felix_is_alive

are these lights still available ???

David Hayes

iTrader: (6)

^No, they were taken off the market pending improved lighting. I personally hope they will be reintroduced with a safe level of light output.

If you want to go the DIY route, here is a thread on how to do the work. Disclaimer: I did not title the thread and this is not my design. I simply improved the lighting and then added a twist to the number of rings that come on with the parking lights.

https://www.rx7club.com/3rd-generation-specific-1993-2002-16/david-hayes-diy-led-taillight-modification-955336/

Ryan95

iTrader: (10)

Why don't one of you guys that's perfected this start making sets for sale...

theorie

iTrader: (31)

...because it's illegal to profit from copying someone else's design...this isn't China. ha

turboIIrotary

iTrader: (9)

Well I haven't seen any patents so it should be perfectly legal and i'm not an expert for taillights but it would probably have to be dot approved for actual sale in the u.s. Intellectual property does not apply in this situation.

Of course if proper documents are shown I will shut up about it

theorie

iTrader: (31)

You are thinking about a utility patent. "US utility patents protect the functionality of a given item." Obviously none of us hold a patent on the functionality of brake lights. This is like when you invent something...you have to apply for a patent to protect your right to exclusively produce that.

I was talking about the style, the design. Eh forget it. Not looking to get back into all this again...

-edit-

Let's just put it this way. It would be extremely poor form for "one of these guys" to start producing this design/style light for sale, since I'm the one who came up with the design/style. I would have continued to produce these lights (in the new, brighter "Version 2" that I came up with), if I wasn't being told that the NHTSA was going to fine me "hundreds of thousands of dollars for illegally modifying tail lights."

Forget it.

BryanDowns

iTrader: (2)

Besides being a crappy thing to do (and I fully agree it would be!) Its also, at least IMO, not a very profitable usage of ones time. For the price that I think the market can bear for these you wont have much of a profit margin AND you wouldn't get paid much on an hourly basis. At no point during my venture did I think about selling these, but I did think "man Tom really screwed himself on the profit margin after you figure out cost of goods to make them and his time".

I sure as heck wouldn't do conversions for $500 considering the parts are 300+ and you have to dedicate time to actually doing it.

David Hayes

iTrader: (6)

And here we go again...

I'll state this again - have repeatedly said it several times in this thread and in the "other thread" that got split up by one of the mods for whatever reason - this "DIY" thread was not started by me. It was part of a Theorie taillight modification review thread that the mod felt inclined to split into two pieces. To avoid confusion I have asked that the thread be put back together and hopefully this will happen soon.

First, this is not my design, it is Theorie's, or at least similar to Tom's. I added a third parking ring to the design, which for me, fits the back end of my car better. I then also deleted the "diffuser" ring concept as it served no visual purpose and actually diminished the light output quite a bit and finally, to solve the safety issue, added high powered LED brake and center turn signal lights.

This DIY thread was originally the second half of the review thread. Theorie's original design was great but the light output of the taillights was well below OEM/stock output. In short, all of the testing data shows the taillights were not safe.

The redesign in this thread fixes the light output issues and addresses other concerns found like the use of juice cans and tape for metal stock and too think wiring and I have encouraged many times those involved in the first production run to use the redesign and then to start selling these again. And from what I can see in the pics of "Version 2" and from what I have been told by reliable sources, V2 will not work. I also believe that a fix similar to my redesign is being assessed and should it be of equal to or greater light output, you'll get no pushback from me. And without my objections, I don't think you'll have a NHTSA issue.

TurboIIrotary is correct, technically these are illegal to sell because they have not been NHTSA tested and therefore, are not in compliance. And this testing is not cheap but is in place so unsafe taillights like version 1 are not sold. Several labs in CA do this testing and if it were me selling these, I'd seriously check into having any new versions tested prior to selling them again. The reality here is that without objections from a purchaser, it is unlikely NHTSA will get involved as the production numbers are just too small for them to bother.

Regarding the patent issue, I believe this would be more of a design copyright versus a patent. I've done a bunch of patent and copyright work and don't see anything here that would be novel (read unique) enough to be granted a patent. A design copyright is another issue though and could be filed to protect the initial concept. However, from what I can see, there has been no such copyright filed or granted
(The Google Patent and Copyright search tool is great for researching applied for or granted patents or copyrights) so this would legally be fair game for someone else to take Theorie's design and produce the units. It would also be legal for me to use my redesign as it does not use the central components Tom has discussed in other threads as being his design, namely the diffuser rings, and the design is also different (three rings versus two).

Note I say "legal" here. From an ethical position, to me it would be wrong to produce and sell my redesign as I didn't come up with the original design, that was Tom's. I just wouldn't do this which is why I hope a safe and reliable version 2 is offered.

Finally, as Bryan points out, it is a labor intensive process to produce these from "scratch". If I were to sell these, I would have followed Tom's route and outsourced the cutting of the metal parts and the making of the acrylic rings (although the mess created by cutting the rings is fun!). This would save a bunch of time in the process. I also respectfully point out that the original design had about $50 total in costs for the LED and other components, not the $300 for the redesign parts.

theorie

iTrader: (31)

I still find it hilarious that you are so critical of my V2 design, when the fact is you have never even seen them in person. Only 3 people besides myself have seem them in person: scrub, renna, & rotormotor (well 4 if you count my brother). I know for a fact that none of them are your "sources" and none of them would ever give you "reliable" information even if they were talking to you.

I posted 3 photos of my tails before the V2 redesign was even complete (the pics were of the V2 prototype, not the final redesigned unit). I posted photos of an unfinished prototype and not the final design because your actions forced me to prove that I had been working on a brighter model the whole time, as I said long before any of your "review threads" were ever posted. After I posted those photos, we made even more changes, from using different LEDs (again) tweaking the internal structural design & fabrication process, and also the installation method.

So, once again, you're making stuff up to convince people that you're right about everything. I expected that.

Unlike your "DIY" that is pretty much a 1:1 copy of my design with the exception that you used much more expensive LEDs, my V2 lights were started from scratch to maximize not only the light output, but also to minimize the build/assembly time. I was hoping to sell the new units for just a little more than the V1, but like I said, after everything you have brought upon me and the SBG guys, I have no desire to produce any more of these units, since I know you'll do whatever it takes to get your hands on a set, tear them apart, and attack my design once again.

Like I said, forget it.

Anyway, as a lost post in this thread, I'll mention that if anyone is interested in following this DIY guide, I still have a bunch of extra acrylic rings that I don't plan to ever use. Shoot me a PM if interested.

David Hayes

iTrader: (6)

Then your facts are very incorrect. I stand by my statement about knowledge of brightness of your V2 units. If you'd like I'll bring my light meter with me to DGRR and we'll test them there.

No the primary difference is in light output. Mine meet or exceed OEM levels and yours did not. That is why this thread was started.


I've offered to assist, to test, and also to endorse a version that has equal to or greater light output. I even put that in writing to you. I also stand by this.

theorie

iTrader: (31)

edit.

forget it. don't want to continue this, david. just please leave me alone.

David Hayes

iTrader: (6)

There are no lies and decepti

David Hayes

iTrader: (6)

There are no lies and deception Tom. The facts speak for themselves. I'll leave it at that.

pomanferrari

iTrader: (1)

you're blowing smoke ... it ain't illegal to copy anything unless there is a copyright, patent, trademark or trade dress. apple copied the GUI from Xerox and Microsoft copied the GUI from Apple. Without copying and improving, there would be no progress in technologies.

whiteweazel21

iTrader: (2)

Design wise, copyright is just an accepted form of proof. A design is still intellectual property regardless of if one has submitted copyright or not. Of course there are so many shades of gray and most of the time not worth the effort pursuing it legally.

Wish I had a pair of Tom's lights on my car : (

David Hayes

iTrader: (6)

^Let me first say I think it is ethically wrong for someone to copy Tom's design as he is the guy that came up with the idea.

However, from a legal perspective, I disagree with you on the protection of his design. In the US, without some form of legal protection, anyone can take what he has done and copy and sell it. That's the law and that is why protections such as patent and copyrights are available.

Should Tom wish to protect his design and not have anyone else copy what he has come up with, I believe he'd need at minimum a "design patent". This type of patent does not apply to the functionality of the lights, but to the look and appearance of what he has come up with. Here is a good primer on the subject:

http://www.housewares.org/show/info/sdc/08/IPPrimer.pdf

To obtain a design patent, his "invention" would have to be novel and unique. In others words, it can't be similar to what someone else has already come up with. Second, he'd need to obtain several design patents as he claims (this was in another thread on the forum) that his design is based on at least two things, 1) the use of rings in an FD taillight assembly, and 2) the use of "diffusers". As I read the info, each design patent can only have one claim, so he'd have to have several (at least two) to protect his design. As each design patent costs in the $1-2K range, this can add up quickly (but is still much less expensive than other forms of patents).

So, from my experience, without this protection, what he has done is legally fair game to copy as I can't find any applications or patent/copyright grants in his name.

Again, I am not advocating for anyone to do this as I personally think it is wrong and I'd like nothing more than a safe and reliable version of the taillights to be made available to the community through the original inventor or the business that offered the GB.

Montego

iTrader: (1)

FYI- pomanferrari is a patent attorney so if I were to listen to anyone on this thread regarding infringement it be him.

In any case, I agree that it would be in very poor form for anyone to copy Tom's design and patent/copyright under their own name. If anything I would hope that the forum would band together and no one would buy from such an individual.