is taken forward the patented parallel GPU/motherboard layout will be properly licenced from Josh Sniffen (aka @Josh | NFC ) which has already been discussed and agreed.

Why is this necessary? In US and EU a patent has some criteria that needs to be fulfil to be valid: „... the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been not obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art ...“

Arranging hardware in different position is obvious. The patent office has not the chance to proof every patent so many patents are registered but this does not mean that they are valid.

A good example is the patent of Asetek for their AIO - pump and heatsink are in one unit. Cooler Master defends against it and won in EU. The reason is, that moving pump and heatsink in one unit is obvious and does not match the paten criteria. Mostly only a patent law can show it.

By the way there are many cases out there that use this layout from MSI, Lian Li, Supermicro, Dell s.o

BTW: In South Korea is a Company that also has a patent on this design

...that two people who I looked up to would treat me this way and make accusations against my character without any proof.

...

I'm just devastated people who I thought were my friends would attack my character and intent publicly with no proof and even worse, without trying to understand the situation. Attack and divide...

I never said a single word against you and your character and I don't want to follow a discussion in this direction. I only said that I can't believe this patent is valid and will resist a lawsuit if it protects only the hardware layout. I think it is not possible to have a valid patent on a hardware layout.


Too bad you didn't say a single word about your patent what it exactly protects and why you think it is a real invention.

Here is a good example why I think a pure hardware layout patent will not be valid : If I have a hand full of Lego bricks and now imagine I connected two bricks on a way to each other no one did it before (because there are some many possible combinations) would a patent be valid for it? Keep in mind one rule for having a valid patent is that the invention is not obvious.

 

[el01]

Alright everyone, I'm back since the chaos has died down, and I have a few things to say.

1. It's amazing how an actual answer was provided after significant amounts of arguing. I'm frankly very surprised. If you have conflicts, please resolve them peacefully.
2. I don't want to create any more chaos here, so everyone, for the sake of everyone's sanity, be quiet (please).
3. I don't want to see any more of this thread in my notifications. Consider this thread dead in my mind.

I finally got my answers. Thanks to the great people who actually told me what the patents are.

 

[loader963]

Alright everyone, I'm back since the chaos has died down, and I have a few things to say.

1. It's amazing how an actual answer was provided after significant amounts of arguing. I'm frankly very surprised. If you have conflicts, please resolve them peacefully.
2. I don't want to create any more chaos here, so everyone, for the sake of everyone's sanity, be quiet (please).
3. I don't want to see any more of this thread in my notifications. Consider this thread dead in my mind.

I finally got my answers. Thanks to the great people who actually told me what the patents are.

One thing at @el01
1- Do you mind posting in here was the answer so those of us that are curious can know?
2- Far too late lol
3- You can set notifications to ignore the thread.

I also got a question for @dondan and for @Necere :
Did either of you file for a patent or trademark for your cases? And if so, what did that entail? I'm legitimately curious and invested in this at this point.