for sure something going on here. Why all of a sudden when these patents are so old
What do the layout patents from NFC cover?
- Thread starter el01
- Start date
Just one more post from me. I realize everyone thinks I'm an asshole, that I didn't handle it well. I agree. I was too impulsive in posting and didn't allow enough time for introspection. Now that I've had some time, I realize that I was reacting from an emotionally-driven place.
In short, my ability to exercise my creative freedom is extremely important to me, and Josh's use of his patent felt like it threatened that. If it seemed like I was attacking him, it was because of that.
Anyway, I sent him a PM earlier that goes into it a little more, which I will copy here for anyone that is interested:
EDIT: Just to make it completely clear, since some people have some misconceptions: I do not, nor have ever had, any kind of working relationship with Josh | NFC, dondan, or anyone else on the forum apart from wahaha360. He has working relationships with those guys through SFFLab and various joint projects. But I haven't had so much as a single conversation with Josh prior to this thread, and dondan and I have only exchanged messages a couple of times. My objections to Josh's actions are based solely on principle, and have nothing to do with any perceived wrongdoing against me personally.
In short, my ability to exercise my creative freedom is extremely important to me, and Josh's use of his patent felt like it threatened that. If it seemed like I was attacking him, it was because of that.
Anyway, I sent him a PM earlier that goes into it a little more, which I will copy here for anyone that is interested:
So I've had some time to reflect and to probe my motivations more deeply, and it's now much clearer to me what set me off.
This is a deep, core belief I hold - more gut instinct and emotion than rational intellect.
Here it is, in its rawest form:
No one gets to tell me what I can or cannot do with my own fucking ideas.
It's that simple. I feel very strongly that if I want to use my imagination and creative energy to write, or draw, or design something, and to then share it, sell it, or do whatever else I want with it, no one should have any right to stop me from doing so.
A patent is a limitation on what people can do with certain ideas - an implied threat of legal force against anyone who would violate it.
I do understand and accept the need for patents, as it serves an important social function by protecting the progenitors of truly novel inventions.
However, as far as I can tell, there is nothing novel about the supposed invention your patent covers. Cutting through the technical jargon, what it seems to come down to is 1.) using a riser to connect the GPU and motherboard in the same plane, 2.) housing these parts in a sufficiently sturdy box, 3.) including holes for airflow. Absolutely none of this is novel or non-obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art. Not when you filed the patent in 2012, and not when I was experimenting with the same ideas in 2008. If I'm wrong about this, I need a good explanation of why, and why your patent applies to K888D's design and not others.
I understand your original intention in filing a patent was to protect yourself from predatory practices by competitors. I get that. I still don't think it's a legitimate patent, but at least I understand why you pursued it. However, that is beside the point.
Where it crosses the line for me is when you move from no longer using it purely as a defensive measure, but to making agreements to license the design, and moreover to advertise that fact to the community (via K888D). This sets a precedent that, if accepted by the community, implies that other similar designs should follow suit. I vehemently object to that, on the basis that my designs are my own original creations that incorporate features that are either obvious or established in the public domain. Even the implied suggestion that I should seek your or anyone else's permission to exercise my creative free will is deeply offensive to me.
I apologize that I initially came across so severely. I still think the objections I articulated in the thread have merit, but I recognize now that they were attempts to rationalize my instinctive gut feeling. I hope you understand though where I'm coming from though, that it was driven by a fundamental value which is very personally important to me. As a creator yourself, I'm sure you can appreciate the importance of having your personal autonomy and creative freedom respected.
This is a deep, core belief I hold - more gut instinct and emotion than rational intellect.
Here it is, in its rawest form:
No one gets to tell me what I can or cannot do with my own fucking ideas.
It's that simple. I feel very strongly that if I want to use my imagination and creative energy to write, or draw, or design something, and to then share it, sell it, or do whatever else I want with it, no one should have any right to stop me from doing so.
A patent is a limitation on what people can do with certain ideas - an implied threat of legal force against anyone who would violate it.
I do understand and accept the need for patents, as it serves an important social function by protecting the progenitors of truly novel inventions.
However, as far as I can tell, there is nothing novel about the supposed invention your patent covers. Cutting through the technical jargon, what it seems to come down to is 1.) using a riser to connect the GPU and motherboard in the same plane, 2.) housing these parts in a sufficiently sturdy box, 3.) including holes for airflow. Absolutely none of this is novel or non-obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art. Not when you filed the patent in 2012, and not when I was experimenting with the same ideas in 2008. If I'm wrong about this, I need a good explanation of why, and why your patent applies to K888D's design and not others.
I understand your original intention in filing a patent was to protect yourself from predatory practices by competitors. I get that. I still don't think it's a legitimate patent, but at least I understand why you pursued it. However, that is beside the point.
Where it crosses the line for me is when you move from no longer using it purely as a defensive measure, but to making agreements to license the design, and moreover to advertise that fact to the community (via K888D). This sets a precedent that, if accepted by the community, implies that other similar designs should follow suit. I vehemently object to that, on the basis that my designs are my own original creations that incorporate features that are either obvious or established in the public domain. Even the implied suggestion that I should seek your or anyone else's permission to exercise my creative free will is deeply offensive to me.
I apologize that I initially came across so severely. I still think the objections I articulated in the thread have merit, but I recognize now that they were attempts to rationalize my instinctive gut feeling. I hope you understand though where I'm coming from though, that it was driven by a fundamental value which is very personally important to me. As a creator yourself, I'm sure you can appreciate the importance of having your personal autonomy and creative freedom respected.
EDIT: Just to make it completely clear, since some people have some misconceptions: I do not, nor have ever had, any kind of working relationship with Josh | NFC, dondan, or anyone else on the forum apart from wahaha360. He has working relationships with those guys through SFFLab and various joint projects. But I haven't had so much as a single conversation with Josh prior to this thread, and dondan and I have only exchanged messages a couple of times. My objections to Josh's actions are based solely on principle, and have nothing to do with any perceived wrongdoing against me personally.
Last edited:
Dan (w360) actually did want to file a patent on the M1. I was very hesitant, because I don't like the idea of trying to assert private ownership over ideas like that, but ultimately went along with it because I was curious to see what the process was like or if it was even possible. Plus, I consider the M1's side-mounted radiator to be a novel feature that at least I had never seen before, so there could be at least some grounds there for a utility patent. Dan knows a patent attorney as well, so he didn't have to go too far out of his way.
Long story short though, the patent application was rejected on the grounds of being obvious etc., and in the end it was just a waste of time and money.
yes, I will set notificaitons.
The answer is that it only covers cases in which GPU faces same direction as the CPU cooler, and also only covers the NFC 3-part system. using a different sort of riser or different construction would mitigate this problem
Right. Did you have to trademark the name though, and if so was it am easier process? And I don't think you are an ass, I just wish you had a PR rep to help dull the edge off of your posts sometimes,
Cheers !And see I would have really liked to have a conversation about this part. I really wish Josh would have clarified this position here. To just say, " Hey this is what i think is cool and if this part here isn't and here is why." I also think I understand why he didn't, but I still wish he would have. This thread really had and still does have the potential to help both new guys and the older ones in what the community should respect with one another's designs. Its still fresh in my mind how so many people were afraid they couldn't criticize and call out others on the theft of other's ip and I think a sincere and mutually respectful topic could really help with what people think should and shouldn't be ok.
Who can blame him for not posting giving the hostility he faced when he first responded.
In defense of one of the people I respect the most here, I think @Josh | NFC was using his personal and professional background as evidence of why he sought the patent, and why he wouldn't abuse it. Questioning motivation and disregarding that comes across as an attack of character.
Small Form Factoring is a principled discipline, and we wouldn't be here without Josh's perseverance. Without his hard fought principles. And likewise to all the talented individuals who design new cases or use them as a canvas for some truly beautiful builds as ambassadors to the rest of the PC community.
In any case, collaboration and communication are essential. Supporting each other professionally and personally only keeps us on the right track. So let's keep trucking.
Peace.
Small Form Factoring is a principled discipline, and we wouldn't be here without Josh's perseverance. Without his hard fought principles. And likewise to all the talented individuals who design new cases or use them as a canvas for some truly beautiful builds as ambassadors to the rest of the PC community.
In any case, collaboration and communication are essential. Supporting each other professionally and personally only keeps us on the right track. So let's keep trucking.
Peace.
Just to clear a few things up, I contacted Josh about the design and I myself suggested a licensing deal. Josh did not pursue or ask for anything.
Some people may have been experimenting with side by side layouts since before the patent was filed, but I have not, and cannot claim this idea as my own. This year is my first in experimenting with this type of layout and therefore I am taking the idea from other people.
Josh did not ask for me to disclose anything in my original post, I decided to include it off my own back for a couple of reasons. Firstly because the concept is "inspired" by other peoples designs I wanted to be as upfront as possible that I have made an effort to clear it with the original content creators first before posting. Secondly, admittidly I wanted it to be seen as an example of a better way of working together in this community when operating around the blurred lines of taking other peoples ideas for commercial use.
I've been fairly vocal in the other clone discussion threads expressing that I am completely against copying, so it would be hypocritical of me to then go and do the same thing without at least making an effort to show it can be approached differently.
I posted the statement knowing full well that it may ruffle a few feathers and perhaps spark a debate. The SFF community is becoming saturated with similar designs both in layouts and aesthetics, the worst part of it though is that these ideas are being taken without asking and no effort is being made to differentiate.
Im not saying that we shouldn't have multiple projects that share the same design elements, but that perhaps there is a better way of going about it, collaborating together with each other for mutual benefit rather than against each other and consequently dividing the community for personal/commercial gain.
I did not expect this backlash toward Josh, I feel partly responsible and deep regret for it. But I also feel the negative reaction is totally unjustified, he did not suggest or try to enforce anything, it came totally from me toward him.
You know the best thing though about taking this approach is that the discussions between myself and Josh have led to us collaborating on some future projects.
It's funny you should mention Lego, they themselves were involved in one of the famous patents ever, here is an interesting article about it :
https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-effect-of-LEGO-losing-its-patent
Some people may have been experimenting with side by side layouts since before the patent was filed, but I have not, and cannot claim this idea as my own. This year is my first in experimenting with this type of layout and therefore I am taking the idea from other people.
Josh did not ask for me to disclose anything in my original post, I decided to include it off my own back for a couple of reasons. Firstly because the concept is "inspired" by other peoples designs I wanted to be as upfront as possible that I have made an effort to clear it with the original content creators first before posting. Secondly, admittidly I wanted it to be seen as an example of a better way of working together in this community when operating around the blurred lines of taking other peoples ideas for commercial use.
I've been fairly vocal in the other clone discussion threads expressing that I am completely against copying, so it would be hypocritical of me to then go and do the same thing without at least making an effort to show it can be approached differently.
I posted the statement knowing full well that it may ruffle a few feathers and perhaps spark a debate. The SFF community is becoming saturated with similar designs both in layouts and aesthetics, the worst part of it though is that these ideas are being taken without asking and no effort is being made to differentiate.
Im not saying that we shouldn't have multiple projects that share the same design elements, but that perhaps there is a better way of going about it, collaborating together with each other for mutual benefit rather than against each other and consequently dividing the community for personal/commercial gain.
I did not expect this backlash toward Josh, I feel partly responsible and deep regret for it. But I also feel the negative reaction is totally unjustified, he did not suggest or try to enforce anything, it came totally from me toward him.
You know the best thing though about taking this approach is that the discussions between myself and Josh have led to us collaborating on some future projects.
It's funny you should mention Lego, they themselves were involved in one of the famous patents ever, here is an interesting article about it :
https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-effect-of-LEGO-losing-its-patent
An aspect that is easy to ignore that if @Josh | NFC is indeed not using his patent to defend his I.P. actively on community projects here but basically to defend himself against larger parties, there are limits to what he can and can't say. As far as I understand from context in other similar discussions, you can't publically say you are discriminate to who you will or won't do your best to protect your I.P.
He has to be indiscriminate about this or the party attacking the validity of the patent will have more ammo to use.
So if we are pessimistic we can assume Josh will use the patent to bully the community. If we are optimistic we can assume Josh will only use it to protect himself against larger parties. We can't know, we can only assume and this is going to be an endless discussion anyways.
tl;dr
Don't hate the player, hate the game (US legal system)
He has to be indiscriminate about this or the party attacking the validity of the patent will have more ammo to use.
So if we are pessimistic we can assume Josh will use the patent to bully the community. If we are optimistic we can assume Josh will only use it to protect himself against larger parties. We can't know, we can only assume and this is going to be an endless discussion anyways.
tl;dr
Don't hate the player, hate the game (US legal system)
I only want to add that i feel sad that @Josh | NFC feels beeing attacked from me to his charakter this was not my intention. Sorry Josh.
My intention was only to share my thoughts that i think a patent for an hardware layout will not be valid if it comes to a lawsuite.
My intention was only to share my thoughts that i think a patent for an hardware layout will not be valid if it comes to a lawsuite.
I publicly feel sad/sorry too. I might be arsh with my comment on this matter, but I felt/feel worried about paying royalties for a patent I judge not worty (BTW I judge not worthy also that famous patent from Asetek). Plus, don't know the backstory behind it (if matter) and I thought @Josh | NFC was starting to asking for money to case developers.
I don't plan to sell nor design anything in the next 5 years... But I felt worry for the "industry"... So, I am not direct touched by it anyway... I still think it shouldn't be valid, but I also recognize I should have chose a better set of words to explain my thoughts!
I don't plan to sell nor design anything in the next 5 years... But I felt worry for the "industry"... So, I am not direct touched by it anyway... I still think it shouldn't be valid, but I also recognize I should have chose a better set of words to explain my thoughts!
Guys, c'mon. We are grown-ups here. Anybody should accept somebody throwing a critique on one's work and not think that it was personal. It probably isn't.
It is also well known that NECERE is a very blunt person. That don't make his comments personal, though.
Josh's cases might be the ORIGINAL SFF luxury cases... to you
In any case, this isn't about Josh, or Necere, or Dan or any other hardware maker. We are discussing the validity of a Patent obtained in 2013 that basically covers "a case without fans, that connects the gpu with a ribbon (and said gpu must have a fan and a heatsink) and that has the gpu-card rotated 180º so that it is paralel to the motherboard".
It also has claims that aren't true, if Necere's claims about cases with nearly identical layouts (IE gpu and motherboard in line with each other) existing is accurate. I don't have time to check for that, so I'll assume that he is correct.
The design of the chassis 10 with the mounting holes for hardware, airflow pressure, and airflow aperture, combined with the layout of the hardware components, allows for a system that is cooled only by component fans. No chassis fans are needed. This arrangement of hardware is unique and cannot be found in any consumer chassis let alone mini-ITX chassis.
---
The two PCI expansion slots 20A and 20B are horizontal in orientation and on the same plane as the I/O interface aperture 21. Uniquely, they are rotated so the PCI key is flipped 180 degrees from "normal" server design--or PCI "A-side" orientation. This flipped orientation will be referred to as "B-side" orientation in this document. FIG. 1B shows an expansion card installed 62 in the "B-side" orientation. To bridge the PCIE keys 22A and 22B on the expansion card 62 with the motherboard's expansion slot 24A, the design requires the use of a PCI A-side adapter 26 and PCI/PCIE expansion-extension ribbon 27 as shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B. This design and layout is the first Mini-ITX specific chassis to use this method of bridging an add-in card with a motherboard 24.
This part is a tad strange. It claims to be the first Mini-ITX specific chassis to use a ribbon in order to make the layout on the same plane. But... considering that the ribbon is simply a technologically improved pci-e riser card, and that there have been cases using those risers for years prior to this (again, according to Necere) then... what is exactly being invented here?
Yes, the bezel is also being covered and I'd give merit to that IF it was proved that it was really his invention. But the layout isn't his but any accounts, patent or not.
The Sentry is covered, for sure. It doesn't have fans; it has the motherboard and the gpu on the same plane; and uses a ribbon.
The thing is that patents change hands. Something bad is bad regardless of who owns it.
Yes, things have been gained from it. This discussion, for starters.
The problem here isn't that your idea (ie NFC's one) isn't valid as a patent... but the fact that there was prior art. GPU and motherboard on the same plane, at the time of the patent, was already being sold by some retailers.
But yes, we could discuss whether a layout can be a valid patent. I don't think so, although it would be a lengthy discussion. BUT...we do have prior art, so there is nothing to discuss.
You created the thread, yes, but the community as a whole can claim ownership. If you don't want notifications, turn them off.
No, it never says that. It says "rotated 180º ". Guess what, that covers both cases.
And no, this isn't related to the NFC 3-part system. That is the 2nd part of the patent. the first one covers the usage of a gpu + motherboard in an in-line configuration, with a ribbon and without fans.
I don't think anyone is taking any of it personally (BTW, your work is amazing). What some are mentioning is that a party licensing something that shouldn't have a license to begin with is opening a can of worms (AGAIN, what matters here is WHAT, not WHO. There is nothing for you to apologize: you did what you thought was reasonable / best and hey, at least you were straight forward about it, so kudos to you). Specially when:
a) Prior art exists
b) Your layout has nothing in common with the patent. For starters, because it can feature fans (and the patent is specific for a case design that only uses the fans of the components).
7. The configuration of claim 1, wherein the mounting configuration is cooled only by component fans and without chassis fans.
AND because your design is not a 3-piece case (which is precisely the other thing being patent: (a) a chassis comprising first web section, a second web section, and a bezel piece, wherein the rigidity of the chassis is attributed to the bezel piece, and wherein the bezel piece defines a first rectangular opening and a pair of second rectangular openings, wherein said second web section includes a mounting tab located between said first rectangular opening and said pair of second rectangular openings
Again, this is a WHAT discussion, not a WHO. You not only did what you thought was right BUT were also transparent about it all. The fact still remains: the second part of the patent regarding the unibody bezel and 2 panels is OK-ish to me (just barely, maybe) but the claims of it being the first in the market with that layout are not accurate.
Moreover, I hightly your design is covered by that patent (even if that patent was valid).
It is also well known that NECERE is a very blunt person. That don't make his comments personal, though.
Josh's cases might be the ORIGINAL SFF luxury cases... to you
In any case, this isn't about Josh, or Necere, or Dan or any other hardware maker. We are discussing the validity of a Patent obtained in 2013 that basically covers "a case without fans, that connects the gpu with a ribbon (and said gpu must have a fan and a heatsink) and that has the gpu-card rotated 180º so that it is paralel to the motherboard".
It also has claims that aren't true, if Necere's claims about cases with nearly identical layouts (IE gpu and motherboard in line with each other) existing is accurate. I don't have time to check for that, so I'll assume that he is correct.
The design of the chassis 10 with the mounting holes for hardware, airflow pressure, and airflow aperture, combined with the layout of the hardware components, allows for a system that is cooled only by component fans. No chassis fans are needed. This arrangement of hardware is unique and cannot be found in any consumer chassis let alone mini-ITX chassis.
---
The two PCI expansion slots 20A and 20B are horizontal in orientation and on the same plane as the I/O interface aperture 21. Uniquely, they are rotated so the PCI key is flipped 180 degrees from "normal" server design--or PCI "A-side" orientation. This flipped orientation will be referred to as "B-side" orientation in this document. FIG. 1B shows an expansion card installed 62 in the "B-side" orientation. To bridge the PCIE keys 22A and 22B on the expansion card 62 with the motherboard's expansion slot 24A, the design requires the use of a PCI A-side adapter 26 and PCI/PCIE expansion-extension ribbon 27 as shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B. This design and layout is the first Mini-ITX specific chassis to use this method of bridging an add-in card with a motherboard 24.
This part is a tad strange. It claims to be the first Mini-ITX specific chassis to use a ribbon in order to make the layout on the same plane. But... considering that the ribbon is simply a technologically improved pci-e riser card, and that there have been cases using those risers for years prior to this (again, according to Necere) then... what is exactly being invented here?
Yes, the bezel is also being covered and I'd give merit to that IF it was proved that it was really his invention. But the layout isn't his but any accounts, patent or not.
The Sentry is covered, for sure. It doesn't have fans; it has the motherboard and the gpu on the same plane; and uses a ribbon.
The thing is that patents change hands. Something bad is bad regardless of who owns it.
Yes, things have been gained from it. This discussion, for starters.
The problem here isn't that your idea (ie NFC's one) isn't valid as a patent... but the fact that there was prior art. GPU and motherboard on the same plane, at the time of the patent, was already being sold by some retailers.
But yes, we could discuss whether a layout can be a valid patent. I don't think so, although it would be a lengthy discussion. BUT...we do have prior art, so there is nothing to discuss.
You created the thread, yes, but the community as a whole can claim ownership. If you don't want notifications, turn them off.
No, it never says that. It says "rotated 180º ". Guess what, that covers both cases.
And no, this isn't related to the NFC 3-part system. That is the 2nd part of the patent. the first one covers the usage of a gpu + motherboard in an in-line configuration, with a ribbon and without fans.
I don't think anyone is taking any of it personally (BTW, your work is amazing). What some are mentioning is that a party licensing something that shouldn't have a license to begin with is opening a can of worms (AGAIN, what matters here is WHAT, not WHO. There is nothing for you to apologize: you did what you thought was reasonable / best and hey, at least you were straight forward about it, so kudos to you). Specially when:
a) Prior art exists
b) Your layout has nothing in common with the patent. For starters, because it can feature fans (and the patent is specific for a case design that only uses the fans of the components).
7. The configuration of claim 1, wherein the mounting configuration is cooled only by component fans and without chassis fans.
AND because your design is not a 3-piece case (which is precisely the other thing being patent: (a) a chassis comprising first web section, a second web section, and a bezel piece, wherein the rigidity of the chassis is attributed to the bezel piece, and wherein the bezel piece defines a first rectangular opening and a pair of second rectangular openings, wherein said second web section includes a mounting tab located between said first rectangular opening and said pair of second rectangular openings
Again, this is a WHAT discussion, not a WHO. You not only did what you thought was right BUT were also transparent about it all. The fact still remains: the second part of the patent regarding the unibody bezel and 2 panels is OK-ish to me (just barely, maybe) but the claims of it being the first in the market with that layout are not accurate.
Moreover, I hightly your design is covered by that patent (even if that patent was valid).
In a patent, the only legally enforceable part of it are the claims. Everything else is exposition that goes to clarify what the claims are and mean, but they have no legal bearing. These are the claims, with claim 1 and claim 10 the only major claims and all other claims refer to and refine the major claims:
Thanks for the information.
Then... because Claim 10 refers to two panels + bezel and it only requires gpu + motherboard to be paralell (no mention of being on the same plane) you could target a much, MUCH broader set of cases. Maybe even stuff such as the A4, for instance. As it has a bezel that gives rigidity to everything, uses a ribbon, etc.
In any case, I see no relation whatsoever with this patent and K888D's design. If anything because his design allows for a fan and in no way has a bezel such as the one described in Claim 10.
Mulling over these same points over and over really is moot (and has been since the start of this thread).
Love it or hate it, the USA (and many other countries) have enshrined the ability of the first individual to file a patent to use said patent as they see fit. The obvious downside of that is the ability of the owner to use the patent as a bullying tool regardless of whether or not they had the idea first. The fact that you feel that "No one gets to tell me what I can or cannot do with my own fucking ideas." is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Unless I misunderstand the patent laws in the US, a patent holder in the US can tell you exactly what you can and can't do with your ideas if they filed before you. The best case scenario being that you can pony 300-400 bucks an hour to hire an IP lawyer in order legally prove the indefensibility of said patent.
Don't get me wrong, I think the system is total shit and patents should have much shorter lives (5 years) as well as being vulnerable to disqualification and penalty when an individual or entity is keeping valuable technology that could benefit humanity to themselves.
AMURRRICUUUHHH (and CANADUUUHHH as we have the same sort of Patent Law)!
Love it or hate it, the USA (and many other countries) have enshrined the ability of the first individual to file a patent to use said patent as they see fit. The obvious downside of that is the ability of the owner to use the patent as a bullying tool regardless of whether or not they had the idea first. The fact that you feel that "No one gets to tell me what I can or cannot do with my own fucking ideas." is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Unless I misunderstand the patent laws in the US, a patent holder in the US can tell you exactly what you can and can't do with your ideas if they filed before you. The best case scenario being that you can pony 300-400 bucks an hour to hire an IP lawyer in order legally prove the indefensibility of said patent.
Don't get me wrong, I think the system is total shit and patents should have much shorter lives (5 years) as well as being vulnerable to disqualification and penalty when an individual or entity is keeping valuable technology that could benefit humanity to themselves.
AMURRRICUUUHHH (and CANADUUUHHH as we have the same sort of Patent Law)!
Last edited:
Thank you for the kind words, but I say bring on the can of worms!
From a selfish perspective of someone trying to grow a business in this market, I would rather participate in a community that respects other peoples ideas, whatever it is we need to do as a community to make that happen I want to support it.
I understand you and, again, kudos to you. And I'm not saying this lightly, but your products are truly innovative and you seem to be a very respectable person.
Still, I'm unsure on the license, considering your design uses fans (which the patent specifically mentions not using them) and he wasn't the first to market a case with gpu + motherboard on an in-line configuration. But my opinion is irrelevant on the matter, as licensing (or not) is an entirely private matter. Aaaaand the design for which you licensed the patent is also amazing.
It is interesting to see the changes in design language in the products you manufacture. HT5 and CG7 are clearly part of the same family, whilst LZ7 is a very different beast. And, the new one, is also clearly part of the HT5 family. All in all, very interesting products. They look retro yet modern, and the way you mix and match different colours and woods make them very atractive to be used in a living room or in a sleek environment, since they aren't techy at all but, at the same time, they are.
PS: Overclockers still not shipping to Spain?
